In this paper, I analyze two clause combining strategies in Ossetic that exhibit mixed properties between coordination and subordination. I argue that the ‘mismatch approach’ proposed by Culicover & Jackendoff (1997) and Yuasa & Sadock (2002) is best suited to account for their properties. However, in order to adequately describe the behavior of these constructions in terms of the mismatch approach, appealing to three levels of grammar is required instead of two levels (syntax and semantics) discussed in previous works. This provides a clear argument in favor of models of grammar such as Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG), where the syntactic level is split between constituent structure (c-structure) and functional structure (f-structure). The properties of semantic coordination and subordination that have been proposed in earlier work mostly belong to the level of f-structure, and not semantics proper. I argue that the only substantial semantic difference between coordination and adverbial subordination is that the former introduces discourse relations between speech acts, while the latter introduces asserted predicates that link two propositions within the same speech act. I provide definitions of coordination and subordination at all the three levels of grammar formalized in terms of the LFG framework, and discuss the tests that can be used for each of these levels.

Modern Persian conjugation makes use of five periphrastic constructions with typologically divergent properties. This makes the Persian conjugation system an ideal testing ground for theories of inflectional periphrasis, since different types of periphrasis can be compared within the frame of a single grammatical system. We present contrasting analyses of the five constructions within the general framework of a lexicalist constraint-based grammatical architecture (Pollard & Sag 1994) embedding an inferential and realizational view of inflectional morphology (Stump 2001). We argue that the perfect periphrase can only be accounted for by assuming that the periphrase literally fills a cell in the inflectional paradigm, and provide a formal account drawing on using valence for exponence. On the other hand, other periphrastic constructions are best handled by using standard tools of either morphology or syntax. The overall conclusion is that not all constructions that qualify as periphrastic inflection from the point of view of typology should receive the same type of analysis in an explicit formal grammar.

Post-tonic synope in English (Received Pronunciation) optionally deletes a schwa between a stressed and an unstressed vowel (gén(e)ral), but it cannot apply if the vowel following the schwa is stressed (gén*(e)ràte), or if no vowel follows (hápp*(e)n). Syncope is thus triggered by a metrical lapse of unstressed vowels. In addition, short stressed vowels cannot occur in an open syllable in English (Stress-to-Weight), except when preceding a single consonant and a vowel. Hammond (1997a) analyses such seemingly open stressed syllables in words like gén(e)ral as closed by a virtual geminate. I argue that post-tonic syncope can be understood as another means of satisfying the Stress-to-Weight requirement, closing the stressed syllable in a different way, at the same time avoiding a metrical lapse. In addition, surprisingly, English post-tonic syncope is sensitive to the quality of the flanking consonants: the consonant following the alternating vowel must be a sonorant which is more sonorous than the consonant preceding it (dél*(i)cate, cól*(o)ny). These are the same conditions as those applying to syllabic consonant formation, which can be regarded as a stage preceding syncope, explaining the melodic restrictions. I analyse the interplay of different forces in Stratal Optimality Theory, employing Government Phonological representations.

This paper discusses how information structure can be seen as a subjective and intersubjective concept in Verhagen's (2005) and Breban's (2010) definitions, though less so in Traugott's (2010) use of the terms. More difficult is the question of whether markers of information structure can be characterised as (inter)subjective; this is more easily determined for morphological markers than for prosody or word order. For unambiguous markers of information structure, I suggest that their emergence (e.g. copula > focus marker) is typically accompanied by (inter)subjectification, whereas their further development (e.g. topic marker > subject marker) displays objectification. The paper not only shows that grammatical items can undergo an increase as well as a decrease in (inter)subjectivity – thus denying strict unidirectionality – but also confirms that these processes are independent of grammaticalisation.

A recent development in Dutch concerns the deictic interpretation of the second-person singular pronoun je, which may refer to the speaker only. In such examples the subject refers to the speaker – not the hearer – but at the same time, these examples come along with an implicature stating that the hearer would have done the same thing if s/he were in the speaker's situation. Why is it the case that a second-person singular pronoun may refer to the speaker only? And why is it that when speaker-referring je is used, it always comes along with an implicature of the kind described above? In this article I argue that this behavior of Dutch je is a consequence of its semantically unmarked status with respect to the first-person singular pronoun ik. Along the lines of Sauerland (2008), I propose that Dutch je only carries one feature, [PARTICIPANT], whereas ik carries two features: [SPEAKER] and [PARTICIPANT]. Consequently, je may in principle refer to all participants in the conversation, enabling je to refer to the speaker as well. The fact that je does not normally refer to the speaker but to the hearer only then follows as some kind of blocking effect resulting from application of the principle of Maximize Presupposition. The paper concludes by spelling out the predictions that this analysis makes for the cross-linguistic variation with respect to the readings that participant and other pronouns may yield.

The see-in construction, exemplified in sentences like John sees/finds in Mary his best friend involves a relation of predication between the DPs Mary and his best friend. It provides evidence against the hypothesis that predication relations are established uniformly within the syntactic context of clausal structure. The empirical facts show that [in Mary] and [his best friend] in this example are both complements of see/find. It follows that Mary and his best friend could not possibly be syntactically related as the subject and predicate of a clause, despite the fact that they are engaged in a semantic relation of predication.