Case markers are thought of primarily as nominal morphemes, indicating the function of a noun phrase in a clause. In a few languages of the world case markers also appear on verbal forms. Such ‘versatile’ cases can express (i) temporal, causal and other relationships between clauses, and (ii) aspectual and modal meanings within a clause. Core cases tend to express aspectual and modal meanings, while oblique cases tend to be used as clause-linkers. The recurrent semantic differences between case morphemes as nominal markers, as clause-linking devices, and as exponents of clausal categories are rooted in the inherent polyfunctionality of these ‘chameleon’ morphemes: the specific meaning of any instance is affected by the morphosyntactic context in which it occurs. The conclusions are corroborated by a case study of Manambu, a Papuan language with extensive use of cases on nouns and on verbs, as exponents of aspectual and modal meanings and as clause-linking devices.

The definition of lenition remains problematic, with several competing and at times incompatible definitions being current. What is more, some of these definitions seem to lead to paradoxes. In this paper, some of these paradoxes are considered, and a revised definition of lenition is suggested which, while being compatible with the spirit of earlier definitions, arguably avoids the problems to which those other definitions give rise. The relationship of lenition to assimilation is considered, as is the relationship between lenition and position. An argument is made that position, while important in determining where lenition might occur in individual cases, is not in itself causally linked with the processes of lenition. The question of whether strength can be equated with resistance to change is also considered, and answered in the negative.

Besides the canonical Subject–I–VP structure, English has several inversion constructions in which the subject follows the inflected verb. The most familiar is Subject Auxiliary Inversion (SAI) which is analyzed as an instance of Head Movement (I–to–C-movement across the subject) in the generative tradition. In this paper we investigate Comparative Inversion (CI), which appears to be a special case of SAI in which ellipsis is required (Merchant 2003). Contrary to this analysis, we show that the subject can stay low in a noncanonical position, violating the Extended Projection Principle (EPP) in exactly those instances where it is under comparison and therefore heavily accented and contrastively focused. Our analysis shows that the non-application of the EPP is tied to regular interactions of syntax with phonology and syntax with semantics. We extend this in depth analysis to other English focus inversions and provide evidence that phonological highlighting and focus on the low subject can suspend the EPP. Thus, our analysis supports research programs which assume minimal syntactic structure and operations in interaction with interface constraints that are independently required for explanation.

This paper presents computer simulations of language populations and the development of language families, showing how a simple model can lead to distributions similar to those observed empirically by Wichmann (2005) and others. The model combines features of two models used in earlier work for the simulation of competition among languages: the ‘Viviane’ model for the migration of peoples and the propagation of languages, and the ‘Schulze’ model, which uses bit-strings as a way of characterising structural features of languages.

Sluicing – the elliptical construction in which all of a constituent question goes missing except for the interrogative phrase – is commonly analyzed as involving movement of the interrogative phrase to Spec-CP followed by deletion of TP (Ross 1969, Merchant 2001). In this paper, I examine how well the movement-plus-deletion analysis extends to Farsi, a wh-in situ language that, surprisingly, has a sluicing construction nearly identical to its English counterpart. I argue that the interrogative phrase in Farsi sluicing escapes deletion not by wh-movement as in English but by a type of focus movement. This operation, which normally applies very generally and is optional, is restricted in sluicing contexts in two ways: (i) it is obligatory, and (ii) it only applies to interrogative phrases. I propose a formal implementation that integrates these two properties into the licensing requirement on deletion, advancing the current understanding of the syntax of sluicing.