Our purpose is simple: to apply a rudimentary kind of logical analysis to the problem, which sometimes arises in linguistic typology and in comparative linguistics, of whether there are any languages with fewer than two vowels. The principal reason why this question has occupied the attention of linguists is probably the fact that Proto-Indo-European is sometimes said to have had only one vowel phoneme (see especially Hjelmslev (1936–7), Borgstrøm (1949, 1954) and Lehmann (1952), following Saussure (1879). Yet this was precisely one of the features of PIE reconstruction that Jakobson selected for attack on typological grounds, reasoning that ‘a conflict between the reconstructed state of a language and the general laws which typology discovers makes the reconstruction questionable’ (1958: 23).

This is a book written by a philosopher for philosophers; it needs a philosopher to review it properly. A review by a non-philosopher in the pages of a linguistics journal is justified, however, by the fact that the core of the book consists of a series of proposals concerning one of the fundamental questions of lexical semantics: what are we to make of the apparent variability in the meaning of a word from context to context? (This fact is not immediately inferrable from the title.) The present review focuses exclusively on this topic; it should be borne in mind, however, that the author's exposition of his views on word-meaning occurs as part of a more general discussion concerning the nature of analogy, and its role in literary, religious and legal discourse.

The English Preposing in PP construction (PiPP; e.g., Happy though/as we were) is extremely rare but displays an intricate set of stable syntactic properties. How do people become proficient with this construction despite such limited evidence? It is tempting to posit innate learning mechanisms, but present-day large language models seem to learn to represent PiPPs as well, even though such models employ only very general learning mechanisms and experience very few instances of the construction during training. This suggests an alternative hypothesis on which knowledge of more frequent constructions helps shape knowledge of PiPPs. I seek to make this idea precise using model-theoretic syntax (MTS). In MTS, a grammar is essentially a set of constraints on forms. In this context, PiPPs can be seen as arising from a mix of construction-specific and general-purpose constraints, all of which seem inferable from general linguistic experience.

We explore the implications of a particular approach to learning for an architectural question in phonology. The learning approach follows the principle of Minimum Description Length (MDL), which has recently been used for learning in both constraint-based and rule-based phonology. The architectural question on which we focus is whether the grammar allows language-specific statements to be made at the level of the lexicon, as was assumed in early generative phonology, or whether such statements are prohibited, as is commonly assumed within more recent work. We show that under MDL, the architectural question has real empirical implications: across a range of seemingly natural representational schemes, an ability to make language-specific statements about the lexicon is needed to ensure the learnability of an important aspect of phonological knowledge.