This paper describes the effects of text formality and channel on relativizer choice in data from three corpora of written and spoken New Zealand English. That and the null relativizer Ø are typically regarded as intrinsically less formal than the wh-pronouns; but are they in fact commoner in spoken/informal texts? If so, is this a direct response to formality? Do prescriptions influence relativizer choice in written/formal texts? These questions are addressed by identifying and controlling significant linguistic influences on relativizer choice, and comparing results for text categories representing a range of formality levels from both channels.

This paper concerns the null subject phenomenon attested in abbreviated written registers in English and in French (diaries, instructions) and in informal spoken English. Neither a pro drop analysis nor a topic drop analysis will account for the incompatibility of the English null subjects with wh-preposing and with embedded contexts. Rizzi's (1994) analysis for null subjects in child production is adopted here in a slightly modified form. Like the early null subject, the (adult) null subject in abbreviated registers is an antecedentless empty category in the A-specifier of the root. Null subjects depend on the truncation of CP, which turns the specifier of IP into the highest specifier of the clause. The paper explores apparent noninitial null subjects, i.e. null subjects co-occurring with preposed adjuncts (though not arguments) and shows that these can be accounted for in terms of partial truncation within an articulated CP. The null subject is an antecedentless empty category in the (A-)specifier of an AGR-projection dominating the Topic Projection. The incompatibility with wh-preposing and with argument preposing is accounted for. In a more speculative vein I also consider the deletion of be in the abbreviated styles, which I claim can also be analysed in terms of truncation.

Intuitive, sentence-based approaches have so far failed to account conclusively for the choice between a that-complement and an infinitival complement after believe-type verbs, in sentences like I believe something like this to be very much the case (EB2 1297) and I believe that monetary union is political union, and that the creation of a single currency is federalism (HHW 13012). Syntactically, there is no free variation between the two patterns, since there are a number of formal restrictions on the infinitival complements that do not apply to the that-complements. But is there a semantic motivation behind the choice in cases when there are no formal reasons for choosing one or the other? This paper surveys a few earlier suggestions to this effect, but argues that a corpus-based approach unmistakably suggests that factors of a textual nature are at work, rather than purely semantic ones.2

In certain varieties of English, and most notably in the majority of North American dialects, alveolar oral and nasal stops undergo a process known as Flapping or Tapping in certain well-defined environments. At the present time, the resulting segments [ɾ] and [ɾ̃] cannot be satisfactorily captured by any known phonetic feature mainly because there is no way to distinguish a nasal stop from a nasal tap or flap. In this paper, I will argue that since vibration is the primary articulatory characteristic of taps, flaps and trills, the phonological rule of Flapping or Tapping constitutes evidence that [vibrant] should be added to the current inventory of features.

Discussions of modality (e.g. Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca, 1994; Coates, 1983; Lyons, 1977; Palmer, 1986; Traugott, 1989) typically center around two issues: deonticity vs. epistemicity, and degree of subjectivity. Using diachronic evidence from the quasi-modal ought to, this paper argues for the need to recognize a third, crosscutting these two: narrow vs. wide scope. We argue that the epistemic use of ought to developed out of a wide-scope deontic construction, in which the modal was used with deontic meaning, but with propositional scope (contra Bybee, 1988). Rather than attributing an obligation to the subject (i.e. having narrow scope), the modal in this construction makes an assertion about the proposition as a whole, like an epistemic. However, such ought to constructions are found some four hundred years before the first epistemic examples, and thus can be shown to be distinct from epistemic uses (contra Gamon, 1994).

English tenses in indirect reported speech appear to behave in unusual ways. In John said that he was happy, the most likely interpretation is that John's being happy was simultaneous with the time of John's speaking. This has led many analysts to invoke a ‘Sequence of Tenses’ rule, while others have proposed that English has two formally identical but semantically distinct past tenses, treating was in the preferred interpretation as a ‘relative past’. Under either treatment, a simple semantics for English tenses cannot be maintained.

This paper argues that time reference in reported speech can only be analysed within a coherent theory of speech reporting. We propose a new way of distinguishing direct and indirect reported speech, based on the notion of Pragmatic Source. Within this framework we then argue that tense in indirect reported speech can be handled by pragmatic principles, without any enrichment of the semantics of tense.

Previous analyses of tense in reported speech by Comrie and Declerck are examined and rejected. Unlike other accounts of reported speech, our approach does not presuppose an ‘original utterance’.