This paper presents patterns of adjacency in performance data and in cross-linguistic grammatical conventions. It is argued that a common principle of processing efficiency explains both: the more syntactic and semantic relations whose processing domains are minimized, and the greater the minimization preference in the processing of each relation, the more adjacency we find. The preferences of performance are quite systematic and it is suggested that they are ultimately motivated by reductions in simultaneous processing demands in working memory. The correlations with patterns of grammatical variation exist because grammars have conventionalized the adjacency preferences of performance.

This study examines the notion of syntactic position as it is manifested in German. Transformational approaches standardly rely on configurational notions such as specifier or head for positional effects. A closer investigation of German subordinate structures finds the standard positional dichotomy between heads and specifiers wanting. At the same time, the distributional facts strongly argue for an explicit recognition of the notion of syntactic position, albeit one that is not based on tree-configurational notions, but instead in terms of linearly defined classes of distribution among constituents within the clause. Finally it is argued that this approach provides the basis for characterizing clause types which naturally generalizes over different immediate dominance relations.

It has been widely assumed that the preverbal particles of Irish are complementizers. Given the distribution of the particle aL, this assumption provides support for two central claims about WH-movement – that its application is successive-cyclic, and that it is driven by a morphosyntactic feature of the complementizer. However, the claim that aL is a complementizer also has been widely challenged. This paper aims to (re)confirm the original analysis. It argues that the sceptical literature (i) underestimates the morphosyntactic heterogeneity of Irish complementizers, and (ii) restricts attention to an overly narrow subset of constructions in which aL appears.

Modern functionalist approaches to syntax were pioneered in the 1920s by the scholars associated with the Linguistic Circle of Prague and Prague-based functionalism is a dynamic force today. Nevertheless, citations of this work by North American functionalists are few and far between. This paper sets out to explain that state of affairs. It pinpoints the profound theoretical differences between mainstream North American and Czech approaches that have led to partisans of the former losing interest in the latter. The paper argues that, on the other hand, Praguian functional syntax has a great deal in common with more ‘formal’ functionalist approaches and with much work in formal semantics. Not surprisingly, then, recent years have seen increasing productive collaboration between North American and Western European practitioners of these approaches and members of the Prague School.

Diana Archangeli & D. Terence Langendoen (eds.),Optimality Theory: an overview. Malden & Oxford: Blackwell, 1997. Pp. xii + 233.

Paul M. Postal,Three investigations of extraction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998. Pp. x+215.