Abstract This paper offers a unified analysis of the postmodal meanings of should and would. It proposes a semantic-pragmatic account based on how these modals function in contexts that yield mirative interpretations. The analysis begins with their use in content clauses under factive predicates and then examines a parallel use in why -interrogatives. It also explains why only would can produce a mirative reading in the assertive equative construction ‘That Would Be X’. The paper argues that these mirative extensions arise from the speaker’s knowledge state and their assumptions about the addressee’s expectations. The postmodal domain is therefore shaped by pragmatic strengthening within patterns that still preserve aspects of the modals’ core semantics. The shift from modality to postmodality marks a move toward the illocutionary level. However, this domain is not uniform: postmodal meanings may represent either the endpoint of grammaticalisation or the emergence of new discourse functions through constructionalisation, as in the TWBX construction.

Abstract The account of extraction using only generalized context free phrase structure (put forth in a series of papers by Gazdar in the late 1970s and early 1980s and then codified in Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar) used, slash as a feature to indicate that there was something missing in wh -extraction constructions. Although this was (deliberately) reminiscent of the slash of Categorial Grammar (CG) (which encodes argument selection), they treated it as distinct from the CG slash. Subsequent work by Steedman proposed to unite them. This paper argues first, that Gazdar et al. were correct to treat the two differently. Second, I advocate a natural view of syntactic categories under the CG world view. Thus, we take the function categories of CG to correspond to functions on strings, and with this we preclude what I call S-crossing composition, used in many CG analyses. With this in mind, we suggest that rightward extraction as in Right Node Raising really is function composition, while wh- extraction should be handled by something much closer to the account in Gazdar et al. The two behave differently under coordination chains involving a silent and or or. This behavior provides evidence that the two should be kept distinct (see also work by Oehrle for this poit), while providing striking evidence for the view of syntactic categories advocated here.

Abstract This paper revisits the restrictive/appositive distinction with Mandarin relative clauses and argues against the commonly held view that their restrictive/appositive status directly correlates with their structural positions. We demonstrate that distinct uses of demonstratives constitute a relevant factor in establishing the correlation, such that the pre-/post-demonstrative position is relevant to the semantic status of a relative when the demonstrative is used deictically, but not when it is used anaphorically; and that this refined typology of RCs can be accounted for once existing analyses of strong definites (Elbourne 2005. Situations and individuals; Schwarz 2009. Two types of definites in natural language; Jenks 2018. Linguistic Inquiry 49. 501–536) are extended to Mandarin demonstratives.

Abstract In this paper, we present two corpus-based case studies which cast doubt on the postulation of a distinction between complements and modifiers in pre-head position in the English noun phrase. Based on examples such as medical student, the paper focuses on ordering patterns as an easily observable criterion, rather than more difficult or less reliable criteria such as anaphoric replacement or stress patterns. The conclusion is that the pre-head dependents treated as complements in, for example, the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Huddleston & Pullum et al. 2002), should rather be treated as type-dependents. This conclusion, at least as far as ordering patterns are concerned, is in line with the postulation of a “classifier” function in approaches to English noun phrases such as Feist (2009).