Compares and contrasts the progressive constructions in English and Japanese, concluding that whereas an English sentence of this type refers to a dynamic state, this need not be the case in Japanese. The article argues that the progressive operators in both English (be-ing) and Japanese (-teiru) can be characterized as stativizer. (18 references)…

Presents a critique of John Knowles' (1975) analysis of Spanish impersonal "se." (AM)

This paper presents two types of Spanish sentences and contradicts theories which relate the two with identical deep structures. Criteria presented appear to show the two differ in deep structure and are related lexically rather than transformationally. (CK)

Why Not V?'' refers to the grammatical structure Why Not (plus) Verb?'' (RS)

Nominalization of possessive sentences in Russian is discussed. It is maintained that all lexical surface items originate as terms in a situation model, and that their actualization as different parts of speech is language-specific. Language data are used to support a locative interpretation of the semantic model. (CHK)

Working within the natural semantic metalanguage (NSM) framework of Anna Wierzbicka, this study proposes reductive paraphrase explications for a range of first-person pronominal meanings. It is argued that NSM explications are preferable to conventional feature analysis because they are less subject to charges of arbitrariness and obscurity and…

Reports an experiment intended to assess the psychological reality of the underlying clauses in "resultative constructions" in English. (RM)

Proposes an analysis of Spanish indefinite "se" which takes into consideration regional variations. (AM)

A significant discovery of generative theory is that the features present in a lexical entry in a sentence's deep structure influence choice and arrangement of words in the surface structure. The systemic and nonsystemic functions of Spanish count and measure entity nouns are elaborated and analyzed. (CHK)

Investigates the differences in form and meaning between the Dutch and English passives, attributing the differences to the passive auxiliaries that signal a process and a state for Dutch and English. The article is aided by the framework of Langacker's (1991) cognitive grammar. (30 references) (Author/CK)