‘Dickens Unwrapped’ focuses on part publication as a peculiar dynamic of the unbound book as an interim phase before and after the complete set is bound by the publisher. In the monthly parts of The Pickwick Papers and Nicholas Nickleby, two loose illustrations printed on different paper appear before the text. Additional sets by other illustrators publicized in the Pickwick and Nickleby Advertisers act as complementary additions that diversify and customize serial fiction as part of the publisher’s marketing strategy. In Master Humphrey’s Clock, the official illustrations are inserted as vignettes in the body of the page of letterpress, rather than as full-page illustrations. If this tighter control of the visual and verbal layout of the original marks out additional sets more clearly as extras, specimens of additional illustrations inserted in advertisers restore the book’s potential as an open-ended collection of illustrations and alternative ways of seeing and reading Dickens’s writing.

We review a variety of patterns in anaphoric dependencies as they are found in languages of the world. We discuss cross-linguistic variation together with language universals as presented in the literature, and show how differences and similarities between languages are captured by general principles of the grammatical computational system interacting with the morphosyntactic properties of pronouns and reflexives, and with properties of their syntactic environment. Small differences in structure may have major interpretive effects. Such effects result from the interaction of many factors, including Minimality restrictions and local identity avoidance. Thus, to understand patterns of anaphora in a language one must take into account many factors from different parts of the grammar. This has far-reaching methodological implications. One can no longer ‘‘falsify’’ an analysis based on a simple isolated observation about anaphors in language x, y, or z, as is often attempted. Serious cross-linguistic, typological work is therefore crucial for our understanding of the limits of language variation.

In this chapter we offer a brief history of generative views on pronouns, focusing on their (coreference) possibilities and their internal syntax. We focus on two types of variation that are responsible for many of the differences among pronominal systems in the world’s languages. The first concerns the syntactic category of the pronoun within a general theory of nominal extended projection; the second concerns the presence or absence of a lexical noun within the pronoun. Based on recent developments regarding the syntactic representation of speaker and addressee, we also offer a novel proposal for Japanese pronouns, which have thus far resisted straightforward analysis. This analysis is then extended to formal pronouns in languages like French and German.

Humankind came to substances early. Poppy pods have been found with Neanderthal burials and spiritual and other group practices, still seen today but with millennia behind them, bear witness to the role of induced experiential change in human social evolution. Despite generations of history, the knowledge to unlock what mind-altering substances might do and the substrates through which they do it has only started to reveal itself within living memory through development of innovative investigative methods and an expanding cast of centrally acting compounds with clinical and laboratory potential.

A widening, if somewhat artificial, distinction has emerged where those who seek to modify brain systems with patients are considered psychopharmacologists, while those seeking to unravel mechanisms are considered neuropharmacologists. Expertise may differ, but the quest of clinician and basic scientist is the same, each benefitting from knowledge of the other.

In this chapter, I address some further phenomena of German syntax that would seem to lend themselves to an analysis in terms of structure removal. However, the analyses are carried out in much less detail, as the overall goal is not so much to develop full-fledged accounts but to make a case for structure removal at work in each of the constructions. For concreteness, the chapter addresses bridge verbs (where a DP shell on top of a CP is removed), applicatives (where a full DP is removed), null objects (where, again, a DP is removed), pseudo-noun incorporation (where a DP dominating an NP is removed), nominal concord (where the well-known case/cyclicity dilemma with concord is approached by postulating temporary removal of case assigners), and ellipsis (where structure removal may give rise to constructions like gapping, sluicing, and determiner sharing).

This chapter develops an approach to restructuring with control verbs in German that is based on the operation Remove. The approaches to restructuring in infinitival constructions developed over the last three decades postulate either uniformly monoclausal structures or uniformly biclausal structures, that is, they do not actually rely on a concept of syntactic restructuring. Against this background, the goal of this chapter is to outline an approach to restructuring with control verbs in German that radically departs from standard approaches in that it presupposes that genuine syntactic restructuring does indeed exist, and can be held responsible for conflicting pieces of evidence that suggest both a monoclausal and a biclausal structure. The chapter is organized as follows. Following an illustration of infinitival constructions in German, I present conflicting evidence for restructuring with control verbs in German: There are arguments for a monoclausal analysis and there are arguments for a biclausal analysis. The Remove-based approach is shown to capture both the evidence for monoclausality and the evidence for biclausality.

This chapter develops an analysis of long-distance passives in German according to which these constructions basically emerge from the co-occurrence of passivization and restructuring in the language. In Chapters 3 and 4, I have argued that passivization and restructuring both involve an operation of structure removal in the course of the derivation – of an external argument DP in the first case, and of CP and TP layers of an infinitive in the second case. The null hypothesis that is pursued in this chapter against this background is that a combination of the two structure removal operations essentially gives rise to the intricate properties of long-distance passives in German. A core feature of the analysis is that it does not involve any long-distance relation at any point; argument demotion, case assignment, and morphological realization as passive all take place extremely locally. Another basic property of the new approach, which sets it apart from other analyses, is that all DP arguments selected by the verbs involved (including in particular external arguments in the embedded and matrix domains) can be assumed to be structurally represented at some point of the derivation; among other things, this accounts for the absence of control shift.

In this chapter, I pursue two main goals. First, I argue for a new empirical generalization: An external argument in German passive constructions is accessible from positions below it but inaccessible from positions above it. The evidence for downward accessibility comes from control into adjunct clauses, secondary predicates, and complement clauses, binding of reflexives and reciprocals, and disjoint reference effects. In contrast, the evidence for upward inaccessibility comes from long-distance binding in impersonal passives and standard passives, accessible subjects for control infinitives, criterial movement constraints, minimality of movement effects, and intervention for anaphoric binding. Second, I present a new theory of passivization from which this generalization can be derived: The elementary operation Remove accounts for both accessibility and inaccessibility of external arguments in the passive in German, by correctly predicting a short life cycle. After this, the chapter addresses the question of how variation in the area of passivization can be accounted for in the new model. Next, there is a brief extension of the analysis to adjectival passives, invoking external Remove. The chapter concludes with a discussion of alternative approaches that either maintain strict accessibility or postulate strict inaccessibility, as well of hybrid approaches.

Chapter 12 opens by asking readers to identify what they know about a relatively unknown topic, and to formulate some questions about the topic; they then study the topic, identify what’s now known, and finally compare notes from before and after study. It’s surprisingly hard for one person to perceive what is given information for someone else because what we know interferes with figuring out what they know. We are in a sense cursed by our knowledge, seeing more in hindsight than is justified. The chapter describes studies with children and studies with adults showing that our current understanding blinds us to our own prior understanding and to someone else’s current understanding. In part because people have strong funds of knowledge on the topic of language, this curse or bias is especially vital to consider. For example, speakers of English unconsciously know the language’s basic sentence structure even if they don’t describe that structure using grammatical terms. This chapter’s Closing Worksheet asks readers to find out how people typically use the terms for key concepts in their demonstrations. For example, what does "sentence" mean to many people?

[30.1] This chapter examines the use of binding and persuasive precedent in the interpretative task. Precedent here refers broadly to prior judicial decisions of courts on the meaning of particular legislative text, rather than precedent on the common law principles of statutory interpretation.The doctrine of precedent generally applies to statutory interpretation cases in the same way as it applies to common law cases. But there are some special considerations due to fundamental interpretative principles.

The multicomponent model of working memory developed during the period when psycholinguistics was dominated by Chomsky’s transformational grammar and its potential implications. The original model had assumed a limited capacity attentional control system, the central executive, aided by temporary verbal storage from the phonological loop and visuospatial storage from the visuospatial sketchpad. Over the decades, each component of the model has been systematically explored by language studies, which have repeatedly resulted in challenges to earlier versions of the model and led to the addition of the fourth component of the episodic buffer and the recent incorporation of the concept of binding. Overall, the multicomponent model was developed using a different approach than Popper’s emphasis on falsification, and the model continues to evolve and has proven successful both in accounting for a broad range of data and in its application to the understanding of a wide array of language phenomena and populations. L11

This chapter begins by elaborating on the concept of a dispute, before providing a historical perspective on the evolution of the requirement to settle disputes peacefully. The chapter then explores diplomatic as well as legal methods of dispute settlement. Diplomatic forms of dispute settlement (also known as political or non-legal forms of dispute settlement) include negotiation, mediation, inquiry, and conciliation. Legal forms of dispute settlement include arbitration and adjudication. Resort by states to dispute settlement procedures, and in particular legal methods of dispute settlement, has grown exponentially in the last decades. Since the 1990s, the International Court of Justice has had an increasingly active docket of cases, and, in addition, the Permanent Court of Arbitration has undergone a sort of renaissance. The focus of this chapter will be on the settlement of inter-state disputes, as opposed to disputes between states and non-state actors or between non-state actors.

This chapter begins by elaborating on the concept of a dispute, before providing a historical perspective on the evolution of the requirement to settle disputes peacefully. The chapter then explores diplomatic as well as legal methods of dispute settlement. Diplomatic forms of dispute settlement (also known as political or non-legal forms of dispute settlement) include negotiation, mediation, inquiry, and conciliation. Legal forms of dispute settlement include arbitration and adjudication. Resort by states to dispute settlement procedures, and in particular legal methods of dispute settlement, has grown exponentially in the last decades. Since the 1990s, the International Court of Justice has had an increasingly active docket of cases, and, in addition, the Permanent Court of Arbitration has undergone a sort of renaissance. The focus of this chapter will be on the settlement of inter-state disputes, as opposed to disputes between states and non-state actors or between non-state actors.

This chapter focuses on experimental psycholinguistic techniques that tap into real-time sentence processing by measuring moment-by-moment reading times or eye-gaze patterns. Data recorded during real-time reading or listening can provide implicit measures of grammatical sensitivity and are a valuable source of evidence for grammatical distinctions, operations, and constraints proposed within the theoretical linguistic literature. A selective review of recent reading-time and eye-movement monitoring studies illustrates how these techniques can help us investigate theoretical linguistic issues and hypotheses, and provide insights into the nature of syntactic derivations and representations. Charting comprehenders' sentence processing profiles over time can help reveal the sources of unacceptability and of grammatical illusions, the point in time at which grammatical violations are detected, the point in time at which grammatical constraints are applied, and can also reveal processing reflexes of a sentence's derivational history.

This chapter provides an overview of the research on semantics and related interface phenomena in heritage language grammars, focusing on three main questions: (i) whether the phenomena under investigation are subject to incomplete acquisition and/or attrition in heritage language grammars; (ii) whether heritage language grammars are subject to cross-linguistic influence from the dominant language; and (iii) whether interface phenomena are particularly vulnerable in incomplete acquisition and/or attrition. These questions are investigated in four linguistic domains that fall at the interface between syntax and semantics where there has been a substantial body of research with heritage speakers: semantics of the verbal domain, such as tense/aspect and unaccusativity; semantics of the nominal domain, such as definiteness and genericity; semantics of subject and object expression, including binding and case-marking; and quantifier semantics.