In traditional (e.g. Quirk style) grammars, there is confusion about the classification of the word such. This arises because there is often no clear differentiation between two such's that differ semantically and syntactically: identifying such and intensifying such. I clarify the differences and suggest that the position of such indicates that a more articulated structure, with at least a determiner phrase and a number phrase is needed to account for``central determiners.'' Using data from the BNC I analyze intensifying such in the framework of the split-degree-phrase hypothesis (Corver 1997). I also consider the structure of the DP containing such, discussing the layered DP (Zamparelli 1995) and predication within the NP (Abney 1987, Bennis et al.1998).* I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for providing insightful comments and Elly van Gelderen for many helpful discussions. All remaining errors are my own.

No abstract

Three different nominal word orders in Old English through present-day English are investigated, in order to determine whether English has an ‘adjectival’ possessive similar to Modern Italian. It is argued that the orders a) demonstrative, possessive, noun and b) possessive, demonstrative, noun represent different syntactic constructions, with different paths of development. It is concluded that the a) order represents three different constructions: i) apposition, ii) a possible ‘adjectival’ possessive, no longer found in Middle English, iii) an Early Modern English focus construction using the proximal. The b) order represents a demonstrative in form, functioning only as a definiteness marker.

No abstract

Contemporary discussions of preverbal negative incorporation usually note Levin's 1958 claim that incorporation is a Western and Southern dialect feature in Old and Middle English. In his Middle English data, Levin reports only two unincorporated forms, both in AB texts. This note demonstrates that these two examples appear in the editions Levin used, but not in the manuscripts now thought to be closer to the original AB language. The conclusions are: 1. Levin's claim still has merit; 2. it would worthwhile to revisit his data with an improved understanding of scribal practices, access to facsimiles, and to electronic searches; and 3. researchers should consider editorial "interference" in manuscripts. * Introduction.In Old English and Early Middle English, the usual form of clausal negation is the preverbal particle ne. Certain verbs, namely witan 'know', willan 'want', beon 'be', habban 'have', and agan 'own', allow the negative particle to incorporate into the verb so that ne is (3rd pres. ind. singular of beon) is equivalent to nis. Similarly, ne habbe becomes nabbe and ne wulle becomes nulle. This is a process similar to the present-day English incorporation of contracted not in forms of auxiliary verbs such as isn't, won't, etc. However, although it is apparent that, in present-day English, contraction occurs in more informal contexts and the full forms in formal situations, the reasons Old English and Early Middle English writers used these forms are not so clear. Recent studies of negative contraction, focusing mainly on syntax and meter in poetry,