Silvennoinen (2025) analyzes the stored sequence going forward as an adverb that inherits adverb-class morphosyntax. This reply challenges that categorization on empirical grounds. The construction fails the key distributional test for adverbs: it cannot occur in integrated-medial position between subject and verb (*We going forward will prioritize replication), the diagnostic slot for core adverbs (We certainly will prioritize replication). Analysis of Silvennoinen’s corpus (n = 1,517) confirms this restriction – apparent ‘medial’ tokens prove either to be NP-internal modifiers or parenthetical supplements, never integrated clausal constituents. Instead, going forward patterns with PP adjuncts, occurring clause-initially, clause-finally, or as supplements. Internally, deverbal going heads the construction and licenses a directional complement forward(s), parallel to established deverbal prepositions like according [to …] and depending [on …]. The construction thus projects PP, not AdvP, aligning with The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language’s flexible-complement analysis of prepositions. This case demonstrates that storage and semantic specialization do not force categorical reanalysis.

Traditionally, verbs like base have combined with the preposition on to express a meaning of derivation (based on). However, many writing in a US context have noticed the rapid rise of based off (of) alongside based on (Curzan 2013; Behrens 2014; Janda 2021). In this article, we document the relative increase of off in two English-language corpora in the verb base and six other verbs. The results show a clear real-time trend of increasing use of off, with some differences in the course of the change across different verbs. We also see an increase in use of off in apparent time, which we infer from the topical organization of comments in one of our corpora, the social media site Reddit.

Several studies have been devoted, partly or wholly, to the different uses of the adverb actually. Although there is considerable agreement on the main discourse functions actually can perform, there is little consensus on which subtypes to distinguish, and how these subtypes, and the functions they perform, are related to the formal properties of actually. Consequently, conclusions concerning the relation between the various functions of actually and its position and prosodic realization are often contradictory, and the overall picture is still incomplete. On the basis of data from the International Corpus of English – Great Britain, this article presents the results of a systematic (qualitative and quantitative) investigation into the function, position and prosody of actually, and the way in which these factors interact. It is demonstrated that (i) by classifying the many functions of actually identified in previous studies into three major types (propositional, discourse-pragmatic and discourse-organizational) and (ii) by appealing to additional functional factors, such as scope, strength and orientation, to distinguish a limited number of subtypes, it is possible to detect strong correlations between the functions of actually and its formal (positional and prosodic) features.

Comparative speech-act studies have found that British English directives tend to include the pragmatic marker please at about twice the rate of American English directives. Nevertheless, lexical please is often as frequent in American English corpora as in British ones – indicating that sincere directives are only part of this pragmatic marker’s story. This article reports on British and American please usage in the Corpus of Global Web-based English (GloWbE; Davies 2013). GloWbE shows similar numbers of non-verbal please on American and British websites, but also differences in what please is used for. This contributes to a larger picture of pragmatic variation in which British English uses a more bleached and routine please, whereas American please might be more at home effecting im/politeness in contexts of greater face-threat.

Several of the world’s languages exhibit double determination structures, including English dialects which have a construction with a demonstrative determiner and a locative adverb (e.g. this here book). Doubling in demonstratives has commonly been explained as a language’s response to a loss of deixis, leading to a linguistic cycle. However, this explanation cannot be sustained for English because demonstratives are fully functioning grammatical deictics (e.g. this book). In this article, we probe the role of doubling in the history and grammatical development of English double demonstratives with evidence from rural UK dialects. Using quantitative methods and the principle of accountability we calculate proportion of forms and patterning in simple and double demonstratives, enabling us to demonstrate that the doubled form has particular discourse-pragmatic functions, most notably, to flag topics in discourse. Our findings lead us to make two theoretical proposals. First, double demonstratives in English are used for discourse-pragmatic purposes; and second, doubling led to a new, complex determiner suitable to take over discourse-pragmatic functions from simple determiners (complexification of the determiner paradigm). Finally, we suggest that obsolescing features like the English double demonstrative offer key insights for understanding the development of linguistic systems.

While the category shift of deverbal prepositions has been well documented in grammaticalization studies, its accompanying process of subjectification remains underexplored. Adopting a constructionist perspective, this article addresses the gap by analyzing data from the Corpus of Historical American English. We present a multivariate analysis of the deverbal preposition considering to examine the role that subjectification has played along the way to it becoming a preposition over the past 200 years. Specifically, we investigate whether the two grammatical variants, participial and prepositional considering, can be anchored in context, focusing on a set of subjectivity indicators and their gradual changes over time. The findings are twofold. First, the two variants can be distinguished by six contextual features, namely subject animacy, subject person, contextual polarity, presence of degree modifiers, presence of modal auxiliaries and genre. Second, over time, there is an increasing correlation between the prepositional variant and levels within contextual features that indicate greater evaluative subjectivity. Previous scholarship has debated whether subjectification is independent of grammaticalization. This study contributes to this discourse by illustrating how various facets of subjectification may interact and manifest to varying degrees within the process of grammatical change.

Both -ity and -ness are frequent and productive suffixes in English that fulfill the same core function: turning adjectives into nouns that denote the state or quality of whatever the adjective denotes. This well-known affix rivalry raises two core questions: 1. What determines the choice between -ity and -ness for a given base word? 2. Are the two affixes synonymous? For the first question, previous work has focused on morphological and phonological properties of the bases, but not their semantics. For question 2, the literature fails to give a convincing answer, with some studies, faced with doublets like ethnicity/ethnicness, arguing for a semantic difference, but most assuming synonymy. Using pretrained distributional vectors, I show empirically first that the semantics of the bases plays a major role in affix selection and second that the two affixes induce similar meaning shifts.