Did John really promise Mary to leave?

This paper contrasts finite and non-finite complement constructions containing the matrix verb promise. Using data from the British National Corpus, I show that when no explicit mention is made of the promissee the non-finite form of complement is overwhelmingly preferred to its finite counterparts. The exact opposite is the case when the promissee is mentioned between the matrix verb and the complement clause. In addition, the promiser in the x promise y to infinitive construction is almost always pronominal. I suggest that these two facts, the dispreference for the to infinitive form of complement when the promissee is mentioned and the pronominal encoding of the promiser in such cases, are both related to the very rarity of this form of construction in English. Data is adduced showing that another rare construction, the so-called possessive -ing construction, also occurs with a disproportionate number of pronominal subjects. It is suggested that the preference for pronominal subjects in these constructions may be related to a wish to reduce the overall processing complexity of the predications in question.

Imperatives in concessive clauses: compatibility between constructions

In his pioneering paper on “Performative Subordinate Clauses,” Lakoff (1984) claimed that subordinate clauses expressing a reason or concession allow imperatives conveying statements (i.e. assertive illocutionary force). While this analysis has gone unchallenged to this day, the present paper shows that Lakoff’s analysis is inadequate, in that reason and concessive clauses show a sharp contrast in the kinds of imperative utterances they permit. Contra Lakoff, concessive clauses with although, though and except (that) do allow imperative constructions conveying directive illocutionary forces to occur, whereas by contrast those with even though tend to disallow both types of imperatives. These findings can be explained in terms of compatibility between “component” constructions constituting a complex sentence. It is argued that the compatibility between imperatives (both directive and assertive types) and concessive adverbials (excluding even though) can be attributed to the latter’s loose integration into a matrix clause required by the former. Furthermore, it is argued that the incompatibility of even though with imperatives arises primarily from the incompatibility between the tight integration of even though and the loose integration required by imperatives, together with the associated incompatibility between the non-rectifying function of even though and the rectifying conjunction favored by imperatives.

Thematic and Situational Features of Chinese BBS Texts

This study adopts the framework of Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG; Halliday, 1994/2000; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004) to investigate thematic features in messages sent to an electronic bulletin board system (BBS) in mainland China. As a concept derived from the Prague School, theme in SFG has been identified as “the point of departure of the message; it is that which locates and orients the clause within its context” (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 64). Thematic features in the Chinese data are found to relate to the situational features of the BBS, the analysis of which is based on the frameworks of Biber (1988) and Herring (2007). The relevant situational features are further generalized into the three components of context: field, tenor, and mode (Halliday & Hasan, 1985) in order to examine the relation between thematic features and situational features. The study’s findings show that thematic features are more closely related to the field (nature of the activity) than to the mode, contrary to Halliday’s (1978/2001) claim that theme, as a realization of the textual meaning, is determined by the mode (medium). In concluding, this discrepancy is explored.

Interoperabilität von Software Art. 6 der Comperterprogramm-Richtlinie aus heutiger Sicht

This article reviews Article 6 of the Software Directive and discusses the need for a revision. Beyond clarification of the scope of the very limited provision on reverse engineering, it seems that the introduction of the clause into copyright was unfortunate. The indirect protection of ideas by prohibiting reverse engineering is foreign to the copyright concept. Permitting reverse engineering altogether would promote research and development and further other goals like ICT security. Innovation would not be retarded, which is the reason why US trade secret law permits reverse engineering based also on economic arguments. The notions of compatibility Article 6 tries to address are better dealt with by Competition Law, which was demonstrated by the Microsoft Decision of the European Court in 2007.

CAD Files and European Design Law

Three-dimensional printing (“3DP”) is an additive manufacturing technology that starts with a virtual 3D model of the object to be printed, the so-called Computer-Aided-Design (“CAD”) file. This file, when sent to the printer, gives instructions to the device on how to build the object layer-by-layer. This paper explores whether design protection is available under the current European regulatory framework for designs that are computer-created by means of CAD software, and, if so, under what circumstances. The key point is whether the appearance of a product, embedded in a CAD file, could be regarded as a protectable element under existing legislation. To this end, it begins with an inquiry into the concepts of “design” and “product”, set forth in Article 3 of the Community Design Regulation No. 6/2002 (“CDR”). Then, it considers the EUIPO’s practice of accepting 3D digital representations of designs. The enquiry goes on to illustrate the implications that the making of a CAD file available online might have. It suggests that the act of uploading a CAD file onto a 3D printing platform may be tantamount to a disclosure for the purposes of triggering unregistered design protection, and for appraising the state of the prior art. It also argues that, when measuring the individual character requirement, the notion of “informed user” and “the designer’s degree of freedom” may need to be reconsidered in the future. The following part touches on the exceptions to design protection, with a special focus on the repairs clause set forth in Article 110 CDR. The concluding part explores different measures that may be implemented to prohibit the unauthorised creation and sharing of CAD files embedding design-protected products.