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.

Book Review of “Indigenous Social Work around the World. Towards Culturally Relevant Education and Practice”, 2008, edited by Mel Gray, John Coates and Michael Yellow Bird

One could be seduced into a critique of this volume that focuses on its potential to overstate the momentum for a shift in Western social work ideology when faced with the conundrum of cultural difference. One could posit that the discussion is too broad, the topics covered too numerous, the opportunity for detail missed, the urgency of the messages unnecessarily exaggerated, the “proof” not beyond anecdote and so forth. I reject this temptation to conform to the dominant professional dynamic most emphatically and offer that what Gray, Coates and Yellow Bird have presented to the social work field in this volume is the first tangible step towards an alternative paradigm for an occupation afflicted with unsustainable hypocrisy and thus at the brink of irrelevancy.

Type A aortic dissection after nonaortic cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND Cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass is associated with mechanical manipulation of the ascending aorta that occasionally leads to type A aortic dissection (AAD). METHODS AND RESULTS One hundred three patients with surgical repair for AAD following nonaortic cardiac surgery were identified. With the use of logistic regression modeling, coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG), either isolated or combined with another procedure in the initial operation, was associated with significantly higher operative mortality in comparison with patients with non-CABG procedures at the time of AAD repair both for all patients (odds ratio, 2.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-7.72; P=0.033) and for patients with acute and chronic AAD≥30 days after the initial operation (odds ratio, 3.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-11.54; P=0.03). In patients who developed AAD late after the initial operation, operative mortality was highest in patients without preoperative coronary angiography and appropriate management of their native coronary artery disease and graft disease (odds ratio, 5.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.68-17.0; P=0.002). Nearly all the intimal dissection tears were located at sites of previous surgical trauma. Most of the ascending aortas that had dissected initially had a diameter≥40 mm with histological evidence of medial degeneration in resected tissue samples. CONCLUSIONS In patients who have undergone previous cardiac surgery, preexisting aortic wall pathology contributes to AAD with typical intimal damage at sites of mechanical trauma. The operative mortality was the highest in patients with previous CABG in comparison with patients with non-CABG procedures. Preoperative coronary angiography and operative management of native coronary and graft disease were significantly associated with outcome in patients with previous CABG.