THE IRRELEVANCE OF TYPOLOGY FOR GRAMMATICAL THEORY

Abstract

Many linguists believe that a parameter-setting model of grammar should capture typological generalizations. For example, a particular feature's cross-linguistic rarity might be 'registered' in a grammar that possesses that feature by means of a marked setting for the relevant parameter. I argue that such a view is in error. Grammars do not encode typological generalizations, either directly or indirectly. Put in a somewhat different way, Universal grammar tells us what a possible language is, but not what a probable language is. The most robust typological generalizations —those arising from the seminal work of Joseph Greenberg— have an explanation based in language processing.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 53 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.