Linguistic Typology and Formal Grammar

The goal of this chapter is to provide an overview of the relationship between linguistic typology and formal grammar—a relationship that has existed for several decades now and is unlikely to disappear any time soon. As the reader will see, the two orientations differ in a number of respects, but they share the custody of language, and that motivates the need for communication between the two. More importantly still, the field of linguistics as a whole is beginning to study language as a dynamic system operating simultaneously on multiple levels of representation, rather than as a disparate assemblage of discrete levels of analysis (lexicon, phonology, syntax), or as a collection of particular linguistic phenomena. This common challenge to both theory construction and typology is motivated by the increasing integration of linguistics with more technically sophisticated disciplines that also investigate human cognition and consciousness.

[1]  Maria Polinsky,et al.  Linguistic typology and theory construction: Common challenges ahead , 2007 .

[2]  Grover Hudson,et al.  PHONOLOGY AND LANGUAGE USE , 2004 .

[3]  Matthew Pearson,et al.  The Malagasy Subject/Topic as an A′-Element , 2005 .

[4]  John Haiman,et al.  Iconic and Economic Motivation , 1983 .

[5]  Jim McCloskey,et al.  On the relationship of typology to theoretical syntax , 2007 .

[6]  F. Newmeyer.  Language Form And Language Function , 1998 .

[7]  N. Ohashi,et al.  Agreement , 2002 .

[8]  D. Lightfoot.  The development of language , 1999 .

[9]  Simon Kirby,et al.  Function, Selection, and Innateness: The Emergence of Language Universals , 1999 .

[10]  Comrie Bernard.  Language Universals and Linguistic Typology , 1982 .

[11]  Larry M. Hyman,et al.  Form and substance in language universals , 1983 .

[12]  Stephen R. Anderson,et al.  A Formalist's Reading of Some Functionalist Work in Syntax , 1999 .

[13]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory , 1975 .

[14]  E. Aldridge.  Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages , 2004 .

[15]  Nicholas Evans,et al.  Typologies of agreement: some problems from Kayardild , 2003 .

[16]  R. Langacker.  Foundations of cognitive grammar , 1983 .

[17]  Michael Darnell.  Functionalism and formalism in linguistics , 1999 .

[18]  Michiko Nakamura,et al.  Subject/Object asymmetries in the processing of relative clauses in Japanese , 2003 .

[19]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Lectures on Government and Binding , 1981 .

[20]  Charles N. Li,et al.  Subject and topic , 1979 .

[21]  Robert Kluender,et al.  Are Subject Islands Subject to a Processing Account , 2004 .

[22]  M. Just,et al.  Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory , 1991 .

[23]  Steven Abney,et al.  The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect , 1972 .

[24]  Leonid Kulikov,et al.  Asymmetry in grammar , 1993 .

[25]  William Croft,et al.  Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective , 2001 .

[26]  Maria Polinsky,et al.  The nature of explanation in linguistic theory , 2003 .

[27]  Richard S. Kayne.  The Antisymmetry of Syntax , 1994 .

[28]  J. Zwart.  The Minimalist Program , 1998, Journal of Linguistics.

[29]  Stanley Dubinsky,et al.  The grammar of raising and control , 2004 .

[30]  J. Hawkins.  Efficiency and complexity in grammars , 2004 .

[31]  Ezra Van Everbroeck,et al.  Language type frequency and learnability from a connectionist perspective , 2003 .

[32]  James McCloskey.  The Distribution of Subject Properties in Irish , 2001 .

[33]  E. Keenan,et al.  Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar , 2008 .

[34]  Nicholas Evans,et al.  A Grammar Of Kayardild , 1995 .