Article
Licensed
Unlicensed
Requires Authentication
Linguistic typology requires crosslinguistic formal categories
-
Frederick J Newmeyer
Published/Copyright:
July 31, 2007
Abstract
1. An important trend in linguistic typology
The first paper in the first issue of this journal (Kirby 1997) took on the question of the Keenan-Comrie accessibility hierarchy for relativization (Keenan & Comrie 1977). In a tightly argued presentation, Kirby showed that the effects of the hierarchy fall out from “competition” between two types of complexity. One is the structural complexity of the relative clause, which is calculated in part by counting the number of nodes dominating the trace or pronoun within the NP dominating the relative clause (see Hawkins 1994). The other is morphological complexity, which is calculated in part on the basis of the number of morphemes that need to be processed.
Received: 2006-12-08
Revised: 2007-01-25
Published Online: 2007-07-31
Published in Print: 2007-07-20
© Walter de Gruyter
You are currently not able to access this content.
You are currently not able to access this content.
Articles in the same Issue
- Preface
- What or where can we do better? Some personal reflections on (the tenth anniversary of) Linguistic Typology
- Wider and deeper
- What is universal about typology?
- Extent and limits of linguistic diversity as the remit of typology – but through constraints on what is diversity limited?
- Representative sampling and typological explanation: A phenomenological lament
- Typology and linguistic theory in the past decade: A personal view
- A note on linguistic theory and typology
- The importance of typology in explaining recurrent sound patterns
- Linguistic typology: Morphology
- Pre-established categories don't exist: Consequences for language description and typology
- Linguistic typology requires crosslinguistic formal categories
- Typological approaches to lexical semantics
- Chinese linguistics and typology: The state of the art
- Interfaces between linguistic typology and child language research
- Typology in American linguistics: An appraisal of the field
- What, if anything, is typology?
- Typology in the 21st century: Major current developments
- Some thoughts on the reason for the lesser status of typology in the USA as opposed to Europe
- Methodology and the empirical base of typology
- Where's phonology in typology?
- Linguistic typology and theory construction: Common challenges ahead
- On the relationship of typology to theoretical syntax
- A few lessons from typology
Articles in the same Issue
- Preface
- What or where can we do better? Some personal reflections on (the tenth anniversary of) Linguistic Typology
- Wider and deeper
- What is universal about typology?
- Extent and limits of linguistic diversity as the remit of typology – but through constraints on what is diversity limited?
- Representative sampling and typological explanation: A phenomenological lament
- Typology and linguistic theory in the past decade: A personal view
- A note on linguistic theory and typology
- The importance of typology in explaining recurrent sound patterns
- Linguistic typology: Morphology
- Pre-established categories don't exist: Consequences for language description and typology
- Linguistic typology requires crosslinguistic formal categories
- Typological approaches to lexical semantics
- Chinese linguistics and typology: The state of the art
- Interfaces between linguistic typology and child language research
- Typology in American linguistics: An appraisal of the field
- What, if anything, is typology?
- Typology in the 21st century: Major current developments
- Some thoughts on the reason for the lesser status of typology in the USA as opposed to Europe
- Methodology and the empirical base of typology
- Where's phonology in typology?
- Linguistic typology and theory construction: Common challenges ahead
- On the relationship of typology to theoretical syntax
- A few lessons from typology
