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.