Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T21:28:59.062Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Complementary methods in Universal Grammar: A reply to Coopmans

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

John A. Hawkins
John A. Hawkins*
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper offers a reply to Coopmans' 1984 critique of Hawkins 1979, 1980, 1982. Hawkins had attempted, inter alia, to make typological word order universals relevant to concerns of generative grammar. Coopmans denies this relevance. His critique raises fundamental issues about the nature of language universals and their explanation, and about research methodology. Some of these issues are taken up in this reply. It is argued that Coopmans' dismissal of the typological approach is neither well-founded nor very helpful in the current state of the art. The different methodologies have complementary strengths, and can be of considerable mutual benefit.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , September 1985 , pp. 569 - 587
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

I am very grateful to the following for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper: Bernard Comrie, Edward Finegan, Joseph Greenberg, John Haiman, Jorge Hankamer, Heather Holmback, Larry Hyman, and Winfred Lehmann.

References

Baker, C. L. 1979. Syntactic theory and the projection problem. LI 10. 533–81.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L. 1981. Learnability and the English auxiliary system. In Baker & McCarthy, 296–323.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L., and McCarthy, John J. 1981 (eds.) The logical problem of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982 (ed.) The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1968. Language and mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. Readings in English transformational grammar, ed. by Jacobs, Roderick A. & Rosenbaum, Peter S., 184–221. Waltham; MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology. Oxford: Blackwell; Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1984. Language universals and linguistic argumentation: A reply to Coopmans. JL 20. 155–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coopmans, Peter. 1983. Review of Comrie 1981. JL 19. 455–73.Google Scholar
Coopmans, Peter. 1984. Surface word-order typology and Universal Grammar. Lg. 60. 55–69.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. 1984. Review article on Baker & McCarthy. Lg. 60. 115–22.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1980. Word order in generative grammar. Journal of Linguistic Research 1. 33–54.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald. 1982. Phrase structure grammar. The nature of syntactic representation, ed. by Jacobson, Pauline & Pullum, Geoffrey K., 131–86. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, and Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1981. Subcategorization, constituent order, and the notion ‘head’. The scope of lexical rules, ed. by Moortgat, Michael et al., 107–23. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universals of language, 2nd edn., ed. by Greenberg, J. H., 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1979. Rethinking linguistics diachronically. Lg. 55. 275–90.Google Scholar
Harrison, Carl H. 1983. Typological disharmony and ergativity in Guajajara. Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session, ed. by Derbyshire, Desmond C., 28. 73–106.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1979. Implicational universals as predictors of word order change. Lg. 55. 618–48.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1980. On implicational and distributional universals of word order. JL 16. 193–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1982. Cross-category harmony, X-bar, and the predictions of markedness. JL 18. 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1983. Word order universals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1984. Modifier-head or function-argument relations in phrase structure? The evidence of some word order universals. Lingua 63. 107–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Grover. 1972. Is deep structure linear? Explorations in syntactic theory. UCLA papers in syntax, 2, ed. by Bedell, George, 51–77. Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X syntax: A study of phrase structure. (LI monograph 2.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, David E., and Postal, Paul M. 1980. Arc Pair Grammar. Princeton: University Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M., and Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Lexical-Functional Grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In Bresnan, 173–281.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1978. Language variation and the logical structure of universal grammar. Language universals, ed. by Seiler, Hansjakob, 89–123. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1979. On surface form and logical form. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 8:2.1–41.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1973. A structural principle of language and its implications. Lg. 49. 47–66.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1978. Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology of language. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David W. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1975. Review of Studies on semantics in generative grammar, by Chomsky, Noam. Studies in English Linguistics 3. 209–311.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1982. Thirty million theories of grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Payne, Doris L. 1984. Basic constituent order in Yagua clauses: Implications for word order universals. To appear in Amazon languages handbook, I, ed. by Derbyshire, Desmond C. & Pullum, Geoffrey K.Google Scholar
Peterson, Thomas. 1971. Multi-ordered base structures in generative grammar. CLS 7. 181–92.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1982. A theory of the acquisition of lexical interpretative grammars. In Bresnan, 655–726.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1977. Word order universals and grammatical relations. Syntax and semantics, 8: Grammatical relations, ed. by Cole, Peter & Sadock, Jerrold M., 249–77. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sanders, Gerald. 1969. Invariant ordering. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1970. Constraints on constituent ordering. Papers in Linguistics 2. 460–502.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 1978. Modern English from a typological point of view: Some implications of the function of word order. Linguistische Berichte 54. 19–35.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1974. Theoretical word order studies: Results and problems. Papiere zur Linguistik 7. 5–25.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1981. Comments on Baker 1981. In Baker & McCarthy, 324–9.Google Scholar
Wexler, Kenneth, and Culicover, Peter W. 1980. Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar