Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T10:10:12.383Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Significance of Linguistic Generalizations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

James R. Hurford
James R. Hurford*
Affiliation:
University of Lancaster
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper addresses the problem of defining the notion ‘linguistically significant generalization’; it separates the notion of ‘generalization’ from that of ‘significance’, and proposes a rigorous objective method for determining the significance of a generalization, based on probability theory. The proposal is illustrated by applying it to examples central to theorizing in generative grammar. Precisely formulated versions of claims made by Chomsky on the use of certain abbreviatory notations (e.g. parentheses) and by Halle on certain ‘natural classes’ are investigated and shown to be not significant; i.e., they tell us nothing interesting about the nature of language. Other generalizations—on active/passive selectional restrictions, word-order universal, and noun phrase accessibility—are shown to be highly significant.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , September 1977 , pp. 574 - 620
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 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

References

Bailey, Beryl L. 1965. Jamaican Creole syntax. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L., and Brame, Michael K. 1972. ‘Global rules’: a rejoinder. Lg. 48. 51–75.Google Scholar
Beyer, W. H. (ed.) 1966. Handbook of tables for probability and statistics. Cleveland: Chemical Rubber Co.Google Scholar
Botha, Rudolf P. 1973. The justification of linguistic hypotheses. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783110872415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, Marina K. 1971. From deep to surface structure. New York: Harper & Row..Google Scholar
Caws, Peter. 1965. The philosophy of science. Princeton: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970a. Remarks on nominalization. Readings in English transformational grammar, ed. by Jacobs, R. & Rosenbaum, P., 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970b. Some empirical issues in the theory of transformational grammar. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Derwing, Bruce L. 1973. Transformational grammar as a theory of language acquisition. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Dougherty, Ray C. 1971. A grammar of coördinate conjoined structures, II. Lg. 47. 298–339.Google Scholar
García, Erica C. 1967. Auxiliaries and the criterion of simplicity. Lg. 43. 853–70.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar, with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universals of language, ed. by Greenberg, Joseph H., 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1964. Phonology in a generative grammar. The structure of language, ed. by Fodor, J. & Katz, J., 334–52. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Hoard, James, and Sloat, Clarence. 1973. Subregularities in morphology. Abstract in Meeting handbook, LSA 48th Annual Meeting, 59–60.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1971. On some questionable arguments about quantifiers and negation. Lg. 47. 282–97.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L., and Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammars. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 63–103.Google Scholar
Kimball, John P. 1973. The formal theory of grammar. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1971. On generative semantics. Semantics, ed. by Jakobovits, L. & Steinberg, D., 232–96. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1969. Phrasal conjunction and symmetric predicates. Modern studies in English, ed. by Reibel, D. & Schane, S., 113–42. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1969. Mirror image rules I: syntax. Lg. 45. 575–98.Google Scholar
Liljencrants, Johan, and Lindblom, Björn. 1972. Numerical simulation of vowel quality systems: the role of perceptual contrast. Lg. 48. 839–62.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1971. On the role of notation in generative phonology. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
National Bureau of Standards. 1950. Tables of the binomial probability distribution. (Applied mathematics series, 6.) Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.Google Scholar
Pearson, H. and Hartley, H. O. (eds.) 1958. Biometrika tables for statisticians, I. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1970. The two verbs begin. Readings in English transformational grammar, ed. by Jacobs, R. & Rosenbaum, P., 107–19. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1972. Objective knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1969. On so-called ‘pronouns’ in English. Modern studies in English, ed. by Reibel, D. & Schane, S., 201–24. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1975. On linguistically insignificant generalizations. York Papers in Linguistics 5. 97–109.Google Scholar
Romig, Harry G. 1947. 50–100 binomial tables. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1970. On declarative sentences. Readings in English transformational grammar, ed. by Jacobs, R. & Rosenbaum, P., 222–72, Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Sanders, Gerald A. 1974. On the notions ‘optional’ and ‘obligatory’ in linguistics. Minnesota Working Papers in Linguistics and Philosophy of Language 2. 145–86.Google Scholar
Schane, Sanford A. 1968. French phonology and morphology. (Research monograph 45.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar