Language Universals and the Performance-Grammar Correspondence Hypothesis

Language Universals

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages

  Hawkins, John A ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Government Binding tradition; Grammars; Greenbergian implicational universals; Language use; Linguistic universals; Relative clauses; Syntax

Indexed keywords

EID: 84895608515     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195305432.003.0004     Document Type: Chapter

References (77)

1. Aissen, J. (1999). Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 17, 673-711.
2. Aldai, G. (2003). The prenominal [-Case] relativization strategy of Basque: Conventionalization, processing, and frame semantics, USC, UCLA: MS, Depts. of Linguistics.
3. Allwood, J. 1982. The complex NP constraint in Swedish. In E. Engdahl & E. Ejerhed (Eds.), Readings on unbounded dependencies in Scandinavian languages. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
4. Ariel, M. (1999). Cognitive universals and linguistic conventions: The case of resumptive pronouns. Studies in Language, 23, 217-269.
5. Bowerman, M. (1988). The "No Negative Evidence" problem: How do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar? In J. A. Hawkins (Ed.), Explaining language universals. Oxford: Blackwell.
6. Bresnan, J., Dingare, S., & Manning, C. D. 2001. Soft constraints mirror hard constraints: Voice and person in english and lummi. In M. Butt & T. H. King (Eds.), Proceedings of the LFG 01 conference. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
7. Bybee, J., & Hopper, P. (Eds.). (2001). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
8. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
10. Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Cinque, G. (2005). Deriving Greenberg's universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 315-332.
12. Clancy, P. M., Lee, H., & Zoh, M. (1986). Processing strategies in the acquisition of relative clauses. Cognition, 14, 225-262.
13. Cole, P. (1976). An apparent asymmetry in the formation of relative clauses in modern Hebrew. In P. Cole (Ed.), Studies in modern Hebrew syntax and semantics. Amsterdam: North Holland.
14. Comrie, B. 1973. Clause structure and movement constraints in Russian. In C. Corum, T. C. Smith-Stark, & A. Weiser (Eds.), You take the high road and I'll take the low node (pp. 291-304). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
15. Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16. Croft, W. (2003). Typology and universals (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. Culicover, P. W. (1999). Syntactic nuts: Hard cases, syntactic theory, and language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18. Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2006). A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language, 81, 882-906.
19. Dowty, D. R. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 75, 547-619.
20. Dryer, M. S. (1992). The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language, 68, 81-138.
21. Elman, J. L., Bates, E., Johnson, M., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
22. Fodor, J. D. 2001. Setting syntactic parameters. In M. Baltin & C. Collins (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (pp. 730-738). Oxford: Blackwell.
23. Gell-Mann, M. 1992. Complexity and complex adaptive systems. In J. A. Hawkins & M. Gell-Mann (Eds.), The evolution of human languages. Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley.
24. Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1-76.
25. Givón, T. (1979). On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.
26. Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. Greenberg, J. H. (1966). Language universals, with special reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.
28. Greenberg, J. H. 1995. The diachronic typological approach to language. In M. Shibatani & T. Bynon (Eds.), Approaches to language typology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
29. Haspelmath, M. (1999). Optimality and diachronic adaptation. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 18, 180-205.
30. Haspelmath, M. (2006). Parametric versus functional explanations of syntactic universals. Leipzig: MS, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
31. Hauser, M., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298, 1569-1579.
32. Hawkins, J. A. (1983). Word order universals. New York: Academic Press.
33. Hawkins, J. A. (1990). A parsing theory of word order universals. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 223-261.
34. Hawkins, J. A. 1993. Heads, parsing, and word order universals. In G. G. Corbett, N. M. Fraser, & S. McGlashan (Eds.), Heads in grammatical theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 231-265.
35. Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36. Hawkins, J. A. (1999). Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language, 75, 244-285.
37. Hawkins, J. A. (2000). The relative ordering of prepositional phrases in English: Going beyond manner-place-time. Language Variation and Change, 11, 231-266.
38. Hawkins, J. A. (2001). Why are categories adjacent? Journal of Linguistics, 37, 1-34.
39. Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40. Hoekstra, T., & Kooij, J. G. (1988). The innateness hypothesis. In J. A. Hawkins (Ed.), Explaining language universals. Oxford: Blackwell.
41. Jackendoff, R. (1977). X-bar syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
42. Jaeger, T. F., & Wasow, T. (2005). Production-complexity driven variation: Relativizer omission in non-subject-extracted relative clauses. Paper presented at the 18th Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, Tuscon, Arizona.
43. Kayne, R. S. (1994). The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44. Keenan, E. L. 1975. Variation in universal grammar. In R. Fasold & R. Shuy (Eds.), Analyzing variation in English (pp. 136-148). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
45. Keenan, E. L. (1979). On surface form and logical form. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 8, 163-203.
46. Keenan, E. L., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63-99.
47. Keenan, E. L., & Hawkins, S. (1987). The psychological validity of the accessibility hierarchy. In E. L. Keenan, Universal grammar: 15 essays. London: Croom Helm.
48. Kempson, R., Meyer-Viol, W., & Gabbay, D. (2001). Dynamic syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.
49. Kirby, S. (1999). Function, selection, and innateness: The emergence of language universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
50. Kvam, S. (1983). Linksverschachtelung im Deutschen und Norwegischen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
51. Lightfoot, D. W. (1991). How to set parameters. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
52. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101(4), 676-703.
53. MacDonald, M. C. (1999). Distributional information in language comprehension, production, and acquisition: Three puzzles and a moral. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), The emergence of language. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
54. MacWhinney, B. (1982). Basic syntactic processes. In S. Kuczaj (Ed.), Language acquisition: Syntax and semantics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
55. Manning, C. D. 2003. Probabilistic syntax. In R. Bod, J. Hay & S. Jannedy (Eds.), Probability theory in linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 289-341.
56. Matthews, S., & Yip, V. (2003). Relative clauses in early bilingual development: Transfer and universals. In A. G. Ramat (Ed.), Typology and second language acquisition. Berlin: De Gruyter.
57. Miyamoto, E. T. (2006). Understanding sentences in Japanese bit by bit. Cognitive Studies: Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society, 13, 247-260.
58. Newmeyer, F. J. (1998). Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
59. Newmeyer, F. J. (2005). Possible and probable languages: A generative perspective on linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
60. Phillips, C. (1996). Order and structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
61. Pollard, C., & Sag, I. A. (1987). Information-based syntax and semantics, Vo1. 1: Fundamentals, CSLI Lecture Notes No.13. Stanford: Stanford University..
62. Pollard, C., & Sag, I. A. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
63. Primus, B. (1999). Cases and thematic roles: Ergative, accusative, and active. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
64. Quirk, R. (1957). Relative clauses in educated spoken English. English Studies, 38, 97-109.
65. Reali, F., & Christiansen, M. H. (2007a). Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 1-23.
66. Reali, F., & Christiansen, M. H. (2007b). Word chunk frequencies affect the processing of pronominal object-relatives. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 161-170.
67. Saah, K. K., & Goodluck, H. (1995). Island effects in parsing and grammar: Evidence from akan. Linguistic Review, 12, 381-409.
68. Schütze, C. T., & Gibson, E. (1999). Argumenthood and English prepositional phrase attachment. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 409-431.
69. Sheldon, A. (1974). On the role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 272-281.
70. Stallings, L. M. (1998). Evaluating heaviness: Relative weight in the spoken production of heavy-NP shift. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.
71. Steedman, M. (2006) A Zipfian view of Greenberg 20. MS, University of Edinburgh.
72. Svenonius, P. (2000). Introduction. In P. Svenonius (Ed.), The derivation of VO and OV. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
73. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
74. Tomlin, R. S. (1986). Basic word order: Functional principles. London: Croom Helm.
75. Wasow, T. (1997). Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change, 9, 81-105.
76. Wasow, T. (2002). Postverbal behavior. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
77. Yamashita, H., & Chang, F. (2001). "Long before short" preference in the production of a head-final language. Cognition, 81, B45-B55.