IDEAL-TYPOLOGY by Colin Fraser Gorrie A Dissertation Submied to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE As members of the Dissertation Commiee, we certify that we have read the dis- sertation prepared by Colin Fraser Gorrie, titled Ideal-Typology and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philo- sophy. Date: April Diana Archangeli Date: April Andrew Carnie Date: April Heidi Harley Date: April Massimo Piaelli-Palmarini Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate’s submission of the final copies of the dissertation to the Graduate College. I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and re- commend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement. Date: April Dissertation Director: Diana Archangeli Date: April Dissertation Director: Andrew Carnie STATEMENT BY AUTHOR is dissertation has been submied in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of the source is made. Requests for permis- sion for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate Col- lege when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. SIGNED: Colin Fraser Gorrie ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS An eccentric once wrote: “No metaphysician ever felt the deficiency of language so much as the grateful.” I can aest to the truth of that now. Nevertheless: First, I would like to show my gratitude to my advisors, Diana Archangeli and An- drew Carnie. Many of the ideas in this dissertation had their birth in discussions with Diana Archangeli, in our meetings, in seminars, and over e-mail. Beyond her contri- butions to the rigour and clarity of this work, Diana was a true advisor when I needed guidance the most. But for her words of wisdom and encouragement, I might not have completed this work at all. I shall always be grateful! It was in Andrew Carnie’s class ‘eories of Grammar’ (‘Bad Guys’) that I first learned the pluralistic view of linguistic theory that made this dissertation possible. is, however, pales in comparison to Andrew’s other contributions to this work, and to my career as a linguist. It may surprise some readers to learn that I entered the doctoral program intent on studying Celtic morphosyntax – it speaks to the breadth of Andrew’s knowledge and skill as a linguist and teacher that he was a sure guide throughout. Not only this, but he has been a champion of mine throughout the tests of mele that seemed to find me all too oen over the past six years – as well as a friend. Anndra, tá brón orm nar scríobh mé rud ar bith as Gaeilge sa tráchtas seo ach ‘go raibh maith agat’! Next, to the rest of my commiee. Heidi Harley has been a constant presence in my academic life over the last six years for good reason: she is both brilliant and kind. Both of these qualities made working with her a pleasure, and I have endeavoured to do so on every possible occasion. is dissertation owes much to her insight – and I owe even more to her kindness in sharing with me so much of her knowledge and warmth. Massimo Piaelli-Palmarini entered my academic life only lately, but his contribu- tion to strengthening this work has been great. His selflessness in helping me find my philosophical footing, and on such short notice, is inspiring. I owe him a debt of gratit- ude. I have been fortunate to have had many true teachers throughout my studenthood. I would like to mention among them Andy Wedel, Mike Hammond, Adam Ussishkin, Alana Johns, Elizabeth Cowper, and Susana Béjar, all of whom set a course for me which has found its unlikely destination only now. I would like to mention specially the incal- culable influence that my undergraduate mentor, Diane Massam, has had on the course of my life and research. My thanks to these – and to all – my teachers. Now comes the time to thank my friends and classmates. It could be said that they kept me sane throughout this journey, but it is more fiing to say they channeled my madness in productive directions. Jaehoon Choi, Hyun Kyoung Jung, Jaime Parchment, Jeffrey Punske, and Jessamyn Schertz – my brothers- and sisters-in-arms – I thank you all. I would also like to make special mention of three friends in whose presence much of this dissertation was wrien: Yu-Leng Lin, Megan Schildmier Stone, and Kevin Schluter. Your tireless work inspired my own! is work has been beered by two gis of Fortune: one is Mary Bast, who showed me a fruitful way to think of ‘type’; another is Maria Collier de Mendonça, who taught me about Peirce. Although these gis were unexpected, they are no less appreciated! Finally, I must mention those whose contributions are measured not with footnotes or parenthetical references, but with love: my friends (at least those not already men- tioned), and my family. I wish to thank by name Adam Albanese, Jonathan Benne, Cindy Cheng, Lisa Cicoria, Robert Cicoria, Micaya Clymer, Michael DeCicco, Amy Lee, Natasha Lipman (G. & G.), (Daniel/Kwonhui) Gong, Stephanie Khurana, Erik Mar- cinkowski, Ryan Nelson, Anna Ng, Minryung Song, Jeremy Welland (S. & H.), Terry Wong, Dainon Woudstra, Anthi Zafeiri, and Lijia Zhu. And to my family: my mother Debbie and father Fraser, my brother Cameron, my sister Katie, my grandparents both here and departed – and of course to my beloved four-legged sister – you give and have given me everything a soul could ever want. To you go my endless thanks and love. is research was supported by a Doctoral Fellowship from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Colin Gorrie June Hamilton, ON DEDICATION To Agnes McKechnie McLean Ferguson Fraser Gorrie Contents List of Figures ...................................... List of Tables ....................................... ABSTRACT ........................................ Chapter Introduction ................................ . Visions of Language .............................. . estions of terminology ........................... .. Paradigm ............................... .. Sachverhalt .............................. .. Typology ............................... .. e classical generative paradigm .................. .. e generative-parametric paradigm ................ . Epistemological pluralism ........................... . e experimental/historical science dichotomy ............... .. e tools of a historical science ................... .. Typology as a historical science ................... . e incommensurability of paradigms .................... . Ideal-typology ................................. . Organization of the work ........................... . Conclusion ................................... Chapter Linguistic kinds and the problem of induction .............. . Introduction .................................. . e problem of induction and its enemies .................. .. Induction is human nature: Hume, Kant .............. .. Induction justifies itself: Black .................... .. Induction is inference to the best explanation: Reichenbach, Sal- mon .................................. .. Induction isn’t real, at least not in science: Popper ........ .. Induction is human nature, redux: Goodman, ine ....... . Natural kinds in linguistics .......................... .. Natural kinds in the classical generative paradigm ........ .. Natural kinds in the functionalist-typological paradigm ..... .. Natural kinds in the generative-parametric paradigm ....... Contents – Continued . Plato’s problem and Hume’s problem: induction over linguistic entities . .. Introduction .............................. .. Induction in the classical generative paradigm ........... .. e problem of induction in the generative-parametric paradigm .. Summary ............................... . A case study: syllable structure in Optimality eory ........... .. Introduction .............................. .. Foundations of OT .......................... .. e classic analysis of syllable structure .............. .. On the factorial typology ...................... .. e question of simplicity ...................... .. HLF and Sachverhalt, and never the twain shall meet ....... .. Summary ............................... . Lessons ..................................... . Conclusion ................................... Chapter antified circularity: a study of verbal agreement markers ...... . Introduction .................................. . e problem of induction in the generative-parametric paradigm ..... . Background and methodology ........................ .. eoretical background ....................... .. Methodology ............................. . Paerns in absolute position ......................... .. Systematicity in linear order ..................... .. e nature of the paerns in absolute position ........... .. Subtracting the effects of V and T .................. .. Summary ..............................