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.*
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
