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 interestinrg about the nature of language. Other generalizations-on active/passive selectional restrictions, word-order universals, and noun phrase accessibility-are shown to be highly significant.*
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.
