• LINGUISTICS 2026 PARIS

    Ad Neeleman

    University College London

    Professor Ad Neeleman

    Main areas of research

    • Theoretical syntax
    • Grammatical dependencies
    • Syntax-phonology-semantics interfaces
    • Morphology and word formation
    Publications

    Bio

    Ad Neeleman is Professor of Linguistics at University College London. His research focuses on theoretical syntax, including its interfaces with morphology, semantics, and phonology. He received a Study Prize from the Foundation Praemium Erasmianum for his PhD (Utrecht University, 1994) and is (co)author of nearly 80 scholarly articles and three monographs published by Kluwer, Oxford University Press and MIT Press. His research has been supported by several grants, including a Major Research Grant from the AHRC to support work on the syntactic expression of information structure and two Leverhulme Research Fellowships to support work on the grammar of person and on the syntax of verb clusters. He has served as associate editor of Natural Language and Linguistic Theory and as President of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain (LAGB).

    Keynote Lecture

    Noun Phrase Order: Grammar, Parser and Typological Frequency

    Outline
    The neutral order of demonstratives, numerals, adjectives and nouns has been a topic of typological research since the 1960s (Greenberg 1963, Cinque 2005, Dryer 2018, among others). The pattern of attested and unattested orders permits a simple analysis based on variation in the linearization of base-generated orders alongside the option of leftward movement of (constituents containing) the noun (Cinque 1996, 2005, Ackema & Neeleman 2002, Abels & Neeleman 2012;). It is not clear, however, why noun movement should be leftward, nor why the frequency of attested orders should display such striking asymmetries.

    In this talk, I argue that typological frequency is determined by a combination of innate preferences and the effort required to parse structures characteristic of the target grammar. It is clear why innate preferences should play a role. Increased parsing effort leads to lower typological frequency because it reduces the intake available in language acquisition; Hawkins 1990, 2009; Kirby 1999).

    Four ranked factors are enough for an empirically adequate model: (i) an innate preference for harmonic orders (Cinque 2005, Culbertson et al. 2012, Culbertson & Newport 2015, Dryer 2018); (ii) the processing cost of movement (associated with buffering and gap finding); (iii) the additional processing costs of rightward movement (Staub et al. 2006); and (iv) the processing costs of adjective-noun orders (as compared to noun-adjective orders; Culbertson et al. 2012, Dryer 2018). The four factors are ranked as follows:

    (1)     No-Rightward-Movement > Harmony > N-before-A > No-Movement.

    The strongest factor (the processing costs of rightward movement) has enough weight to reduce the frequency of orders derived by rightward noun movement to zero. The remaining three factors conspire to generate the ranking of attested orders in (2) (more frequent orders first):

    (2)     N-A-Num-Dem > Dem-Num-A-N > {Dem-N-A-Num, Dem-Num-N-A, Num-N-A-Dem} > {N-A-Dem-Num, Dem-N-Num-A, N-Num-A-Dem, N-Dem-A-Num, N-Dem-Num-A} > {Dem-A-N-Num, Num-A-N-Dem, A-N-Num-Dem} > A-N-Dem-Num

    How well does the ranking in (2) fit the data? There are two relevant data bases, collected by Dryer and Cinque respectively. The determination of frequency can be based on Dryer’s (2018) notion of adjusted frequency, which takes account of genealogical and geographical distance. Alternatively, one could take frequency of language type or frequency of genera containing languages of the relevant type as measure. The resulting five measures do not always agree (for some orders, the spread across measures is as much as six ranks). Nonetheless, the ranking in (2) is a good match with the rankings based on each of the individual measures (in each case, only one pair of orders does not fit), and a perfect match with the average rankings.

  • LINGUISTICS 2026 PARIS

    Sebastian Fedden

    University Sorbonne Nouvelle

    Main areas of research

    • Language typology
    • Canonical typology
    • Papuan languages and linguistics
    • Categorization, language and cognition
    • Systems of nominal classification
    • Argument realization and alignment
    Publications

    Bio

    Sebastian Fedden is Professor of Linguistics at the University Sorbonne Nouvelle in Paris. He is a typologist with a specialization in nominal classification (gender and classifiers) and morphology. Papuan languages, which are spoken in the Southwest Pacific, form the empirical basis of his research. His grammar of the Papuan language Mian, published in 2011 with De Gruyter Mouton, won the Georg-von-der-Gabelentz Award of the Association for Linguistic Typology for the best published grammar in the period 2009 to 2012.

    This Keynote lecture will be given alongside Greville G. Corbett

    Keynote Lecture

    Unpacking nominal classification: a new perspective on gender and classifiers

    Outline
    Nominal classification remains a central topic in linguistic research, but advancing our understanding calls for a fundamental rethinking of how we approach its typology. The long-standing assumption that gender and classifiers represent opposing categories has often hindered efforts to construct satisfying typologies. However, empirical studies over recent decades have increasingly revealed languages that challenge this binary view—namely, those with intermediate systems that blend features traditionally attributed to either gender or classifiers, as well as those with multiple systems of nominal classification. We propose a typology based on four clearly defined criteria that together span the logical space of nominal classification systems. Each criterion is carefully elaborated and exemplified with data from a diverse set of languages. This approach is designed to capture gender and classifier systems in a single coherent typology; it allows for intermediate cases, and thus facilitates comparisons of apparently widely differing systems. This ‘intellectual housekeeping’ is intended to be of value both to linguists involved in describing challenging systems and to provide a firmer base for experimental work.

  • LINGUISTICS 2026 PARIS

    Greville G. Corbett

    University of Surrey

    Main areas of research

    • Inflectional morphology
    • Language typology
    • Morphosyntactic features
    • Language acquisition

    Publications

    Bio

    Greville G. Corbett is Distinguished Professor of Linguistics (emeritus) within the Surrey Morphology Group. He works on the typology of features, as in Gender (1991), Number (2000), Agreement (2006) and Features (2012), all with Cambridge University Press. With several colleagues, he has been developing the canonical approach to typology. Within that approach he has papers in Language, on suppletion (2007) and on internal and external splits (2015, 2023). He is a Fellow of the British Academy and of the Academy of Social Sciences, a Member of the Academia Europaea and an Honorary Member of the Linguistic Society of America.

    This Keynote lecture will be given alongside Sebastian Fedden

    Keynote Lecture

    Unpacking nominal classification: a new perspective on gender and classifiers

    Outline
    Nominal classification remains a central topic in linguistic research, but advancing our understanding calls for a fundamental rethinking of how we approach its typology. The long-standing assumption that gender and classifiers represent opposing categories has often hindered efforts to construct satisfying typologies. However, empirical studies over recent decades have increasingly revealed languages that challenge this binary view—namely, those with intermediate systems that blend features traditionally attributed to either gender or classifiers, as well as those with multiple systems of nominal classification. We propose a typology based on four clearly defined criteria that together span the logical space of nominal classification systems. Each criterion is carefully elaborated and exemplified with data from a diverse set of languages. This approach is designed to capture gender and classifier systems in a single coherent typology; it allows for intermediate cases, and thus facilitates comparisons of apparently widely differing systems. This ‘intellectual housekeeping’ is intended to be of value both to linguists involved in describing challenging systems and to provide a firmer base for experimental work.