Originally presented at the workshop on “Typology in American Linguistics: An appraisal of the Field”, Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, January 9, 2005 (revised February 2006). To appear in Linguistic Typology (2007). Where’s Phonology in Typology? Larry M. Hyman University of California, Berkeley As is well-known, phonological typology was a central concern to many structuralists (Trubetzkoy 1939, Jakobson 1968, Hockett 1955) and also figured centrally in many treatments of typology in general, e.g. Greenberg (1957, 1978). On the other hand, there has been a tendency for subsequent discussions and textbooks on linguistic typology to underrepresent and even ignore phonology, e.g. Whaley (1997). This is unfortunate not only because phonological typology is of importance in itself, but also because the approach of phonologists to typology might serve as a model for others to emulate. The main points I would like to make in this brief note are the following: (i) Phonological typology involves the comparative study of linguistic SYSTEMS —i.e. paradigmatic and syntagmatic properties of inputs, outputs, and their relations. While phonological typology and phonetic typology are sometimes not distinguished, a surface inventory is not a system in the sense intended here. (ii) There is no clear division between phonological typology and phonological theory. Given their shared concern with the nature of phonological systems, one can’t do insightful typology without addressing the same analytical issues that confront phonological theory. Throughout the history of phonology, the two have been inseparable both in principle and in practice. The inseparability of phonological theory and typology can be first observed in the chapter titles of Goldsmith (ed.), the Handbook of Phonological Theory (1995). A few chapters appear to be primarily concerned with “theory” in the sense of formal modeling, e.g. “The organization of the grammar” (K. P. Mohanan), “The cycle in phonology” (Jennifer Cole). Several others explictly combine both “theory” and “typology”: “The syllable in phonological theory” (Juliette Blevins), “Vowel harmony” (Harry van der Hulst & Jeroen van de Weijer). A third group of chapters combine and apply “theory” and “typology” to a language or family of languages: “Tone: African languages” (David Odden), “Current issues in the phonology of Australian languages” (Nick Evans). These and other chapters differ in the extent to which discussion is driven by the phenomena vs. formal theoretical concerns. In all cases, however, it is clear that cross-linguistic comparison is of high priority. It is also noteworthy that Goldsmith’s Table of Contents does not overtly group the chapters, but simply lists them 1-32. In contrast, Baltin & Collins (eds), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory (2000) organizes its 23 chapters under the following headings: I. Derivation vs. representation. II. Movement. III. Argument structure and phrase