| Abstract: | We show that arguments about the merits of alternative (sets of) constraints and/or modes of constraint interaction based on typological predictions are highly contingent on what candidates are considered. Specifically, with anything other than complete sets of contenders, the absence of the omitted candidates can imply spurious typological distinctions that are not justified by any constraint explicitly included in the models under consideration. Given the inherent difficulty of hand-generating complete sets of contenders, the importance of methods for systematically generating candidates is paramount. |
