MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences - Cryptome

Processing considerations seem to be a major factor constraining
cross-linguistic variation. An example from the
early generative literature is the difficulty of processing selfembedded
constructions, for instance where a relative
clause is included internally within another relative clause,
as in the boy [that the man [that I saw] caught] took the
apple, although a slight change of construction to avoid the
self-embedding produces a readily interpretable sentence:
the apple was taken by the boy [that was caught by the man
[that was seen by me]]. A detailed theory relating word
order universals (both absolute and tendencies) to processing
constraints is developed by Hawkins (1994).
This leads into the area of functional motivations for language
universals, including not only the needs of processing
but also other considerations from SEMANTICS and PRAG-
MATICS. For instance, the universal stated above that “if a
language has distinct reflexive pronouns in the non-third
person, then it also has distinct reflexive pronouns in the
third person” does not have any obvious formal explanation;
this universal is no simpler in formal terms than its empirically
incorrect opposite “if a language has distinct reflexive
pronouns in the third person, then it also has distinct reflexive
pronouns in the non-third person.” But as soon as one
starts thinking about the semantic function of pronouns, a
plausible explanation emerges. First- and second-person
pronouns are uniquely determined by the speech situation,
with the speaker referred to in the first person and the hearer
in the second person. They thus do not change within an
utterance, and whether a language says I hit myself or I hit
me does not affect the content, that is, marking reflexivity is
in a sense redundant in the first and second persons. Third
person pronouns can potentially refer to any other entity in
the universe of DISCOURSE, so it is useful to have different
forms that enable distinctions among potential referents to
be maintained, as in the case of he i hit himself i versus he i hit
him j . Quite generally, as predicted, pronoun systems tend to
make more referential distinctions in the third person than in
the other persons, as when English distinguishes gender in
the third person singular (he, she, it) but not in the first person
(I) or the second person (you). Comrie (1984) shows
how certain language universals can plausibly be related to
pragmatics, for instance universals of imperative formation
to the pragmatic function of imperatives in encoding the
speech act of directive (Searle 1969): because directives
require that the addressee carry out a certain action, many
languages have a constraint that only imperatives with the
addressee as agent are possible, that is, they allow the equivalent
of eat the bread! but not of be eaten by the lion!; no
language shows the inverse pattern.
See also CULTURAL VARIATION; IMPLICATURE; PARAME-
TER-SETTING APPROACHES TO ACQUISITION, CREOLIZATION,
AND DIACHRONY
—Bernard Comrie
References
Baker, M. (1987). Incorporation. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Butterworth, B., B. Comrie, and Ö. Dahl, Eds. (1984). Explanations
for Language Universals. Berlin: Mouton.
Uncertainty 853
Comrie, B. (1984). Form and function in explaining language universals.
In B. Butterworth, B. Comrie, and Ö. Dahl, Eds.,
Explanations for Language Universals. Berlin: Mouton, pp.
87–103.
Comrie, B. (1989). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology.
2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Croft, W. (1990). Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Greenberg, J. H., Ed. (1966a). Universals of Language. 2nd ed.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Greenberg, J. H. (1966b). Some universals of grammar with particular
reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. H.
Greenberg, Ed., Universals of Language. 2nd ed. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Greenberg, J. H. (1974). Language Typology: A Historical and
Analytic Overview. The Hague: Mouton.
Haegeman, L. (1997). The New Comparative Syntax. London:
Longman.
Hale, K., M. Krauss, and L. J. Watahomijie. (1992). Endangered
languages. Language 68: 1–42.
Hawkins, J. A., Ed. (1988). Explaining Language Universals.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maddieson, I. (1984). Patterns of Sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shibatani, M., and T. Bynon, Eds. (1995). Approaches to Language
Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Whaley, L. J. (1997). Introduction to Typology: The Unity and
Diversity of Language. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Further Readings
Bechert, J., G. Bernini, and C. Buridant, Eds. (1990). Toward a
Typology of European Languages. Berlin: Mouton.
Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology: A Study of the Relation between
Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Foley, W. A., and R. D. Van Valin, Jr. (1984). Functional Syntax
and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Givón, T. (1984–1990). Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction.
2 vols. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hawkins, J. A. (1986). A Comparative Typology of English and German:
Unifying the Contrasts. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Hawkins, J. A., and H. Holmback, Eds. Papers in Universal Grammar:
Generative and Typological Approaches. Amsterdam:
North-Holland.
Keenan, E. L., and B. Comrie. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility
and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63–99.
Mallinson, G., and B. J. Blake. (1981). Language Typology: Cross-
Linguistic Studies in Syntax. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Nichols, J. (1986). Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar.
Language 62: 56–119.
Ramat, P. (1987). Linguistic Typology. Berlin: Mouton.
Shopen, T., Ed. (1985). Language Typology and Syntactic Description.
3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Uncertainty
Almost all information is subject to uncertainty. Uncertainty
may arise from inaccurate or incomplete information (e.g.,