Seiler, Hansjakob: Language Universals Research: a Synthesis. (Language Universals Series 8.)
Tübingen: Narr 2001 (214pp., ISBN 3-8233-4780-3)
Reviewed for LoLa by Torsten Leuschner
More than most subdisciplines of linguistics, universals research encourages group work: other than
collaboratively, it is simply impossible to command the necessary amount of expertise across a wide
range of structural and semantic domains in large samples of unrelated languages. A particularly wellknown, long-term collective effort of this kind was the DFG-funded UNITYP (Language Universals
Research and Language Typology) research group active at Cologne University from 1972 to 1992
under the direction of Hansjakob Seiler. Results of its work were for many years published in the inhouse series akup (Arbeiten des Kölner Universalienprojekts), and seven major studies undertaken in
more or less close association with UNITYP have been published by Narr in the Language Universals
Series, among them Seiler's own work on Possession and Christian Lehmann's typology of relative
clauses (1984). Seiler has been continuing 'the Project', as he calls it, as a one-man effort since his
retirement to Switserland, and has now rounded off the Language Universals Series with volume 8,
viz. the present monograph.
According to Seiler, "universals research involves nothing less than a quest for the essence of
language" (p.11, 194). He therefore regards it as by nature provisional and open-ended, and insists that
readers should not expect him to provide a final (and finite) catalogue of language universals that
could somehow stand as a fixed body of knowledge independent of any particular theoretical
framework (p.11). Rather, Seiler's book is an account and a synthesis specifically of the notions,
methods and results of UNITYP. After the Introduction (chapter 1) and a short survey of the principles
and working methods of the Project for rapid orientation (chapter 2), Seiler compares the UNITYP
framework with other, related approaches to universals and typology, in particular 'Greenbergian'
functional typology (chapter 3), and gives a short overview of the history and publications of the
project, including a list of the many, often distinguished linguists who have been its members,
associates or guests (chapter 4). UNITYP's methods and results are then exemplified in two chapters
about the 'dimension' of IDENTIFICATION (dimensions being given in capital letters in UNITYP
usage). The first (chapter 5) approaches IDENTIFICATION from the semasiological point of view,
i.e. it reviews and inductively seeks regularities among structures from several languages (mainly
German and Ancient Greek, but also Tolai, Samoan and Cahuilla) that are said to fulfill an
'identifiying' function such as demonstratives, articles, relative and attributives constructions,
quantifiers, numerals, pronouns etc.; this chapter takes up more than 100 pages, almost half of the
entire book. A shorter section follows in which IDENTIFICATION is approached from an
onomasiological point of view, i.e. by abductive reflection rather than sampling of data (chapter 6).
Other dimensions that figured in UNITYP research (often involving several additional languages) are
then reviewed briefly, viz. APPREHENSION, NOMINATION, NUMERATION, POSSESSION,
LOCALIZATION, PARTICIPATION, and OPPOSITION (chapter 7). The book is summarized in
seventeen short sections on the terminology, basic notions and ideas of UNITYP (chapter 8), and
closed by a list of references, indices of topics and of languages and language families, and a list of
diagrams and tables.
What distinguishes Seiler's book from earlier publications in the same series is, of course, its focus on
the general methods and principles of UNITYP. Seiler brings an ingenuous approach to the job by
rejecting the easy option of showcasing previously published research (except at a late stage, viz.
chapter 7) and opting instead for a fresh case-study of IDENTIFICATION. Placing the case-study
central among more abstract discussions of alternative approaches, terminology, the history of the
project etc., ensures a high level of theoretical and methodological reflection throughout the book. As
Seiler himself recognizes, this special manner of presentation is necessary not least because research in
UNITYP differs quite substantially from most other language universals research (p.11). Its main
distinctive trait, according to Seiler, is its teleonomic view of language, i.e. "its conception of language
as a directed activity, as having 'purposive function'" (p.17); the two main purposes that language is
seen as fulfilling are "construction of content" and "representation of content" (ibd.). At the risk of
oversimplifying and de-nuancing Seiler's own presentation, 'dimensions' like IDENTIFICATION,
POSSESSION etc. can be described as the conceptual building-blocks for the cognitive contruction of
the content that individual languages need to represent by means of linguistic forms, constructions etc.
While acknowledging that "(p)urposive function is not a notion particularly favored by current
mainstream linguistics", Seiler can nonetheless cite Jakobson's means-ends model of language and
Benveniste's view of "the spoken word [as] an output of mental operations" in support of his views
(ibd.). Another researcher in the European structuralist tradition to whom UNITYP looks for
inspiration is Eugenio Coseriu: quoting at length Coseriu's distinction between possible, essential and
empirical universals (p.25f.), Seiler emphasizes that universals cannot be discovered by empirical
observation alone (p.26). The latter point is an allusion to the 'implicational universals' as proposed by
functional typologists like Joseph Greenberg. While Seiler regards implicational universals as
"suggestive generalizations" (p.26), he accuses proponents of this approach (above all Greenberg
himself and Bernard Comrie) of "lack of theoretical rigour" with regard to the concept of universality
in their research (p.27). However, Seiler fails to take into account such foundational works as Comrie
(1989) and Croft (1990), and the gulf between their approach and UNITYP might have seemed less
unbridgable had Seiler pointed out that 'Greenbergian' researchers often situate their work in the
tradition of Wilhelm von Humboldt (e.g. Hopper / Traugott 1993: 18f.). That Humboldt and in
particular his concept of energeia are not mentioned at all in Seiler's present book is surprising indeed,
since Seiler himself stresses UNITYP's indebtedness to Humboldt and energeia in another, earlier
presentation (1995: 299, 320), and so does Lehmann in his study of relative clauses (1984: 20f.).
Given these observations, it is not always clear to what extent the apparently idiosyncratic character of
UNITYP really stems from genuine disagreements with other approaches as to basic assumptions,
goals and methods, or whether it is not in part a consequence of the way in which it is presented by
Seiler. For instance, Seiler admits that implicational universals à la Greenberg point to "something
universal, in the sense of a true invariant holding for all languages", while adding that "precisely how
this 'something' should be characterized remains to be detected" (p.18). Yet despite this and several
other golden opportunities to show off the strength of UNITYP's universalist approach, Seiler almost
strenuously avoids specifying anywhere in his book what he thinks that 'something' is. At one point the
'dimensions' themselves are called "universal" (p.143), but it remains unclear whether this is more than
a shorthand for "the operational ways in the construal of [the dimensions]" (p.149). In his earlier essay,
Seiler clarifies that "(i)ndicativity, iconicity, and predicativity are the three operational/functional
principles and are universals" (1995: 301). No comparable statements are forthcoming in the present
book, not even in the final section of chapter 8 on "universality" (section 8.17, pp.194-197). Here,
Seiler states that "(t)he most compelling evidence for universality comes from showing that the same
principles and the same mechanism coupled with one and the same function obtain in domains that are
otherwise independent or even have nothing to do with one another" (p.194). But this assertion falls
short of endorsing any universals directly, nor does it specify the 'principles and mechanism'. This is a
pity, because it means that many readers (even those who have learned not to expect a final catalogue
of universals) may remember a book as well-founded in scholarship as Seiler's at least in part for its
frustrating evasiveness as to the very core of its subject matter.
If universals are to be conceived of as dynamic principles for the construction of individual language
structures, then a more optimistic view as to the compatibility of UNITYP with functional typology
becomes plausible. After all, work within or inspired by UNITYP has often proved quite relevant to
functional typology: for instance, Lehmann (1984) and Raible's study of JUNKTION (1992, only
mentioned in passing by Seiler, p.171) show that UNITYP-inspired research can share the enduring
interest of functional typologists in strategies of complex sentence formation. The disagreement is no
doubt genuine, on the other hand, as to the nature and status of universals (cf. Song 2001: 345-350). In
terms of the three-level model of language advocated by UNITYP (S.188f.), works like Lehmann's
and Raible's refer to the level of General Comparative Grammar, which according to Seiler "represents
the cross-linguistic 'menu' from which each individual language makes its proper selection" (p.150)
and "mediates in a janus-like fashion between universality and the language-specific facts" (p.147). No
extra level for universality is necessary for functional typologists, who essentially believe that
universals are to be sought in language itself, i.e as a matter of empricial generalization. Since such
generalizations are the more powerful the more conceptually unrelated constructions they encompass,
breadth of coverage is often an explicit objective in functional-typological research (see e.g.
Thompson's cross-linguistic study of the marking of interrogatives and negation, 1998); alternatively,
researchers may look for regularities among the most strongly grammaticalized forms used for one and
the same function in a large sample of languages (e.g. concessive conjunctions in König 1988) and
relate them to pragmatic and other functional principles. Although the latter strategy is clearly more
congenial to the UNITYP approach than the former, both are regarded as relatively uninteresting under
UNITYP, where language-individual structures are compared precisely because they represent one and
the same independently-existing conceptual 'dimension' and where empirical generalizations are
considered relevant only as reflections of the cognitive 'construal' of language, or in other words: of
"the relation between a repraesentandum and its repraesentantia" (p.21). As Seiler himself recognizes,
UNITYP's highly restrictive view of language as a representation of conceptual content limits severly
the sense in which its explanations can be 'functional' (ibd.). It should also make UNITYP uneasy with
grammaticalization theory (see Hopper / Traugott 1993), which emphasizes constant fluctuations of
form and meaning under competing functional pressures, and is marked by theoretical and
methodological eclecticism. Another clear point of difference is that functional typologists, given their
interest in empirical universals, are highly aware of the problems of language sampling, an issue that
UNITYP seems altogether unconcerned with (cf. Song 2001: 350).
Given the distinguishing significance in UNITYP of a separate level of cognitive repraesentanda, an
interesting issue for future clarification is likely to be the status of the 'dimensions', which after all
carry a heavy load in the model as tertia comparationis (p.29). One of the main inductive criteria for
the existence of a particular dimension appears to be that the linguistic techniques used for its
expression can be ordered empirically along a continuum from 'predicative' to 'indicative' (p.181). But
here, too, empirical validity may present problems, as suggested by Croft's criticism that Seiler's
continuum of possessive constructions "conflates predication of possession and possessive
modification" (1990: 272n.9). Seiler himself admits to "a certain degree of dissatisfaction (...)
concerning the status of dimension" (p.34), and even appears to distance himself from the notion
altogether by referring to it as "(w)hat we previously called 'dimension'" (p.35). But except in this very
ambiguous passage in section 4.1., he seems to take the dimensions for granted and does not discuss
independent evidence for their existence anywhere, least of all in chapter 6, where this might have
been most naturally expected following the wealth of empirical data discussed in chapter 5.
None of these remaining ambiguities, however, call into question the achievements of the UNITYP
project throughout its almost thirty years of history, nor will they prevent Seiler's Language
Universals Research: a Synthesis from becoming a standard work of reference for all readers who
wish to inform themselves about the state-of-the-art of research and thinking within a framework that
seems set to inform and inspire linguists for many years yet.
References
Comrie, Bernard (1989): Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology.
Second Edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Croft, William (1990): Typology and Universals. Cambridge: C.U.P.
Hopper, Paul J. / Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1993): Grammaticalization. Cambridge: C.U.P.
König, Ekkehard (1988): "Concessive Connectives and Concessive Sentences: Cross-Linguistic
Regularities and Pragmatic Principles." In: Hawkins, John A. (ed.), Explaining Language
Universals. Oxford: Blackwell, 145-166.
Lehmann, Christian (1984): Der Relativsatz. Typologie seiner Strukturen. Theorie seiner Funktionen.
Kompendium seiner Grammatik. (Language Universals Series 3.) Tübingen: Narr.
Raible, Wolfgang (1992): Junktion. Eine Dimension der Sprache und ihre Realisierungsformen
zwischen Aggregation und Integration. Heidelberg: C. Winter
Seiler, Hansjakob (1995): "Cognitive-Conceptual Structure and Linguistic Encoding: Language
Universals and Typology in the UNITYP Framework." In: Shibatani, Masayoshi / Bynon,
Theodora (eds.), Approaches to Language Typology. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 273-326.
Song, Jae Jung (2001): Linguistic Typology: Morphology and Syntax. Harlow: Longman.
Thompson, Sandra A. (1998): "A Discourse Explanation for the Cross-Linguistic Differences in the
Grammar of Interrogation and Negation." In: Siewierska, Anna / Song, Jae Jung (eds.), Case,
Typology and Grammar: in Honor of Barry J. Blake. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins,
309-341.