Modularity and pragmatics: Some simple and some complicated ways

Csaba Pléh

Abstract

The modular approach to language in its career of 30 years had alternating and rivaling views regarding the place of pragmatics. A first approach basically is the one outlined by Fodor (1983) that would pack pragmatic aspects of language use under the rubric of the mushy General Problem Solver component of the architecture, thus extracting it from considerations of modularity altogether. The rival Massive Modular approaches such as Dan Sperber’s would be willing to treat pragmatic aspects as one crucial module as part of a general architecture with modularity all over the place. The paper after summarizing the theoretical interpretations calls for a less dedicated distributed processing and representation system where modularity rather than a simple starting point might be seen as the result of a process of modularization. Three types of empirical data are surveyed. First, studies that seem to support a specialized pragmatic module are discussed, namely from right hemisphere damaged populations and brain imaging data that imply a strong involvement of right hemisphere in a variety of pragmatic aspects from emotional stress to understanding non-literal language. A second line of data comes from developmental neuroscience considerations. Studies with autistic and other cognitively challenged populations suffering from a presupposed overall architectural deficit indicate the crucial role of a Theory of Mind not only in tasks of second order representation, in attributing a sophisticated Belief-Intention system to others, but in language processing as well. One interpretation of these data is to postulate a module of social and psychological cognition, that would be a driving source of language use. The primacy of language use should be left open as an option. It is possible that language use itself and thus language pragmatics in different intentional contexts is partly responsible for the development of the seemingly encapsulated system of mentalization. This would correspond to the general idea of early prepared systems being modified during an interface buildup process in development that roughly corresponds to an overall use of language for metacognitive purposes. A third line evidence calling for a balanced treatment of the modularity issue comes from theories of Paleobiology. Theories like the ones proposed by Donald, Mithen, Wilkins and Wakefield should also be considered in this regard. According to these theories human language may actually have resulted from a loosening of boundaries between encapsulated modules, rather then from strengthening them. This line of reasoning is especially interesting since it supports the idea that human language emerges by necessity as the result of an interaction between different “intelligences’“, together with elementary societal organization and a social mind.

Keywords:
Quick links
A browser-friendly version of this article is not yet available. View PDF
Baron-Cohen, S., H. Tager-Flusberg, and D.J. Cohen
(eds.) (2000) Understanding other minds. Second edition. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Black, J.B., and G.H. Bower
(1980) Story understanding as problem solving. Poetics 9: 223–250. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, CM
., and P. Haggort (ed.) (1999) The neurocognition of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Changeux, J.-P., and P. Ricoeur
(1998) La nature et la règle. Paris: Odile Jacob.Google Scholar
Chantraine, Y., Y. Joanette, and D. Carbedat
(1998) Impairments of discourse-level representation and processes. In B. Stemmer and H.A. Whittaker (eds.), Handbook of neurolinguistics. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 261–274. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A.
(1989) Microcognition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1994) Associative engines. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H., and E. Clark
(1977) Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Clark, H.H., and S.E. Haviland
(1977) Comprehension and the given-new contract. In R.O. Freedle (ed.), Discourse production and comprehension. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, pp. 1–40.Google Scholar
Coltheart, M.
(1999) Modularity and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3: 115–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cosmides, L., and J. Tooby
(1992) Psychological foundations of culture. In J.H. Barkow, L. Cosmides and J. Tooby (eds.), (1992) The adapted mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crozier, S., A. Sirigu, S. Lehéricy, P.-F. van de Moortele, B. Pillon, J. Grafman, Y. Agid, B. Dubois, and D. Le Bihan
(1999) Distinct prefrontal activations in processing sequence at the sentence and script level: An FMRI study. Neuropsychologia 37: 1469–1476. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Csibra, G., and Gy. Gergely
(1998) The ideological origins of mentalistic action explanations: A developmental hypothesis. Developmental Science 1: 255–259. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Csibra, G, Gy. Gergely, S. Biro, S. Koos, and M. Brockbank
(1999) Goal attribution without agency cues: The perception of’pure reason’ in infancy. Cognition 72: 237–267. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D.
(1987) The intentional stance. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1990) The interpretation of texts, people and other artifacts. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 1, Supplement pp. 177–194. Crossref
(1991) Consciousness explained. Boston: Little Brown ss: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dennett, D., and M. Kinsbourne
(1992) Time and the observer. The where and when of consciousness in the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 15: 183–247. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Villiers, J.
(2000) Language and theory of mind. In S. Baron-Cohen, H. Tager-Flusberg, and D.J. Cohen (eds.), Understanding other minds. Second edition. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 83–123.Google Scholar
Dressler, W.U., and Cs. Pléh
(1988) On text disturbances in aphasia. In W.U. Dressier and J.A. Stark (eds.), Linguistic analyses of aphasie language. New York: Springer, pp. 151–178. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dressier, W.U., and H. Stark
(2000) Clinical impairments of text pragmatics: Linguistic or cognitive? Paper presented at the 7th International Pragmatics Conference, Budapest, July 10th, 2000.
Dressler, W.U., R. Wodak, and Cs. Pléh
(1990) Gender-specific discourse differences in aphasia. In Y. Joanette and H.H. Brownell (eds.), Discourse ability and brain damage. New York: Springer, pp. 236–245. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dressier. W.U., and Cs. Pléh
(1984) Zur narrative textkompetenz von Aphatikern. In W.U. Dressier, and R. Wodak (eds.), Patholinguistische Studien. Hamburg: Buschke, 1984.Google Scholar
Elman, J.L., E.A. Bates, M.H. Johnson, A. Karmiloff-Srnith, D. Parisi, and K. Plunkett
(1996) Rethinking innateness: A connectionistperspective on development. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J.A.
(1983) The modularity of mind. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J.
(2000) The mind doesn ‘t work that way. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forster, K.I., and I. Olbrei
(1973) Semantic heuristics and syntactic analysis. Cognition 2: 319–347. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frith, U.
(1989) Autism: Explaining the enigma. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gergely, Gy
., and Cs. Pléh (1994) Lexical processing in an agglutinative language and the organization of the lexicon. Folia Linguistica 28: 175–204. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gergely Gyórgy, Z. Nâdasdy, G. Csibra, and S. Biró
(1995) Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age. Cognition 56: 165–193. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Graesser, A.C.
(1992) Questions and Information Systems. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(1996) Models of Understanding Text. Mahlah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Graesser, A.C., and L.F. Clark
(1986) Structure and procedures of implicit knowledge. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Grice, P.
(1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. 3. Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Györi Miklós
(2000) Domain specificity and autism. Unpublished manuscript, Eötvös Lorând University, Budapest.
Györi, M., I. Kanizsai-Nagy, and Gy. K. Stefanik
(2000) Mentalization and linguistic pragmatics in well functioning autistic subjects. Talk presented at theVlllth Hungarian Cognitive Science Meeting, Szeged, February 4–6, 2000.
Halâsz, L., J. Laszló, and Cs. Pléh
(1988) Cross-cultural studies in reading short stories. Poetics 17: 287–303. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harnish, R.M.
(1994) The architectures involved in language. In M.R. Harnish (ed.), Philosophical issues in linguistics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hirshfeld, L.A., and S.A. Gelman
(eds.) (1994.) Mapping the Mind. Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ivaskó, L.
(2000) On the causes of aphasie disturbances. Talk presented at theVlllth Hungarian Cognitive Science Meeting, Szeged, February 4–6, 2000.
Jolliffe, T., and S. Baron-Cohen
(1999) A test of the central coherence theory in autism. Cognition 71: 149-185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A.
(1992) Beyond Modularity: A Developmental perspective on Cognitive Science. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lange, F. A.
(1881) History of Materialism. I-III. London: Trübner.Google Scholar
Laszló, J.
(1986) Scripts for interpersonal situations. Studia Psychologica 28: 125–135.Google Scholar
Leslie, A.
(1987) Pretense and representation: The origins of the “theory of mind”. Psychological Review 94: 412–426. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Luria, A.R.
(1961) The Role of Speech in the Regulation of Normal and Abnormal Behavior. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
(1966) Higher Cortical Function in Man. New York : Basic Books.Google Scholar
(1969) Visshije korkovije funkcii cheloveka. 2nd edition. Moscow: Moscow University Press.Google Scholar
(1973) Osnovi nejropsihologii. Moscow: Moscow University Press.Google Scholar
(1974) Nejropsihologija pamjati. Vol. 1 Moscow: Pedagogika.Google Scholar
(1981) Language and cognition. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
McDonald, S.
(1998) Communication and language disturbances following traumatic brain injury. In B. Stemmer and H.A. Whittaker (eds.), Handbook ofneurolinguistics. SanDiego: Academic Press, pp. 485–494. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mithen, S.
(1996) The prehistory of the mind. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Müller, RA.
(1996) Innateness, autonomy, universality? Neurological approaches to language. Behavior and Brain Sciences 19: 611–675. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S.
(1991) Rules of language. Science 253: 530–535. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S., and A. Prince
(1994) Regular and irregular morphology and the psychological status of rules of grammar. In S.D. Lima, R.L. Corrigan, and G.K. Iverson (eds.), The reality of linguistic rules. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 321–350. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Pléh, Cs.
(1985) Brain language. On a book by Jerry A. Fodor. Folia Linguistica 1985.19: 539–548.Google Scholar
Phylyshyn, Z.W.
(1984) Computation and cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reboul, A., and J. Moeschler
(1998a) Pragmatique du discours. Paris: Armand Colin.  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1998b) La pragmatuque aujourd’hui. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D.E.
(1975) Notes on a schema for stories. In D.G. Bobrow and A.N. Collins (eds.), Representation and Understanding. New York: Academic Press, pp. 211–236. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saffran, E.M., and A. Sholl
(1999) Clues to the functional and neural architecture of word meaning. In CM. Brown and P. Haggort (eds.), The neurocognition of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 241–272.Google Scholar
Schank, R., and R.P. Abelson
(1977) Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.  BoPGoogle Scholar
School, B.J., and P.D. Tremoulet
(2000) Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4: 299–309. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sirigu, A., T. Cohen, T. Zalla, P. Pradat-Diehl, P. van Eeckhout, and J. Grafman
(1998) Distinct frontal regions for processing sentence syntax and story grammar. Cortex 34: 771–778. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sirigu, A., T. Zalla, B. Pillon, J. Grafman, Y. Agid, and B. Dubois
(1996) Encoding of Sequence and bundaries of scripts following prefrontal lesions. Cortex 32: 297–310. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D.
(1996) Explaining culture: A naturalistic approach. Oxford: Blackwell.  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2000) Metarepresentations in an evolutionary perspective. In D. Sperber (ed.), Metarepresentations. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tager-Flusberg, H.
(2000) Language and understanding minds: Connections in autism. In S. Baron-Cohen, H. Tager-Flusberg and D.J. Cohen (eds.), Understanding other minds. Second edition. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 124–149.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, M.K., G. Carlson, and J.C. Trueswell
(1989) The role of thematic structures in interpretation and parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes 4: 211–234. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thuma, O., and Cs. Pléh
(1995) Kétértelmuségek feldolgozâsa két nyelv között. (Ambiguity resolution between two languages) Magyar Pszichológiai Szemle 51:28-40.Google Scholar
(1999) Ambiguous data on Hungarian ambiguity resolution. In M. Prinzhorn and J. Rennison (eds.), Dressier Festschrift.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(1999) The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Van Lancker, D., and N.A. Pachana
(1998) The influence of emotions on language and communication disorders. In B. Stemmer and H.A. Whittaker (eds.), Handbook ofneurolinguistics. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 301–311. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wodak, R., W.U. Dressier, and Cs. Pléh
(1984) Geschlechtsspezifisches Sprachverhalten von Aphatikern auf der Textebene. In W.U. Dressler and R. Wodak (eds.), Patholinguistische Studien. Hamburg: Buschke.Google Scholar
Zalla, T, A. Sirigu, B. Pillon, B. Dubois, J. Grafman, and Y. Agid
(1998) Deficit in evaluating pre-determinated sequences of script events in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Cortex 34: 621–628. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zalla, T., A. Sirigu, B. Pillon, B. Dubois, Y. Agid, and J. Grafman
(in press) How patients with Parkinson’s disease retrieve and manage action knowledge? Cortex.