CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 405Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationLanguage Development and DisordersHistorical Linguistics and Language Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 171 of the 171 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cross-Linguistic Variation and Efficiency

Open access
Hawkins, John A.·2014
DOI 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664993.001.0001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This book argues that major patterns of variation across languages are structured by general principles of efficiency in language use and communication. Evidence for these comes from languages permitting structural choices from which selections are made in performance, e.g. between competing word orders and between relative clauses with a resumptive pronoun versus a gap. The preferences and patterns of performance within languages are reflected in the fixed conventions and variation patterns across grammars, leading to a ‘‘Performance–Grammar Correspondence Hypothesis.’’ The general theory that is laid out in Hawkins’s Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars (OUP) is extended and updated. New areas of grammar and of performance are discussed, new research findings are incorporated that test Hawkins’s earlier predictions, and new advances in the contributing fields of language processing, linguistic theory, historical linguistics, and typology are addressed. This efficiency approach to variation has far-reaching theoretical consequences of relevance for many current issues in the language sciences. These include the notion of ease of processing and how to measure it, the role of processing in language change, the nature of language universals and their explanation, the theory of complexity, the relative strength of competing and cooperating principles, and the proper definition of fundamental grammatical notions such as ‘dependency.’ The book also gives a new typology of VO and OV languages and their correlating properties seen from this perspective, and a new typology of the noun phrase and of argument structure.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664993.001.0001

Cites

171 of 171 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 171 references

Research works printed but not linked: 163

  1. Abney, S. P. (1987). ‘The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect.’ Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
  2. Aikhenvald,, 2003, Classifiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization Devices
  3. Aldai,, 2003, The Prenominal [-Case] Relativization Strategy of Basque: Conventionalization, Processing and Frame Semantics.
  4. Anderson,, 1983, The Architecture of Cognition
  5. Anderson, S. R. (1976). ‘On the Notion of Subject in Ergative Languages,’ in C. N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 1–23.
  6. Anderson, S. R. and Keenan, E. L. (1985). ‘Deixis,’ in T. Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 259–308.
  7. Ariel,, 1990, Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents
  8. Austin,, 1981, A Grammar of Diyari, South Australia
  9. Berman, R. A. (1984). ‘Cross-linguistic First Language Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition Research,’ in R. W. Andersen (ed.), Second Languages: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House, 13–36.
  10. 241Berwick, R. C. and Chomsky, N. (2011). ‘The Biolinguistic Program: The Current State of its Evolution and Development,’ in A. M. di Sciullo and C. Boeckx (eds), The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 19–41.
  11. Bever, T. G. (1970). ‘The Cognitive Basis for Linguistic Structures,’ in J. R. Hayes (ed.), Cognition and the Development of Language. New York: Wiley, 279–362.
  12. Bhat,, 2004, Pronouns
  13. Biber,, 1999, Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English
  14. Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., and Roberts, I. (2007). ‘Disharmonic Word-Order Systems and the Final-over-Final Constraint (FOFC),’ in A. Bisetto and F. Barbieri (eds), Proceedings of XXXIII Incontro di Grammatica Generativa. Bologna: University of Bologna, 86–105.
  15. Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., and Roberts, I. (2008). ‘Structure and Linearization in Disharmonic Word Orders,’ in C. C. Chang and H. J. Haynie (eds), Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 96–104.
  16. Bird,, 1976, An Kan Bamanakan Kalan: Intermediate Bambara
  17. Blake,, 1987, Australian Aboriginal Grammar
  18. Blake,, 1990, Relational Grammar
  19. Bock, K. and Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). ‘Language Production: Grammatical Encoding,’ in M. A. Gernsbacher (ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  20. Bornkessel, I. (2002). ‘The Argument Dependency Model: A Neurocognitive Approach to Incremental Interpretation,’ Ph.D. dissertation, University of Potsdam.
  21. Bowerman, M. (1988). ‘The “No Negative Evidence” Problem: How Do Children Avoid Constructing an Overly General Grammar?’ in J. A. Hawkins (ed.), Explaining Language Universals. Oxford: Blackwell, 73–101.
  22. Braine, M. D. S. (1971). ‘On Two Types of Models of the Internalization of Grammars,’ in D. I. Slobin (ed.), The Ontogenesis of Grammar. New York: Academic Press, 153–86.
  23. Bredsdorff,, 1962, Danish: An Elementary Grammar and Reader
  24. Bresnan, J., Dingare, S., and Manning, C. D. (2001). ‘Soft Constraints Mirror Hard Constraints: Voice and Person in English and Lummi,’ in M. Butt and T. H. King (eds), Proceedings of the LFG 01 Conference. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 13–32.
  25. Brown,, 1996, Concise Encyclopedia of Syntactic Theories
  26. Bybee, J. (1988). ‘The Diachronic Dimension in Explanation,’ in J. A. Hawkins (ed.), Explaining Language Universals. Oxford: Blackwell, 350–79.
  27. Campbell,, 2004, Historical Linguistics: An Introduction
  28. Choi,, 2007, Length and Order: A Corpus Study of (the) Korean Dative-Accusative Construction,, Discourse and Cognition
  29. Chomsky,, 1965, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax
  30. Chomsky,, 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding
  31. Chomsky,, 1995, The Minimalist Program
  32. Chomsky, N. (2000). ‘Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework,’ in R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka (eds), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 89–156.
  33. Chung, S. (1976). ‘On the Subject of Two Passives in Indonesian,’ in C. N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 57–98.
  34. Cole, P. (1976). ‘An Apparent Asymmetry in the Formation of Relative Clauses in Modern Hebrew,’ in P. Cole (ed.), Studies in Modern Hebrew Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: North Holland, 231–47.
  35. 243Comrie, B. (1978). ‘Ergativity,’ in W. P. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language. Austin: University of Texas Press.
  36. Comrie,, 1989, Language Universals and Linguistic Typology
  37. Craig,, 1977, The Structure of Jacaltec
  38. Croft,, 1990, Typology and Universals
  39. Croft,, 2000, Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach
  40. Croft,, 2003, Typology and Universals
  41. Culicover,, 1993, Evidence against ECP Accounts of the That-t Effect,, Linguistic Inquiry
  42. Downing, B. T. (1978). ‘Some Universals of Relative Clause Structure,’ in J. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language, vol. 4: Syntax. Stanford: University of Stanford, 375–419.
  43. Dryer, M. S. (2005a). ‘Order of Object and Verb,’ in M. Haspelmath et al. (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 338–41.
  44. Dryer, M. S. (2005b). ‘Order of Adposition and Noun Phrase,’ in M. Haspelmath et al. (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 346–9.
  45. Dryer, M. S. (2005c). ‘Definite Articles,’ in M. Haspelmath et al. (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 154–7.
  46. Dryer, M. S. (2005d). ‘Order of Relative Clause and Noun,’ in M. Haspelmath et al. (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 366–9.
  47. Dryer, M. S. (2005e). ‘Relationship between the Order of Object and Verb and the Order of Relative Clause and Noun,’ in M. Haspelmath et al. (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 390–3.
  48. Dryer, M. S. (2005f). ‘Determining Dominant Word Order,’ in M. Haspelmath et al. (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 371.
  49. Dryer, M. S. (2005g). ‘Order of Genitive and Noun,’ in M. Haspelmath et al. (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 350–3.
  50. Dryer, M. S. (2005h). ‘Order of Adjective and Noun,’ in M. Haspelmath et al. (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 354–7.
  51. Dryer, M. S. (2005i). ‘Position of Case Affixes,’ in M. Haspelmath et al. (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 210–13.
  52. Dryer, M. S. (2005j). ‘Position of Interrogative Phrases in Content Questions,’ in M. Haspelmath et al. (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 378–81.
  53. Dryer, M. S. (2009). ‘The Branching Direction Theory of Word Order Correlations Revisited,’ in S. Scalise, E. Magni, and A. Bisetto (eds), Universals of Language Today. Berlin: Springer.
  54. 245Dryer, M. S. with Gensler, O. D. (2005). ‘Order of Object, Oblique, and Verb,’ in M. Haspelmath et al. (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 342–5.
  55. Dugast,, 1971, Grammaire du Tunen
  56. Erdmann, P. (1988). ‘On the Principle of “Weight” in English,’ in C. Duncan-Rose and T. Vennemann (eds), On Language, Rhetorica, Phonologica, Syntactica: A Festschrift for Robert P. Stockwell from his Friends and Colleagues. London: Routledge, 325–39.
  57. Erguvanli,, 1984, The Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar
  58. Fodor,, 1978, Parsing Strategies and Constraints on Transformations,, Linguistic Inquiry
  59. Francis,, 1982, Frequency Analysis of English Usage: Lexicon and Grammar
  60. Frazier,, 1979, On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies
  61. Frazier, L. and Rayner, K. (1988). ‘Parameterizing the Language Processing System: Left- vs. Right-Branching Within and Across Languages,’ in J. A. Hawkins (ed.), Explaining Language Universals. Oxford: Blackwell, 247–79.
  62. Gast,, 2007, From Phylogenetic Diversity to Structural Homogeneity: On Right-branching Constituent Order in Mesoamerica,, Sky Journal of Linguistics
  63. Gell-Mann, M. (1992). ‘Complexity and Complex Adaptive Systems,’ in J. A. Hawkins and M. Gell-Mann (eds), The Evolution of Human Languages. Redwood City, Calif.: Addison-Wesley, 3–18.
  64. 1979, On Understanding Grammar
  65. Greenberg, J. H. (1963). ‘Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements,’ in J. H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 73–113.
  66. Greenberg,, 1966, Language Universals, with Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies
  67. Greenberg, J. H. (1978). ‘How Does a Language Acquire Gender Markers?’ in J. H. Greenberg, C. A. Ferguson, and E. A. Moravcsik (eds), Universals of Human Language, Vol. 3: Word Structure. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 47–82.
  68. Grimshaw,, 1990, Argument Structure
  69. Hall,, 1992, Morphology and Mind
  70. Haspelmath,, 1999, Sprachwissenschaft
  71. Haspelmath,, 2002, Morphology
  72. Haspelmath,, 2005, The World Atlas of Language Structures
  73. Hawkins,, 1983, Word Order Universals
  74. Hawkins,, 1986, A Comparative Typology of English and German: Unifying the Contrasts
  75. Hawkins,, 1988, Explaining Language Universals
  76. Hawkins,, 1990, A Parsing Theory of Word Order Universals,, Linguistic Inquiry
  77. Hawkins,, 1994, A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency
  78. Hawkins,, 2000, The Relative Order of Prepositional Phrases in English: Going Beyond Manner-Place-Time,, Language Variation and Change
  79. Hawkins,, 2012, Criterial Features in L2 English: Specifying the Reference Levels of the Common European Framework
  80. Heath,, 1999, A Grammar of Koyraboro (Koroboro) Senni
  81. Heine,, 1984, Grammaticalisation and Reanalysis in African Languages
  82. Hodler,, 1954, Grundzüge einer germanischen Artikellehre
  83. Hoekstra, T. and Kooij, J. G. (1988). ‘The Innateness Hypothesis,’ in J. A. Hawkins (ed.), Explaining Language Universals. Oxford: Blackwell, 31–55.
  84. Hopper,, 1993, Grammaticalization
  85. Innes,, 1966, An Introduction to Grebo
  86. Jackendoff,, 1977, X-bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure
  87. 249Jaeger, T. F. (2006). ‘Redundancy and Syntactic Reduction in Spontaneous Speech.’ Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
  88. Kashket, M. B. (1988). ‘Parsing Warlpiri, a Free Word Order Language,’ in S. P. Abney (ed.), The MIT Parsing Volume, 1987–88, Parsing Project Working Papers No. 1. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, Center for Cognitive Science, 104–27.
  89. Kayne,, 1994, The Antisymmetry of Syntax
  90. Keenan, E. L. (1975). ‘Variation in Universal Grammar,’ in R. Fasold and R. Shuy (eds), Analyzing Variation in English. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 136–48. Reprinted in Keenan (1987), 46–59.
  91. Keenan,, 1979, On Surface Form and Logical Form,, Studies in the Linguistic Sciences
  92. Keenan, E. L. (1985). ‘Relative Clauses’, in T. Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. II: Complex Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 141–70.
  93. Keenan,, 1987, Universal Grammar: 15 Essays
  94. Keenan, E. L. (1988). ‘On Semantics and the Binding Theory,’ in J. A. Hawkins, Explaining Language Universals. Oxford: Blackwell, 105–44.
  95. Keenan,, 1977, Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar,, Linguistic Inquiry
  96. Kempen,, 2003, Cognitive Architectures for Human Grammatical Encoding and Decoding.
  97. Kempson,, 2001, Dynamic Syntax
  98. Kendall,, 1974, Relative Clause Formation and Topicalization in Yavapai,, IJAL
  99. Kiaer, J. (2007). ‘Processing and Interfaces in Syntactic Theory: The Case of Korean.’ Ph.D. thesis, King’s College London.
  100. King,, 1969, Generative Grammar and Historical Linguistics
  101. Kizach, J. (2010). ‘The Function of Word Order in Russian Compared with Danish and English.’ Ph.D. thesis, Department of English, University of Aarhus.
  102. Klima, E. (1964). ‘Negation in English,’ in J. Fodor and J. Katz (eds), The Structure of Language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  103. König,, 2009, Understanding English-German Contrasts
  104. Kuno,, 1973, The Structure of the Japanese Language
  105. Labov,, 1972, Sociolinguistic Patterns
  106. Lehmann,, 1984, Der Relativsatz
  107. Lehmann,, 1995, Thoughts on Grammaticalization
  108. Leisi,, 1975, Der Wortinhalt
  109. Lichtenberk,, 1983, A Grammar of Manam
  110. Lieberman,, 1974, On Conditioning the Rule of Subject-Auxiliary Inversion,, NELS
  111. Lightfoot,, 1991, How to Set Parameters
  112. Lin, C. C. and Bever, T. G. (2006). ‘Subject Preference in the Processing of Relative Clauses in Chinese.’ Poster presented at the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Somerville, Mass.
  113. Lohse,, 2000, Zero versus Explicit Marking in Relative Clauses.
  114. Los, B. and Dreschler, G. (2012). ‘From a Multifunctional First Constituent to a Multifunctional Subject,’ in T. Nevalainen and E. C. Traugott (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  115. MacDonald, M. C. (1999). ‘Distributional Information in Language Comprehension, Production and Acquisition: Three Puzzles and a Moral,’ in B. MacWhinney (ed.), The Emergence of Language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  116. MacWhinney, B. (1982). ‘Basic Syntactic Processes,’ in S. Kuczaj (ed.), Language Acquisition: Syntax and Semantics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  117. Maddieson, I. (2005). ‘Consonant Inventories,’ in M. Haspelmath et al. (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 10–13.
  118. Manber,, 1989, Introduction to Algorithms
  119. Marblestone, K. L. (2007). ‘Semantic and Syntactic Effects on Double Prepositional Phrase Ordering across the Lifespan.’ Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.
  120. Marcus,, 1980, A Theory of Syntactic Recognition for Natural Language
  121. Mater,, 1971, Deutsche Verben
  122. Matthews,, 1994, Cantonese: A Comprehensive Grammar
  123. Meillet,, 1912, Linguistique Historique et Linguistique Générale
  124. Miller, G. A. and Chomsky, N. (1963). ‘Finitary Models of Language Users,’ in R. D. Luce, R. Bush, and E. Galanter (eds), Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, vol. 2. New York: Wiley, 419–92.
  125. Miyamoto,, 2006, Studies: Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society
  126. Mobbs,, 2008, “Functionalism,” the Design of the Language Faculty, and (Disharmonic) Typology.
  127. Müller-Gotama, F. (1991). ‘A Typology of the Syntax-Semantics Interface.’ Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.
  128. Nichols,, 1986, Language
  129. 253Nichols, J. (1994). ‘Ingush,’ in R. Smeets (ed.), The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus, vol. 4: North East Caucasian Languages, part 2. Delmar, NY: Caravan Books, 79–146.
  130. Oirsouw,, 1987, The Syntax of Coordination
  131. Phillips, C. (1996). ‘Order and Structure.’ Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
  132. Plank,, 2003, Noun Phrase Structure in the Languages of Europe
  133. Pollard,, 1994, Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar
  134. Primus,, 2002, Linguistics
  135. Prince,, 1993, Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar
  136. Quirk,, 1985, A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language
  137. Reinhart,, 1982, Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics,, Philosophica
  138. Rizzi,, 1991, Relativized Minimality
  139. Rohdenburg,, 1974, Sekundäre Subjektivierungen im Englischen und Deutschen
  140. Ross, J. R. (1967). ‘Constraints on Variables in Syntax,’ Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
  141. Sadler,, 1988, Welsh Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach
  142. Sadock, J. and Zwicky, A. (1985). ‘Speech Act Distinctions in Syntax,’ in T. Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 1: Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  143. Saltarelli,, 1988, Basque
  144. Sapir,, 1921, Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech
  145. Shannon,, 1948, Technical Journal
  146. Sonnenschein,, 2005, A Descriptive Grammar of San Bartolomé Zoogocho Zapotec
  147. Sperber,, 1995, Relevance: Communication and Cognition
  148. Stallings, L. M. (1998). ‘Evaluating Heaviness: Relative Weight in the Spoken Production of Heavy-NP Shift.’ Ph.D. dissertation, USC.
  149. Szmrecsanyi,, 2004, On Operationalizing Syntactic Complexity,
  150. Tallerman,, 1998, Understanding Syntax
  151. Thomason,, 2001, Language Contact: An Introduction
  152. Tomasello,, 2003, Constructing a Language
  153. Tomlin,, 1986, Basic Word Order: Functional Principles
  154. Traugott,, 1991, Approaches to Grammaticalization
  155. Trudgill,, 2011, Sociolinguistic Typology
  156. Tsao,, 1978, A Functional Study of Topic in Chinese
  157. Ultan, R. (1978). ‘Some General Characteristics of Interrogative Systems,’ in J. H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 211–48.
  158. Vincent, N. B. (1987). ‘Latin,’ in M. B. Harris and N. B. Vincent (eds), The Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 26–78.
  159. Wasow,, 2002, Postverbal Behavior
  160. Wivell, R. (1981). ‘Kairiru Grammar.’ MA thesis, University of Auckland.
  161. 257Wu, F. (2009). ‘Factors Affecting Relative Clause Processing in Mandarin.’ Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
  162. Yngve,, 1960, A Model and an Hypothesis for Language Structure,, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society
  163. Zipf,, 1949, Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 405

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hawkins, J. A.
Affiliations
University of California, Davis (US)
Corresponding author
Hawkins, John A.
Publisher
Oxford University PressOxford
Published
2014-02-27
DOI
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664993.001.0001
OpenAlex
W1495315120
Cited by
405
References
171
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 61 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 58 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 31
FWCI
22.66
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Historical Linguistics and Language Studies
Keywords
cross-linguistic variation, language efficiency, word order variation, relative clauses, resumptive pronouns, language processing, language change, language universals, grammatical complexity, dependency, argument structure, linguistic typology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review