Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-lqrcg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-01T08:50:06.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recursive misrepresentations: A reply to Levinson (2013)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Julie Anne Legate ,
David Pesetsky  and
Charles Yang
Julie Anne Legate*
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
David Pesetsky*
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Charles Yang*
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
*
[jlegate@ling.upenn.edu], [pesetsk@mit.edu], [charles.yang@ling.upenn.edu]
[jlegate@ling.upenn.edu], [pesetsk@mit.edu], [charles.yang@ling.upenn.edu]
[jlegate@ling.upenn.edu], [pesetsk@mit.edu], [charles.yang@ling.upenn.edu]
Get access

Abstract

Levinson 2013 (L13) argues against the idea that ‘recursion, and especially recursive center embedding, might be the core domain-specific property of language’ (p. 159), citing crosslinguistic grammatical data and specific corpus studies. L13 offers an alternative: language inherits its recursive properties ‘from the action domain’ (p. 159). We argue that L13's claims are at best unwarranted and can in many instances be shown to be false. L13's reasoning is similarly flawed— in particular, the presumption that center-embedding can stand proxy for embedding (and clausal embedding can stand proxy for recursion). Thus, no support remains for its conclusions. Furthermore, though these conclusions are pitched as relevant to specific claims that have been published about the role of syntactic recursion, L13 misrepresents these claims. Consequently, even an empirically supported, better-reasoned version of L13 would not bear on the questions it claims to address.

Keywords

recursioncenter-embeddingembeddingsubordinationparataxisdiscoursestatistics

Information

Type
Discussion Note
Information
Language , Volume 90 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 515 - 528
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bader, Markus. 2012. Complex center embedded relative clauses in German. Complex center embedded relative clauses in German: Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, ms.Google Scholar
Berwick, Robert c., Pietroski, Paul, Yankama, Beracah; and Chomsky, Noam. 2011. Poverty of the stimulus revisited. Cognitive Science 35. 1207–42.10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01189.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chomsky, Noam, and Miller, George A.. 1963a. Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. Handbook of mathematical psychology, vol. 2, ed. by Luce, R. Duncan, Bush, Robert R., and Galanter, Eugene, 269–321. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Miller, George A.. 1963b. Finitary models of language users. Handbook of mathematical psychology, vol. 2, ed. by Luce, R. Duncan, Bush, Robert R., and Galanter, Eugene, 419–92. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter, and Hermon, Gabriella. 1998. The typology of WH-movement: WH-questions in Malay. Syntax 1. 221–58.10.1111/1467-9612.00009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, Peter, and Hermon, Gabriella. 2005. Subject and non-subject relativization in Indonesian. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 14. 59–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, and Kuteva, Tania. 2008. Relativization on subjects. The world atlas of language structures online, ed. by Dryer, Matthew and Haspelmath, Martin, Ch. 122. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. Online: http://wals.info/.Google Scholar
Englebretson, Robert. 2003. The problem of complementation in colloquial Indonesian conversation. (Studies in discourse and grammar 13.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 1995. A grammar of Kayardild. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110873733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everett, Daniel L. 1986. Pirahā. Handbook of Amazonian languages, ed. by Derbyshire, Desmond C. and Pullum, Geoffrey K., 200–325. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel L. 1987. A língua Pirahā e a teoria da sintaxe: Descriçāo, perspectivas e teoria. Campinas: Editora daUnicamp.Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel L. 2005. Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahā: Another look at the design features of human language. Current Anthropology 46. 621–46.10.1086/431525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, Lyn. 1985. Syntactic complexity. Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives, ed. by Dowty, David R., Karttunen, Lauri, and Zwicky, Arnold M., 129–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth L. 1976. The adjoined relative clause in Australia. Grammatical categories in Australian languages, ed. by Dixon, R. M. W., 78–105. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth L. 1982. Some essential features of Warlpiri verbal clauses. Papers in Warlpiri grammar: In memory of Lothar Jagst, ed. by Swartz, Stephen, 217–315. Berrimah: Summer Institute of Linguistics, Australian Aborigines Branch.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth L., Laughren, Mary; and Simpson, Jane. 1995. Warlpiri. Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. by Jacobs, Joachim, Stechow, Arnim von, Sternfeld, Wolfgang, and Vennemann, Theo, 1430–51. New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hauser, Marc d., Chomsky, Noam; and Fitch, W. Tecumseh. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298. 1569–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joshi, Aravind K. 1985. Tree adjoining grammars: How much context-sensitivity is necessary for characterizing structural descriptions? Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives, ed. by Dowty, David R., Karttunen, Lauri, and Zwicky, Arnold M., 206–50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Karlsson, Fred. 2007. Constraints on multiple center-embedding of clauses. Journal of Linguistics 43. 365–92.10.1017/S0022226707004616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2011. Warlpiri WH-scope marking. Syntax 14. 97–121.10.1111/j.1467-9612.2011.00151.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2013. Recursion in pragmatics. Language 89. 149–62.10.1353/lan.2013.0005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munn, Alan. 1993. Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. College Park: University of Maryland dissertation. Online: http://ling.umd.edu/assets/publications/munn_1.pdf.Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew, Pesetsky, David; and Rodrigues, Cilene. 2007. Pirahā exceptionality: A reassessment [first version]. Online: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000411(‘previousversions:v1’).Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew, Pesetsky, David; and Rodrigues, Cilene. 2009. Pirahā exceptionality: A reassessment. Language 85. 355–404.10.1353/lan.0.0107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel. 1998. A grammar of Wambaya, Northern Territory (Australia). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel. 2006. Spearing the emu drinking: Subordination and the adjoined relative clause in Wambaya. Australian Journal of Linguistics 26. 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perfors, Amy, Tenenbaum, Joshua b., Gibson, Edward; and Regier, Terry. 2010. How recursive is language? A Bayesian exploration. Recursion and human language, ed. by van, Harry Hulst, der, 159–75. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Perfors, Amy, Tenenbaum, Joshua; and Regier, Terry. 2006. Poverty of the stimulus? A rational approach. Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 663–68.Google Scholar
Roberts, John R. 1987. Amele. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Round, Erich R. 2013. Kayardild morphology and syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sneddon, James. 1996. Indonesian: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Trotzke, Andreas, Bader, Markus; and Frazier, Lyn. 2013. Third factors and the performance interface in language design. Biolinguistics 7. 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 2005. Some notes on coordination in head-final languages. Linguistics in the Netherlands 2005. 231–42.Google Scholar