Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-xnzfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-01T22:02:29.646Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recursion in pragmatics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Stephen C. Levinson
Stephen C. Levinson*
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics and Radboud University, Nijmegen
*
Stephen.Levinson@mpi.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There has been a recent spate of work on recursion as a central design feature of language. This short report points out that there is little evidence that unlimited recursion, understood as center-embedding, is typical of natural language syntax. Nevertheless, embedded pragmatic construals seem available in every language. Further, much deeper center-embedding can be found in dialogue or conversation structure than can be found in syntax. Existing accounts for the ‘performance’ limitations on center-embedding are thus thrown into doubt. Dialogue materials suggest that center-embedding is perhaps a core part of the human interaction system, and is for some reason much more highly restricted in syntax than in other aspects of cognition.

Keywords

recursioncenter-embeddingdialoguesyntaxpragmatics

Information

Type
Short Report
Information
Language , Volume 89 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 149 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 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

Bach, Emmon, Brown, Colin; and Marslen-Wilson, William. 1986. Crossed and nested dependencies in German and Dutch: A psycholinguistic study. Language and Cognitive Processes 1. 249–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua, and Shamir, Eliyahu. 1960. Finite-state languages: Formal representations and adequacy problems. Bulletin of the Research Council of Israel 8F. 155–66.Google Scholar
Chiang, David. 2012. Grammars for languages and genes. Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-20444-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1955. Logical syntax and semantics: Their linguistic relevance. Language 31. 1. 36–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1956. Three models for the description of language. IRE Transactions on Information Theory 2. 113–24.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783112316009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Miller, George A.. 1963. 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
Christiansen, Morten h., and Chater, Nick. 1999. Toward a connectionist model of recursion in human linguistic performance. Cognitive Science 23. 157–205.10.1207/s15516709cog2302_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herb H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620539CrossRefGoogle 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
Culy, Chris. 1985. The complexity of the vocabulary of Bambara. Linguistic Philosophy 8. 345–51.10.1007/BF00630918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Castro Campos, Μ. F. P. 1981. On conditionals as dialogue constructs. Paper presented at the International Encounter in the Philosophy of Language, Campinas.Google Scholar
de Vries, Meinou, Petersson, Karl Magnus, Geukes, Sebastian, Zwitserlood, Pienie; and Christiansen, Morten H.. 2012. Processing multiple non-adjacent dependencies: Evidence from sequence learning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 367. 2065–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Evans, Nicholas, and Levinson, Stephen C.. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32. 5. 429–92.10.1017/S0140525X0999094XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Everett, Daniel. 2005. Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã: Another look at the design features of human language. Current Anthropology 46. 621–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitch, W. Tecumseh, Hauser, Mark D.; and Chomsky, Noam. 2005. The evolution of the language faculty: Clarifications and implications. Cognition 97. 179–210.10.1016/j.cognition.2005.02.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Folia, Vasiliki, Forkstam, Christian, Ingvar, Martin, Hagoort, Peter; and Petersson, Karl Magnus. 2011. Implicit artificial syntax processing: Genes, preference, and bounded recursion. Biolinguistics 5. 105–32.10.5964/bioling.8835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geluykens, Ronnie. 1992. From discourse process to grammatical construction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, Edward. 1991. A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University dissertation.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68. 1–76.10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00034-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, Edward, and Thomas, James. 1999. Memory limitations and structural forgetting: The perception of complex ungrammatical sentences as grammatical. Language and Cognitive Processes 14. 3. 225–48.CrossRefGoogle 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, and Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Hauser, Mark, 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
Haviland, John. 1979. Guugu Yimidhirr: Sketch grammar. Handbook of Australian languages, vol. 1, ed. by Dixon, R. M. W. and Blake, Barry, 26–180. Canberra: Australian National University Press.Google Scholar
Huybregts, Riny. 1976. Overlapping dependencies in Dutch. Utrecht Working Papers in Linguistics 1. 24–65.Google Scholar
Huybregts, Riny. 1984. The weak inadequacy of context-free phrase structure grammars. Van periferie naar kern, ed. by Haan, Ger de, Trommelen, Mieke, and Zonneveld, Wim, 81–99. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard, and Rogers, Jim. 2012. Formal language theory: Refining the Chomsky hierarchy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 367. 1956–70.10.1098/rstb.2012.0077CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1940. A modern English grammar on historical principles. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Karlsson, Fred. 2007. Constraints on multiple center-embedding of clauses. Journal of Linguistics 43. 365–92.10.1017/S0022226707004616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimball, John. 1973. Seven principles of surface-structure parsing in natural language. Cognition 2. 15–47.10.1016/0010-0277(72)90028-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Dan, and Manning, Chris. 2004. Corpus-based induction of syntactic structure: Models of dependency and constituency. Proceedings of the 42nd annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2004), 479–86.Google Scholar
Koschmann, Timothy. 2010. On the universality of recursion. Lingua 120. 12. 2691–94.10.1016/j.lingua.2010.03.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard k., Déprez, Viviane; and Yamakido, Hiroko. 2010. The evolution of human language: Biolinguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511817755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, Willem J. Μ. 1974. Formal grammars in linguistics and psycholinguistics. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1981. Some pre-observations on the modelling of dialogue. Discourse Processes 4. 2. 93–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1987. Minimization and conversational inference. The pragmatic perspective: Selected papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference, ed. by Papi, Marcella Bertuccelli and Verschueren, Jef, 61–129. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2013. Action formation and ascription. The handbook of conversation analysis, ed. by Stivers, Tanya and Sidnell, Jack, 103–30. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Marks, Lawrence. 1968. Scaling of grammaticalness of self-embedded English sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 5. 965–67.Google Scholar
Merritt, Marilyn. 1976a. On questions following questions in service encounters. Language in Society 5. 315–57.10.1017/S0047404500007168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merritt, Marilyn. 1976b. Resources for saying in service encounters. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1984. How to avoid subordination. Berkeley Linguistics Society 10. 493509.Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew, Pesetsky, David; and Rodrigues, Cilene. 2009. Pirahã exceptionality: A reassessment. Language 85. 2. 355–404.10.1353/lan.0.0107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel. 2006. Spearing the emu drinking: Subordination and the adjoined relative clause in Wambaya. Australian Journal of Linguistics 26. 1. 5–29.10.1080/07268600500531610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara h., Meulen, Alice ter; and Wall, Robert E.. 1990. Mathematical methods in linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google 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
Petersson, Karl Magnus. 2005. On the relevance of the neurobiological analogue of the finite-state architecture. Neurocomputing 65/66. 825–32.10.1016/j.neucom.2004.10.108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pyers, Jenny, and Senghas, Ann. 2009. Language promotes false-belief understanding: Evidence from Nicaraguan Sign Language. Psychological Science 20. 805–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K., and Gazdar, Gerald. 1982. Natural languages and context-free languages. Linguistics and Philosophy 4. 471–504.10.1007/BF00360802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1995 [1967]. Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian, and Brown, Penelope. 1976. The origins of syntax in discourse: A case study of Tok Pisin relatives. Language 52. 3. 631–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1990. Interactional troubles in face-to-face survey interviews— Comment. Journal of the American Statistical Association 85. 409. 248–50.10.2307/2289554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511791208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shieber, Stuart Μ. 1985. Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 8. 333–43.10.1007/BF00630917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Wilson, Deirdre. 1986. Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Weckerly, Jill, and Elman, Jeffrey E.. 1992. A PDP approach to processing center-embedded sentences. Proceedings of the 14th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 139–56.Google Scholar
Wolf, Florian, and Gibson, Edward. 2005. Representing discourse coherence: A corpus-based study. Computational Linguistics 31. 2. 249–87.10.1162/0891201054223977CrossRefGoogle Scholar