Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-9prln Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T01:15:37.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Recursive misrepresentations: A reply to Levinson (2013)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Julie Anne Legate*
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
David Pesetsky*
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Charles Yang*
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania

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.

Information

Type
Discussion Note
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