8. Recursion, infinity, and modeling

Tiede, Hans-Jörg; Stout, Lawrence Neff

doi:10.1515/9783110219258.147

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A structure is hierarchical if it satisfies the definition of an undirected acyclic graph with a distinct root, also known as a rooted tree . Grammars that generate hierarchical structure may or may not include recursion (Fitch 2010, Per-fors et al 2010, Tiede & Stout 2010, Fitch & Friederici 2012, Martins 2012. For example, a hierarchical structure may have limited depth, as is the case in our initial observation 1b.…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

NP recursion over time: Evidence from Indo-European

Widmer

Auderset²,

Nichols³

et al. 2017

Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some languages constrain the recursive embedding of NPs to some specific morphosyntactic types, allowing it, for example, only with genitives but not with bare juxtaposition. In Indo-European, every type of NP embedding-genitives, adjectivizers, adpositions, head marking, or juxtaposition-is unavailable for syntactic recursion in at least one attested language. In addition, attested pathways of change show that NP types that allow recursion can emerge and disappear in less than 1,000 years. This wide-ranging synchronic diversity and its high diachronic dynamics raise the possibility that at many hypothetical times in the history of the family recursive NP embedding could have been lost for all types simultaneously, parallel to what has occasionally been observed elsewhere (Everett 2005, Evans & Levinson 2009). Performing Bayesian phylogenetic analyses on a sample of fifty-five languages from all branches of Indo-European, we show, however, that it is extremely unlikely for such a complete loss to ever have occurred. When one or more morphosyntactic types become unavailable for syntactic recursion in an NP, an unconstrained alternative type is very likely to develop in the same language. This suggests that, while diachronic pathways away from NP recursion clearly exist, there is a tendency-perhaps a universal one-to maintain or develop syntactic recursion in NPs. A likely explanation for this evolutionary bias is that recursively embedded phrases are not just an option that languages have (Fitch et al. 2005), but they are in fact preferred by our processing system.*

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 92%

NP recursion over time: Evidence from Indo-European

Widmer

Auderset²,

Nichols³

et al. 2017

Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the first forty or fifty years since Chomsky wrote his famous work Syntactic Structures (1957), many linguists and behavioural scientists have, following Chomsky's lead, attempted to argue that language is indeed innate in its base (i.e., the Language Acquisition Device), and that it is a uniquely human ability (e.g., Chomsky, 1966Chomsky, , 1975Chomsky, , 2002Chomsky, , 2010Gallistel, 2007;Hocket, 1966;Pinker, 1994) partly thanks to new discoveries about humans' ability of recursion and discrete infinity (cf. Tiede & Stout, 2010). In recent years in particular, though, researchers have begun to question the language-innateness hypothesis (e.g., Evans, 2014;Croft & Cruse, 2004;Goldberg, 2006;Tomasello, 2003Tomasello, , 2005, presenting increasingly more evidence in favour of the claim that the language learning capability is not some separate function of the human brain and that the once clear-cut distinction between animal communication systems and human language abilities is arguably not so clear-cut after all.…”

Section: Grammar Teaching Provides More Insight Into the Workings Of The Human Mindmentioning

confidence: 99%

The conceptual importance of grammar

Rijt

Coppen²

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge about Language (KaL) is an important part of L1 language education around the world. A controversial part of KaL is grammatical or syntactic knowledge, i.e., knowledge about the form, meaning and use of sentences and phrases. In the current international discourse on L1 grammar teaching, grammar is principally motivated by the desire to enhance students’ literacy development, befitting the communicative turn in mother tongue education and following high quality research which has shown that contextualized grammar teaching can impact on students’ writing development. However, there are also other potentially meaningful reasons to teach grammar, which remain underresearched and underdiscussed in curriculum discussions: (1) the general importance of language justifies that L1 speakers understand how their language works; (2) grammar teaching provides more insight into the workings of the human mind; (3) grammar teaching can be used to facilitate students’ reasoning and stimulate their critical thinking abilities. These reasons for teaching grammar do not necessarily relate to literacy development; rather, they pertain to a general conceptual importance of knowledge about grammar. This paper explores these arguments and argues, partly based on empirical evidence from recent research, that knowledge-related rationales deserve a more prominent place in curriculum discussions about grammar teaching.

show abstract

“…Meanings are not mathematical objects or functions in reality. Tiede and Stout (2010) go further in claiming that we are not committed to natural languages being discretely infinite just because recursion is a feature of our generative grammars (this is true for technical reasons as well, as recursion does not guarantee discrete/denumerable infinity). Discrete or denumerable infinity is assumed or a "modelling choice" on their view (and mine).…”

Section: Idealisation: Against C2mentioning

confidence: 99%

Infinity and the foundations of linguistics

Nefdt

2017

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of linguistic infinity has had a central role to play in foundational debates within theoretical linguistics since its more formal inception in the mid-twentieth century. The Conceptualist tradition, marshalled in by Chomsky and others, holds that infinity is a core explanandum and a link to the formal sciences. Realism/Platonism takes this further to argue that linguistics is in fact a formal science with an abstract ontology. In this paper, I argue that a central misconstrual of formal apparatus of recursive operations such as the set-theoretic operation merge has led to a mathematisation of the object of inquiry, producing a strong analogy with discrete mathematics and especially arithmetic. The main product of this error has been the assumption that natural, like some formal, languages are discretely infinite. I will offer an alternative means of capturing the insights and observations related to this posit in terms of scientific modelling. My chief aim will be to draw from the larger philosophy of science literature in order to offer a position of grammars as models compatible with various foundational interpretations of linguistics while being informed by contemporary ideas on scientific modelling for the natural and social sciences.

show abstract

8. Recursion, infinity, and modeling

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

NP recursion over time: Evidence from Indo-European

NP recursion over time: Evidence from Indo-European

The conceptual importance of grammar

Infinity and the foundations of linguistics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About