Abstract

We distinguish three kinds of recursion: Direct Recursion (which delivers a ‘conjunction’ reading), Indirect Recursion, and Generalized Transformations. The essential argument is that Direct Recursion captures the first stage of each recursive structure. Acquisition evidence will then be provided from both naturalistic data and experimentation that adjectives, possessives, verbal compounds, and sentence complements all point to con-junction as the first stage. Then it will be argued that Indirect Recursion captures the Strong Minimalist Thesis, which allows periodic Transfer and interpretation. Why is recursion delayed and not immediate? It is argued that an interpretation of Generalized Transformations in the spirit of Tree Adjoining Grammar offers a route to explanation. A labeling algorithm combines with Generalized Transformations to provide different labels for recursive structures projection. Recursion is then achieved by substitution of a recursive node for a simple node. One simple case is to substitute a Maximal Projection for a simple non-branching lexical node. A more complex case — essential to acquisition — is to substitute a category for a lexical string. Consequently, a computational ‘psychological reality’ can be attributed to explain why recursion requires an extra step for the addition of each recursive construction on the acquisition path.

Highlights

  • Why would a child who can say wagon-puller not be able to understand wagon-Thanks to many partners in this research: William Snyder, Bart Hollebrandse, Jill de Villiers, Chloe Gu, Maxi Limbach, Kate Hobbs, Misato Hiraga, and Ed Matthei have explored five major constructions, via the study of naturalistic data and a variety of different experiments

  • We take the argument one step further in arguing that the connection between recursion and the Strong Minimalist Thesis (SMT, see below), which argues that certain nodes represent ‘phases’ which carry an interface with interpretation

  • It is indirect recursion linked to the interpretive requirement (SMT) on phases that carries the weight of recursion as a pivotal grammatical device

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Thanks to many partners in this research: William Snyder, Bart Hollebrandse, Jill de Villiers, Chloe Gu, Maxi Limbach, Kate Hobbs, Misato Hiraga, and Ed Matthei have explored five major constructions, via the study of naturalistic data and a variety of different experiments. The evidence leads to a rather tight grammatical edifice, which, is full of theoretical and empirical weak points that deserve further research We include pilot data and naturalistic data which might seem insufficient for traditional psychological experimentation, but which, in light of powerful theoretical proposals, become legitimate reference points in the interaction between theory and empirical data. This first ‘fieldwork’ stage of acquisition needs a recognized legitimacy as an important background to detailed work, much as rough awareness of language variation in unusual languages tempers broad claims about UG. One could imagine that an organism could have both capacities, but lack the interface.

Merge and Labeling Algorithms
Direct and Indirect Recursion
Alternating Phase Constraint
Grammar Variation
Data for Direct Recursion
Adjective Conjunction and Recursion
Prepositional Phrases
Recursive Possessives
Possessives Explored
Japanese
Verbal Compounds
Sentence Complements
Generalized Transformations and Tree-Adjoining Grammar
Relative Clause Substitution
Labeling Algorithm
The Experience of Recursion
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call