On recursion

52Citations
Citations of this article
113Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

It is a truism that conceptual understanding of a hypothesis is required for its empirical investigation. However, the concept of recursion as articulated in the context of linguistic analysis has been perennially confused. Nowhere has this been more evident than in attempts to critique and extend Hauseretal's. (2002) articulation. These authors put forward the hypothesis that what is uniquely human and unique to the faculty of language-the faculty of language in the narrow sense (FLN)-is a recursive system that generates and maps syntactic objects to conceptual-intentional and sensory-motor systems. This thesis was based on the standard mathematical definition of recursion as understood by Gödel and Turing, and yet has commonly been interpreted in other ways, most notably and incorrectly as a thesis about the capacity for syntactic embedding. As we explain, the recursiveness of a function is defined independent of such output, whether infinite or finite, embedded or unembedded-existent or non-existent. And to the extent that embedding is a sufficient, though not necessary, diagnostic of recursion, it has not been established that the apparent restriction on embedding in some languages is of any theoretical import. Misunderstanding of these facts has generated research that is often irrelevant to the FLN thesis as well as to other theories of language competence that focus on its generative power of expression. This essay is an attempt to bring conceptual clarity to such discussions as well as to future empirical investigations by explaining three criterial properties of recursion: computability (i.e., rules in intension rather than lists in extension); definition by induction (i.e., rules strongly generative of structure); and mathematical induction (i.e., rules for the principled-and potentially unbounded-expansion of strongly generated structure). By these necessary and sufficient criteria, the grammars of all natural languages are recursive. © 2014 Watumull, Hauser, Roberts and Hornstein.

References Powered by Scopus

On computable numbers, with an application to the entscheidungsproblem

4368Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Neuroscience: The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?

3103Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Three models for the description of language

1544Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

The mystery of language evolution

204Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Structures, Not Strings: Linguistics as Part of the Cognitive Sciences

142Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The animal mind: An introduction to the philosophy of animal cognition

45Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Watumull, J., Hauser, M. D., Roberts, I. G., & Hornstein, N. (2014). On recursion. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.01017

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 49

57%

Researcher 20

23%

Professor / Associate Prof. 17

20%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Linguistics 31

48%

Psychology 14

22%

Computer Science 10

16%

Neuroscience 9

14%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free