Recursion: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?

Recursion is a topic of considerable controversy in linguistics, which stems from its varying definitions and its key features, such as its universality, uniqueness to human language, and evolution. Currently, there appear to be at least two common senses of recursion: (1) embeddedness of phrases within other phrases, which entails keeping track of long-distance dependencies among phrases and (2) the specification of the computed output string itself, including meta-recursion, where recursion is both the recipe for an utterance and the overarching process that creates and executes the recipes. There are also at least two evolutionary scenarios for the adaptive value of recursion in human language. The gradualist position posits precursors, such as animal communication and protolanguages, and holds that the selective purpose of recursion was for communication. The saltationist position assumes no gradual development of recursion and posits that it evolved for reasons other than communication. In the latter view, some heritable event associated with a cognitive prerequisite of language, such as Theory of Mind or working memory capacity, allowed recursive utterances. Evolutionary adaptive reasons for recursive thoughts were also proffered, including diplomatic speech, perlocutionary acts, and prospective cognitions. WIREs Cogni Sci 2011 2 547-554 DOI: 10.1002/wcs.131 For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.

[1]  Alaa A. Kharbouch,et al.  Three models for the description of language , 1956, IRE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[2]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The Evolution of Human Language: Some simple evo devo theses: how true might they be for language? , 2010 .

[3]  A. Dickinson,et al.  Response to Suddendorf & Corballis (2008): in defence of animal foresight , 2008, Animal Behaviour.

[4]  Nicola S Clayton,et al.  Interacting Cache memories: evidence for flexible memory use by Western Scrub-Jays (Aphelocoma californica). , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[5]  A. Dickinson,et al.  Can animals recall the past and plan for the future? , 2003, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[6]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? , 2002 .

[7]  Ray Jackendoff Your theory of language evolution depends on your theory of language , 2010 .

[8]  Michael C. Corballis,et al.  New evidence for animal foresight? , 2008, Animal Behaviour.

[9]  Fred Karlsson,et al.  Syntactic recursion and iteration , 2010 .

[10]  Anna R. Parker EVOLVING THE NARROW LANGUAGE FACULTY: WAS RECURSION THE PIVOTAL STEP? , 2006 .

[11]  D. Pesetsky,et al.  Pirahã Exceptionality: A Reassessment , 2009 .

[12]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Three models for the description of language , 1956, IRE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[13]  Marcus Tomalin,et al.  Reconsidering recursion in syntactic theory , 2007 .

[14]  Daniel Ansari,et al.  The Evolution of Numerical Cognition: From Number Neurons to Linguistic Quantifiers , 2008, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[15]  Denise Brandão de Oliveira e Britto,et al.  The faculty of language , 2007 .

[16]  S. Pinker,et al.  The faculty of language: what's special about it? , 2005, Cognition.

[17]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The evolution of the language faculty: Clarifications and implications , 2005, Cognition.

[18]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory , 1975 .

[19]  E. Reuland Imagination, Planning, and Working Memory , 2010, Current Anthropology.

[20]  Harry van der Hulst,et al.  17. A note on recursion in phonology , 2010 .

[21]  A. Dickinson,et al.  Episodic-like memory during cache recovery by scrub jays , 1998, Nature.

[22]  Shanna Hollich,et al.  Version of 3 / 23 / 05 The Nature of the Language Faculty and its Implications for Evolution of Language ( Reply to Fitch , Hauser , & Chomsky ) , 2006 .

[23]  W. Tecumseh Fitch,et al.  The Evolution of Human Language: Three meanings of “recursion”: key distinctions for biolinguistics , 2010 .

[24]  Stanley H. Ambrose,et al.  Coevolution of Composite‐Tool Technology, Constructive Memory, and Language , 2010, Current Anthropology.

[25]  Jeanette Sakel,et al.  Pirahã – in need of recursive syntax? , 2010 .

[26]  S. Pinker,et al.  The nature of the language faculty and its implications for evolution of language (Reply to Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky) , 2005, Cognition.

[27]  Steven Pinker,et al.  The logic of indirect speech , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[28]  Harry van der Hulst,et al.  Recursion and human language , 2010 .

[29]  Frederick L. Coolidge,et al.  Beyond Symbolism and Language , 2010, Current Anthropology.

[30]  E. Tulving Episodic memory: from mind to brain. , 2002, Annual review of psychology.

[31]  Andrea Nye Philosophy of language : the big questions , 1998 .

[32]  Derek Bickerton The Evolution of Human Language: On two incompatible theories of language evolution , 2010 .

[33]  Monica Tamariz,et al.  Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on the Evolution of Language , 2006 .

[34]  P. Gärdenfors,et al.  Prospection as a cognitive precursor to symbolic communication , 2010 .

[35]  Timothy Q. Gentner,et al.  Recursive syntactic pattern learning by songbirds , 2006, Nature.

[36]  D. Everett Cultural Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Pirahã , 2005, Current Anthropology.

[37]  Michael C. Corballis,et al.  Recursion, Language, and Starlings , 2007, Cogn. Sci..