Distinctive signatures of recursion

Although recursion has been hypothesized to be a necessary capacity for the evolution of language, the multiplicity of definitions being used has undermined the broader interpretation of empirical results. I propose that only a definition focused on representational abilities allows the prediction of specific behavioural traits that enable us to distinguish recursion from non-recursive iteration and from hierarchical embedding: only subjects able to represent recursion, i.e. to represent different hierarchical dependencies (related by parenthood) with the same set of rules, are able to generalize and produce new levels of embedding beyond those specified a priori (in the algorithm or in the input). The ability to use such representations may be advantageous in several domains: action sequencing, problem-solving, spatial navigation, social navigation and for the emergence of conventionalized communication systems. The ability to represent contiguous hierarchical levels with the same rules may lead subjects to expect unknown levels and constituents to behave similarly, and this prior knowledge may bias learning positively. Finally, a new paradigm to test for recursion is presented. Preliminary results suggest that the ability to represent recursion in the spatial domain recruits both visual and verbal resources. Implications regarding language evolution are discussed.

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

[2]  W. Fitch,et al.  Computational Constraints on Syntactic Processing in a Nonhuman Primate , 2004, Science.

[3]  E. Leeuwenberg,et al.  Serial pattern complexity: irregularity and hierarchy. , 1992, Perception.

[4]  Marianne Mithun,et al.  2. The fluidity of recursion and its implications , 2010 .

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

[6]  Ray Jackendoff,et al.  Parallels and Nonparallels between Language and Music , 2009 .

[7]  P. Odifreddi Classical recursion theory , 1989 .

[8]  Klaas Landsman,et al.  I Am a Strange Loop , 2007 .

[9]  Simon D. Levy Becoming Recursive: Toward a Computational Neuroscience Account of Recursion in Language and Thought , 2009 .

[10]  Ulrik R. Beierholm,et al.  Causal inference in perception , 2010, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[11]  S. Pinker The Language Instinct , 1994 .

[12]  Derek Bickerton,et al.  Symbol and Structure: A Comprehensive Framework for Language Evolution , 2003 .

[13]  Jeremy Kilpatrick Reflection and recursion , 1985 .

[14]  D. Margoliash,et al.  What birds have to say about language , 2011, Nature Neuroscience.

[15]  Hunyadi László Cognitive grouping and recursion in prosody , 2009 .

[16]  Marina Nespor,et al.  Perceptual and memory constraints on language acquisition , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[17]  J. Koster Recursion and the Lexicon * , 2007 .

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

[19]  Kentaro Abe,et al.  Songbirds possess the spontaneous ability to discriminate syntactic rules , 2011, Nature Neuroscience.

[20]  P. Carruthers The cognitive functions of language , 2002, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[21]  Peter Harder,et al.  13. Over the top: Recursion as a functional option , 2010 .

[22]  S. Pinker,et al.  The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language , 1994 .

[23]  Scott A Miller Children's understanding of second-order mental states. , 2009, Psychological bulletin.

[24]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Hierarchical artificial grammar processing engages Broca's area , 2008, NeuroImage.

[25]  P. Lieberman The Evolution of Human Language: The creative capacity of language, in what manner is it unique, and who had it? , 2010 .

[26]  A. Verhagen What Do You Think is the Proper Place of Recursion? Conceptual and Empirical Issues , 2009 .

[27]  S. Pinker,et al.  Natural language and natural selection , 1990, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[28]  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.

[29]  Stevan Harnad,et al.  Hierarchies in Dictionary Definition Space , 2009, ArXiv.

[30]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  How recursive is language? A Bayesian exploration , 2010 .

[31]  R. Jackendoff,et al.  A Generative Theory of Tonal Music , 1985 .

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

[33]  Karl J. Friston The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? , 2010, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[34]  D. Hofstadter,et al.  Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid , 1979 .

[35]  L. Fadiga,et al.  Active perception: sensorimotor circuits as a cortical basis for language , 2010, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[36]  Nick Chater,et al.  Language Acquisition Meets Language Evolution , 2010, Cogn. Sci..

[37]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Pathways to language: fiber tracts in the human brain , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[38]  S. Kirby,et al.  Cultural evolution: implications for understanding the human language faculty and its evolution , 2008, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[39]  R. Jackendoff,et al.  The capacity for music: What is it, and what’s special about it? , 2006, Cognition.

[40]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  वाक्यविन्यास का सैद्धान्तिक पक्ष = Aspects of the theory of syntax , 1965 .

[41]  Bernd Schiemenz Managing Complexity by Recursion by Bernd Schiemenz , 2002 .

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

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

[44]  P. Veenhuis The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics , 1995 .

[45]  Harry van der Hulst,et al.  10. Was recursion the key step in the evolution of the human language faculty , 2010 .

[46]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Rules and representations , 1980, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[47]  G. Alvarez Representing multiple objects as an ensemble enhances visual cognition , 2011, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[48]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Neural circuits of hierarchical visuo-spatial sequence processing , 2009, Brain Research.

[49]  Daniel L. Everett,et al.  Pirahã Culture and Grammar: A Response to Some Criticisms , 2009 .

[50]  Steven Pinker,et al.  Natural selection and natural language , 1990 .

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

[52]  Ron Eglash,et al.  Bamana sand divination : Recursion in ethnomathematics , 1997 .

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

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

[55]  Tsutomu Maruyama,et al.  Hardware Implementation Techniques for Recursive Calls and Loops , 1999, FPL.

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

[57]  S. Pinker The language instinct : how the mind creates language , 1995 .

[58]  J. Duncan The multiple-demand (MD) system of the primate brain: mental programs for intelligent behaviour , 2010, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[59]  M A Nowak,et al.  Evolution of universal grammar. , 2001, Science.

[60]  Michael Eisenberg Recursion—or, Better Computational Thinking Through Laughter , 2008, Int. J. Comput. Math. Learn..

[61]  Ron Eglash Fractals in African settlement architecture , 1998, Complex..