Book contents
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I The Computational Component
- Part II Interfaces
- 7 Linearizing Chains at LF
- 8 On the Rationality of Grammar
- 9 The Warped Forge
- 10 Limiting Semantic Types
- 11 Why Is Phonology Different? No Recursion
- 12 Nothing in Syntax Makes Sense Except in the Light of Change
- 13 Neurology and Experience: The Language Organ and Externalization
- Part III Linguistics and Other Sciences
- Index
- References
11 - Why Is Phonology Different? No Recursion
from Part II - Interfaces
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 October 2018
Book contents
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I The Computational Component
- Part II Interfaces
- 7 Linearizing Chains at LF
- 8 On the Rationality of Grammar
- 9 The Warped Forge
- 10 Limiting Semantic Types
- 11 Why Is Phonology Different? No Recursion
- 12 Nothing in Syntax Makes Sense Except in the Light of Change
- 13 Neurology and Experience: The Language Organ and Externalization
- Part III Linguistics and Other Sciences
- Index
- References
Summary
One way in which phonology might be different from syntax (Bromberger & Halle 1989) is in its formal computational properties; that is, the computational or logical complexity of phonological patterns might be strictly less than that of the patterns observed in syntax (Heinz & Idsardi 2011, 2013, Berwick & Chomsky 2016). Hauser, Chomsky & Fitch 2002 (HCF) propose that recursion is the distinguishing characteristic of syntax; this proposal is consistent with the observation that syntax exhibits patterns beyond context-free power (Chomsky 1956, 1957, 1959, 1963, Joshi, Vijay-Shanker & Weir 1990), whereas all known phonological patterns are strictly sub-regular (Heinz & Rogers 2013). A toy example of a recursive Merge system (Chomsky 1995, 2000, 2007, 2008; Uriagereka 1998, 2008, 2012) is developed with non-recursive phonological and semantic representations (see also Pietroski 2011, 2012, this volume). Some proposed examples of recursive structures in phonology are examined and criticized, and an alternative analysis is suggested, in which lexical Merge is distinguished from general Merge. Finally, some evolutionary speculations are considered, and phonology is suggested as the appropriate language analogy for birdsong.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences , pp. 212 - 223Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Balari, Sergio, Benıtez-Burraco, Antonio, Camps, Marta, Longa, Vıctor M., Lorenzo, Guillermo & Uriagereka, Juan. 2011. “The archaeological record speaks: bridging anthropology and linguistics,” International Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2011. doi: 10.4061/2011/382679CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beaumont, Peter B. & Bednarik, Robert G.. 2013. “Tracing the emergence of palaeoart in sub-Saharan Africa,” Rock Art Research 30: 33–54.Google Scholar
Berwick, Robert C. & Chomsky, Noam. 2016. Why Only Us: Language and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berwick, Robert, Beckers, Gabriel, Okanoya, Kazuo & Bolhuis, Johan. 2012. “A bird's eye view of human language evolution,” Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience 4(5). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnevo.2012.00005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berwick, Robert C., Pietroski, Paul, Yankama, Beracah & Chomsky, Noam. 2011. “Poverty of the stimulus revisited,” Cognitive Science 35: 1207–1242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boeckx, Cedric. 2015. Elementary Syntactic Structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bolhuis, Johan J. & Everaert, Marin. 2013. Birdsong, Speech, and Language: Exploring the Evolution of Mind and Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boolos, George, Burgess, John P. & Jeffrey, Richard C.. 2002. Computability and Logic (4th edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromberger, Sylvain & Halle, Morris. 1989. “Why phonology is different,” Linguistic Inquiry 20: 51–70.Google Scholar
Büchi, Julius R. 1960. “Weak second-order arithmetic and finite automata,” Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 6: 66–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Peter J. 1994. Combinatorics: Topics, Techniques, Algorithms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Camps, Marta & Uriagereka, Juan. 2006. “The Gordian Knot of linguistic fossils,” in Rosselló, Joana & Martín, Jesús (eds.), The Biolinguistic Turn: Issues on Language and Biology. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona, pp. 34–65.Google Scholar
Carey, Susan. 2001. “Cognitive foundations of arithmetic: evolution and ontogenesis,” Mind and Language 16: 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1956. “Three models for the description of language,” I.R.E. Transactions on Information Theory 2(3): 113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1959. “On certain formal properties of grammars,” Information and Control 2(2): 137–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1963. “Formal properties of grammar,” in Luce, R. Duncan, Bush, R. R. & Galanter, E. (eds.), Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. II. New York: John Wiley, pp. 323–418.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. “Minimalist inquiries: the framework,” in Martin, Roger, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by Step. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 91–155.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2007. “Approaching UG from below,” in Sauerland, Uli and Gärtner, Hans-Martin (eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language?: Chomsky's Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. “On phases,” in Otero, Carlos P. and Zubizarreta, M.-L. (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 133–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Cobham, Alan. 1965. “The intrinsic computational difficulty of functions,” in Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua (ed.), Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the 1964 International Congress. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 24–30.Google Scholar
Elfner, Emily. 2015. “Recursion in prosodic phrasing: evidence from Connemara Irish,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33(4): 1169–1208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elordieta, Gorka. 2015. “Recursive phonological phrasing in Basque,” Phonology 32: 49–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, Robert & Vijay-Shanker, K.. 2001. “Primitive c-command,” Syntax 4: 164–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graf, Thomas. 2009. “Comparing incomparable frameworks: a model theoretic approach to phonology,” talk presented at the 33rd Penn Linguistics Colloquium (PLC33), March 27–29, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Graf, Thomas. 2014. “Beyond the apparent: cognitive parallels between syntax and phonology,” in Schütze, Carson T. & Stockall, Linnaea (eds.), Connectedness: Papers by and for Sarah van Wagenen, UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 161–174.Google Scholar
Graf, Thomas. 2015. “A computational guide to the dichotomy of features and constraints,” talk presented at DGfS 2015, March 4–6, University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Graf, Thomas & Heinz, Jeffrey. 2015. “Commonality in disparity: the computational view of syntax and phonology,” talk presented at GLOW 38, April 15–18, Paris.Google Scholar
Harris, John W. & Stocker, Horst. 1998. Handbook of Mathematics and Computational Science. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, Marc, Chomsky, Noam & Fitch, Tecumseh. 2002. “The faculty of language: what is it, who has it and how did it evolve?” Science 298: 1569–1579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heinz, Jeffrey & Idsardi, William J.. 2011. “Sentence and word complexity,” Science 333: 295–297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heinz, Jeffrey & Idsardi, William J. 2013. “What complexity differences reveal about domains in language,” Topics in Cognitive Science 5: 111–131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heinz, Jeffrey & Rogers, James. 2013. “Learning subregular classes of languages with factored deterministic automata,” in Kornai, Andras and Kuhlmann, Marco (eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Meeting on the Mathematics of Language. Sofia: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 64–71.Google Scholar
Hopcroft, John E. & Ullman, Jeffrey D.. 1979. Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert & Idsardi, William J.. 2014. “A program for the Minimalist Program,” in Kosta, Peter, Franks, Steven L., Radeva-Bork, Teodora & Schürcks, Lilia (eds.), Minimalism and Beyond: Radicalizing the Interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 9–36.Google Scholar
Idsardi, William J. 2008. “Combinatorics for metrical feet,” Biolinguistics 2: 233–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Idsardi, William J. & Raimy, Eric. 2013. “Three types of linearization and the temporal aspects of speech,” in Biberauer, Theresa and Roberts, Ian (eds.), Challenges to Linearization. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Idsardi, William J. & Uriagereka, Juan. 2009. “Metrical combinatorics and the real half of the Fibonacci sequence,” Biolinguistics 3: 404–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin. 2003. Japanese Morphophonemics: Markedness and Word Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin 2012. “Recursive prosodic phrasing in Japanese,” in Borowsky, Toni, Kawahara, Shigeto, Shinya, Takahito & Sugahara, Mariko (eds.), Prosody Matters: Essays in Honor of Elisabeth Selkirk. London: Equinox, pp. 280–303.Google Scholar
Joshi, Aravind K., Vijay-Shanker, K. & Weir, David. 1990. The Convergence of Mildly Context-Sensitive Grammar Formalisms. Technical Report 539, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Karlsson, Fred. 2010. “Recursion and iteration,” in van der Hulst, (2010a), pp. 43–68.Google Scholar
Kershenbaum, Arik, Blumstein, Daniel T., Roch, Marie A., Akçay, Çaglar, Backus, Gregory, Bee, Mark A., Bohn, Kirsten, Cao, Yan, Carter, Gerald, Cäsar, Cristiane, Coen, Michael, DeRuiter, Stacy L., Doyle, Laurance, Edelman, Shimon, Ferrer-i-Cancho, Ramon, Freeberg, Todd M., Garland, Ellen C., Gustison, Morgan, Harley, Heidi E., Huetz, Chloé, Hughes, Melissa, Bruno, Julia Hyland, Ilany, Amiyaal, Jin, Dezhe Z., Johnson, Michael, Ju, Chenghui, Karnowski, Jeremy, Lohr, Bernard, Manser, Marta B., McCowan, Brenda, Mercado, Eduardo III, Narins, Peter M., Piel, Alex, Rice, Megan, Salmi, Roberta, Sasahara, Kazutoshi, Sayigh, Laela, Shiu, Yu, Taylor, Charles, Vallejo, Edgar E., Waller, Sara & Zamora-Gutierrez, Veronica. 2016. “Acoustic sequences in non-human animals: a tutorial review and prospectus,” Biological Reviews 91(1): 13–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kinsella, Anna R. 2010. “Was recursion the key step in the evolution of the human language faculty?” in van der Hulst, (2010a), pp. 179–191.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. “‘Elsewhere’ in phonology,” in Anderson, Stephen & Kiparsky, Paul (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, pp. 93–106.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Robert. 1997. “Contrastiveness and faithfulness,” Phonology 14: 83–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1986. “Intonational phrasing: the case for recursive prosodic structure,” Phonology Yearbook 3: 311–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, Mark. 2006. Starlings. Language Log blog post, http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/myl/languagelog/archives/003076.htmlGoogle Scholar
Lipovaca, Miran. 2011. Learn You a Haskell for Great Good! San Francisco: No Starch Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Roger & Uriagereka, Juan. 2015. “Syntactic first-merge and categorial labels,” manuscript.Google Scholar
Okanoya, Kazuo. 2013. “Finite-state song syntax in Bengalese finches: sensorimotor evidence, developmental processes, and formal procedures for syntax extraction,” in Bolhuis & Everaert (2013), pp. 229–242.Google Scholar
Olmstead, Mary C. & Kuhlmeier, Valerie A.. 2014. Comparative Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pietroski, Paul. 2003. “Quantification and second-order monadicity,” Philosophical Perspectives 17: 259–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pietroski, Paul. 2011. “Minimal semantic instructions,” in Boeckx, Cedric (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 472–498.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan S. & Smolensky, Paul. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey. 2013. “The central question in comparative syntactic metatheory,” Mind & Language 28: 492–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuland, Eric. 2013. “Recursivity of language: what can birds tell us about it?” in Bolhuis & Everaert (2013), pp. 209–228.Google Scholar
Rogers, Hartley. 1967. Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Rogers, James. 2003. “wMSO theories as grammar formalisms,” Theoretical Computer Science 293: 291–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, James and Hauser, Marc D.. 2010. “The use of formal language theory in studies of artificial language learning: a proposal for distinguishing the differences between human and nonhuman animal learners,” in van der Hulst, (2010a), pp. 213–231.Google Scholar
Rogers, James and Pullum, Geoffrey. 2011. “Aural pattern recognition experiments and the Subregular hierarchy,” Journal of Language, Logic and Information 20: 329–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, Bridget D. 2015a. “Can a bird brain do phonology?” Frontiers in Psychology. ePub.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Samuels, Bridget D. 2015b. “Biolinguistics in phonology: a prospectus,” Phonological Studies 18: 161–171.Google Scholar
Savitch, Walter P. 1982. Abstract Machines and Grammars. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar
Stroustrup, Bjarne. 2013. The C++ Programming Language (4th edn), Indianapolis: Pearson.Google Scholar
Surridge, Alison K., Osorio, Daniel & Mundy, Nicholas I.. 2003. “Evolution and selection of trichromatic vision in primates,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18: 198–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiede, Hans-Jörg & Neff Stout, Lawrence. 2010. “Recursion, infinity, and modeling,” in van der Hulst, (2010a), pp. 147–158.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1998. Rhyme and Reason: An Introduction to Minimalist Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 2008. Syntactic Anchors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 2012. Spell-out and the Minimalist Program. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry. 2010a. Recursion and Human Language. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry. 2010b. “A note on recursion in phonology,” in van der Hulst, (2010a), pp. 301–342.Google Scholar
Vijay-Shanker, K. 1988. “A study of tree-adjoining grammars,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Wagner, Michael. 2005. “Prosody and recursion,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Wagner, Michael. 2010. “Prosody and recursion in coordinate structures and beyond,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28: 183–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weir, David J. 1992. “A geometric hierarchy beyond context-free languages,” Theoretical Computer Science 104: 235–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weir, David J. 1994. “Linear iterated pushdowns,” Computational Intelligence 10: 431–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wirth, Niklaus. 1986. Algorithms and Data Structures. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- 39
- Cited by