Recursion in Language - Article Example

Linguistics Recursion in Human Language Basically, a concept of the recursion is not only widelyused by linguists. It spreads from language and humane studies on physics and math. But originally, it’s more appropriate to discuss recursion within brain-language connection, because recursion is a human ability to build complicated constructions while they think and express their thoughts. Therefore recursion is a brain issue. Recursion in language is an ability to form many new meanings from other meanings by connecting them hierarchically one to another. Therefore long linguistic constructions of different complexity can be formed. Michael C. Corballis gives more scientific definition of recursion. “Recursion is a computational procedure that calls itself, or that calls an equivalent kind of procedure” (2007). Also, when thinking and speaking recursion gives humankind the ability to operate information about past and present and future, and all tenses. What is most remarkable of recursion, it seems to have no ending. It is even more observable in modern world, where people only increasing meanings of already known ones. Naturally, human ability to go into recursion is a subject of concerns for many scientific fields. Marc. D. Hauser, Noam Chomsky and W. Tecumseh Fitch (Chomsky et. al.) say, it should be so, because the nature of recursion obviously is a very interdisciplinary phenomenon (2002). In their article “The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?” they give a theoretical background for a linguistic recursion studding. Scientists firstly, point on “the absence of a universal code of communication”: that is why human language differs so much from non-human animals ones (Chomsky et. al., 2002). And Chomsky et. al. also point on how “human faculty of language appears to be organized like the genetic code – hierarchical, generative, recursive, and virtually limitless with respect to its scope of expression” (2002). That makes think of evolution and its role in human language system development. But on this step Chomsky et. al. stress on necessity of separation between language system as a body mechanism and the language as a communicative system, but at the same time it’s important to consider a strong connection between body mechanisms and communication (2002). Because it’s a great question for linguists and other scientists: whether human key computational capacities have evolved because of the reason of communication, or because of some other reasons. What makes them think this way, is language system’s dependence on other systems of human body. “For example, lung capacity imposes limits on the length of actual spoken sentences, whereas working memory imposes limits on the complexity of sentences if they are to be understandable” (Chomsky et. al., 2002). Therefore Chomsky et. al. stress on necessity of cooperative biological and linguistic studding of the faculty of language. Thus, there is faculty of language broad (FLB) which involves other body systems, and faculty of language narrow (FLN) which is only for language. The question is, what belongs to FLB, and what to FLN? Despite the lack of data (scientists strongly stress on the lack of experimental data on the subject), Chomsky et. al. hypnotize, “FLN only includes recursion and is the only uniquely human component of the faculty of language” (2002). But again, because language is so highly changeable and hard thing to study, there’s a lack of data to confirm or dispel the suspension. However, scientists have theoretically narrowed the subject. They think, animals should be studied and something homologous or similar can be discovered between human and non-human language systems. But the recursion may not necessary depend of theory of mind, because human language seems to have more similar, for example, to birdsongs then to monkeys’ language. “Most songbirds learn their species-specific song by listening to conspecifics, and they develop highly aberrant song if deprived of such experience” (Chomsky et. al., 2002). It’s similar to human. Also, human language system differs by its capacity for vocal imitation. Imitation is obviously an important component of the human capacity to acquire a shared and arbitrary lexicon, which is itself central to the language capacity” (Chomsky et. al., 2002). A similar vocal imitation is observed among dolphins, and some birds. Therefore, faculty of language should be studied on these species examples. And however the results may be, they supposed to light some questions about recursion. Is it the unique FLN feature of humankind or some other species (non-communicative ones) are able to go into recursion? It will separate or tie recursion strongly with a language. And if recursion is only FLN human ability, then how and why this particular specie has developed a recursion, while other species haven’t? Chomsky et. al. hypothesis has caused several studies on a subject (theoretical as well as experimental ones). In 2005 Prinker and Jackendoff have discussed linguistic recursion and proposed that recursion may be not the only FLN feature which uniqualizes human language and there are may be others. But however, recursion is one of them (Corballis, 2007). Interested with Chomsky et. al. hypothesis, Genter et. al. experimented with European starlings if they are able to discriminate a recursion. European starlings’ songs are contained from several pieces of sounds’ unity and their birdsong sounds similar to linguistic structures in human language. Thus, experimental starlings were trained to classify a context-free grammar (CFG) and a finite-state grammar (FSG) on training stimuli. Nine from eleven birds have succeeded training and were able to classify AnBn structured patterns. To discover whether starlings have just remembered training stimuli or really have learned a simple grammar, Genter et. al. showed new patterns to birds. New stimuli were also classified correctly. Therefore, scientists have complicated a task, and asked birds to classify patterns of a higher-order. Trained birds were able to do that, but not all of them have demonstrated this capability and also, made classification within limits. Scientists have concluded that birds have learned a “simple” grammar. “Birds did not solve the recursive classification tasks by learning a finite-state approximation to the CFG. Rather, it seems that they learned AnBn, or a functionally equivalent rule” (Genter et. al., 2006). However, the outcome has shown that birds are able to learn simple grammar, and that recursion is not a unique FLN feature for human. Genter et. al. have responded on Chomsky et. al. hypothesis, “More useful is to consider species differences as quantitative rather than qualitative distinctions in cognitive mechanisms” (2006). In his article “Recursion, Language, and Starlings” Michael C. Corballis argued Genter et. al. research. He says, “The performance of the birds can be explained by a counting strategy, without any appreciation of center-embedding” (Corballis, 2007). The point is, that there are two types of recursion in language. The one is simple recursion, when a one meaning follows another. Recursion is going by simple adding. Trained by Genter et. al. starlings were able to discriminate patterns in a structure AnBn. But to prove recursion discrimination capability birds should “not only that they discriminate such patterns from other patterns, but that they appreciate that elements must be bound from the outside in” (Corballis, 2007). Then starlings would demonstrate so-called “center-embedded recursion”. It’s structured not by a simple followed adding. New meanings can be added in different places of the structure. Therefore recursion could be discriminated only by understanding a hierarchy of meanings. Corballis admits, that center-embedded recursion is not easy to discriminate even for people (2007). Yet Genter et. al. trained starling have demonstrated only a simple recursion. Corballis gives another explanation of this outcome. He says starlings may be counting As and Bs in patterns to demonstrate such results, because counting mechanism is much easier than recursion. “Sensitivity to numerosity has been demonstrated in a wide variety of species. Songbirds such as starlings are specialists in the production of repetitive sequences, and number perception for auditory sequences in birds may surpass that in humans” (Corballis, 2007). Corballis also points that African gray parrot can be trained to count to six. And also, Genter et. al. starlings have shown difficulties with higher-order recursion. Therefore, may be starlings were counting, but were able to count only up to four. Despite that, Corballis also critique Genter et. al. choice to study specifically starlings. He points, that starlings are very sensitive to sounds. Therefore, it may be a change of sounds they are responding on “without any sense of center-embedding involved” (Corballis, 2007). In the light of the above, it can be concluded that Chomsky et. al. hypothesis stay neither confirmed or dispelled, because there are several explanations of Genter et. al. experimental results. References Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N. and W. T. Fitch. (2002, November 22). The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve? Science, 298: pp. 1569-1579. Corballis, M. C. (2007). Recursion, Language, and Starlings. Cognitive Science, 31: pp. 697-704. Genter, T. Q., Fenn, K. M., Margoliash, D. and H. C. Nusbaum. (2006, April 27). Recursive Syntactic Pattern Learning by Songbirds. Nature, 440: pp. 1204-1207. Read More