Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-fnvtc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-01T20:21:01.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

NP Recursion Over Time: Evidence from Indo-European

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Manuel Widmer ,
Sandra Auderset ,
Johanna Nichols ,
Paul Widmer  and
Balthasar Bickel
Manuel Widmer*
Affiliation:
University of Zurich
Sandra Auderset*
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara
Johanna Nichols*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley and Higher School of Economics, Moscow
Paul Widmer*
Affiliation:
University of Zurich
Balthasar Bickel*
Affiliation:
University of Zurich
*
[manuel.widmer@uzh.ch] [sandrauderset@gmail.com] [johanna@berkeley.edu] [paul.widmer@uzh.ch] [balthasar.bickel@uzh.ch]
[manuel.widmer@uzh.ch] [sandrauderset@gmail.com] [johanna@berkeley.edu] [paul.widmer@uzh.ch] [balthasar.bickel@uzh.ch]
[manuel.widmer@uzh.ch] [sandrauderset@gmail.com] [johanna@berkeley.edu] [paul.widmer@uzh.ch] [balthasar.bickel@uzh.ch]
[manuel.widmer@uzh.ch] [sandrauderset@gmail.com] [johanna@berkeley.edu] [paul.widmer@uzh.ch] [balthasar.bickel@uzh.ch]
[manuel.widmer@uzh.ch] [sandrauderset@gmail.com] [johanna@berkeley.edu] [paul.widmer@uzh.ch] [balthasar.bickel@uzh.ch]
Get access

Abstract

Some languages constrain the recursive embedding of NPs to some specific morphosyntactic types, allowing it, for example, only with genitives but not with bare juxtaposition. In Indo-European, every type of NP embedding—genitives, adjectivizers, adpositions, head marking, or juxtaposition—is unavailable for syntactic recursion in at least one attested language. In addition, attested pathways of change show that NP types that allow recursion can emerge and disappear in less than 1,000 years. This wide-ranging synchronic diversity and its high diachronic dynamics raise the possibility that at many hypothetical times in the history of the family recursive NP embedding could have been lost for all types simultaneously, parallel to what has occasionally been observed elsewhere (Everett 2005, Evans & Levinson 2009).

Performing Bayesian phylogenetic analyses on a sample of fifty-five languages from all branches of Indo-European, we show, however, that it is extremely unlikely for such a complete loss to ever have occurred. When one or more morphosyntactic types become unavailable for syntactic recursion in an NP, an unconstrained alternative type is very likely to develop in the same language. This suggests that, while diachronic pathways away from NP recursion clearly exist, there is a tendency—perhaps a universal one—to maintain or develop syntactic recursion in NPs. A likely explanation for this evolutionary bias is that recursively embedded phrases are not just an option that languages have (Fitch et al. 2005), but they are in fact preferred by our processing system.

Keywords

NP structuressyntactic recursionreconstructionBayesian phylogenetic modelstochastic character mappingevolutionary biasuniversals

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 93 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. 799 - 826
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ackerman, Farrell, Stump, Gregory T; and Webelhuth, Gert. 2011. Lexicalism, periphrasis, and implicative morphology. Non-transformational syntax: Formal and explicit models of grammar, ed. by Borsley, Robert D. and Börjars, Kersti, 325–57. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Allen, Cynthia. 2008. Genitives in early English: Typology and evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Anna. 2014. Morphosyntax of the noun phrase in Hieroglyphic Luwian. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004260030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belyaev, Oleg. 2010. Evolution of case in Ossetic. Iran and the Caucasus 14. 287–322. DOI: 10.1163/157338410X12743419190269.10.1163/157338410X12743419190269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2015. Distributional typology: Statistical inquiries into the dynamics of linguistic diversity. The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 2nd edn., ed. by Heine, Bernd and Narrog, Heiko, 901–23. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Banjade, Goma, Gaenszle, Martin, Lieven, Elena, Paudyal, Netra Prasad, Rai, Ichchha Purna, Raia, Manoj, Rai, Novel Kishore; and Stoll, Sabine. 2007. Free prefix ordering in Chintang. Language 83. 43–73. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2007.0002.10.1353/lan.2007.0002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena, Choudhary, Kamal k., Schlesewsky, Matthias; and Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina. 2015. The neurophysiology of language processing shapes the evolution of grammar: Evidence from case marking. PLoS ONE 10:e01328i9. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena; and Zakharko, Taras. 2014. Typological evidence against universal effects of referential scales on case alignment. Scales: A cross-disciplinary perspective on referential hierarchies, ed. by Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, Malchukov, Andrej, and Richards, Marc, 7–43. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul. 1998. Functional phonology: Formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, and Schlesewsky, Matthias. 2009. Processing syntax and morphology: A neurocognitive perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borsley, Robert d., Tallerman, Maggie; and Willis, David. 2007. The syntax of Welsh. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouckaert, Remco r., and Heled, Joseph. 2014. DensiTree 2: Seeing trees through the forest. bioRxiv 012401 (preprint). DOI: 10.1101/012401.Google Scholar
Bouckaert, Remco, Lemey, Philippe, Dunn, Michael, Greenhill, Simon J., Alekseyenko, Alexander v., Drummond, Alexei J., Gray, Russell d., Suchard, Marc a.; and Atkinson, Quentin D.. 2012. Mapping the origins and expansion of the Indo-European language family. Science 337. 957–60. DOI: 10.1126/science.1219669.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bubenik, Vit. 1998. A historical syntax of late Middle Indo-Aryan (Apabhramsa). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, Charles Telford. 1939. Nominal compounds in Germanic. London: St. Andrews University.Google Scholar
Chang, Will, Cathcart, Chundra, Hall, David; and Garrett, Andrew. 2015. Ancestry- constrained phylogenetic analysis supports the Indo-European steppe hypothesis. Language 91. 194–244. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2015.0005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1975 [1955]. The logical structure of linguistic theory. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Christiansen, Morten h., and Chater, Nick. 2008. Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31. 489–509. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525x08004998.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christiansen, Morten H., and Chater, Nick. 2016. The now-or-never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 39. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X1500031X.10.1017/S0140525X1500031XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corballis, Michael C. 2011. The recursive mind: The origins of human language, thought, and civilization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1987. The morphology/syntax interface: Evidence from possessive adjectives in Slavonic. Language 63. 299–345. DOI: 10.2307/415658.10.2307/415658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael. 2011. Understanding transition probabilities. Linguistic Typology 15. 415-31. DOI: 10.1515/lity.2011.028.10.1515/lity.2011.028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de la Haye, Pierre, and Gueguen, Tanguy. 2002. Vie de saint Yves—Buhez sant Euzen, vol. 1. Saint-Brieuc: Skol.Google Scholar
Ding, Nai, Melloni, Lucia, Zhang, Hang, Tian, Xing; and Poeppel, David. 2016. Cortical tracking of hierarchical linguistic structures in connected speech. Nature Neuroscience 19. 158–64. DOI: 10.1038/nn.4186.10.1038/nn.4186CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donaldson, Bruce C. 1993. A grammar of Afrikaans. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110863154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, Michael J., Greenhill, Simon J., Levinson, Stephen c.; and Gray, Russell d.. 2011. Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals. Nature 473. 79–82. DOI: 10.1038/nature09923.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, Nicholas, and Levinson, Stephen C.. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32. 429–48. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X0999094X.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Everaert, Martin b. h., Huybregts, Marinus a. c., Chomsky, Noam, Berwick, Robert c.; and Bolhuis, Johan J.. 2015. Structures, not strings: Linguistics as part of the cognitive sciences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19. 729–43. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2015.09.008.10.1016/j.tics.2015.09.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everett, Daniel L. 2005. Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã: Another look at the design features of human language. Current Anthropology 46. 621–46. DOI: 10.1086/431525.10.1086/431525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischmeister, Florian P., Martins, Maurício J. d., Beisteiner, Roland; and Te- cumseh Fitch, W.. 2016. Self-similarity and recursion as default modes in human cognition. Cortex. DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2016.08.016.10.1016/j.cortex.2016.08.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitch, W. Tecumseh. 2010. Three meanings of ‘recursion’: Key distinctions for biolinguistics. The evolution of human language: Biolinguistic perspectives, ed. by Larson, Richard K., Déprez, Viviane, and Yamakido, Hiroko, 73–90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511817755.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitch, W. Tecumseh. 2014. Toward a computational framework for cognitive biology: Unifying approaches from cognitive neuroscience and comparative cognition. Physics of Life Reviews 11. 329–64. DOI: 10.1016/j.plrev.2014.04.005.10.1016/j.plrev.2014.04.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitch, W. Tecumseh, and Friederici, Angela D.. 2012. Artificial grammar learning meets formal language theory: An overview. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 367. 1933–55. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0103.10.1098/rstb.2012.0103CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fitch, W. Tecumseh, Hauser, Marc D.; and Chomsky, Noam. 2005. The evolution of the language faculty: Clarifications and implications. Cognition 97. 179–210. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2005.02.005.10.1016/j.cognition.2005.02.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fortson, Benjamin W. 2010. Indo-European language and culture: An introduction. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Futrell, Richard, Stearns, Laura, Everett, Daniel L., Piantadosi, Steven T.; and Gibson, Edward. 2016. A corpus investigation of syntactic embedding in Pirahã. PLoS ONE 11:e0145289. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145289.10.1371/journal.pone.0145289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gignoux, Philippe, and Tafazzoli, A. (eds.) 1993. Anthologie de Zãdspram: Édition critique du textepehlevi. Paris: Association pour l’Avancement des Etudes Iraniennes.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1995. The diachronic typological approach to language. Approaches to language typology, ed. by Shibatani, Masayoshi and Bynon, Theodora, 143–66. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts, ed. by Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey. 2011. Linker, relativizer, nominalizer, tense particle: On the ezafe in West Iranian. Nominalization in Asian languages, ed. by Foong, Ha Yap, Hårsta, Karen Grunow-, and Wrona, Janick, 363–89. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Harbarson, Gísli Rúnar. 2016. Peeling away the layers of the onion: On layers, inflection and domains in Icelandic compounds. Journal of Comparative German Linguistics 19. 1–47. DOI: 10.1007/s10828-016-9078-5.10.1007/s10828-016-9078-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, Marc D., Chomsky, Noam; and Fitch, W. Tecumseh. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298. 1569–79. DOI: 10.1126/science.298.5598.1569.10.1126/science.298.5598.1569CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawkins, J. David. 2000. Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions, vol. 1: Inscriptions of the Iron Age. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110804201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2014. Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664993.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, and Kuteva, Tania. 2007. The genesis of grammar: A reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199227761.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemon, Roparz. 1976-1998. Geriadur istorel ar brezhoneg. 2nd edn. Plomelin: Preder.Google Scholar
Hintze, Jerry L., and Nelson, Ray D.. 1998. Violin plots: A box plot-density trace synergism. The American Statistician 52. 181–84. DOI: 10.1080/00031305.1998.10480559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huelsenbeck, John P., Nielsen, Rasmus; and Bollback, Jonathan P.. 2003. Stochastic mapping of morphological characters. Systematic Biology 52. 131–58. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3651122.10.1080/10635150390192780CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hyman, Larry Μ. 1976. Phonologization. Linguistic studies presented to Joseph H. Greenberg, ed. by Juilland, Alphonse, 407–18. Saratoga: Alma Libri.Google Scholar
Karlsson, Fred. 2010. Syntactic recursion and iteration. In van der Hulst, 43–67.Google Scholar
Kemmerer, David. 2012. The cross-linguistic prevalence of SOV and SVO word orders reflects the sequential and hierarchical representation of action in Broca's area. Language and Linguistics Compass 6. 50–66. DOI: 10.1002/lnc3.322.10.1002/lnc3.322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornai, András. 2014. Resolving the infinitude controversy. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 23. 481–92. DOI: 10.1007/s10849-014-9203-2.10.1007/s10849-014-9203-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1992. A grammar of contemporary Persian. Cosa Mesa, CA: Mazda.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn, Guion, Susan, Hura, Susan, Moon, Seeung-Jae; and Wellerian, Raquel. 1995. Is sound change adaptive? Rivista di Linguistica 7. 5–37.Google Scholar
Lötzsch, Ronald. 1965. Das sog: Possessivadjektiv im Slawischen, speziell im Sorbischen, und seine Stellung im System der Redeteile. Forschungen und Fortschritte 39. 377–79.Google Scholar
Martins, Maurício Dias. 2012. Distinctive signatures of recursion. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 367. 2055–64. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0097.10.1098/rstb.2012.0097CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martins, Maurício Dias, Fischmeister, Florian P., Puig-Waldmüller, e., Oh, J., Geissler, A., Robinson, S., Fitch, W. Tecumseh; and Beisteiner, Roland. 2014. Fractal image perception provides novel insights into hierarchical cognition. Neuroimage 96. 300–308. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.03.064.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martins, Maurício Dias, Martins, Isabel Pavão; and Fitch, W. Tecumseh. 2016. A novel approach to investigate recursion and iteration in visual hierarchical processing. Behavior Research Methods 48. 1421–42. DOI: 10.3758/sl3428-0l5-0657-l.10.3758/s13428-015-0657-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Masica, Colin P. 1991. The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maslova, Elena. 2000. A dynamic approach to the verification of distributional universals. Linguistic Typology 4. 307–33. DOI: 10.1515/lity.2000.4.3.307.10.1515/lity.2000.4.3.307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, Dana, McKee, Cecile, Cowart, Wayne; and Garrett, Merrill F.. 2015. The role of the language production system in shaping grammars. Language 91. 415–41. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2015.0021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, George A. 1967. The psychology of communication. New York: Basic Books.Google ScholarPubMed
Mithun, Marianne. 1984. How to avoid subordination. Berkeley Linguistics Society 10. 493-509. DOI: 10.3765/bls.vl0i0.1937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 2010. The fluidity of recursion and its implications. In van der Hulst, l7-4l.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmark, Leonard, Hubbard, Philip; and Prifti, Peter. 1982. Standard Albanian: A reference grammar for students. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226580593.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna, and Bickel, Balthasar. 2005. Locus of marking (in the clause; in possessive noun phrases; and whole-language typology). The world atlas of language structures, ed. by Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David, and rie, Bernard Com-, 98–109. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nielsen, Rasmus. 2002. Mapping mutations on phylogenies. Systematic Biology 51. 72932. DOI: 10.l080/l0635l50290l02393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pagel, Mark, and Meade, Andrew. 2014. BayesTraits V2.0. Software and manual. Online: http://www.evolution.rdg.ac.uk/BayesTraits.html.Google Scholar
Pallier, Christophe, Devauchelle, Anne-Dominique; and Dehaene, Stanislas. 2011. Cortical representation of the constituent structure of sentences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America 108. 2522–27. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1018711108.Google ScholarPubMed
Perfors, Amy, Tenenbaum, Joshua B., Gibson, Edward; and Regier, Terry. 2010. How recursive is language? A Bayesian exploration. In van der Hulst, 159–77.Google Scholar
Petit, Daniel. 2009. La préhistoire des adjectifs détérminés du baltique et du slave. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 104. 311–60.10.2143/BSL.104.1.2046994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven, and Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. The faculty of language: What's special about it? Cognition 95. 201–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.08.004.10.1016/j.cognition.2004.08.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2013. The central question in comparative syntactic metatheory. Mind & Language 28. 492–521. DOI: 10.1111/mila.l2029.10.1111/mila.12029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K., and Scholz, Barbara C.. 2010. Recursion and the infinitude claim. In van der Hulst, 113—37.Google Scholar
Reinöhl, Uta. 2016. Grammaticalization and the rise of configurationality in indo-Aryan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198736660.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Revell, Liam J. 2012. phytools: An R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things). Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3. 217–23. DOI: l0.111l/j.2041-2l0X.20ll.00l69.x.10.1111/j.2041-210X.2011.00169.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Revell, Liam J. 2013. Two new graphical methods for mapping trait evolution on phylogenies. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4. 754–59. DOI: l0.1111/2041-2l0X.12066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snell, Rupert, and Weightman, Simon. 2003. Teach yourself Hindi. London: Hodder and Stoughton Educational.Google Scholar
Thordarson, Fridrik. 2009. Ossetic grammatical studies. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiede, Hans-Jörg, and Stout, Lawrence Neff. 2010. Recursion, infinity, and modeling. In van der Hulst, 147–58.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2008. Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/7551.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry (ed.) 2010. Recursion and human language. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110219258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verma, Manindra K. 1971. The structure of the noun phrase in English and Hindi. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Viti, Carlotta. 2015. Variation und Wandel in der Syntax der alten indogermanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.10.24053/9783823377962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wackernagel, Jacob. 1905. Altindische Grammatik, vol. 2: Einleitung zur Wortlehre, 1: Nominalkomposition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Watamull, Jeffrey, Hauser, Marc d., Roberts, Ian g.; and Hornstein, Norbert. 2014. On recursion. Frontiers in Psychology 4:1017. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.01017.Google Scholar
Windfuhr, Gernot, and Perry, John R.. 2009. Persian and Tajik. The Iranian languages, ed. by Windfuhr, Gernot, 416–44. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Yoshida, Daisuke. 1987. Die Syntax des althethitischen substantivischen Genitivs. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Widmer et al. supplementary material

Widmer et al. supplementary material
Download Widmer et al. supplementary material(File)
File 2.1 MB