Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| 20190912-pochtrager [2022-04-02 13:32] – external edit 127.0.0.1 | 20190912-pochtrager [2022-04-02 17:35] (current) – Péter Szigetvári | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| === Recursion and GP 2.0 | === Recursion and GP 2.0 | ||
| - | [[this> | + | [[this> |
| Recursion is assumed to be central in syntax to help us make “infinite use of finite means” (Wilhelm von Humboldt), while phonology is often claimed to lack recursion. Neeleman & van de Koot (2006) present a detailed argument for fundamental differences between syntax and phonology; recursion being one of them. In a similar vein, Jackendoff (2007: 39) takes phonological structures to be “not recursive [since] they cannot be embedded indefinitely deeply in other structures of the same type. […] For example, a rhyme cannot be subordinate to a syllable that is in turn subordinate to another rhyme.” Note here the equation of recursion with self-embedding (“same type”) and the assumption that common notions like syllables and rhymes are adequate phonological objects. | Recursion is assumed to be central in syntax to help us make “infinite use of finite means” (Wilhelm von Humboldt), while phonology is often claimed to lack recursion. Neeleman & van de Koot (2006) present a detailed argument for fundamental differences between syntax and phonology; recursion being one of them. In a similar vein, Jackendoff (2007: 39) takes phonological structures to be “not recursive [since] they cannot be embedded indefinitely deeply in other structures of the same type. […] For example, a rhyme cannot be subordinate to a syllable that is in turn subordinate to another rhyme.” Note here the equation of recursion with self-embedding (“same type”) and the assumption that common notions like syllables and rhymes are adequate phonological objects. | ||