13

The modern Chinese linguistic recursion system is essentially the same as English. If you have a highly embedded sentence, you can translate it word for word, the embedding is very much the same. In my youth, I believed this was just another datum in favor of Universal Grammar theory, but this is not true.

Everett recently demonstrated that pre-literate languages can lack embedding, it has long been known that Warlpiri does not have recursive structures like multiple embedding at all, and Fred Karlsson in "Constraints on multiple center-embedding of clauses" argues persuasively that the modern European center-recursion system was standardized by Cicero in Roman times, and the rules for recursion spread through the influence of Cicero's writing. So that no languages at all were recursive to begin with.

It seems doubtful to me that this could have reached China until at least the late middle ages, so Chinese recursion is a particularly stringent test of the evolution of recursion in isolation from Cicero, in a culutre literate in ancient times. It is possible that Chinese recursion evolved independently.

  1. What is the approximate date of the earliest Chinese 2 or more level center-embedded production? (2-level center embedding is a stringent test of Cicero-speak)
  2. Is it before or after the date of the first translations of western recursive prose to Chinese?
  3. What is the general pattern of clause embedding in ancient chinese? Does it show multiple embedding of clauses? When?

Although it seems highly unlikely to me, if you have evidence that Chinese recursed first, and Cicero read Chinese, that would be interesting. Bonus points for Sanskrit, although I would guess no mutli-level embedding in ancient Sanskrit (based on ancient Hebrew) and considering the different expertise required, it should probably be a separate question.

hippietrail
  • 14,687
  • 7
  • 61
  • 146
Ron Maimon
  • 1
  • 6
  • 17
  • 2
    Regarding Sanskrit: a couple different authorities have said that in Rigvedic Sanksrit, center-embedding is "impossible": 'The language of the Rigveda does not have center-embedding....In the system of Rigvedic relativization such embedding "is impossible'. – Mark Beadles Mar 08 '12 at 15:00
  • 2
    "The language of the Rigveda has no rule of 'WH-movement'...A noteworthy feature of this system of relativization is that center-embedding, or the insertion of the relative clause into the main clause so that it is 'framed' by elements of the latter, is impossible." But then by the later Vedic times, center-embedding in Sanskrit did develop. – Mark Beadles Mar 08 '12 at 15:05
  • Wang, Li 王力. 2005. 汉语语法史 Hanyu Yufa Shi. Beijing: Commercial Press. Wang, Li 王力. 1958. 汉语史稿 Hanyu Shigao. Beijing: Kexue Chubanshe (I see these two books as required on a syllabus for a class called "History of Chinese Syntax" taught at U. Hawai'i Manoa) –  Mar 08 '12 at 15:17
  • also Eifring (1995) "Clause combination in Chinese" appears to have some remarks about Classical Chinese. –  Mar 08 '12 at 15:23
  • @jolovegren: Do not change the title, I mean it--- I want recursion, not just center-embedding. Center embedding is full context-freeness, but I don't believe Chinese was recursive in any real sense until the 19th century. This because my wife (who is Chinese) tells me that the grammar changed in radical ways in the 19th century, as contact with the west led Chinese to modernize. Before that, she said, Chinese sentences were "short" and "hard to understand". She isn't a linguist, so I can't be sure. – Ron Maimon Mar 09 '12 at 04:29
  • @RonMaimon, I am afraid you haven't followed the recursion debate closely enough. Now the consensus (among generativists) is that recursion in linguistics is the formation of hierarchical structure. And yes, recursion is understood slightly differently in linguistics. Basically, you put words together and this operation can go on infinitely. That's why Nevins et al. 2009 said that a language that lacks recursion will have two-word sentences only. So far, we haven't seen such a language. – Alex B. Mar 09 '12 at 16:18
  • 1
    @Alex B.: I have been following the recursion debate, I know what these people are saying. Their position is indefensible. Sentences that do not have embedding are flat, they do not have a parse tree description that is useful. List-making is a primitive form of recursion (which is remarkably also missing in Piraha), but only if you have unbounded lists. This is Chomsky's "merge" retrenchment. To say that a language has recursion when it admits a 3 word sentence is mentally deranged, and uses the word "recursion" in a way incompatible with its use in generative grammar for 50 years. – Ron Maimon Mar 09 '12 at 16:28
  • 2
    @RonMaimon, Could you please tell me what you've read? Thanks! – Alex B. Mar 09 '12 at 16:31
  • @Alex B.: Of course I wont, first because I don't remember everything I read over the years, and second I don't believe in reading. I believe in thinking. I am not in a competition with anybody in the "most literate" category. I read enough to understand what is being said (which doesn't take long). If something I said is incorrect, because of the content of a reference, I will be happy to read it (if it gets to the point quickly), but usually these "what did you read" is the worthless posturing, comparing credentials. I have no credentials, and I don't need them. This is the internet. – Ron Maimon Mar 09 '12 at 16:37
  • 4
    @RonMaimon, I see. I believe in reading and thinking. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. This is science. Have a nice day! – Alex B. Mar 09 '12 at 16:42
  • 2
    @Alex B. : Every time there is a new vehicle, you have to reinvent the wheel. The wheel had to be reinvented for the cart (cross-beam), for the bicycle (spokes,inflatable tires), for the automobile (movable axis), essentially for every new vehicle. "Reinventing the wheel" is one of the central activity of science, along with inventing new wheels. If you refuse to reinvent the wheel, you aren't doing science, you are doing Aristotelianism, which is the opposite of science. I am having a very nice day, by the way. – Ron Maimon Mar 09 '12 at 16:57
  • 1
    I didn't mean it literally. It was supposed to be taken metaphorically. Sigh. – Alex B. Mar 09 '12 at 17:07
  • Old Chinese had relative clauses, here's a brief description by Adridge. – Gaston Ümlaut Mar 10 '12 at 10:04
  • @GastonÜmlaut: All (or almost all) languages have relative clauses--- these are not recursive. Recursive is when you can embed a relative clause inside a relative clause, and there is no firm evidence that you can do this. This isn't center recursion, mind you, just tail or head recursion. – Ron Maimon Mar 10 '12 at 19:20
  • I don't know where you get your definition of recursion from, but inserting a clause (a subordinate clause) inside a main clause (ie as a relative clause) is normally considered to be recursion. – Gaston Ümlaut Mar 11 '12 at 05:38
  • (oops, ran out of time, here's the rest)

    Even repeated addition of modifiers to a NP is often treated as recursion (Karlsson mentions this in his discussion).

    I had thought your 3. was about embedding in Chinese generally, but you intend this question to be only about centre-embedding, is that right?

     – Gaston Ümlaut Mar 11 '12 at 06:01
  • @GastonÜmlaut: It's one level of recursion, to be sure, but the issue is with multiple recursion: "The man walked to the store which was built in 1989" is only one level deep. "The man walked to the store which was built in 1989 which was the year that I graduated from elementary school" is two levels deep. Recursion is about things going on to infinity. If you want the definition I am using, a language is recursive when it allows a double embedding like the above, or a center embedding, or (best of all) a double center embedding. Each is an advance, and each might come at different times. – Ron Maimon Mar 11 '12 at 06:14
  • @MarkBeadles: Do you have a source or an example of center embedding in late Vedic Sanskrit or Classical Sanskrit? – user67444 Aug 10 '15 at 21:35
  • What do you mean by "If you have a highly embedded sentence, you can translate it word for word, the embedding is very much the same."? Chinese is left-branching, English is generally right-branching (some simple examples are here). I don't see how translating word for word could work here. – michau Dec 28 '16 at 12:50

0 Answers0