

Grammar


Tenses


Present

Present Simple

Present Continuous

Present Perfect

Present Perfect Continuous


Past

Past Simple

Past Continuous

Past Perfect

Past Perfect Continuous


Future

Future Simple

Future Continuous

Future Perfect

Future Perfect Continuous


Parts Of Speech


Nouns

Countable and uncountable nouns

Verbal nouns

Singular and Plural nouns

Proper nouns

Nouns gender

Nouns definition

Concrete nouns

Abstract nouns

Common nouns

Collective nouns

Definition Of Nouns

Animate and Inanimate nouns

Nouns


Verbs

Stative and dynamic verbs

Finite and nonfinite verbs

To be verbs

Transitive and intransitive verbs

Auxiliary verbs

Modal verbs

Regular and irregular verbs

Action verbs

Verbs


Adverbs

Relative adverbs

Interrogative adverbs

Adverbs of time

Adverbs of place

Adverbs of reason

Adverbs of quantity

Adverbs of manner

Adverbs of frequency

Adverbs of affirmation

Adverbs


Adjectives

Quantitative adjective

Proper adjective

Possessive adjective

Numeral adjective

Interrogative adjective

Distributive adjective

Descriptive adjective

Demonstrative adjective


Pronouns

Subject pronoun

Relative pronoun

Reflexive pronoun

Reciprocal pronoun

Possessive pronoun

Personal pronoun

Interrogative pronoun

Indefinite pronoun

Emphatic pronoun

Distributive pronoun

Demonstrative pronoun

Pronouns


Pre Position


Preposition by function

Time preposition

Reason preposition

Possession preposition

Place preposition

Phrases preposition

Origin preposition

Measure preposition

Direction preposition

Contrast preposition

Agent preposition


Preposition by construction

Simple preposition

Phrase preposition

Double preposition

Compound preposition

prepositions


Conjunctions

Subordinating conjunction

Correlative conjunction

Coordinating conjunction

Conjunctive adverbs

conjunctions


Interjections

Express calling interjection

Phrases

Sentences

Clauses

Part of Speech


Grammar Rules

Passive and Active

Preference

Requests and offers

wishes

Be used to

Some and any

Could have done

Describing people

Giving advices

Possession

Comparative and superlative

Giving Reason

Making Suggestions

Apologizing

Forming questions

Since and for

Directions

Obligation

Adverbials

invitation

Articles

Imaginary condition

Zero conditional

First conditional

Second conditional

Third conditional

Reported speech

Demonstratives

Determiners

Direct and Indirect speech


Linguistics

Phonetics

Phonology

Linguistics fields

Syntax

Morphology

Semantics

pragmatics

History

Writing

Grammar

Phonetics and Phonology

Semiotics


Reading Comprehension

Elementary

Intermediate

Advanced


Teaching Methods

Teaching Strategies

Assessment
Simple vs. productive recursion
المؤلف:
Bernd Heine and Tania Kuteva
المصدر:
The Genesis of Grammar
الجزء والصفحة:
P268-C6
2026-03-20
68
Simple vs. productive recursion
Recursion is a crosslinguistically ubiquitous phenomenon: In most languages it is—or can be—used productively both in attributive possession and in clause subordination. With the term productive recursion we refer to the unlimited design of the rule—there are unlimited levels of embed ding, that is the rule applies in principle indefinitely many times. But perhaps equally common are cases where a recursive rule applies only once to its own output or is non-productive, we will call such cases simple recursion. This distinction is not a trivial one: Simple recursion conforms to the definition of recursion proposed in (1a), but at the same time it has more in common with other, non-recursive, syntactic or semantic properties of human language than with productive recursion.
There are considerable typological differences with respect to this distinction. First, a given language may allow recursion in some specific domain of grammar where another language does not. In German there is simple recursion with modals, cf. (5a), where English has no recursion. On the other hand, German speakers have only simple recursion with inflected genitives, cf. (5b), where English speakers do not have such a constraint, as the English translation of (5b) shows.

Quite a number of languages, such as Romance languages, have no productive recursion in compounding while others, such as Germanic languages, allow productive noun–noun compounding. Thus, French speakers can use at best simple recursion in compounding, for example homme grenouille (man frog) ‘frog man’; root compounding is unproductive, limited to frozen and self-conscious coinages (Bauer 1978). For English speakers on the other hand, undersea divers can appear in constructions of productive recursion, cf. (3a). The magnitude that productivity may have can be illustrated with example (6). We have never heard a German speaker uttering this compound, and it probably never will be uttered; however, it is a grammatically correct instance of productive recursive compounding.

Recursion as it presents itself in, for example, noun combining appears to be rooted in a fairly basic cognitive activity, namely in taxonomy whereby elementary conceptual relations are established among different taxa of the same domain. Simple recursion is a natural product of this activity: Once there is a linguistic expression for relations such as between less inclusive and more inclusive, part and whole, one social role and another, or possessee and possessor, the way is cleared for recursion to enter. And the situation is not dramatically different in the case of productive recursion: What is required is simply that an existing ‘‘rule’’ or convention is re-applied to the same taxonomic entity. Accordingly, the difference between simple and productive recursion appears to be one of degree rather than of kind.
While productive recursion is essentially unlimited, there are generally limits to its use: it is constrained in particular by pragmatic factors, for example by the capacity of a speaker’s memory, by what the speaker thinks the hearer can digest, etc. But it is also constrained by syntactic factors; for example, recursive productivity tends to be more limited in center-em bedded than in either left- or right-embedded subordination. Some students of connectionist models account for this fact by adding a component of analysis or description that deals specifically with productivity constraints (see Christiansen and Chater 1999), and since Miller and Chomsky (1963) it has been argued that there exists a separate working memory capacity that constrains recursion.1
1 We are grateful to Fritz Newmeyer (p.c.) for having drawn our attention to this fact.
الاكثر قراءة في Linguistics fields
اخر الاخبار
اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة
الآخبار الصحية

قسم الشؤون الفكرية يصدر كتاباً يوثق تاريخ السدانة في العتبة العباسية المقدسة
"المهمة".. إصدار قصصي يوثّق القصص الفائزة في مسابقة فتوى الدفاع المقدسة للقصة القصيرة
(نوافذ).. إصدار أدبي يوثق القصص الفائزة في مسابقة الإمام العسكري (عليه السلام)