Cover not available

Article published In: Special Issue in Memory of Irit Meir
Edited by Diane Lillo-Martin, Wendy Sandler, Marie Coppola and Rose Stamp
[Sign Language & Linguistics 23:1/2] 2020
► pp. 258–271

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Topic-open-endedness

Why recursion is overrated

Published online: 30 October 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.00051.mei
Abstract
Humans can use language to refer to and describe endless varieties of situations, thoughts, ideas, and topics, actual or hypothetical. This capacity, which distinguishes human language from communication systems of other animals, is referred to here as topic-open-endedness. A key factor in explaining topic-open-endedness early in the life of a new sign language is the nature of the linguistic symbols, the words, and the human ability to extend their meanings – e.g., through metonymy and metaphor – to novel semantic domains, applying a finite lexicon to infinite situations and topics. Other early language properties such as predication and negation facilitate creativity and flexibility from the beginning. The property of recursion accounts for the creation of an infinite number of sentences from a finite set of words and rules. But it cannot account for the open-endedness of the contents of those sentences. Therefore, the importance attributed to recursion as the sole mechanism that is uniquely human is overrated.
Article outline
  • 1.What is special about human language: Topic-open-endedness
  • 2.Topic-open-endedness: The role of meaning extensions
  • 3.Expressing recursive thoughts: Is syntactic recursion necessary?
  • 4.The diachronic perspective: The view from young languages
  • 5.Topic-open-endedness: Symbols, meaning extensions, and compositionality
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (39)
References
Bickerton, Derek. 1990. Language and species. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. Adam’s tongue: How humans made language, how language made humans. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarty, Andrew. 1999. The origins of complex language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dachkovsky, Svetlana. 2016. The development of a relative clause marker from a deictic gesture in Israeli Sign Language. Talk presented at Annual Meeting of the German Linguistic Society (DGfS), Workshop 7: Sign language agreement revisited: New theoretical and experimental perspectives, Konstanz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. Grammaticalization of intonation in Israeli Sign Language: From information structure to relative clause relations. Haifa: University of Haifa PhD dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deacon, Terry. 1997. The symbolic species: The coevolution of language and the brain. New York: Norton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ergin, Rabia. 2017. Central Taurus Sign Language: A unique vantage point into language emergence. Somerville, MA: Tufts University PhD dissertation. Available at: [URL]
Evans, Nicholas. 2003. Bininj gun-wok: A pan-dialectal grammar of Mayali, Kunwinjku and Kune. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Steven Levinson. 2009. The myth of language universals. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 321. 429–492. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Everett, Dan. 2012. Language: The cultural tool. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. 1952. On concept and object. In Peter Geach (trans.), Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege, 42–55. Oxford: Blackwell. [Original. 1892. Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie 161. 192–205].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gil, David. 2009. How much grammar does it take to sail a boat? In Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil & Peter Trudgill (Eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable, 19–33. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2003. The resilience of language: What gesture creation in deaf children can tell us about how all children learn language. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. What language creation in the manual modality tells us about the foundations of language. Linguistic Review 221. 199–225. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hauser, Marc. 1996. The evolution of communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hauser, Marc, Noam Chomsky & Tecumseh Fitch. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve. Science 2981. 1569–1579. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2007. The genesis of grammar: A reconstruction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hobaiter, Cat & Richard W. Byrne. 2014. The meanings of Chimpanzee gestures. Current Biology 241. 1596–1600. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1960. The origin of speech. Scientific American 2031. 88–111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holm, John. 1989. Pidgins and Creoles. Vol II1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2011. What is the human language faculty? Two views. Language 87(3). 586–624. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kastner, Itamar, Irit Meir, Wendy Sandler & Svetlana Dachkovsky. 2014. The emergence of embedded structure: Insights from Kafr Qasem Sign Language. Frontiers in Psychology 51. 1–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kocab, Annemarie, Ann Senghas & Jesse Snedeker. 2016. Recursion in Nicaraguan Sign Language. In A. Papafragou, D. Grodner, D. Mirman & J. C. Trueswell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1343–1348. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society. Available at: [URL]
Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Functional similarities between bimanual coordination and topic/comment structure. In Regine Eckardt, Gerhard Jäger & Tonjes Veenstra (Eds), Variation, selection, development. Probing the evolutionary model of language change, 307–336. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liebal, Katja & Joseph Call. 2012. The origins of non-human primates’ manual gestures. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 367(1585). 118–128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meir, Irit. 2010. Iconicity and metaphor: Constraints on metaphorical use of iconic forms. Language 84(4). 865–896. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meir, Irit & Ariel Cohen. 2018. Metaphor in sign languages. Frontiers in Psychology 91. 1025. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meir, Irit, Wendy Sandler, Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff. 2010. Emerging sign languages. In Marc Marschark & Patricia E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education, Vol. 21, 267–280. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meir, Irit, Wendy Sandler, Yifat Ziv Ben-Zeev, Sara Lanesman & Meyad Sarsour. 2016. How does a lexicon emerge in a new language? Insights from village sign languages of Israel. Iyunim be Safa ve-Hevra 8(1–2). 11–43 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1984. How to avoid subordination. Berkeley Linguistic Society 101. 493–509. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pika, Simone & John C. Mitani. 2009. The directed scratch: Evidence for a referential gesture in chimpanzees? In Rudolf Botha & Chris Knight (Eds.), The prehistory of language, 166–180. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven & Ray Jackendoff. 2005. The faculty of language: What’s special about it? Cognition 951. 201–236. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pollick, Amy S. & Frans B. M. de Waal. 2007. Ape gesture and language evolution. The National Academy of Sciences 1041. 8184–8189. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy, Irit Meir, Svetlana Dachkovsky, Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff. 2011. The emergence of complexity in prosody and syntax. Lingua 1211. 2014–2033. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy, Irit Meir, Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff. 2005. The emergence of grammar: Systematic structure in a new language. The National Academy of Sciences 102(7). 2661–2665. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 2009. Symbiotic symbolization by hand and mouth in sign language. Semiotica 174(1/4). 241–275.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Prosody and syntax in sign languages. Transactions of the Philological Society 108(3). 298–328. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taub, Sarah. 2001. Language from the body. Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Sobrino, Alejandro
2025. Other Recursion Topics. In On Recursion and Its Varieties [Contemporary Systems Thinking, ], ► pp. 83 ff. DOI logo
Bickel, Balthasar, Anne-Lise Giraud, Klaus Zuberbühler & Carel P. van Schaik
2024. Language follows a distinct mode of extra-genomic evolution. Physics of Life Reviews 50 ► pp. 211 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue