

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
Treatment of recursion in linguistic description
المؤلف:
Bernd Heine and Tania Kuteva
المصدر:
The Genesis of Grammar
الجزء والصفحة:
P271-C6
2026-03-20
69
Treatment of recursion in linguistic description
Recursion—more precisely the phenomenon that this term is usually taken to refer to—is not an unproblematical notion. Chomsky himself, who has popularized its use in linguistics (Chomsky 1957), observes that ‘‘[T]he possibility that languages are nonrecursive, however, is granted by everyone who has seriously discussed the subject, and the question whether this possibility is realized remains an open one’’, and he concludes that ‘‘while languages may be recursive, there is no reason to suppose that this must be so’’ (Chomsky 1980: 120, 122).
As we noted above, recursion is not a phenomenon of language but rather of a theory that postulates it as a useful device to describe or explain certain properties of language structure. Accordingly, the way it has been treated in linguistics differs greatly from one model to another. First, there are models where its relevance is ignored, or denied. An extreme position is maintained in the paratactic theory of Davidson (2004), where there is norecursion and no embedding; rather, propositions are understood to be paratactically ordered. Accordingly, the English sentence Pierre believes that snow is white is said to consist of two distinct utterances linked by parataxis: Pierre believes that. Snow is white.
Second, quite a number of linguists acknowledge that there are phenomena that can be described in terms of recursion but that there are also alternative ways of describing such phenomena. And third, there are in fact alternative models that have been proposed to deal with recursive phenomena, perhaps the most noteworthy one being that of endocentricity as used in the early structuralist tradition, which is based on observations of the distributional equivalence of constituents. According to Bloomfield (1933: 194–7), a construction (e.g. poor John) is defined as endocentric if it
Belongs to the same form-class as one (or more) of its constituents. The latter constituent is called the head (John) while the other constituent is the attribute (poor). Endocentric constructions contrast with exocentric constructions (e.g. John ran), which belong to a form-class other than that of any of its constituents. Bloomfield observes that most constructions in any language are endocentric, while exocentric constructions are few. Endocentricity is productive (‘‘there can be several ranks of subordinative position’’ in his terminology) in that an endocentric construction ([fresh] milk) can be the head of another endocentric construction ([[very] fresh] milk).
The difference between embedding and iterating recursion (see below) is reflected in Bloomfield’s distinction between two kinds of endocentric constructions, namely subordinative or attributive (poor John) and coordinative or serial constructions (boys and girls), respectively. While Bloomfield does not extend the notion of endocentricity to the relation between main and subordinate clauses,1 later authors did, treating clause subordination in terms of endocentricity. Thus, a noun phrase containing an embedded relative clause, as in the man who came to tea, is interpreted as endocentric since it has the same distribution as the noun phrase the man (Lyons 1977: 391), and Lehmann (1988: 182) proposes to define clause subordination more generally as an endocentric construction between two clauses where one is the head and the other its dependent. In most formal models, recursion is simply a formal means of capturing (one aspect of) endocentricity (Fritz Newmeyer, p.c.).
1 Bloomfield (1933:194) notes that subordinate clauses are exocentric since the resultant phrase (e.g. if John ran away) has the function of neither of its constituents (if or John ran away). But he does not elaborate on how subordinate clauses relate to main clauses.
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)