↓ Skip to main content

The language faculty that wasn't: a usage-based account of natural language recursion

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
47 X users

Readers on

mendeley
158 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The language faculty that wasn't: a usage-based account of natural language recursion
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01182
Pubmed ID
Authors

Morten H. Christiansen, Nick Chater

Abstract

In the generative tradition, the language faculty has been shrinking-perhaps to include only the mechanism of recursion. This paper argues that even this view of the language faculty is too expansive. We first argue that a language faculty is difficult to reconcile with evolutionary considerations. We then focus on recursion as a detailed case study, arguing that our ability to process recursive structure does not rely on recursion as a property of the grammar, but instead emerges gradually by piggybacking on domain-general sequence learning abilities. Evidence from genetics, comparative work on non-human primates, and cognitive neuroscience suggests that humans have evolved complex sequence learning skills, which were subsequently pressed into service to accommodate language. Constraints on sequence learning therefore have played an important role in shaping the cultural evolution of linguistic structure, including our limited abilities for processing recursive structure. Finally, we re-evaluate some of the key considerations that have often been taken to require the postulation of a language faculty.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 47 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 151 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 28%
Student > Master 21 13%
Researcher 20 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 6%
Other 26 16%
Unknown 23 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 46 29%
Psychology 31 20%
Neuroscience 11 7%
Computer Science 9 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Other 18 11%
Unknown 35 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,291,019
of 25,805,386 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#2,701
of 34,800 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,824
of 279,895 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#49
of 553 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,805,386 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,800 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,895 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 553 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.