As I have tried to show, those issues, whilst important and interesting in themselves, have little to do with recursion as this concept has been understood within mathematical logic, the connotation Chomsky has always employed, it seems. As such, there is a bit of a disconnect between what Chomsky is talking about when talking about recursion and what other linguists are talking about when talking about recursion. As a result, rather incompatible claims are being put forward in the literature; indeed, to defend that what is universal in linguistics is the recursively-defined operations of a computational system (clearly Chomsky's take) is very different from the claim that all languages must exhibit self-embedded sentences if recursion is to be accepted as such a central concept (Everett is probably the most prominent example of this line of thought).
Like I say- that paper basically claims that Chomsky's version of recursion in language has changed very little if at all, and that Everett is grossly misrepresenting it (or its consistency).
As I have tried to show, those issues, whilst important and interesting in themselves, have little to do with recursion as this concept has been understood within mathematical logic, the connotation Chomsky has always employed, it seems. As such, there is a bit of a disconnect between what Chomsky is talking about when talking about recursion and what other linguists are talking about when talking about recursion. As a result, rather incompatible claims are being put forward in the literature; indeed, to defend that what is universal in linguistics is the recursively-defined operations of a computational system (clearly Chomsky's take) is very different from the claim that all languages must exhibit self-embedded sentences if recursion is to be accepted as such a central concept (Everett is probably the most prominent example of this line of thought).
Like I say- that paper basically claims that Chomsky's version of recursion in language has changed very little if at all, and that Everett is grossly misrepresenting it (or its consistency).
I would add: willfully so.