Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Minimalist Program
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Minimalist Program
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I The Big Picture
- Part II Issues of Labeling
- 7 Labeling Theory
- 8 Movement as a Labeling Device
- 9 Labeling Without Labels
- 10 What We Lose if Labels Are Not in Syntax and How We Can Get It Back
- 11 Recursion in Sign Languages
- 12 Economy
- Part III The Realm of Merge
- Part IV Structural Concerns
- Part V Features and Agree(ment)
- Part VI Toward the Interfaces
- Index
- References
11 - Recursion in Sign Languages
from Part II - Issues of Labeling
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 October 2026
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Minimalist Program
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Minimalist Program
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I The Big Picture
- Part II Issues of Labeling
- 7 Labeling Theory
- 8 Movement as a Labeling Device
- 9 Labeling Without Labels
- 10 What We Lose if Labels Are Not in Syntax and How We Can Get It Back
- 11 Recursion in Sign Languages
- 12 Economy
- Part III The Realm of Merge
- Part IV Structural Concerns
- Part V Features and Agree(ment)
- Part VI Toward the Interfaces
- Index
- References
Summary
This vignette shows that label preserving self-embedding, which creates an XP-within-XP configuration, is attested in sign languages, although this configuration can be created by operations that are not available in spoken languages and involve the grammatical use of space. Three domains are considered: simple NP-within-NP recursion, relative clause stacking (a more complex case of NP-within-NP recursion), and sentential embedding (being a case of CP-within-CP). A new diagnostic, called “the prefer-test,” is used to prove the presence of label preserving self-embedding in ambiguous cases. The findings reported in this vignette support the view that wherever there is language, there is (label-preserving) self-embedding, even in environments that in principle make this configuration hard to process.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Minimalist Program , pp. 189 - 201Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2026
References
Alba, C. (2016). Wh-questions in Catalan Sign Language. [Doctoral dissertation, Pompeu Fabra University].Google Scholar
Bellugi, U., Klima, E. S., & Siple, P. (1975). Remembering in signs. Cognition, 3, 93–125.10.1016/0010-0277(74)90015-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boutla, M., Supalla, T., Newport, E. L., & Bavelier, D. (2004). Short-term memory span: Insight from sign language. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 997–1002.10.1038/nn1298CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Branchini, C. (2014). On Relativization and Clefting: An Analysis of Italian Sign Language. De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781501500008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cecchetto, C., & Donati, C. (2016). Relativization in Italian Sign Language: The missing link of relativization. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Herrmann, A. (eds.), A Matter of Complexity (pp. 182–203). De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781501503238-008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cecchetto, C., Geraci, C., & Zucchi, S. (2006). Strategies of relativization in Italian Sign Language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25, 945–975.10.1007/s11049-006-9001-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cecchetto, C., Geraci, C., & Zucchi, S. (2009). Another way to mark syntactic dependencies: The case for right peripheral specifiers in sign languages. Language, 85(2), 278–320.10.1353/lan.0.0114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cecchetto, C., Giustolisi, B., & Mantovan, L. (2016). Short-term memory and sign languages: Sign span and its linguistic implications. Revista de Estudos Linguísticos da Univerdade do Porto, 11, 59–89.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1956). Three models for the description of language. IRE Transactions on Information Theory, 2, 113–124.10.1109/TIT.1956.1056813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783112316009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2015). Problems of projection: Extensions. In Domenico, E. D., Hamann, C., & Matteini, S. (eds.), Structures, Strategies and Beyond – Studies in Honour of Adriana Belletti (pp. 3–16). John Benjamins.10.1075/la.223.01choCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culy, C. (1985). The complexity of the vocabulary of Bambara. Linguistics and Philosophy, 8, 345–351.10.1007/BF00630918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everett, D. L. (2005). Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã: Another look at the design features of human language. Current Anthropology, 46, 621–634.10.1086/431525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geraci, C., & Aristodemo, V. (2016). An in-depth tour into sentential complementation in Italian Sign Language. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Herrmann, A. (eds.), A Matter of Complexity: Subordination in Sign Languages (pp. 95–150). De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781501503238-006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geraci, C., Gozzi, M., Papagno, C., & Cecchetto, C. (2008). How grammar can cope with limited short-term memory: Simultaneity and seriality in sign languages. Cognition, 106, 780–804.10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, M., & Bavelier, D. (2011). Short-term memory stages in sign vs. speech: The source of the serial span discrepancy. Cognition, 120(1), 54–66.10.1016/j.cognition.2011.02.014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298, 1569–1579.10.1126/science.298.5598.1569CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hornstein, N. (2019). Recursive lemons: A review of Recursion across domains. Language, 95(4), 791–802.10.1353/lan.2019.0074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huybregts, R. (1984). The weak inadequacy of context-free phrase structure grammars. In de Haan, G. J., Trommelen, M., & Zonneveld, W. (eds.), Van periferie naar kern (pp. 81–99). Foris.Google Scholar
Jäger, G., & Rogers, J. (2012). Formal language theory: Refining the Chomsky hierarchy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences, 367, 1956–1970.10.1098/rstb.2012.0077CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lillo-Martin, D. (1986). Two kinds of null arguments in American Sign Language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 4(4), 415–444.10.1007/BF00134469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, K., Mayberry, R., & Fletcher, J. (1996). The short-term memory of profoundly deaf people for words, signs, and abstract spatial stimuli. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 105–119.10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199604)10:2<105::AID-ACP367>3.0.CO;2-43.0.CO;2-4>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neidle, C., Kegl, J., MacLaughlin, D., Bahan, B., & Lee, R. G. (2000). The Syntax of American Sign Language: Functional Categories and Hierarchical Structure. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nevins, A., Pesetsky, D., & Rodrigues, C. (2009). Pirahã exceptionality: A reassessment. Language, 85, 355–404.10.1353/lan.0.0107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfau, R., & Steinbach, M. (2005). Relative clauses in German Sign Language: Extraposition and reconstruction. In Bateman, L. & Ussery, C. (eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 35) (vol. 2, pp. 207–521). GLSA.Google Scholar
Quer, J. (2012). A modality-free account of the position of clausal arguments. [Paper presentation, June 1–2, Formal and Experimental Advances in Sign Language Theory (FEAST), Warsaw, Poland].Google Scholar
Rodrigues, C., Salles, R., & Sandalo, F. (2018). Word Order in Control: Evidence for self-embedding in Pirahã. In Amaral, L., Maia, M., Nevins, A., & Roeper, T. (eds.), Recursion across Domains (pp. 111–126). Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108290708.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rönnberg, J., Rudne, M., & Ingva, M. (2004). Neural correlates of working memory for sign language. Cognitive Brain Research, 20, 165–182.10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.03.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sandalo, F., Rodrigues, C., Roeper, T., Amaral, L., Maia, M., & Silva, G. (2018). Self-embedded recursive postpositional phrases in Pirahã: A pilot study. In Amaral, L., Maia, M., Nevins, A., & Roeper, T. (eds.), Recursion across Domains (pp. 279–295). Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108290708.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauerland, U. (2015). Against complexity parameters. In Trotzke, A. & Bayer, J. (eds.) Syntactic Complexity across Interfaces (pp. 9–24). De Gruyter.10.1515/9781614517900.9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shieber, S. (1985). Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 8, 333–343.10.1007/BF00630917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: Inaccessible, or known limited accessibility
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this chapter is known to have missing or limited accessibility features.
We may be reviewing its accessibility for future improvement, but final compliance is
not yet assured and may be subject to legal exceptions. If you have any questions,
please contact
accessibility@cambridge.org.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.