No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
What is the human language faculty? Two views
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 February 2026
Abstract
In addition to providing an account of the empirical facts of language, a theory that aspires to account for language as a biologically based human faculty should seek a graceful integration of linguistic phenomena with what is known about other human cognitive capacities and about the character of brain computation. The present discussion note compares the theoretical stance of biolinguistics (Chomsky 2005, Di Sciullo & Boeckx 2011) with a constraint-based parallel architecture approach to the language faculty (Jackendoff 2002, Culicover & Jackendoff 2005). The issues considered include the necessity of redundancy in the lexicon and the rule system, the ubiquity of recursion in cognition, derivational vs. constraint-based formalisms, the relation between lexical items and grammatical rules, the roles of phonology and semantics in the grammar, the combinatorial character of thought in humans and nonhumans, the interfaces between language, thought, and vision, and the possible course of evolution of the language faculty. In each of these areas, the parallel architecture offers a superior account both of the linguistic facts and of the relation of language to the rest of the mind/brain.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Discussion Note
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2011 Linguistic Society of America
References
Arbib, Michael A. 2003. brain, Meaning, Grammar, evolution. [sic] Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26. 668–69.Google Scholar
Arnold, Kate, and Zuberbühler, Klaus. 2008. Meaningful call combinations in a non-human primate. Current Biology 18.R202–R203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark, Meir, Irit; and Sandler, Wendy. 2005. The paradox of sign language morphology. Language 81. 301–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Asaka, Toshihiko. 2002. A lexical licensing analysis of the adjectival noun construction. English Linguistics 19. 113–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, Nicholas, and Lascarides, Alex. 2003. Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, Harald, Schreuder, Robert, Jong, Nivja de; and Krott, Andrea. 2002. Dutch inflection: The rules that prove the exception. Storage and computation in the language faculty, ed. by Nooteboom, Sieb, Weerman, Fred, and Wijnen, Frank, 61–92. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badler, Norman I., Bindiganavale, Rama, Allbeck, Jan, Schuler, William, Zhao, Liwei; and Palmer, Martha. 2000. A parameterized action representation for virtual human agents. Embodied conversational agents, ed. by Cassell, Justine, Sullivan, Joseph, Prevost, Scott, and Churchill, Elizabeth F., 256–84. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Berwick, Robert. 2011a. All you need is Merge: Biology, computation, and language from the bottom up. In Di Sciullo & Boeckx, 461–91.Google Scholar
Berwick, Robert. 2011b. Syntax facit saltum redux: Biolinguistics and the leap to syntax. In Di Sciullo & Boeckx, 65–99.Google Scholar
Berwick, Robert, and Chomsky, Noam. 2011. The biolinguistic program: The current state of its development. In Di Sciullo & Boeckx, 19–41.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 1990. Language and species. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 2010. On two incompatible theories of language evolution. In Larson et al., 199–210.Google Scholar
Bindiganavale, Rama, Schuler, William, Allbeck, Jan M., Badler, Norman I., Joshi, Aravind K.; and Palmer, Martha. 2000. Dynamically altering agent behaviors using natural language instructions. AGENTS '00: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Autonomous Agents, 293–300.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2011. Approaching parameters from below. In Di Sciullo & Boeckx, 205–21.Google Scholar
Boou, Geert. 2002. Constructional idioms, morphology and the Dutch lexicon. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 14. 301–29.Google Scholar
Bornkessel, Ina, and Schlesewsky, Matthias. 2006. The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review 113. 787–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2003. Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, vol. 2, ed. by Tomasello, Michael, 145–67. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and McClelland, James. 2005. Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm. The Linguistic Review 22. 381–410.Google Scholar
Byrne, Richard, and Whiten, Andrew (eds.) 1988. Machiavellian intelligence: Social expertise and the evolution of intellect in monkeys, apes, and humans. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chater, Nick, Reali, Florencia; and Christiansen, Morten H.. 2009. Restrictions on biological adaptation in language evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106. 1015–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheney, Dorothy, and Seyfarth, Robert. 1990. How monkeys see the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheney, Dorothy, and Seyfarth, Robert. 2005. Constraints and preadaptations in the earliest stages of language. The Linguistic Review 22. 135–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheney, Dorothy, and Seyfarth, Robert. 2007. Baboon metaphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1959. Review of Verbal behavior, by Skinner, B. F.. Language 35. 26–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1963. Formal properties of grammars. Handbook of mathematical psychology, vol. 2, ed. by Luce, R. Duncan, Bush, Robert R., and Galanter, Eugene, 323–418. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1972. Some empirical issues in the theory of transformational grammar. Studies on semantics in generative grammar, 120–202. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2010. Some simple evo devo theses: How true might they be for language? In Larson et al., 45–62.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Miller, George A.. 1963. Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. Handbook of mathematical psychology, vol. 2, ed. by Luce, R. Duncan, Bush, Robert R., and Galanter, Eugene, 269–321. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Clark, Andy. 1996. Linguistic anchors in a sea of thought? Pragmatics and Cognition 4. 93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coen, Michael Harlan. 2006. Multimodal dynamics: Self-supervised learning in perceptual and motor systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Cohn, Neil. 2010. The limits of time and transitions: Challenges to theories of sequential image comprehension. Studies in Comics 1. 127–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohn, Neil. 2011. You're a good experiment, Charlie Brown: Narrative structure in comic strips. Medford, MA: Tufts University, work in preparation.Google Scholar
Cohn, Neil, Paczynski, Martin, Holcomb, Phillip, Jackendoff, Ray; and Kuperberg, Gina. 2010. Impact of structure and meaning on sequential image comprehension. Paper presented at the 23rd annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York.Google Scholar
Crick, Francis. 1994. The astonishing hypothesis: The scientific search for the soul. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. 1972. OM-sentences: On the derivation of sentences with systematically unspecifiable interpretations. Foundations of Language 8. 199–236.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W., and Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, Anne, and Charles Clifton, Jr. 1999. Comprehending spoken language: A blueprint of the listener. The neurocognition of language, ed. by Brown, Colin and Hagoort, Peter, 123–66. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, and Boeckx, Cedric (eds.) 2011. The biolinguistic enterprise: New perspectives on the evolution and nature of the human language faculty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dick, Frederic, Bates, Elizabeth, Wulfeck, Beverly, Utman, Jennifer Aydelott, Dronkers, Nina; and Gernsbacher, Morton Ann. 2001. Language deficits, localization, and grammar: Evidence for a distributive model of language breakdown in aphasic patients and neurologically intact individuals. Psychological Review 108. 759–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, Nicholas, and Levinson, Stephen C.. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32. 429–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fabb, Nigel, and Halle, Morris. 2008. Meter in poetry: A new theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Fernanda, and Patson, Nikole D.. 2007. The ‘good enough’ approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass 1. 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles, Kay, Paul; and O'Connor, Mary Catherine. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64. 501–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitch, W. Tecumseh. 2010. Three meanings of ‘recursion’: Key distinctions for biolinguistics. In Larson et al., 73–90.Google Scholar
Fitch, W. Tecumseh. 2011. ‘Deep homology’ in the biology and evolution of language. In Di Sciullo & Boeckx, 135–66.Google Scholar
Flack, Jessica, Krakauer, David, DeDeo, Simon; and Jackendoff, Ray. 2011. A ‘grammar’ for primate social behavior. Santa Fe: Santa Fe Institute, and Medford, MA: Tufts University, work in preparation.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. 1975. The language of thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ford, Marilyn, Bresnan, Joan; and Kaplan, Ronald M.. 1982. A competence-based theory of syntactic closure. The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. by Bresnan, Joan, 727–96. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gallistel, C. R., and King, Adam Philip. 2009. Memory and the computational brain: Why cognitive science will transform neuroscience. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazzaniga, Michael. 2010. Neuroscience and the correct level of explanation for understanding mind. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14. 291–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gee, James Paul, and Grosjean, Francois. 1984. Empirical evidence for narrative structure. Cognitive Science 8. 59–85.Google Scholar
Gentner, Timothy Q., Fenn, Kimberly M., Margoliash, Daniel; and Nusbaum, Howard C.. 2006. Recursive syntactic pattern learning by songbirds. Nature 440. 1204–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gergely, György, and Csibra, Gergely. 2003. Teleological reasoning in infancy: The naïve theory of rational action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7. 287–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68. 1–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7. 219–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, Adele, and Jackendoff, Ray. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80. 532–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Peter. 2003. The origin of argument structure in infant event representations. Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development 26. 189–98.Google Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey. 1965. Studies in lexical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. [Published as part of Lexical structures in syntax and semantics, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1976.]Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1992. Introduction to the theory of government and binding. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology. The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. by Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hauser, Marc D. 1996. The evolution of communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, Marc D., Chomsky, Noam; and Fitch, W. Tecumseh. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298. 1569–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heine, Bernd, and Kuteva, Tania. 2007. The genesis of grammar: A reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinzen, Wolfram. 2008. Forum: Prospects for an explanatory theory of semantics. Biolinguistics 2. 348–63. Online: http://biolinguistics.eu/index.php/biolinguistics/article/view/77/88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinzen, Wolfram. 2011. Emergence of a systemic semantics through minimal and under-specified codes. In Di Sciullo & Boeckx, 417–39.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles. 1960. The origin of speech. Scientific American 203. 88–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hofstadter, Douglas. 1979. Gödel, Escher, Bach: An eternal golden braid. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert, and Boeckx, Cedric. 2009. Approaching universals from the bottom up. Language universals, ed. by Christiansen, Morten, Collins, Chris, and Edelman, Shimon, 79–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hultsch, Henrike, Mundry, Roger; and Todt, Dietmar. 1999. Learning, representation and retrieval of rule-related knowledge in the song system of birds. Learning: Rule extraction and representation, ed. by Friederici, Angela D. and Menzel, Randolf, 89–115. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Humphries, Glyn W., Forde, Emer M. E.; and Riddoch, M. Jane. 2001. The planning and execution of everyday actions. The handbook of cognitive neuropsychology: What deficits reveal about the human mind, ed. by Rapp, Brenda, 565–89. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1975. Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language 51. 639–71. [Reprinted in Jackendoff 2010.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1976. Toward an explanatory semantic representation. Linguistic Inquiry 7. 89–150.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1987a. Consciousness and the computational mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1987b. On beyond zebra: The relation of linguistic and visual information. Cognition 26. 89–114. [Reprinted in Jackendoff 2010.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1989. What is a concept, that a person can grasp it? Mind and Language 4. 68–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1991b. Parts and boundaries. Cognition 41. 9–45. [Reprinted in Jackendoff 2010.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1996a. The architecture of the linguistic-spatial interface. Language and space, ed. by Bloom, Paul, Peterson, Mary A., Nadel, Lynn, and Garrett, Merrill F., 1–30. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [Reprinted in Jackendoff 2010.]Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1996b. The proper treatment of measuring out, telicity, and perhaps even quantification in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14. 305–54. [Reprinted in Jackendoff 2010.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1996c. How language helps us think. Pragmatics and Cognition 4. 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997a. The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1999. The natural logic of rights and obligations. Language, logic, and concepts: Essays in memory of John Macnamara, ed. by Jackendoff, Ray, Bloom, Paul, and Wynn, Karen, 67–95. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2007a. Language, consciousness, culture: Essays on mental structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2007b. A parallel architecture perspective on language processing. Brain Research 1146. 2–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2008. Construction after construction and its theoretical challenges. Language 84. 8–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2009. Parallels and non-parallels between language and music. Music Perception 26. 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2010. Meaning and the lexicon: The parallel architecture 1975–2010. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2012. A user's guide to thought and meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray, and Wittenberg, Eva. 2011. A new hierarchy of grammars. Medford, MA: Tufts University, work in preparation.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Lyle. 2000. Biolinguistics: Exploring the biology of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, David E., and Lappin, Shalom. 1999. Local constraints vs. economy. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Katz, Jonah, and Pesetsky, David. 2009. The identity thesis for language and music. Cambridge, MA: MIT, ms. Online: http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000959.Google Scholar
Kinsella, Anna. 2009. Language evolution and syntactic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kipper, Karin, and Palmer, Martha. 2000. Representation of actions as an interlingua. Proceedings of the 2000 NAACL-ANLP Workshop on Applied Interlinguas: Practical applications of interlingual approaches to NLP, 12–17. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang, and Perdue, Clive. 1997. The basic variety, or: Couldn't language be much simpler? Second Language Research 13. 301–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, Christof. 2004. The quest for consciousness: A neurobiological approach. Englewood, CO: Roberts.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Barbara, and Jackendoff, Ray. 1993. ‘What’ and ‘where’ in spatial language and spatial cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16. 217–38.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1998. Conceptualization, symbolization, and grammar. The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, vol. 1, ed. by Tomasello, Michael, 1–39. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard. 2011. Clauses, propositions, and phrases. In Di Sciullo & Boeckx, 366–91.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard, Déprez, Viviane; and Yamakido, Hiroko (eds.) 2010. The evolution of human language: Biolinguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 2011. What kind of computing device is the human language faculty? In Di Sciullo & Boeckx, 354–65.Google Scholar
Lerdahl, Fred, and Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. A generative theory of tonal music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lerdahl, Fred, and Jackendoff, Ray. 2006. The capacity for music: What's special about it? Cognition 100. 33–72.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1990. Wiping the slate clean: A lexical semantic exploration. Cognition 41. 123–55.Google Scholar
Liberman, Alvin. 1993. Some assumptions about speech and how they changed. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research SR113.1–32. Online: http://www.haskins.yale.edu/sr/sr113/SR113_01.pdf.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Maryellen C, Pearlmutter, Neal J.; and Seidenberg, Mark S.. 1994. Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 101. 676–703.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mandler, Jean. 1987. On the psychological reality of story structure. Discourse Processes 10. 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics (Proceedings of the 21st annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium) 4.2.201–25.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 2005. Generative linguistics within the cognitive neuroscience of language. The Linguistic Review 22. 429–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marler, Peter, and Slabbekoorn, Hans (eds.) 2004. Natures music: The science of birdsong. San Diego: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, William, and Tyler, Lorraine. 1987. Against modularity. Modularity in knowledge representation and natural-language understanding, ed. by Garfield, Jay, 37–62. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1968. Concerning the base component of a transformational grammar. Foundations of Language 4. 243–69.Google Scholar
Miller, George A., Galanter, Eugene; and Pribram, Karl H.. 1960. Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2003. Review article on On nature and language, by Chomsky, Noam, The language organ, by Anderson, Stephen R. and Lightfoot, David W.; and Language in a Darwinian perspective, ed. by Bichakjian, Bernard H.. Language 79. 583–99.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2008. Review of Linguistic minimalism, by Boeckx, Cedric. Language 84. 387–95.Google Scholar
Nowak, Martin, Krakauer, David C.; and Dress, Andreas. 1999. An error limit for the evolution of language. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 266. 2131–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Grady, William. 2010. An emergentist approach to syntax. The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, ed. by Heine, Bernd and Narrog, Heiko, 257–83. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Paczynski, Martin, and Kuperberg, Gina. 2011. Electrophysiological evidence for use of the animacy hierarchy, but not thematic role assignment, during verb argument processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patel, Aniruddh. 2008. Music, language, and the brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, Colin, and Lau, Ellen. 2004. Foundational issues (Review article on Jackendoff 2002). Journal of Linguistics 40. 571–91.Google Scholar
Phillips, Colin, and Lewis, Shevaun. 2012. Derivational order in syntax: Evidence and architectural consequences. Directions in derivations, ed. by Chesi, Cristiano. Amsterdam: Elsevier, to appear.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven, and Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. The faculty of language: What's special about it? Cognition 95. 201–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podos, Jeffrey, Huber, Sarah; and Taft, Benjamin. 2004. Bird song: The interface of evolution and mechanism. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35. 55–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1972. The best theory. The goals of linguistic theory, ed. by Peters, P. Stanley, 131–70. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 2004. Skeptical linguistic essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, J. Jordan, and Lanyon, Scott. 2002. Reconstructing the evolution of complex bird song in the oropendolas. Evolution 56.7.1514–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana. 2006. The syntax of nonsententials: Small clauses and phrases at the root. The syntax of nonsententials, ed. by Progovac, Ljiljana, Paesani, Kate, Casielles, Eugenia, and Barton, Ellen, 33–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana. 2007. Grammars within without recursion: Implications for evolutionary studies. Paper presented at the Illinois State University Conference on Recursion in Human Languages, Normal, IL.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2007. The evolution of model-theoretic frameworks in linguistics. Proceedings of Model-Theoretic Syntax at 10 (part of ESSLLI 2007), ed. by Rogers, James and Kepser, Stephan, 1–10. Dublin: Trinity College Dublin.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold. 1991. Autolexical syntax: A theory of parallel grammatical representations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan. 1992. Taking performance seriously. Lenguajes naturales y lenguajes formales: Actas del VII congreso de lenguajes naturales y lenguajes formales (Vic-Barcelona, 23–27 de septiembre de 1991), ed. by Vide, Carlos Martin, 61–74. Barcelona: Promociones y Publicaciones Universitarias.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan, and Wasow, Thomas. 2011. Performance-compatible competence grammar. Non-transformational syntax, ed. by Borsley, Robert and Borjars, Kersti, 359–77. London: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schenker, Heinrich. 1935. Der freie Satz. Vienna: Universal Edition. [Trans. and ed. by Ernst Oster, New York: Longman, 1979.]Google Scholar
Shieber, Stuart. 1986. An introduction to unification-based approaches to grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Song, Hyun-joo, Baillargeon, Renée; and Fisher, Cynthia. 2005. Can infants attribute to an agent a disposition to perform a particular action? Cognition 98.B45–B55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stromswold, Karen. 2010. Genetics and the evolution of language: What genetic studies reveal about the evolution of language. In Larson et al., 176–90.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, Michael K., Spivey-Knowlton, Michael J., Eberhard, Kathleen M.; and Sedivy, Julie C.. 1995. Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science 268. 1632–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tarski, Alfred. 1956. The concept of truth in formalized languages. Logic, semantics, metamathematics: Papers from 1923 to 1938, 2nd edn., trans. by Woodger, Joseph H., ed. by Corcoran, John, 152–97. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael (ed.) 2000. Primate cognition. Special issue of Cognitive Science 24.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2005. Beyond formalities: The case of language acquisition. The Linguistic Review 22. 183–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael, Call, Josep; and Hare, Brian. 2003. Chimpanzees understand psychological states—the question is which ones and to what extent. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7. 153–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Townsend, David J., and Bever, Thomas G.. 2001. Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trueswell, John C, Tanenhaus, Michael K.; and Garnsey, Susan M.. 1994. Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 33. 285–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsoulas, George. 2010. Computations and interfaces: Some notes on the relation between the language and the music faculties. Musicae Scientiae, Discussion Forum 5. 11–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert Jr., and LaPolla, Randy J.. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1966. Explorations in semantic theory. Current trends in linguistics, vol. 3: Theoretical foundations, ed. by Sebeok, Thomas A., 99–201. The Hague: Mouton. [Reprinted in On semantics, by Uriel Weinreich, ed. by William Labov and Beatrice S. Weinreich. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1980.]Google Scholar
Whiten, Andrew. 2002. The imitator's representation of the imitated: Ape and child. The imitative mind: Development, evolution, and brain bases, ed. by Meltzoff, Andrew N. and Prinz, Wolfgang, 98–121. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1994. Remarks on lexical knowledge. The acquisition of the lexicon, ed. by Gleitman, Lila and Landau, Barbara, 7–34. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wrangham, Richard, and Peterson, Dale. 1996. Demonic males: Apes and the origins of human violence. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Zuberbühler, Klaus. 2002. A syntactic rule in forest monkey communication. Animal Behaviour 63. 293–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 107
- Cited by