Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-skzmx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-04T16:23:49.884Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language Unlimited: The Science Behind Our Most Creative Power. By David Adger. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Pp. vii, 272. ISBN: 9780198828099. $25.95.

Review products

Language Unlimited: The Science Behind Our Most Creative Power. By David Adger. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Pp. vii, 272. ISBN: 9780198828099. $25.95.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Andreas Trotzke
Andreas Trotzke*
Affiliation:
University of Konstanz
*
Universitätsstraße 10, 78464 Konstanz, Germany, [andreas.trotzke@uni-konstanz.de]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Reviews
Information
Language , Volume 97 , Issue 3 , September 2021 , pp. 629 - 635
Copyright
Copyright © 2021 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adger, David. 2003. Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199243709.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1966. Cartesian linguistics: A chapter in the history of rationalist thought. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 1–22. DOI: 10.1162/0024389052993655.10.1162/0024389052993655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo, and Rizzi, Luigi. 2010. The cartography of syntactic structures. The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, ed. by Heine, Bernd and Narrog, Heiko, 51–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Darwin, Charles. 1871. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Descartes, René. 2003 [1637]. Discourse on method. Discourse on method and meditations, ed. by Haldane, Elizabeth S. and Thomson, George R., 1–52. Mineola, NY: Dover.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn. 1985. Syntactic complexity. Natural language processing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives, ed. by Dowty, David, Karttunen, Lauri, and Zwicky, Arnold, 129–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel. 2019. The grammar of expressivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198812128.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horvath, Julia. 2010. ‘Discourse features’, syntactic displacement and the status of contrast. Lingua 120. 1346–69. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.07.011.10.1016/j.lingua.2008.07.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Closing statements: Linguistics and poetics. Style in language, ed. by Sebeok, Thomas A., 350–77. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M. 2018. Fellow creatures: Our obligations to the other animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198753858.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2009. On split CPs and the ‘perfectness’ of language. Dislocated elements in discourse: Syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic perspectives, ed. by Shaer, Benjamin, Cook, Philippa, Frey, Werner, and Maienborn, Claudia, 114–40. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli, and Trotzke, Andreas. 2011. Biolinguistic perspectives on recursion: Introduction to the special issue. Biolinguistics 5. 1–9. Online: https://www.biolinguistics.eu/index.php/biolinguistics/article/view/201.10.5964/bioling.8823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe, Chemla, Emmanuel, Schel, Anne M., Fuller, James, Gautier, Jean-Pierre, Kuhn, Jeremy, Veselinovic, Dunja, Arnold, Kate, Cäsar, Cristiane, Keenan, Sumir; et al. 2016. Formal monkey linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics 42. 1–90. DOI: 10.1515/tl-2016-0001.10.1515/tl-2016-0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2020. The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tallerman, Maggie, and Gibson, Kathleen R. (eds.) 2012. The Oxford handbook of language evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2008. Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/7551.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2009. Universal grammar is dead. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32. 470–71. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X09990744.10.1017/S0140525X09990744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trotzke, Andreas. 2020. Constructions in minimalism: A functional perspective on cyclicity. Frontiers in Psychology 11:2152. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02152.10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02152CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trotzke, Andreas, Bader, Markus; and Frazier, Lyn. 2013. Third factors and the performance interface in language design. Biolinguistics 7. 1–34. Online: https://www.biolinguistics.eu/index.php/biolinguistics/article/view/273.10.5964/bioling.8953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trotzke, Andreas, and Villalba, Xavier (eds.) 2021. Expressive meaning across linguistic levels and frameworks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198871217.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trotzke, Andreas, and Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2014. The complexity of narrow syntax: Minimalism, representational economy, and simplest Merge. Measuring grammatical complexity, ed. by Newmeyer, Frederick J. and Preston, Laurel B., 128–47. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar