What Counts as Evidence in Linguistics
The case of innateness
Editors
Martina Penke | Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf
Anette Rosenbach | Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf
What counts as evidence in linguistics? This question is addressed by the contributions to the present volume (originally published as a Special Issue of Studies in Language 28:3 (2004). Focusing on the innateness debate, what is illustrated is how formal and functional approaches to linguistics have different perspectives on linguistic evidence. While special emphasis is paid to the status of typological evidence and universals for the construction of Universal Grammar (UG), this volume also highlights more general issues such as the roles of (non)-standard language and historical evidence. To address the overall topic, the following three guiding questions are raised: What type of evidence can be used for innateness claims (or UG)?; What is the content of such innate features (or UG)?; and, How can UG be used as a theory guiding empirical research? A combination of articles and peer commentaries yields a lively discussion between leading representatives of formal and functional approaches.
[Benjamins Current Topics, 7] 2007. x, 297 pp.
Publishing status: Available
© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Table of Contents
-
Preface | pp. vii–ix
-
What counts as evidence in linguistics? An introductionMartina Penke and Anette Rosenbach | pp. 1–49
-
Typological evidence and Universal GrammarFrederick J. Newmeyer | pp. 51–73
-
Remarks on the relation between language typology and Universal Grammar: Commentary on NewmeyerMark Baltin | pp. 75–79
-
Does linguistic explanation presuppose linguistic description?Martin Haspelmath | pp. 81–107
-
Remarks on description and explanation in grammar: Commentary on HaspelmathJudith Aissen and Joan Bresnan | pp. 109–112
-
Author’s responseMartin Haspelmath | pp. 113–115
-
From UG to Universals: Linguistic adaptation through iterated learningSimon Kirby, Kenny Smith and Henry Brighton | pp. 117–138
-
Form, meaning and speakers in the evolution of language: Commentary on Kirby, Smith and BrightonWilliam A. Croft | pp. 139–142
-
Author’s responseSimon Kirby, Kenny Smith and Henry Brighton | pp. 143–145
-
Why assume UG?Dieter Wunderlich | pp. 147–174
-
What kind of evidence could refute the UG hypothesis? Commentary on WunderlichMichael Tomasello | pp. 175–178
-
Author’s response: Is there any evidence that refutes the UG hypothesis?Dieter Wunderlich | pp. 179–180
-
A question of relevance: Some remarks on standard languagesHelmut Weiß | pp. 181–208
-
The Relevance of Variation: Remarks on Weiß’s Standard-Dialect-ProblemHorst J. Simon | pp. 209–213
-
Author’s responseHelmut Weiß | pp. 215–216
-
Universals, innateness and explanation in second language acquisitionFred Eckman | pp. 217–239
-
‘Internal’ versus ‘external’ universals: Commentary on EckmanLydia White | pp. 241–243
-
Author’s response: ‘External’ universals and explanation in SLAFred Eckman | pp. 245–248
-
What counts as evidence in historical linguistics?Olga Fischer | pp. 249–281
-
Abstraction and performance: Commentary on FischerDavid W. Lightfoot | pp. 283–286
-
Author’s responseOlga Fischer | pp. 287–289
-
Index | pp. 291–297
“This volume is a coherent collection of articles on the question of linguistic evidence in linguistics. The editors found balance in the range of topics, and the volume constitutes a varied collection of contributions, commentaries and responses. This structure caters particularly well for audiences who are informed in linguistics but do not necessarily have specialist knowledge of some of the issues discussed. Moreover, the mix of opinions enables the reader to spot controversial issues in the debate and clearly distinguish the writers' approaches. For this reason, the volume is highly recommended to everyone, but in particular to graduate and doctoral students.”
Mikko Laittinen, University of Helsinki, in Folia Linguistica 42(2): 471-478
Cited by
Cited by 11 other publications
Aixelà, Yolanda
2012. La presentación social del cuerpo marroquí en contextos migratorios. Entre la afirmación identitaria y el rechazo islamófobo.
Revista de Dialectología y Tradiciones Populares 67:1 ► pp. 19 ff. 
Da Rosa, Eliane
2015. As vogais médias átonas finais no português brasileiro do século XIX.
Revista Galega de Filoloxía 16 ► pp. 147 ff.
Hinskens, Frans
2017.
In The Handbook of Dialectology,
► pp. 88 ff.
Kertész, András & Ferenc Kiefer
2013.
In Perspectives on Pragmatics and Philosophy [Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 1],
► pp. 53 ff.
Kertész, András & Csilla Rákosi
2014.
In The Evidential Basis of Linguistic Argumentation [Studies in Language Companion Series, 153],
► pp. 1 ff.
Men, Haiyan
2018.
In Vocabulary Increase and Collocation Learning,
► pp. 35 ff.
Nagy C., Katalin, Zsuzsanna Németh & Enikő Németh T.
2019. Adatok és adatforrások integrációja a pragmatikai kutatásban.
Jelentés és Nyelvhasználat 6:2 ► pp. 109 ff.
Németh, Zsuzsanna, Katalin Nagy C. & Enikő Németh T.
2019.
In Fuzzy Boundaries in Discourse Studies,
► pp. 113 ff.
Phakeng, Mamokgethi Setati & Judit N. Moschkovich
2013. Mathematics Education and Language Diversity: A Dialogue Across Settings.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 44:1 ► pp. 119 ff.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2011. Linguistics: The Study of the Language Capacity and Its Functions.
Diogenes 58:1-2 ► pp. 20 ff.
Nuria Yáñez-Bouza, Emma Moore, Linda van Bergen & Willem B. Hollmann
2019.
In Categories, Constructions, and Change in English Syntax,
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 september 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
Subjects & Metadata
BIC Subject: CFH – Phonetics, phonology
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General