Article in:
Biological Evolution: More than a metaphor for grammar change
Edited by Maria Rita Manzini
[Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 3:1] 2021
► pp. 655
References

References

Avgustinova, T.
(1997) Word order and clitics in Bulgarian. PhD Thesis. Saarbrücken: Universität des Saarlandes.Google Scholar
Becker, K. F.
(1845) Schulgrammatik des Deutschen. Frankfurt: Verlag von G.F. Kettembeil.Google Scholar
Brenowitz E. A.
(2008) Plasticity of the song control system in adult birds. In Ph. H. Zeigler & P. Marler (eds). Neuroscience of birdsong. 332-349. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bell, G. & Gonzalez, A.
(2011) Adaptation and evolutionary rescue in metapopulations experiencing environmental deterioration. Science, 332 (6035), 1327–1329. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, Th. & Walkden, G.
(2015) Introduction: Changing views of syntactic change. In Th. Biberauer & G. Walkden (Eds.), Syntax over time. Lexical, morphological, and information-structural interactions (pp. 1–13). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bierwisch, M.
(2012) The Concept of Evolution in Linguistics. In A. Fasolo (Ed.), The Theory of Evolution and Its Impact (pp. 103–117). Milano: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Breslin, D.
(2010) Generalising Darwinism to study socio-cultural change. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 30(7–8), 427–439. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bridges, K. & Hoff, E.
(2014) Older sibling influences on the language environment and language development of toddlers in bilingual homes. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35(2), 225–241. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brinckmann, C. & Bubenhofer, N.
(2012) Sagen kann man’s schon, nur schreiben tut man’s selten” – Die tun-Periphrase. In M. Konopka & R. Schneider, Grammatische Stolpersteine digital – Festschrift für Bruno Strecker zum 65. Geburtstag. Mannheim: Institut für deutsche Sprache. http://​nbn​-resolving​.de​/urn:nbn:de:bsz:mh39​-14629
Cable, S.
(2008) Configurationality and the Salish language. Theoretical perspectives on languages of the Pacific Northwest. Lecture notes. U. Mass at Amherst. [URL: https://​people​.umass​.edu​/scable​/PNWSeminar​/handouts​/Config​/Configurationality​-Salish​.pdf]
Christiansen, M. & Chater, N.
(2016) The Now-or-Never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, E62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(2011) Language and other cognitive systems. What is special about language? Language Learning and Development, 7(4), 263–278. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. & Kuteva, T.
(2005) The evolution of grammatical structures and ‘functional need’ explanations. In M. Tallerman (Ed.) Language origins: perspective on evolution (pp. 185–207). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cornips, L.
(1998) Habitual doen in Heerlen Dutch. In J. A. van Leuvensteijn, I. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, M. van der Wal (Eds.), DO in English, Dutch and German – history and present-day variation (pp. 83–101). Amsterdam: Stichting Nederlandistiek/Nodus Publikationen.Google Scholar
De Boer, B., Thompson, B., Ravignani, A. & Boeckx, C.
(2020) Evolutionary dynamics do not motivate a single-mutant theory of human language. Nature Science Reports, 10, 451. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Darwin, Ch.
(1872) On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray (6th edition).Google Scholar
Dehé, N.
(2004) On the order of objects in Icelandic double object constructions. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 16, 85–108.Google Scholar
Dixon, R.
(1997) The rise and fall of languages. Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, M.
(2014) Gender determined dialect variation. In: Corbett, G. G. (Ed.) The expression of gender (pp. 39–67). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ellegård, A.
(1953) The auxiliary Do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. (Gothenburg Studies in English, vol. 2). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N. & Gould, St. J.
(1972) Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Schopf, T. J. M. (Ed.) Models in Paleobiology (pp. 82–115). San Francisco: Freeman Cooper.Google Scholar
Feder, A. F., Kryazhimskiy, S. & Plotkin, J. B.
(2014) Identifying signatures of selection in genetic time series. Genetics, 196(2), 509–522. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A.
(1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Foote, A. &, Liu, Y. T. & Gregg, W.
(2015) Convergent evolution of the genomes of marine mammals. Nature Genetics, 47(3), 272–275. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gould, St. J.
(2002): The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Gazsi, D.
(2011) Arabic-Persian Language Contact. In: Weninger, St. (Ed.) The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook. (pp. 1015–1021). Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, E., Futrell, R., Piandadosi, St. T., Dautriche, I., Mahowald, K., Bergen, L. & Levy, R.
(2019) How efficiency shapes human language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(5), 389–407. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gell-Mann, M. & Ruhlen, M.
(2011) The origin and evolution of word order. PNAS, 108(42), 17290–17295. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S., So, W. C., Özyürek, A., & Mylander, C.
(2008) The natural order of events: How speakers of different languages represent events nonverbally. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 9163–9168. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gray, T. J., Reagan, A. J., Dodds, P. S. & Danforth, C. M.
(2018) English verb regularization in books and tweets. PLoS ONE, 13(12), e0209651. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greenhill, S. J., Wu, C-H., Hua, X., Dunn, M., Levinson, St. C. & Gray, R. D.
(2017) Evolutionary dynamics of language systems. PNAS, 114(42), E8822–E8829. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haider, H.
(1991) Die menschliche Sprachfähigkeit – exaptiv und kognitiv opak. Kognitionswissenschaft, 2, 11–26.Google Scholar
(1999) On the survival of the fittest grammar (theory). Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 18, 216–218. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013): Symmetry breaking in Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2014) The VO-OV split of Germanic languages – a T3 & V2 production. Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis, 19(1), 57–79.Google Scholar
(2015a) “Intelligent design” of grammars – a result of cognitive evolution. In: A. Adli, M. García García & G. Kaufmann (Eds.), Variation in language: System- and usage-based approaches (pp. 205–240). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015b) Head directionality – in syntax and morphology. In: A. Fábregas, J. Mateu & M. Putnam (Eds.), Contemporary linguistic parameters (pp. 73–97). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
(2019a) An anthropic principle in lieu of a “Universal Grammar”. In: J. M. Brown, A. Schmidt & M. Wierzba (Eds.), Of trees and birds (pp. 363–381). Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
(2019b) On absent, expletive, and non-referential subjects. In: P. Herbeck, B. Pöll, & A. C. Wolfsgruber (Eds.), Semantic and syntactic aspects of impersonality (pp. 11–46). Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.Google Scholar
(2021) “OVS” – A misnomer for SVO languages with ergative alignment. lingbuzz/005680.Google Scholar
Haider, H. & Szusich, L.
(2019) Slavic languages – “SVO” languages without SVO qualities? (in press). Theoretical Linguistics, 47. (lingbuzz/004973).Google Scholar
Haig, D.
(2007) Weismann Rules! OK? Epigenetics and the Lamarckian temptation. Biology and Philosophy, 22, 415–428. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hanke, D.
(2004) Teleology: the explanation that bedevils biology. In: Cornwell, J. (Ed.), Explanations: Styles of explanation in science (pp. 143–155). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M.
(1999) Optimality and diachronic adaptation. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 18, 180–205. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A.
(1994) A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heath, J.
(1984) Language contact and language change. Annual Review of Anthropology, 13, 367–384. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews, Inc. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G. M.
(2013) Understanding organizational evolution: Toward a research agenda using Generalized Darwinism. Organization Studies, 34(7), 973–992. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Organizational Adaptation and Evolution: Darwinism versus Lamarckism? In: A. Grandori (Ed.), The Elgar Handbook of economic organization (pp. 157–171). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. & Knudsen, Th.
(2006) Why we need a generalized Darwinism and why a generalized Darwinism is not enough. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 61, 1–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) In search of general evolutionary principles: Why Darwinism is too important to be left to the biologists. Journal of Bioeconomics, 10, 51–69. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. L.
(1988) Interactors versus vehicles. In: H. C. Plotkin (Ed.) The role of behavior in evolution (pp. 19–50). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jäger, A.
(2006) Typology of Periphrastic ‘do’-constructions. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Brock-meyer.Google Scholar
Jelinek, E. & Demers, R.
(1994) Predicates and pronominal arguments in Straits Salish. Language, 70, 697–736. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jenkin, F.
(1867) The origin of species. North British Review, 46, 277–318.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O.
(1894) Progress in language. New York: McMillan & Co.Google Scholar
Johansson, S.
(2005) Origins of Language: Constraints on hypotheses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, B.
(2001) Review of R. M. W. Dixon, The rise and fall of languages. Journal of Linguistics, 37, 180–6.Google Scholar
Kant, I.
(1790) Kritik der Urteilskraft. Berlin & Libau: Lagarde & Friedrich.Google Scholar
Karjus, A., Blythe, R. A., Kirby, S. & Smith, K.
(2020) Challenges in detecting evolutionary forces in language change using diachronic corpora. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 5(1), 45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P.
(2008) Universals constrain change; change results in typological generalizations. In: Good, J. (Ed.) Linguistic universals and language change (pp. 23–53). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koonin, E. V.
(2011) The logic of chance: The nature and origin of biological evolution. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: FT Press Science.Google Scholar
Koplenig, A., Meyer, P., Wolfer, S. & Müller-Spitzer, C.
(2017) The statistical trade-off between word order and word structure – Large-scale evidence for the principle of least effort. PLOS ONE 12(3): e0173614. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lamarck de Monet de, J.-B. P. A.
(1809) Philosophie zoologique, ou, exposition des considérations relative à l’histoire naturelle des animaux. Paris: F. Savy.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. &, Sobin, N.
(2000) The who/whom puzzle: On the preservation of an archaic feature. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 18, 343–371. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, N.
(2004) The neurobiology of procedural memory. In: J. H. Schumann, S. E. Crowell, N. E. Jones, N. Lee, Sara A. Schuchert, and L. A. Wood (Eds.), The neurobiology of learning: Perspectives from second language acquisition (pp. 43–73). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lenormand, Th.
(2002) Gene flow and the limits to natural selection. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 17(4), 183–189. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levit, G. S. & Hossfeld, U. & Witt, U.
(2011) Can Darwinism be “generalized” and of what use would this be? Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 21, Art. 545. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levy, R.
(2008) Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106(3), 1126–1177. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Loison, L.
(2018) Lamarckism and epigenetic inheritance: a clarification. Biology & Philosophy, 33(3–4), Art. 29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Loewe, L. & Hill, W. G.
(2010) The population genetics of mutations: good, bad and indifferent. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B 365, 1153–1167. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Loewe, L.
(2008) Negative selection. Nature Education, 1(1), 59.Google Scholar
LI, C.
(1967) Fundamental theorem of natural selection. Nature, 214, 505–506.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, I.
(2013) Participle-object agreement in French and the theory of grammatical viruses. Journal of Romance Studies, 13,19-33.Google Scholar
Masel, J.
(2011) Genetic drift. Current Biology, 21(20), PR837–R838. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E.
(1991) One long argument. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(1992) The idea of teleology. Journal of the history of ideas, 53(1), 117–135. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Merkle, L.
(1975) Bairische Grammatik. München: Hugendubel.Google Scholar
Morgan-Short, K. & Ullman, M. T.
(2011) The neuro-cognition of second language. In: S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 282–299). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Morris, S.
(1994) Fleeming Jenkin and the origin of species: A reassessment. The British Journal for the History of Science, 27(3), 313–343. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, R. R.
(2007) Universal Darwinism and evolutionary social science. Biology and Philosophy, 22, 73–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nesensohn, E.-M.
(2012) Die Tun-Periphrase in der Kindersprache. Diploma Thesis Univ. Vienna. http://​othes​.univie​.ac​.at​/20467​/1​/2012​-05​-13​_0315904​.pdf
Nettle, D.
(1999) Linguistic diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Newberry, M. G., Ahern, Ch. A., Clark, R. & Plotkin, J. B.
(2017) Detecting evolutionary forces in language change. Nature, 551(7679), 223–226. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, J.
(1992) Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Orr, H. A.
(2009) Fitness and its role in evolutionary genetics. Nature Reviews Genetics, 10, 531–539. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oshima-Takane, Y., Goodz, E. & Derevensky, J. L.
(1996) Birth order effects on early language development: Do second born children learn from overheard speech? Child Development, 67(2), 621–634. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, M.
(2009) Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peters, P.
(2004) The Cambridge guide to English usage. Cambridge , UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, St. & Bloom, P.
(1990) Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 13, 707–784. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reesink, G., Singer, R. & Dunn, M.
(2009) Explaining the linguistic diversity of Sahul using population models. PLoS Biololgy, 7(11), e1000241. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rispoli, M., Hadley, P. & Holt, J.
(2012) Sequence and system in the acquisition of tense and agreement. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55, 1007–1021. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roossinck, M. J.
(2011) The good viruses: viral mutualistic symbioses. Nature Review of Microbiology, 9, 99–108. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roossinck, M. J. & Bazán, E. R.
(2017) Symbiosis: viruses as intimate partners. Annual Review of Virology, 4(1), 123–139. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rubio, L., Guerri, J. & Moreno, P.
(2013) Genetic variability and evolutionary dynamics of viruses of the family Closteroviridae. Frontiers in Microbiology, 4:151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, E.
(1921) Language an Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.Google Scholar
Schleicher, A.
(1873) Die Darwinsche Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft. Weimar: H. Böhlau.Google Scholar
Schoenemann, P. Th.
(2012) Evolution of brain and language. In: M. A. Hofman & D. Falk (Eds.), Progress in Brain Research 195 (pp. 443–459). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Schütze, C.
(1999) English expletive constructions are not infected. Linguistic Inquiry, 30(3), 467–484. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, A.
(1996) Word order type and alignment type. STUF – Language Typology and Universals, 49(2), 149–176. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, A. & Uhliřová, L.
(2010) An overview of word order in Slavic languages. In: Siewierska, A. (Ed.) Constituent order in the languages of Europe (pp. 105–150). Berlin: Mouton DeGruyter.Google Scholar
Simon, H.
(1996) The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Skipper, R. A. Jr. & Dietrich, M. R.
(2012) Sewall Wright’s adaptive landscape: philosophical reflections on heuristic value. In: E. Svensson & R. Calsbeek (Eds.), The adaptive landscape in evolutionary biology (pp. 17–25). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sobin, N.
(1997) Agreement, default rules, and grammatical viruses. Linguistic Inquiry, 28(2), 318–343.Google Scholar
Solan, Z., Ruppin, E., Horn, D. & Edelman, S.
(2005) Evolution of language diversity: why fitness counts. In: M. Tallerman (Ed.), Language origins: perspective on evolution (pp. 357–371). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Spielman, St. J., Weaver, St., Shank, St. D., Magalis, B. R., Li, M. & Kosakovsky Pond, S. L.
(2019) Evolution of viral genomes: Interplay between selection, recombination, and other forces. In: M. Anisimova (Ed.) Evolutionary Genomics: Statistical and Computational Methods (pp. 427–468). New York: Humana. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spocter M.A., Hopkins, W.D, Garrison, A.R, Bauernfeind, A.L., Stimpson, C.D., Hof, P.R. & Sherwood C.C.
(2010) Wernicke’s area homologue in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and its relation to the appearance of modern human language. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 277 (1691), 2165-2174.Google Scholar
Stringer, Ch. & Galway-Witham, J.
(2017) On the origin of our species. Nature, 546, 212–214. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stromswold, K.
(1990) Learnability and the acquisition of auxiliaries. PhD Thesis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Sundquist, J. D.
(2012) Negative movement in the history of Norwegian: the evolution of a grammatical virus. In: D. Jonas & J. Whitman (Eds.), Grammatical change: origins, nature, outcomes (pp. 293–312). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Szyf, M.
(2014) Lamarck revisited: epigenetic inheritance of ancestral odor fear conditioning. Nature Neuroscience, 17, 2–4. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Theißen, G.
(2009) Saltational evolution: hopeful monsters are here to stay. Theory in Biosciences, 128, 43–51.) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, S. G. & Kaufman, T.
(1988) Language contact, creolization and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, M. T.
(2001) A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/procedural model. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 717–726. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vermeer, A.
(2001) Breadth and depth of vocabulary in relation to L1/L2 acquisition and frequency of input. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 217–234. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Voss, P., Thomas, M. E., Cisneros-Franco, J. M. & de Villers-Sidani, É.
(2017) Dynamic brains and the changing rules of neuroplasticity: Implications for learning and recovery. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1657. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wahlström, M.
(2015) Loss of case inflection in Bulgarian and Macedonian. Doctoral Diss. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Modern Languages.Google Scholar
Winford, D.
(2003) An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Witt, U.
(2006) Evolutionary concepts in economics and biology. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 16(5), 473–476. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S.
(1932) The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding and selection in evolution. Proceedings of the 6th Int. Congress on Genetics 1, 356–366.Google Scholar