Cover not available
Reply published In:
Biological Evolution: More than a metaphor for grammar change
Edited by Maria Rita Manzini
[Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 3:1] 2021
► pp. 109–121
Reply

In response to the responses

| University of Salzburg
Article outline
  • M. Breyl & E. Leiss (B&L): Function follows form, but not conversely
  • V. M. Longa: How could domain-general capacities produce a domain-specific outcome?
  • A. Sansò: On rational choices
  • H. Weiß: UG and grammaticalization
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 August 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/elt.00029.hai
References (31)
References
Adami, Ch. & Ofria, Ch. & Collier, T. C. (2000). Evolution of biological complexity. pnas , 97(9), 4463–4468. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buller, D. J. (2005). Adapting minds: evolutionary psychology and the persistent quest for human nature. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2009). Language universals and usage-based theory. In M. H. Christiansen & Ch. Collins, & Edelman, S. (Eds.). Language Universals (pp. 17–39). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2007). Approaching UG from below. In H.-M. Gärtner & U. Sauerland (Eds.). Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics. Studies in Generative Grammar (pp. 1–29). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Christiansen, M. H. & Chater, N. & Reali, F. (2009). The biological and cultural foundations of language. Communicative & Integrative Biology, 2(3), 221–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cummins, R. (1975). Functional analysis. The Journal of Philosophy, 721, 741–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Neo-Teleology. In: A. Ariew & R. Cummins & M. Perlman (eds.) Functions: New Essays in Philosophy of Psychology and Biology (pp. 157–172). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Boer, Bart & Thompson, Bill & Ravignani, A. & Boeckx, C. (2020). Evolutionary dynamics do not motivate a single-mutant theory of human language. Scientific Reports, 101, art. 451. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (Eds.). (2013). The World Atlas of Language Structures online. ([URL]).
Gould, S. J. & Lewontin, R. (1979). The spandrels of San Marco and the panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc. of the Royal Society London B, 2051, 581–598.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. (2000). The lying stones of Marrakech: penultimate reflections in natural history. Boston: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haider, H. (1991). Die menschliche Sprachfähigkeit – exaptiv und kognitiv opak. Kognitionswissenschaft, 21, 11–26.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
(2015). “Intelligent design” of grammars – a result of cognitive evolution. In A. Adli, G. Marco García, & G. Kaufmann (Eds.) Variation in language: System- and usage-based approaches, 205–240. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Grammatiktheorien im Vintage-Look – Viel Ideologie, wenig Ertrag. In Wöllstein, A. & Gallmann, P. & Habermann, M. & Krifka, M. (eds.). Grammatiktheorie und Empirie in der germanistischen Linguistik, 47–92. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hubert. (2019). An anthropic principle in lieu of a “Universal Grammar”. In Brown, J. M. & Schmidt, A. & Wierzba, M. (eds.) Of trees and birds, 363–381. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
Haider, H. (2020). A null theory of Scrambling. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 39(3), 375–405. [Struckmeier, V. & Pankau, A. (eds.). Special issue on indeterminacies and mismatches in grammatical systems]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (2014). Cross-Linguistic Variation and Efficiency. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hedström, P. & Stern, Ch. (2008). Rational Choice and Sociology. In S. N. Durlauf & L. E. Blume (Eds.) The new Palgrave dictionary of economics (pp. 872–877). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1959). The logic of functional analysis. In: L. Gross (Ed.) Symposium on Sociological Theory (pp. 271–307). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
(1965). Aspects of scientific explanation. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Höfer, T. & Przyrembel, H. & Verleger, S. (2004). New evidence for the Theory of the Stork. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 181, 88–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1894). Progress in language; with special reference to English. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co.Google Scholar
Kriengwatana, B. & Escudero, P. & Ten Cate, C. (2015). Revisiting vocal perception in non-human animals: a review of vowel discrimination, speaker voice recognition, and speaker normalization. Frontiers in Psychology, 51, 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lamarck, J.-B. (1830). Philosophie Zoologique. Paris: Germer Billière. (new ed.). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leiss, E. (2000). Artikel und Aspekt. Die grammatischen Muster von Definitheit. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World Inc. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Premack, D. (1985). “Gavagai!” or the future history of the animal language controversy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. Jr. (2017). Functional linguistics: Communicative functions and language structure. In M. Aronoff & J. Rees-Miller (Eds.). The Handbook of Linguistics (pp. 141–157). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar