Reply in:
Biological Evolution: More than a metaphor for grammar change
Edited by Maria Rita Manzini
[Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 3:1] 2021
► pp. 109121
References

References

Adami, Ch. & Ofria, Ch. & Collier, T. C.
(2000) Evolution of biological complexity. pnas , 97(9), 4463–4468. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, R.
(1975) Functional analysis. The Journal of Philosophy, 72, 741–765. CrossrefGoogle 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, 10, art. 451. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin
(Eds.) (2013) The World Atlas of Language Structures online. (http://​wals​.info).
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, 205, 581–598.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J.
(2000) The lying stones of Marrakech: penultimate reflections in natural history. Boston: Harvard University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haider, H.
(1991) Die menschliche Sprachfähigkeit – exaptiv und kognitiv opak. Kognitionswissenschaft, 2, 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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]. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A.
(2014) Cross-Linguistic Variation and Efficiency. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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, 18, 88–92. CrossrefGoogle 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, 5, 1–13. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lamarck, J.-B.
(1830) Philosophie Zoologique. Paris: Germer Billière. (new ed.). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leiss, E.
(2000) Artikel und Aspekt. Die grammatischen Muster von Definitheit. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Premack, D.
(1985) “Gavagai!” or the future history of the animal language controversy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A.
(1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar