Article published in:
Biolinguistic Investigations on the Language Faculty
Edited by Anna Maria Di Sciullo
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 235] 2016
► pp. viixviii
References

References

Anagnostopoulou, E.
1997Conditions on clitic doubling in Greek. In van Riemsdijk (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe, 761-798.Google Scholar
Baker, M.C.
2008The macroparameter in a microparametric world. In The Limits of Syntactic Variation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 132], T. Biberauer (ed.), 351-374. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berwick, R.C. & Chomsky, N.
2011The Biolinguistic Program: The current state of its development. In Di Sciullo & Boeckx (eds), 19-41.Google Scholar
Bhatt, R.
2007Ergativity in the Modern Indo-Aryan languages. Handout of talk given at the MIT Ergativity Seminar . http://​people​.umass​.edu​/bhatt​/papers​/mit​-nov2007​-handout​.pdf
Bittner, M. & Hale, K.
1996Ergativity: Towards a theory of a heterogeneous class. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 531-604.Google Scholar
Bolhuis, J.J., Tattersall, I., Chomsky, N. & Berwick, R.C.
2014How could language have evolved? PLoS Biology. Biol 12(8): e1001934. Crossref.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. & Starke, M.
1999The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In Clitics in the languages of Europe, van Riemsdijk (ed.), 145–235. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cinque, G.
2010The Syntax of Adjectives. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
1993A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger [Current Studies in Linguistics 24], K. Hale & S.J. Keyser (eds), 1-52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Reprinted in Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program [Current Studies in Linguistics 28], 167-217. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2001Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, M. Kenstowicz (ed.), 1-52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2005Three factor in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1-22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007aApproaching UG from below. In Interface+recursion=language?, U. Sauerland & H.-M. Gartner (eds), 1–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2007bOf mind and language. Biolinguistics 1: 9-27.Google Scholar
2008The biolinguistic program: Where does it stand today? Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
2010Poverty of stimulus: Unfinished business. In Universals and Variation: Proceedings of GLOW in Asia VIII 2010, M. Gao (ed.), 1-17. Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press.Google Scholar
2013Problems of projections. Lingua 130: 33–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014The Biology of Language. Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences (KNAW), Amsterdam. https://​www​.youtube​.com​/watch​?v​=H​-fRSrfr2L0Google Scholar
Chondrogianni, V., Marinis,, T., Edwards, T. & Blom, E.
(2014) Production and on-line comprehension of definite articles and clitic pronouns by Greek sequential bilingual children and monolingual children with Specific Language Impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics 36(5): 1155-1191. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Di Sciullo, A.M.
1990Sur la Définition des Variables. In Binding in Romance. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, A.M. Di Sciullo & A. Rochette (eds), 19-41. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2005Asymmetry in Morphology. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2011A biolinguistic approach to variation. In The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty, A.M. Di Sciullo & C. Boeckx (eds), 305–328. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2012Perspectives on morphological complexity. In Morphology. (Ir)regularity, Frequency, Typology, F. Kiefer, M. Ladanyi & P. Siptar (eds), 105–135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015On the domain specificity of the human language faculty and the effects of principles of computational efficiency: Contrasting human language and mathematics. Revista Linguistica 11(1): 28-56.Google Scholar
Fodor, J.A.
1983The Modularity of Mind. An Essay on Faculty Psychology. Cambridge MA: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Gallistel, C.R. & King, A.P.
2009Memory and the Computational Brain: Why Cognitive Science Will Transform Neuroscience. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grodzinsky, Y.
2002Neurolinguistics and neuroimaging: Forward to the future, or is it back? Psychological Science 13(4): 388–393. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, M.D., Yang, C., Berwick, R.C., Tattersall, I., Ryan, M.J., Watumull, J., Chomsky, N. & Lewontin, R.C.
2014The mystery of language evolution. Frontiers in Psychology 5(1): 401.Google Scholar
Heim, I.
1982The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Jakubovic, C., Nash, L., Rigaut, C. & Gérard, C.-L.
1998Determiners and clitics pronouns in French- speaking children with SLI. Language Acquisition 7: 113-160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hinzen, W.
2014What is un-Cartesisian linguisitics? Biolinguistics 8: 226-257.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. & Pietroski, P.
2009Basic operations: Minimal syntax-semantics. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 8: 113–139.Google Scholar
Kayne, R.
2005Movement and Silence. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax, G. Cinque & R. Kayne (eds), 3-69. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
1991Romance clitics, verb movement, and PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 647–686.Google Scholar
1994The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie
2012Types of ergativity. Lingua 122: 181-191. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mesgarani, N., Cheung, C., Johnson, K. & Chang, E.F.
2014Phonetic feature encoding in human superior temporal gyrus. Science 343(6174): 1006–1010. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mavrogiorgos, M.
2010Clitics in Greek: A Minimalist Account of Proclisis and Enclisis [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 160]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, R.
2009Animal asymmetry. Current Biology 19(12): 473-477. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004Symmetry breaking and the evolution of development. Science 306: 828-833. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Poeppel, D.
2012The maps problem and the mapping problem: Two challenges for a cognitive neuroscience of speech and language. Cognitive Neuropsychology 29(1-2), 34–55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Richards, M.
2008Two kinds of variation in a minimalist system. In Linguistische arbeitsberichte 87, F. Heck, G. Müller & J. Trommer (eds), 133-162. Leipzig: University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Roberts, J.A., Rice, M.L. & Tager-Flusberg, H.
2004Tense marking in Children with autism. Applied Psycholinguistics 25: 429–448. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk
(ed.) 1999Clitics in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stavrakaki, S. & Tsimpli, I.M.
2000Diagnostic verbal IQ test for Greek preschool and school age children: Standardization, statistical analysis, psychometric properties. In Proceedings of the 8th Symposium of the Panhellenic Association of Logopedists , 95-106. Athens: Ellinika Grammata.
Sportiche, D.
1999Pronominal clitic dependencies. In van Riemsdijk (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe, 679-708.Google Scholar
Terzi, A., Marinis, T. Kotsopoulou, A. & Francis, K.
2014Grammatical abilities of Greek-speaking children with autism. Language Acquisition 21: 4-44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, J.
1995Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 79–123.Google Scholar
Villanueva P., De Barbieri, Z., Palomino, H.L. & Palomino, H.
2008High prevalence of specific language impairment in Robinson Crusoe Island. A possible founder effect. Revista Médica de Chile 136: 186–192Google Scholar
Villanueva, P., Newbury, D., Jara, L., De Barbieri, Z., Mirza, G., Palomino, H.M., Fernández, M.A., Cazier, J.B., Monaco, A.M., & Palomino, H.
2011Genome-wide analysis of genetic susceptibility to language impairment in an isolated Chilean population. European Journal of Human Genetics 19(6): 687-95. CrossrefGoogle Scholar