Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I Types and Mechanisms of Syntactic Change
- Part II Methods and Tools
- Part III Principles and Constraints
- Part IV Major Issues and Themes
- Part V Explanations
- Part VI Models and Approaches
- 27 Principles and Parameters
- 28 Biolinguistics
- 29 Lexical-Functional Grammar
- 30 Typological Approaches
- 31 Functional Approaches
- Index
- References
28 - Biolinguistics
from Part VI - Models and Approaches
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 April 2017
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I Types and Mechanisms of Syntactic Change
- Part II Methods and Tools
- Part III Principles and Constraints
- Part IV Major Issues and Themes
- Part V Explanations
- Part VI Models and Approaches
- 27 Principles and Parameters
- 28 Biolinguistics
- 29 Lexical-Functional Grammar
- 30 Typological Approaches
- 31 Functional Approaches
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax , pp. 629 - 641Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Acedo-Matellán, V. 2010. ‘Argument structure and the syntax-morphology interface: A case study in Latin and other languages’, unpublished PhD thesis, Universitat de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 2008. ‘The macroparameter in a microparametric world’, in Biberauer, T. (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 351–73.Google Scholar
Berwick, R.C., Beckers, G.J.L., Okanoya, K. and Bolhuis, J.J. 2012. ‘A bird’s eye view of human language evolution’, Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience 4, doi:10.3389/fnevo.2012.00005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berwick, R.C. and Chomsky, N. 2011. ‘The Biolinguistic Program: The current state of its development’, in Di Sciullo, and Boeckx, (eds.), pp. 19–41.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. 2011. ‘Approaching parameters from below’, in Di Sciullo, and Boeckx, (eds.), pp. 205–21.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. 2012. ‘The emergence of the language faculty, from a biolinguistic point of view’, in Tallerman, M. and Gibson, K. (eds.), Oxford handbook of language evolution. Oxford University Press, pp. 492–501.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. 2014a. ‘What principles & parameters got wrong’, in Picallo, C. (ed.), Linguistic variation and the minimalist program. Oxford University Press, pp. 155–78.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. 2014b. Elementary syntactic structures. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. and Leivada, E. 2013. ‘On the particulars of Universal Grammar: Implications for acquisition’, unpublished MS, ICREA & Universitat de Barcelona.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C., Leivada, E. and Martins, P.T. 2013. ‘Language and complexity considerations: A biolinguistic perspective’, Llengua, Societat i Comunicació 11: 20–6.Google Scholar
Bolender, J. 2007. ‘Prehistoric cognition by description: A Russellian approach to the upper paleolithic’, Biology and Philosophy 22: 383–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, H. 1984. Parametric syntax: Case studies in Semitic and Romance languages. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Ž. and Nunes, J. 2007. ‘The copy theory of movement: A view from PF’, in Corver, N. and Nunes, J. (eds.), The copy theory of movement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1980. ‘Discussion of Putnam’s comments’, in Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (ed.), Language and learning: The debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 310–24.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981a. ‘On the representation of form and function’, The Linguistic Review 1: 3–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. ‘Derivation by phase’, in Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–52.Google Scholar
Deacon, T.W. 2006. ‘Emergence: The hole at the wheel’s hub’, in Clayton, P. and Davies, P. (eds.), The re-emergence of emergence: The emergentist hypothesis from science to religion. Oxford University Press, pp. 111–50.Google Scholar
Deacon, T.W. 2010. ‘A role for relaxed selection in the evolution of the language capacity’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 9000–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Di Sciullo, A.M. and Boeckx, C. (eds.) 2011. The biolinguistic enterprise: New perspectives on the evolution and nature of the human language faculty. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fromkin, V. and Rodman, R. 1974. An introduction to language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Hale, K. and Keyser, S.J. 1993. ‘On argument structure and the lexical expression of grammatical relations’, in Hale, and Keyser, (eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 111–76.Google Scholar
Halle, M. and Marantz, A. 1993. ‘Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection’, in Hale, and Keyser, (eds.), pp. 111–176.Google Scholar
Jenks, P. 2012. ‘Definite spans and blocking in classifier languages’, unpublished MS, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Kirby, S. 2001. ‘Spontaneous evolution of linguistic structure – an iterated learning model of the emergence of regularity and irregularity’, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 5(2): 102–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, S., Cornish, H. and Smith, K. 2008. ‘Cumulative cultural evolution in the laboratory: An experimental approach to the origins of structure in human language’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 10681–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, S. and Hurford, J. 2002. ‘The emergence of linguistic structure: An overview of the Iterated Learning Model’, in Cangelosi, A. and Parisi, D. (eds.), Simulating the evolution of language. London: Springer, pp. 121–48.Google Scholar
Lewis, M.P. (ed.) 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the world, 16th edn. Dallas, TX: SIL International.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. 2000. The triple helix: Gene, organism, and environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lohndal, T. and Narita, H. 2009. ‘Internalism as methodology’, Biolinguistics 3: 321–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G. and Guardiano, C. 2009. ‘Evidence for syntax as a signal of historical relatedness’, Lingua 119: 1679–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupyan, G. and Dale, R. 2010. ‘Language structure is partly determined by social structure’, PLoS ONE 5: e8559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marantz, A. 1997. ‘No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon’, in Dimitriadis, A., Siegel, L., Surek-Clark, C. and Williams, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st annual Penn linguistics colloquium. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, pp. 201–25.Google Scholar
Meir, I., Sandler, W., Padden, C. and Aronoff, M. 2010. ‘Emerging sign languages’, in Marschark, M. and Spencer, P.E. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education, vol. 2. Oxford University Press, pp. 267–80.Google Scholar
Mellars, P. 2006. ‘Why did modern human populations disperse from Africa ca. 60,000 years ago? A new model’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103(25): 9381–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okanoya, K. 2012. ‘Behavioural factors governing song complexity in Bengalese finches’, International Journal of Comparative Psychology 25: 44–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, G. and Svenonius, P. 2008. ‘Mapping a parochial lexicon onto a Universal Semantics’, in Biberauer, T. (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 219–45.Google Scholar
Real-Puigdollers, C. 2013. ‘Lexicalization by phase: The role of prepositions in argument structure and its cross-linguistic variation’, unpublished PhD thesis, Universitat de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. and Roussou, R. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, W., Meir, I., Dachkovsky, S., Padden, C. and Aronoff, M. 2011. ‘The emergence of complexity in prosody and syntax’, Lingua 121: 2014–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, D.A., Carmi, R., Elbedour, K., Duyk, G.M., Stone, E.M. and Sheffield, V.C. 1995. ‘Nonsyndromic autosomal recessive deafness is linked to the DFNB1 locus in a large inbred Bedouin family from Israel’, American Journal of Human Genetics 57: 965–8.Google Scholar
Senghas, A. 2003. ‘Intergenerational influence and ontogenetic development in the emergence of spatial grammar in Nicaraguan Sign Language’, Cognitive Development 18: 511–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senghas, A. 2005. ‘Language emergence: Clues from a new Bedouin sign language’, Current Biology 15: R463-R465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soma, M., Hiraiwa-Hasegawa, M. and Okanoya, K. 2009. ‘Early ontogenetic effects on song quality in the Bengalese finch (Lonchura striata var. domestica): Laying order, sibling competition, and song syntax’, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 63: 363–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Washabaugh, W. 1986. Five fingers for survival: Deaf sign language in the Caribbean. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma Press.Google Scholar
West-Eberhard, M.J. 2003. Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A. and Grace, G. 2007. ‘The consequences of talking to strangers: Evolutionary corollaries of socio-cultural influences on linguistic form’, Lingua 117(3): 543–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar