Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:07:26.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 April 2024

Ryan M. Nefdt
Ryan M. Nefdt
Affiliation:
University of Cape Town
Get access

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.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Philosophy of Theoretical Linguistics
A Contemporary Outlook
 , pp. 207 - 228
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adger, D. 2018. The autonomy of syntax. In Hornstein, N., Lasnik, H., Patel-Grosz, P., & Yang, C. (eds.), Syntactic Structures after 60 Years, pp. 153–75. De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aguilar, J., & Buckareff, A. 2010. Causing Human Actions: New Perspectives on the Causal Theory of Action. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allott, N., Lohndal, T., & Rey, G. 2021. Chomsky’s ‘Galilean’ explanatory style. In Allott, N., Lohndal, T., & Rey, G. (eds.), A Companion to Chomsky, pp. 517–28. Wiley & Sons, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altshuler, D. (ed.). 2022. Linguistics Meets Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J., & Ewen, C. J. 1987. Principles of Dependency Phonology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ankeny, R., & Leonelli, S. 2011. What’s so special about model organisms? Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 41: 313–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anscombe, E. 1963. Intention (2nd ed.). Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D.F., Stokoe, W.C., & Wilcox, S.E. 1995. Gesture and the Nature of Language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, N. 2011. Lexical Meaning in Context: A Web of Words. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, N. 2012. Context in content composition. In Kempson, R., Fernando, T., & Asher, N. (eds.), Philosophy of Linguistics, pp. 229–69. Elsevier B.V. North Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, P., & Bresnan, J. 1996. Non-configurationality in Australian aboriginal languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 215–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baggio, G. 2018. Meaning in the Brain. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, D. 2018. Semantics as measurement. In Ball, D., & Rabern, B. (eds.), The Science of Meaning: Essays on the Metatheory of Natural Language Semantics (online ed.). Oxford Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, D., & Rabern, B. (eds.) 2018. The Science of Meaning. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. 2005. Explanation: a mechanist alternative. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36: 421–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Becker, A. 2018. What Is Real? The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Benz, A., & Stevens, J. 2018. Game-theoretic approaches to pragmatics. Annual Review of Linguistics 4: 173–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benz, A., Jäger, G., & van Rooij, R. 2006. Game Theory and Pragmatics. Palgave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernardy, J., & Lappin, S. 2017. Using deep neural networks to learn syntactic agreement. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology 15: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berto, F., & Jago, M. 2019. Impossible Worlds. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berwick, R., & Chomsky, N. 2016. Why Only Us? Language and Evolution. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berwick, R., Friederici, A., Chomsky, N., & Bolhuis, J. 2013. Evolution, brain, and the nature of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(2): 89–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bever, T. 2021. How Cognition came into being. Cognition 213: 104761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, D. 2014a. Some problems for biolinguistics. Biolinguistics 8: 73–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, D. 2014b. More than Nature Needs: Language, Mind, and Evolution. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blasi, D., Moran, S., Moisik, S., Widmer, P., Dediu, D., & Bickel, B. 2019. Human sound systems are shaped by post-Neolithic changes in bite configuration. Science 363(6432): eaav3218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blome-Tillmann, M. 2013. Conversational implicatures (and how to spot them). Philosophy Compass 8(2): 170–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blutner, R. 2000. Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation. Journal of Semantics 17: 189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blutner, R. 2011. Some experimental aspects of optimality theoretic pragmatics. In Nemeth, E., & Bibok, K. (eds.), The Role of Data at the Semantics–Pragmatics Interface. pp. 161–204. De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Blutner, R., & Zeevat, H. (eds.) 2004. Optimality Theory and Pragmatics. Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H., & Sag, I. (eds.) 2012. Sign-Based Construction Grammar. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bod, R. 2009. From exemplar to grammar: a probabilistic analogy-based model of language learning. Cognitive Science 33: 752–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bod, R. 2015. Probabilistic linguistics. In Heine, B., & Narrog, H. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, pp. 663–92. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bod, R., & Scha, R. 1996. Data-oriented language processing: an overview. ILLC Technical Report LP-96–13.Google Scholar
Bod, R., Hay, J., & Jannedy, S. 2003. Probabilistic Linguistics. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. 2006. Linguistic Minimalism: Origins, Concepts, Methods, and Aims. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. 2015. Beyond Humboldt’s problem: reflections on biolinguistics and its relation to generative grammar. Language Sciences 50: 127–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boleda, G. 2020. Distributional semantics and linguistic theory. Annual Review of Linguistics 6: 213–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borg, E. 2004. Minimal Semantics. Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Börjars, K. 2020. Lexical-functional grammar: an overview. Annual Review of Linguistics 6(1): 155–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borsley, R. 1991. Syntactic Theory: A Unified Approach. Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Botha, R. 1983. On the ‘Galilean style’ of linguistic inquiry. Lingua 58: 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandom, R. 1994. Making It Explicit. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brentari, D. 2019. Sign Language Phonology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brentari, D., Fenlon, J., & Cormier, K. 2018. Sign language phonology. In Aronoff, M. (ed.), The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, pp. 1–23. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (ed.) 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., Asudeh, A., Toivonen, I. & Wechsler, S. 2016. Lexical-Functional Syntax. Wiley, Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brighton, H., & Kirby, S. 2001. The survival of the smallest: stability conditions for the cultural evolution of compositional language. In Kelemen, J., & Sosik, P. (eds.), Advances in Artificial Life. Springer.Google Scholar
Bromberger, S. 1989. Types and tokens in linguistics. In George, A. (ed.), Reflections on Chomsky, pp. 58–90. Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bromberger, S., & Halle, M. 1989. Why phonology is different. Linguistic Inquiry 20(1): 51–70.Google Scholar
Bromberger, S., & Halle, M. 1992. The ontology of phonology. In Bromberger, S. (ed.), On What We Know We Don’t Know, pp. 206–30. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brown, A. 2013. Phonetics and phonology: historical overview. In Chapelle, C. A. (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0910Google Scholar
Buckingham, H. W. (1986). The scan-copier mechanism and the positional level of language production: evidence from phonemic paraphasia. Cognitive Science 10(2): 195–217.Google Scholar
Buckner, C. 2019. Deep learning: a philosophical introduction. Philosophy Compass 14(10): e12625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunt, H. 2007. The semantics of semantic annotation. In Chae, H.-R., Choe, J.-W., Jun, J. S., Jun, Y.-J., & Yoo, E. (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (PACLIC21, pp. 13–28). The Korean Society for Language and Information (KSLI).Google Scholar
Burgess, A., & Sherman, B. (eds.) 2014. Metasemantics: New Essays on the Foundations of Meaning. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, A., Cappelen, H., & Plunkett, D. (eds.) 2020. Conceptual Engineering and Conceptual Ethics. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camp, E. 2017. Pragmatic force in semantic context. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition 174(6): pp. 1617–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cann, R. 1993. Formal Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cann, R., Kempson, R., & Wedgwood, D. 2012. Representationalism and linguistic knowledge. In Kempson, R., Fernando, T., & Asher, N. (eds.), Philosophy of Linguistics, pp. 356–401. Elsevier B.V. North Holland.Google Scholar
Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. 2005. Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism. Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, N. 1983. How the Laws of Physics Lie. Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chater, N., Clark, A., Goldsmith, J. & Perfors, A. 2015. Empiricism and Language Learnability. Oxford University Press UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1956. Three models for the description of language. IRE Transactions on Information Theory IT-2: 113–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures. Mouton Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1959a. Review of Skinner’s Verbal behavior. Language 35: 26–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1959b. On certain formal properties of grammars. Information and Control 2(2): 137–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of a Theory of Syntax. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1966. Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought (3rd ed., 2009). Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, S., & Kiparsky, P (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, pp. 232–86. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1980. Rules and Representations. Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995a. Bare phrase structure. In Campos, H., & Kempchinsky, P. (eds.), Evolution and Revolution in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Carlos Otero (Georgetown Studies in Romance Linguistics none), pp. 51–109. Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995b. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995c. Language and nature. Mind 104: 1–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000. New Horizons for the Study of Mind and Language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2002. On Nature and Language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2012. The Science of Language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2013. Lecture I: what is language? The Journal of Philosophy 110(12): 645–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2021. Simplicity and the form of grammars. Journal of Language Modelling 9(1): 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Christiansen, M., & Chater, N. 2015. The language faculty that wasn’t: a usage-based account of natural language recursion. Frontiers in Psychology 6. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. 1998. The extended mind. Analysis 58(1): 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H., & Fox Tree, J. 2002. Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition 84: 73–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A., & Lappin, S. 2012. Computational learning theory and language acquisition. In Kempson, R., Fernando, T., & Asher, N. (eds.), Philosophy of Linguistics, pp. 445–75. Elsevier B.V. North Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, M. 1999. Head-Driven Statistical Models for Natural Language Parsing. Ph.D thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. 1983. Quantification and Syntactic Theory. D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, L., Rodrigues, F., & Cristino, A. 2008. Complex networks: the key to systems biology. Genetics and Molecular Biology 31(3): 591–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowie, F. 1999. What’s Within? Nativism Reconsidered. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Craig, E. 1990. Knowledge and the State of Nature: An Essay in Conceptual Synthesis. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. 2005. Logical and typological arguments for radical construction grammar. In Östman, J.-O., & Fried, M. (eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions [Constructional Approaches to Language 3], pp. 273–314. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. 2013. Radical construction grammar. In Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G., (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, P., & Jackendoff, R. 2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtiss, S., Fromkin, V., Krashen, S., Rigler, D., & Rigler, M. 1974. The linguistic development of Genie. Language 50(3):528–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dabrowska, E. 2015. What exactly is Universal Grammar, and has anyone seen it? Frontiers in Psychology 6: Article 852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. 1965. Theories of meaning and learnable languages. Reprinted in Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, 2001, pp. 3–16. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. 1967. Truth and meaning. Synthese 17(1): 304–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. 1986. A nice derangement of epitaphs. In Lepore, E. (ed.), Truth and Interpretation: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson, pp. 433–46. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Deacon, T. 2008. Emergence: the hole at the wheel’s hub 1. In Clayton, P., & Davies, P. (eds.), The Re-Emergence of Emergence: The Emergentist Hypothesis from Science to Religion, pp. 111–50. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Boer, B., Thompson, B., Ravignani, A., & Boeckx, C. 2020. Evolutionary dynamics do not motivate a single-mutant theory of human language. Scientific Reports 10(1): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debusmann, R. 2000. An introduction to dependency grammar. Hausarbeit fur das Hauptseminar Dependenzgrammatik SoSe 99, pp. 1–16. Universitat des Saarlandes.Google Scholar
Debusmann, R., & Kuhlmann, M. 2010. Dependency grammar: classification and exploration. In Crocker, M., & Siekmann, J. (eds.), Resource-Adaptive Cognitive Processes, pp. 365–88. Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dediu, D., & Levinson, S. 2013. On the antiquity of language: the reinterpretation of Neandertal linguistic capacities and its consequences. Frontiers in Psychology 4: 397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dekker, P. 2012. Dynamic Smenatics. Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekker, P., & van Rooij, R. 2000. Bi-directional optimality theory: an application of game theory. Journal of Semantics 17: 217–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Marneffe, M. C., & Nivre, J. 2019. Dependency grammar. Annual Review of Linguistics 5: 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derbyshire, D., & Pullum, G. 1981. Object initial languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 47(3): 192–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dever, J. 2012. Formal semantics. In García-Carpintero, M., & Kölbel, M. (eds.), The Continuum Companion to the Philosophy of Language, pp. 47–83. Continuum International.Google Scholar
Devitt, M. 2006. Ignorance of Language. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devitt, M. 2013a. The ‘linguistic conception’ of grammars. Filozofia Nauki Rok XXI: 2(82).Google Scholar
Devitt, M. 2013b. What makes a property ‘semantic’? In Capone, A., Lo Piparo, F., & Carapezza, M. (eds.), Perspectives on Pragmatics and Philosophy. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, Volume 1, pp. 87–111. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ding, N., Melloni, L., Zhang, H., Tian, X., & Poeppel, D. 2015. Cortical tracking of hierarchical linguistic structures in connected speech. Nature Neuroscience 19: 158–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dorr, C. 2010. Review of James Ladyman and Don Ross. Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 6.Google Scholar
Douglas, H. 2009. Reintroducing prediction to explanation. Philosophy of Science 76(4): 444–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. 2007. Compositionality as an empirical problem. In Barker, C., & Jacobson, P. (eds.), Direct Compositionality, pp. 14–23. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dupre, G. 2021. (What) can deep learning contribute toÂtheoretical linguistics? Minds & Machines 31: 617–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupre, G. 2023. Idealisation in semantics: truth-conditional semantics for radical contextualists. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 66(5): 917–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupré, J., & O’Malley, M. 2007. Metagenomics and biological ontology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 38(4): 834–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dupré, J., & O’Malley, M. 2009. Varieties of living things: life at the intersection of lineage and metabolism. Philosophy and Theory in Biology 1(3): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dummett, M. 1993. What do I know when I know a language? In Dummett, M. (ed.), The Seas of Language, pp. 94–105. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Dyer, C., Kuncoro, A., Ballesteros, M., & Smith, N. 2016. Recurrent neural network grammars. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pp. 199–209. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Egré, P. 2015. Explanation in linguistics. Philosophy Compass 10(7): 451–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egré, P. 2018. Philosophy of linguistics. In Baberousse, A., Bonnay, D., & Cozic, M. (eds.), The Philosophy of Science: A Companion, pp. 654–728. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Elffers, E. 2020. Linguistics and brain science: (dis-)connections in nineteenth century aphasiology. In Nefdt, R. M., Klippi, C., & Karstens, B. (eds.), The Philosophy and Science of Language, pp. 239–74. Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erk, K. 2020. Variations on abstract semantic spaces. In Nefdt, R. M., Klippi, C., & Karstens, B. (eds.), The Philosophy and Science of Language, pp. 71–99. Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eshghi, A., Hough, J., Purver, M., Kempson, R., & Gregoromichelaki, E. 2012. Conversational interactions: capturing dialogue dynamics. In Larsson, S., & Borin, L. (eds.), From Quantification to Conversation: Festschrift for Robin Cooper on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, pp. 1–27. College Publications.Google Scholar
Evans, N., & Levinson, S. 2009. The myth of language universals: language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(5): 429–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Everett, D. 2005. Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã: another look at the design features of human language. Current Anthropology 46: 621–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everett, D. 2007. Cultural constraints on grammar in Piraha: a reply to Nevins, Pesetsky, and Rodrigues. http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000427Google Scholar
Everett, D. 2017a. How Language Began: The Story of Humanity’s Greatest Invention. W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Everett, D. 2017b. A dozen years of misunderstanding. Letters 3(2).Google Scholar
Field, H. 1980. Science without Numbers: A Defense of Nominalism. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of let alone. Language 64: 501–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firth, J. 1957. Papers in Linguistics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fong, S., & Berwick, R. 2008. Treebank parsing and knowledge of language: a cognitive perspective. Proceedings CogSci 2008, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Forst, M. 2011. Computational aspects of lexical functional grammar. Language and Linguistics Compass 5(1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francez, N., & Dyckhoff, R. 2010. Proof-theoretic semantics for a natural language fragment. Linguistics & Philosophy 33(6): 447–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, S., Bod, R., & Christiansen, M. 2012. How hierarchical is language use? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279: 4522–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franke, M. 2011. Quantity implicatures, exhaustive interpretation, and rational conversation. Semantics & Pragmatics 4(1): 1–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franke, M. 2013. Game theoretic pragmatics. Philosophy Compass 8(3): 269–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franke, M., & Jäger, G. 2012. Bidirectional optimization from reasoning and learning in games. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 21(1): 117–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franke, M., & Jäger, G. 2016. Probabilistic pragmatics, or why Bayes’ rule is probably important for pragmatics. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 35(1): 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frege, G. 1892 [1948]. On sense and reference. The Philosophical Review 57(3): 209–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freidin, R. 2012. A brief history of generative grammar. In Russell, G., & Fara, D., (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Language, pp. 895–916. Routledge.Google Scholar
French, S. 2011. Shifting the structures in physics and biology: a prophylactic promiscuous realism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 42: 164–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friederici, A., Chomsky, N., Berwick, R., Moro, A., & Bolhuis, J. 2017. Language, mind and brain. Nature Human Behaviour 1(10): 713–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Futrell, R., Mahowald, K., & Gibson, E. 2015. Large-scale evidence of dependency length minimization in 37 languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences USA 112(33): 10336–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Futrell, R., Stearns, L., Everett, D., Piantodosi, S., & Gibson, E. 2016. A corpus investigation of syntactic embedding in Pirahã. PLoS ONE 11(3): e0145289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
GAMUT. 1991. Logic, Language and Meaning, Volume II: Intensional Logic and Logical Grammar. Translation and revision of Logica, taal en betekenis II. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gao, J., Li, D., & Havlin, S. (2014). From a single network to a network of networks. National Science Review 1(3): 346–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garde, P. 1977. Ordre linéaire et dépendance syntaxique: contribution á une typologie. Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris. Paris, 72(1): 1–26.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G., Klein, E., Pullum, G., & Sag, I. 1985. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Blackwell and Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gil, D. 1999. Riau Indonesian as a pivotless language. In Raxilina, E., & Testelec, Y. (eds.), Tipologija i Teorija Jazyka, Ot Opisanija k Objasneniju, K 60-Letiju Aleksandra Evgen’evicha Kibrika (Typology and Linguistic Theory, from Description to Explanation, for the 60th Birthday of Aleksandr E. Kibrik), pp. 187–211. Jazyki Russkoj Kul’tury.Google Scholar
Gil, D. 2005. Word order without syntactic categories: how Riau Indonesian does it. In Carnie, A., Harley, H., & Dooley, S. A. (eds.), Verb First: On the Syntax of Verb-Initial Languages, pp. 243–63. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giorgolo, G. 2010. Space and Time in our Hands. Ph.D Thesis, Uil-OTS, Universiteit Utrecht.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 2013. Constructionist approaches. In Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, pp. 15–31. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 2015. Compositionality. In Reimer, N. (ed.), Routledge Semantics Handbook, pp. 419–33. Routledge Press.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. 1976. Autosegmental Phonology. MIT Ph.D Thesis.Google Scholar
Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., & Courville, A. 2016. Deep Learning. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. (ed.), Universals of Language, pp. 73–113. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1967. Logic and conversation. In Grice, H. P. (ed.), Studies in the Way of Words, pp. 41–58. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In Cole, P., & Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3, pp. 41–58. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. 1982. Semantic analysis of wh-complements. Linguistics & Philosophy 5: 175–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groenendijk, J. & Stokhof, M. 1991. Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 39–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, K. 1983. Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 5–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, M., & Reiss, C. 2000. Phonology as cognition. In Burton-Roberts, N., Carr, P., & Docherty, G. (eds.), Phonological Knowledge, pp. 161–84. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, M., & Reiss, C. 2008. The Phonological Enterprise. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2021. General linguistics must be based on universals (or non-conventional aspects of language). Theoretical Linguistics 47(1–2): pp. 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugh, M. 2013. Speaker meaning and accountability in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 48(1): 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, M., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. 2002. The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298: 1569–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawthorne, J., & Magidor, O. 2009. Assertion, context, and epistemic accessibility. Mind 118(470): pp. 377–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hays, D. 1961. Grouping and dependency theories. Research Memorandum RM-2538, The RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
Hays, D. 1964. Dependency theory: a formalism and some observations. Language 40: 511–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, I. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D Dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hempel, C., & Oppenheim, P. 1948. Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science 15: 135–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, C. 1960. The origin of speech. In Wang, W. (ed.), Human Communication: Language and its Psychobiological Bases, pp. 4–12. Scientific American, 1982.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. 1968. The State of the Art. Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoeksema, J. 1997. Corpus Study of Negative Polarity Items. University of Groningen. IV–V Jornades de corpus linguistics 1996–97, Universitat Pompeu Fabre, Barcelona.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. 2022. Construction Grammar: The Structure of English. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. 2013. Construction grammar: introduction. In Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, pp. 1–12. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hölldobler, B., & Wilson, E. (2008). The Superorganism. W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Horgan, T., & Tiensen, J. 2006. Cognition needs syntax but not rules. In Stainton, R. (ed.), Contemporary Debates in Cognitive Science, pp. 149–58. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Horn, L. 1984. Towards a new Taxonomy of pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.), Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications, pp. 11–42. Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, L. 2004. Implicature. In Horn, L., & Ward, G. (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics, pp. 3–28. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Horn, L., & Kecskes, I. 2013. Pragmatics, discourse, and cognition. In Anderson, S., Moeschler, J., & Reboul, F. (eds.), The Language–Cognition Interface, pp. 353–75. Librairie Droz.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. 2009. A Theory of Syntax: Minimal Operations and Universal Grammar. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Howes, C., & Gibson, H. 2021. Dynamic syntax. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 30: 263–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. 1990. English Word Grammar. Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Huisman, J., Majid, A., & van Hout, R. 2019. The geographical configuration of a language area influences linguistic diversity. PLOS ONE 14(6): e0217363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hutchins, E. 1995. Cognition in the Wild. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. 2001. Distributed cognition. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences: 2068–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaac, M., Koch, S., & Nefdt, R. 2022. Conceptual engineering: a road map to practice. Philosophy Compass 17(10): e12879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itkonen, E. 1978. Grammatical Theory and Metascience. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itkonen, E. 1997. The social ontology of linguistic meaning. SKY Journal of Linguistics: 49–80.Google Scholar
Itkonen, E. 2001. Concerning the philosophy of phonology. Puhe ja kieli 21: 3–11.Google Scholar
Itkonen, E. 2006. Three fallacies that recur in linguistic argumentation. Puhe ja kieli 26(4): 221–6.Google Scholar
Itkonen, E. 2019. Concerning the scope of normativity. In Mäkilähde, A., Leppänen, V., & Itkonen, E. (eds.), Normativity in Language and Linguistics, pp. 29–68. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. 1977. X Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic Structures. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 2007. Linguistics in cognitive science: the state of the art. The Linguistic Review 24: 347–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 2017. In defense of theory. Cognitive Science 41: 185–212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackendoff, R. 2019. Conceptual semantics. In Maienborn, C., Heusinger, K., & Portner, P. (eds.), Semantics – Theories, pp. 86–113. De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R., & Wittenberg, E. 2014. What you can say without syntax: a hierarchy of grammatical complexity. In Newmeyer, F., & Preston, L. (eds.), Measuring Linguistic Complexity, pp. 65–82. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobson, P. 2012. Direct compositionality and ‘uninterpretability’: the case of (sometimes) ‘uninterpretable’ features on pronouns. Journal of Semantics 29(3): 305–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jäger, G. 1997. Game-theoretical pragmatics. In van Benthem, J., and ter Meulen, A. (eds.), Handbook of Logic and Language, pp. 467–91. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Jäger, G., & Rogers, J. 2012. Formal language theory: refining the Chomsky hierarchy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 367(1598): 1956–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janssen, T. 2012. Compositionality: its historic context. In Hinzen, W., Machery, E., & Werning, M. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality, pp. 19–46. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, M., & Lakoff, G. 2002. Why cognitive linguistics requires embodied realism. Cognitive Linguistics 13(3): 245–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P., & Byrne, R. 1991. Deduction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Johnston, T. 2011. Lexical frequency in sign languages. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 17(2): 163–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, D. 1950. The Phoneme: Its Nature and Use. Heffer.Google Scholar
Joshi, A. 1987. An introduction to tree adjoining grammars. In Manaster-Ramer, A. (ed.), Mathematics of Language, pp. 87–114. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joshi, A. 2004. Starting with complex primitives pays off: complicate locally, simplify globally. Cognitive Science 28: 637–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joshi, A. & Schabes, Y. 1997. Tree-adjoining grammars. In Rozenberg, G. & Salomaa, A. (eds.), Handbook of Formal Languages, pp. 69–123. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kac, M. 1994. A nonpsychological realist conception of linguistic rules. In Lima, S., Corrigan, R., & Iverson, G. (eds.), The Reality of Linguistic Rules, pp. 43–50. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahane, S. 1997. Bubble trees and syntactic representations. In Becker, H., & Krieger, U. (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Meeting of Mathematics of Language, pp. 70–76. Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kamp, H. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Groenendijk, J., Janssen, T., & Stokhof, M. (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Mathematical Centre Tracts 135, pp. 277–322. Mathematisch Centrum.Google Scholar
Kamp, H., Van Genabith, J., & Reyle, U. 2011. Discourse representation theory. In Gabbay, D., & Guenthner, F. (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Volume 15, pp. 125–394. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, D. 1989. Afterthoughts. In Almog, J., Perry, J., & Wettstein, H. (eds.), Themes from Kaplan, pp. 565–614. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Karlsson, F. 2007. Constraints on multiple center-embedding of clauses. Journal of Linguistics 43(2): 365–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, L. 1977. The syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, J. 1981. Language and Other Abstract Objects. Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Katz, J. 1996. The unfinished Chomskyan revolution. Mind & Language 11(3): 270–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffman, S. 1995. At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kay, P., & Michaelis, L. (2012). Constructional meaning and compositionality. In Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K., & Portner, P. (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, pp. 2271–96. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. 2021. Sociocognitive pragmatics. In Haugh, M., Kádár, D., & Terkourafi, M. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, pp. 592–615. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E., & Moss, L. 2016. Mathematical Structures in Language. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kelleher, J. 2019. Deep Learning. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempson, R., Viol, W., & Gabbay, D. 2001. Dynamic Syntax: The Flow of Language Understanding. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kempson, R., Fernando, T., & Asher, N. (eds.) 2012. Philosophy of Linguistics. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C., & McNally, L. 2005. Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language 81(2): 345–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kepa, K., & Perry, J. 2020. Pragmatics. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/pragmatics/Google Scholar
Kirby, S. 1999. Function, Selection, and Innateness: The Emergence of Language Universals. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, S. 2013. Language, culture and computation: an adaptive systems approach to biolinguistics. In Boeckx, C., & Grohmann, K. (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Biolinguistics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kitano, H., & Oda, K. (2006). Self-extending symbiosis: a mechanism for increasing robustness through evolution. Biological Theory 1: 61–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. 1989. Explanatory unification and the causal structure of the world. In Kitcher, P., & Salmon, W. (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume XIII: Scientific Explanation, pp. 410–505. University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Klein, D., & Manning, C. 2002. Corpus-based induction of syntactic structure: models of dependency and constituency. In Scott, D. (ed.), Proceedings of the 42th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 478–85. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Klima, E., & Bellugi, U. 1979. The Signs of Language. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. 1977. What must and can must and can mean. Linguistics & Philosophy 1: 337–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klima, E., & Bellugi, U. 1981. Notional category of modality. In Einkmeyer, H., & Rieser, H. (eds.), Words, Worlds, and Contexts: New Approaches in Word Semantics, pp. 38–74.Google Scholar
De Gruyter, . Krause, J., Lalueza-Fox, C., Orlando, L., Enard, W., Green, R., Burbano, H., Hublin, J., Hänni, J., Fortea, J., Rasilla, M., Bertranpetit, J., Rosas, A., & Pääbo, S. (2007). The derived FOXP2 variant of modern humans was shared with Neanderthals. Current Biology 17: 53–60.Google Scholar
Kretzschmar, W. 2015. Language and Complex Systems. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubota, Y., & Levine, R. 2020. Type-Logical Syntax. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kukla, A. 1996. The theory–observation distinction. The Philosophical Review, 105(2): 173–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurowski, K., & Blumstein, S. 2017. Phonetic basis of phonemic paraphasias in aphasia: evidence for cascading activation. Cortex 75: 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. 1969. Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English Copula. Language 45: 715–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. 2010. Unendangered dialect, endangered people: the case of African American Vernacular English. Transforming Anthropology 18(1): 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladyman, J., & Ross, D. 2007. Everything Must Go: Naturalized Metaphysics. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladyman, J., & Wiesner, K. 2020. What Is a Complex System? Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lahiri, A., & Reetz, H. 2010. Distinctive features: phonological underspecification in representation and processing. Journal of Phonetics 38(1): 44–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1973. Fuzzy grammar and the performance/competence terminology game. In Cognitive Linguistics Bibliography. Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1991. Cognitive versus generative linguistics: how commitments influence results. Language & Communication 11(1/2): 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. 1991. Concept, Image, and Symbol. De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langendoen, T. 2003. Merge. In Carnie, A., Hayley, H., & Willie, M. (eds.), Formal Approaches to Function in Grammar: In Honor of Eloise Jelinek, pp. 307–18. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langendoen, T. 2008. Coordinate grammar. Language 84: 691–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langendoen, T. 2022. The Vastness of Natural Languages Revisited. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Langendoen, T., & Postal, P. 1984. The Vastness of Natural Languages. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lappin, S. 2021. Deep Learning and Linguistic Representation. Chapman & Hall/Crc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lappin, S., & Shieber, S. 2007. Machine learning theory and practice as a source of insight into univeral grammar. Journal of Linguistics 43: 393–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, R., & Segal, G. 1995. Knowledge of Meaning. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavin, D. 2013. Must there be basic actions? Nous 47(2): 273–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenci, A. 2008. Distributional semantics in linguistic and cognitive research. Rivista di Linguistica 20(1): 1–31.Google Scholar
Leng, M. 2021. Models, structures, and the explanatory role of mathematics in empirical science. Synthese, 199: 10415–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lesmo, L., & Robaldo, L. 2006. Dependency tree semantics. In Foundations of Intelligent Systems, pp. 550–9. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1969. Convention. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1970. General semantics. Synthese 22: 18–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1975. Languages and language. In Gunderson, K. (ed.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, pp. 3–35. University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. In Philosophical Papers, Volume I, pp. 233–49. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1980. Index, context and content. In Kanger, S., & Ohman, S. (eds.), Philosophy and Grammar, pp. 79–100. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1983. New work for a theory of universals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 61: 343–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, K. 2014. Do we need dynamic semantics? In Burgess, A., & Sherman, B. (eds.), Metasemantics: Essays on the Foundations of Meaning, pp. 231–58. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichte, T. & Kallmeyer, L. 2017. Tree-adjoining grammar: a tree-based constructionist grammar framework for natural language understanding. In Steels, L., & Feldman, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the AAAI 2017 Spring Symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and Natural Language Understanding (Technical Report SS-17–02), pp. 205–12. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
Liddell, S. 1984. THINK and BELIEVE: sequentiality in American Sign Language. Language 60: 372–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipton, P. 2004. Inference to the Best Explanation. Routledge.Google Scholar
Linnebo, O. 2008. Compositionality and Frege’s Context Principle. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Linzen, T. 2019. What can linguistics and deep learning contribute to each other? Response to Pater. Language 95(1): e99–e108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linzen, T., & Baroni, M. 2021. Syntactic structure from deep learning. Annual Review of Linguistics 7: 195–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linzen, T., Dupoux, E., & Goldberg, Y. 2016. Assessing the ability of LSTMs to learn syntax-sensitive dependencies. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 4: 521–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lobina, D. 2017. Recursion: A Computational Investigation into the Representation and Processing of Language. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewontin, R. 1998. The evolution of cognition: questions we will never answer. In Gleitman, L., Liberman, M., & Osherson, D. N. (eds.), An Invitation to Cognitive Science, Volume 4, pp. 107–32). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ludlow, P. 2011. Philosophy of Generative Grammar. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ludlow, P. 2014. Living Words: Meaning Underdetermination and the Dynamic Lexicon. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madden, E., Robinson, R., & Kendall, D. 2017. Phonological treatment approaches for spoken word production in aphasia. Seminars in Speech and Language 38(1): 62–74.Google ScholarPubMed
Mallory, F. 2023. Why is generative grammar recursive? Erkenntnis 88: 3097–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manaster-Ramer, A., & Kac, M. 1990. The concept of phrase structure. Linguistics & Philosophy 13(3): 325–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, C. 2003. Probabilistic syntax. In Bod, R., Hay, J., & Jannedy, S. (eds.), Probabilistic Linguistics, pp. 289–342. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 2007. Generative linguistics within the cognitive neuroscience of language. The Linguistic Review 22: 429–46.Google Scholar
Marr, D. 1982. Vision. W.H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
Martins, P., & Boeckx, C. 2016. What we talk about when we talk about biolinguistics. Linguistics Vanguard 2(1): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martins, P., & Boeckx, C. 2019. Language evolution and complexity considerations: the no half-Merge fallacy. PLoS Biology 17(11): e3000389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marvin, R., & Linzen, T. 2018. Targeted syntactic evaluation of language models. In Riloff, E., Chiang, D., Hockenmaier, J., & Tsujii, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 1192–202. Association of Computational Linguistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, P. 2014. Generative Grammar and Linguistic Competence. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattson, M. 2014. Superior pattern processing is the essence of the evolved brain. Frontiers in Neuroscience 8(265): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCawley, J. 1978. Conversational implicature and the lexicon. In Cole, P. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, pp 245–59. Academic Press.Google Scholar
McCoy, T., Frank, R., & Linzen, T. 2018. Revisiting the poverty of the stimulus: hierarchical generalization without a hierarchical bias in recurrent neural networks. In Kalish, C., Rau, M. A., Zhu, X., & Rogers, T. T. (eds.), Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 2093–8. Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
McCulloch, W., & Pitts, W. 1943. A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity. The Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics 5(4): 115–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNally, L. 2013. Semantics and pragmatics. WIREs Cognitive Science 4: 285–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNally, L., & Szabó, Z. 2022. A Reader’s Guide to Classic Papers in Formal Semantics. Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mel’cuk, I. 1988. Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice. State University Press of New York.Google Scholar
Mele, A. (ed.) 1997. The Philosophy of Action. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. 2021. Environmental and linguistic typology of whistled languages. Annual Review of Linguistics 7: 493–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miall, C., & Wolpert, D. 1996. Forward models for physiological motor control. Neural Networks 9(8): 1265–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. 2003. The cognitive revolution: a historical perspective. TRENDS in Cognitive Science 7(3): 141–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, G., & Chomsky, N. 1963. Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. In Duncan Luce, R., Bush, R., & Galanter, E. (eds.), The Handbook of Mathematical Psychology (Volume II), pp. 269–321. Wiley.Google Scholar
Millikan, R. G. 1984. Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories: New Foundations for Realism. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millikan, R. G. 2005. Language: A Biological Model. Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, M. 2011. Complexity: A Guided Tour. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Montague, R. 1968. Pragmatics. In Thomason, R. (ed.), Formal Philosophy, pp. 95–118. Yale University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Montague, R. 1970. Universal Grammar. Theoria 36: 373–98. Reprinted in Montague, R. 1974. Formal Philosophy. (ed.) R. Thomason (ed.), pp. 222–46. Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morin, E. 2008. On Complexity. Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Moro, A. 2014. On the similarity between syntax and actions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 18: 109–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moro, A. 2016. Impossible Languages. The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, S. 2018. Grammatical Theory: From Transformational Grammar to Constraint-Based Approaches. Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Müller, S. 2020. Grammatical Theory: From Transformational Grammar to Constraint-Based Approaches (4th ed.) (Textbooks in Language Sciences 1). Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Müller, S. 2021. HPSG and construction grammar. In Müller, S., Abeillé, A., Borsley, R., & Koenig, J. (eds.), Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: The Handbook, pp. 1497–553. Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Napoletano, T. 2019. How important are truth-conditions for truth-conditional semantics? Linguistics and Philosophy 42: 541–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neef, M. 2018. Autonomous declarative phonology: a realist approach to the phonology of German. In Christina, C., & Neef, M. (eds.), Essays on Linguistic Realism, pp. 185–202. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nefdt, R. 2016. Scientific modelling in generative grammar and the dynamic turn in syntax. Linguistics & Philosophy 39(5): 357–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nefdt, R. 2018a. Languages and other abstract structures. In Behme, C., & Neef, M. (eds.), Essays on Linguistic Realism, pp. 139–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benjamins, John. 2018b. Structuralism and inferentialism: a tale of two theories. Logique et Analyse 61(244): 489–512.Google Scholar
Benjamins, John. 2019. Infinity and the foundations of linguistics. Synthese 196(5): 1671–711.Google Scholar
Benjamins, John. 2020a. A puzzle about compositionality in machines. Minds & Machines 30: 47–75.Google Scholar
Benjamins, John. 2020b. Formal semantics and applied mathematics: an inferential account. Journal of Logic, Language & Information 29(2): 221–53.Google Scholar
Benjamins, John. 2021. Structural realism and generative linguistics. Synthese 199: 3711–37.Google Scholar
Benjamins, John. 2022. Are machines radically contextualist? Mind & Language 38(3): 750–71.Google Scholar
Benjamins, John. 2023a. Language, Science, and Structure: A Journey into the Philosophy of Linguistics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Benjamins, John. 2023b. Biolinguistics and biological systems: a complex systems analysis of language. Biology & Philosophy 38(12).Google Scholar
Nefdt, R., & Baggio, G. 2023. Notational variants and cognition: the case of dependency grammar. Erkenntnis.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. 1991. Functional explanation in linguistics and the origins of language. Language and Communication 11(1–2): 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F. 1996. Generative Linguistics: A Historical Perspective. Routledge.Google Scholar
Nevins, A., Pesetsky, D., & Rodrigues, C. 2009. Pirahã exceptionality: a reassessment. Language 85: 355–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowak, E., & Michaelson, E. 2022. Meta-metasemantics, or the quest for the one true metasemantics. The Philosophical Quarterly 72(1): 135–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, W. 1998. The syntax of idioms. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16: 279–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olah, C. 2015. https://colah.github.io/posts/2015–08-Understanding-LSTMs/Google Scholar
Omar, A., & Alotaibi, M. 2017. Geographic location and linguistic diversity: the use of intensifiers in Egyptian and Saudi Arabic. International Journal of English Linguistics 7(4): 220–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Malley, M., & Dupré, J. 2005. Fundamental issues in systems biology. BioEssays 27: 1270–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Malley, M., & Dupré, J. 2007. Size doesn’t matter: towards an inclusive philosophy of biology. Biology and Philosophy 22: 155–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, T. 2005. Beyond the constituent: a dependency grammar analysis of chains. Folia Linguistica 39(3–4): 251–97.Google Scholar
Osborne, T. 2014. Dependency grammar. In Carnie, A., Sato, Y., & Siddiqi, D. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Syntax, pp. 604–27. Routledge.Google Scholar
Osborne, T., Putnam, M., & Gross, T. (2012). Catenae: introducing a novel unit of syntactic analysis. Syntax 15(4): 354–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pacherie, E. 2012. Actions. In Frankish, K., & Ramsey, W. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Science, pp. 92–111. Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Paluszek, M., & Thomas, S. 2020. Practical MATLAB Deep Learning: A Project-Based Approach. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parikh, P. 1988. Language and Strategic Inference. Ph.D Thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Parikh, P. 1992, A game-theoretic account of implicature. In Proceedings of the 4th TARK Conference, pp. 85–94. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Partee, B. 1996. The development of formal semantics in linguistic theory. In Lappin, S. (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, pp 11–38. Blackwell Reference.Google Scholar
Partee, B. 2009. Perspectives on semantics: how philosophy and syntax have shaped the development of formal semantics, and vice versa. Conference ‘Russian in Contrast’, special guest lecture. University of Oslo. https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/partee/Partee2009Oslo.ppt.pdfGoogle Scholar
Partee, B. 2014. A brief history of the syntax–semantics interface in Western formal linguistics. Semantics–Syntax Interface 1(1): 1–21.Google Scholar
Partee, B., Meulen, A., & Wall, R. 1993. Mathematical Methods in Linguistics. Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paster, M. 2015. Phonological analysis. In Heine, B., & Narrog, H. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, pp. 525–44. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pastra, K., & Aloimonos, Y. 2012. The minimalist grammar of action. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 367: 103–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patel, P., Mascharenhas, S., Chemla, E., & Schlenker, P. 2023. Super linguistics: an introduction. Linguistics and Philosophy 46: 627–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pater, J. 2019. Generative linguistics and neural networks at 60: foundation, friction, and fusion. Language 95(1): e41–e74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penn, G. 2012. Computational linguistics. In Kempson, R., Fernando, T., and Asher, N. (eds.), Philosophy of Linguistics, pp. 143–73. Elsevier B.V. North Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peregin, J. 2015. Inferentialism: Why Rules Matter. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Pereira, F. 2000. Formal grammar and information theory: together again? In Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, pp 1239–53. Royal Society.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. 1990. On the segmental representation of transitional and bidirectional movements in ASL phonology. In Fischer, S., & Siple, P. (eds.), Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research. Volume 1: Linguistics, pp. 67–80. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pfau, R., & Quer, J. 2010. Nonmanuals: their prosodic and grammatical roles. Sign Languages: 381–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pietroski, P. 2018. Conjoining Meanings: Semantics without Truth Values. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S., & Bloom, P. 1990. Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13: 707–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S., & Jackendoff, R. 2005. The faculty of language: what’s special about it? Cognition 95: 201–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollack, J. 1990. Recursive distributed representations. Artificial Intelligence 46: 77–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, C., & Sag, I. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Poole, G. 2002. Syntactic theory. Palgrave.Google Scholar
Postal, P. 2003. Remarks on the foundations of linguistics. The Philosophical Forum XXXIV(3–4): 233–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postal, P. 2003. Skeptical Linguistic Essays. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Postal, P. 2009. The incoherence of Chomsky’s ‘biolinguistic’ ontology. Biolinguistics 3(1): 104–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Progovac, L. 2015. Evolutionary Syntax. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Progovac, L. 2016. A gradualist scenario for language evolution: precise linguistic reconstruction of early human (and Neanderthal) grammars. Frontiers in Psychology 7(1714): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, G. 1983. How many possible human languages are there? Linguistic Inquiry 14(3): 447–67.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. 2007. Ungrammaticality, rarity, and corpus use. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3: 33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, G. 2009. Computational linguistics and generative linguistics: the triumph of hope over experience. In Baldwin, T., & Kordoni, V. (eds.), ILCL ’09: Proceedings of the EACL 2009 Workshop on the Interaction between Linguistics and Computational Linguistics: Virtuous, Vicious or Vacuous?, pp. 12–21. Association for Computational Linguistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, G. 2011. The mathematical foundations of Syntactic Structures. Journal of Logic, Language & Information 20(3): 277–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, G. 2013. The central question in comparative syntactic metatheory. Mind & Language 28(4): 492–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, G. 2014. Fear and loathing of the English passive. Language & Communication 37: 60–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, G. 2018. Why Linguistics Matters. Polity Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. 2019. Formalism, grammatical rules, and normativity. In McElvenny, J. (ed.), Form and Formalism in Linguistics, pp. 197–224. Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, G., & Gazdar, G. 1982. Natural languages and context-free languages. Linguistics and Philosophy 4(4): 471–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, G., & Scholz, B. 2001. On the distinction between model-theoretic and generative-enumerative syntactic frameworks. In de Groote, P., Morrill, G., & Retore, C. (eds.), Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics, pp. 17–43. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, G., & Scholz, B. 2002. Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review 19: 9–50.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. & Scholz, B. 2010. Recursion and the infinitude claim. In van der Hulst, H. (ed.), Recursion in Human Language (Studies in Generative Grammar 104), pp. 113–38. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, F. 2014. The syntax of action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 18: 219–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pustejovsky, J. 1991. The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics 17: 409–41.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J., & Jezek, E. 2008. Semantic coercion in language: beyond distributional analysis. Italian Journal of Linguistics 20(1): 181–214.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J., Rumshisky, A., Batiukova, O., & Moszkowicz, J. L. 2014. Annotation of compositional operations with GLML. In Bunt, H., Bos, J., Pulman, S. (eds.), Computing Meaning: Text, Speech and Language Technology, Volume 47, pp. 217–34. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. 1973. Meaning and reference. Journal of Philosophy 70: 699–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. 1981. Reason, Truth and History. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rambow, O., & Joshi, A. 1997. A formal look at dependency grammars and phrase-structure grammars, with special consideration of word-order phenomena. In Wanner, L. (ed.), Recent Trends in Meaning-Text Theory 39, pp. 167–90. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Reali, F., & Christiansen, M. 2005. Uncovering the richness of the stimulus: structure dependence and indirect statistical evidence. Cognitive Science 29(6): 1007–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Recanati, F. 2004. Literal Meaning. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reed, P. 2020. Place and language: links between speech, region, and connection to place. Wiley Interdisciplinary Review of Cognitive Science 11(3): e1524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reines, M., & Prinz, J. 2009. Reviving Whorf: the return of linguistic relativity. Philosophy Compass 4(6): 1022–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rey, G. 2020. Representation in Language. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, A., & Uebel, T. 2007. Cambridge Companion to Logical Empiricism. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, C. 2015. Accommodation in a language game. In Loewer, B., & Schaffer, J. (eds.), A Companion to David Lewis, pp. 345–66. Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. 1967/1983. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph.D dissertation. MIT.Google Scholar
Ross, J. 1973. A fake NP squish. In Bailey, C., & Shuy, R. (eds.), New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English, pp. 96–140. Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Rothschild, D. 2009. Definite Descriptions and Negative Polarity. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Sag, I. 2012. Sign-based construction grammar: an informal synopsis. In Boas, H. C., & Sag, I. A. (eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (CSLI Lecture Notes 193), pp. 69–202. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sag, I., Wasow, T., & Bender, E. 2003. Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction (2nd ed.). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sampson, G. 2007. Grammar without grammaticality. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3(1): 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, G., & Babarczy, A. 2013. Grammar without Grammaticality: Growth and the Limits of Grammatical Precision. De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, W. 1986. The spreading hand autosegment of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 50: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, W. 1989. Phonological Representation of the Sign: Linearity and Non-Linearity in American Sign Language. Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, W. 2012. The phonological organization of sign languages. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(3): 162–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savitch, W. 1993. Why it might pay to assume that languages are infinite. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 8: 17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scha, R. 1990. Taaltheorie en taaltechnologie; competence en performance. In de Kort, Q., & Leerdam, G. (eds.), Computertoepassingen in de Neerlandistiek, pp. 7–22. Landelijke Vereniging van Neerlandici.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. 2018. What is super semantics? Philosophical Perspectives 32(1): 365–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlenker, P. 2019. Gestural semantics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 37: 735–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlenker, P. 2020. Gestural grammar. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 38: 887–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, W. 1954. Some reflections on language games. Philosophy of Science 21: 204–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seyfarth, R., & Cheney, D. 2014. The evolution of language from social cognition. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 28: 5–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sgall, P., Hajicova, E., & Panevova, J. 1986. The Meaning of the Sentence in Its Semantics and Pragmatic Aspects. D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Shieber, S. 1985. Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language. In The Formal Complexity of Natural Language, pp. 320–34. Springer Netherlands, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shieber, S., & Schabes, Y. 1990. Synchronous tree-adjoining grammars. In Karlgren, H. (ed.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp. 253–8. University of Helsinki.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shieber, S., & Schabes, Y. 1991. Synchronous tree-adjoining grammars. Technical Reports (CIS).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinha, C. 2010. Cognitive linguistics, psychology, and cognitive science. In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, pp. 1–30. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skyrms, B. 2010. Signals: Evolution, Learning and Information. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sider, T. 2010. Logic for Philosophy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Silberstein, M. 2022. Context is king: contextual emergence in network neuroscience, cognitive science, and psychology. In Wuppuluri, S., & Stewart, I. (eds.), From Electrons to Elephants and Elections, pp. 597–640. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, N., & Wilson, D. 1991. Modern Linguistics: The Results of Chomsky’s Revolution. Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Smolensky, P. 2001. Optimality theory: frequently asked ‘questions’. In Fukazawa, H., & Kitahara, M. (eds.), Gengo, pp. 1–72. Taishukan.Google Scholar
Smolensky, P., & Dupoux, E. 2009. Universals in cognitive theories of language. Behavioral & Brain Sciences 32: 468–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. 2010. The Guru effect. Review of Philosophy & Psychology 1: 583–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. 1994. Outline of relevance theory. Hermes 1: 85–106.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd ed.). Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sporns, O. 2013. Structure and function of complex brain networks. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience 15: 247–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sporns, O. 2014. Contributions and challenges for network models in cognitive neuroscience. Nature Neuroscience 17: 652–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, J. 2018. Acceptability judgments and grammaticality, prospects and challenges. In Hornstein, N., Lasnik, B., Patel-Grosz, P., & Yang, C. (eds.), Syntactic Structures after 60 Years: The Impact of the Chomskyan Revolution in Linguistics, pp. 195–224. De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, R. 1970. Pragmatics. Synthese 22. Reprinted in Context and Content: Essays on Intentionality in Speech and Thought. Oxford University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. 1976. Possible worlds. Nous 10(1): 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, R. 1978. Assertion. Syntax and Semantics (New York Academic Press) 9: 315–32.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. 1984. Inquiry. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. 1997. Reference and necessity. In Hale, B., & Wright, C. (eds.), A Companion To Philosophy of Language, pp. 534–54. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. 1999. Context and Content. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, R. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics & Philosophy 25: 701–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, R. 2014. Context and Content. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stanley, J., & Szabó, Z. 2000. On quantifier domain restriction. Mind & Language 15(2–3): pp. 219–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanton, K. 2020. Linguistics and philosophy: break up song. In Nefdt, R., Klippi, C., & Karstens, B. (eds.), The Philosophy and Science of Language: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, pp. 409–36. Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starr, W. 2020. A preference semantics for imperatives. Semantics & Pragmatics 13(6): 1–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steedman, M. 2017. The emergence of language. Mind & Language 32: 579–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, W. 1960. Sign language structure: an outline of the visual communication system of the American deaf. Studies in Linguistics, Occasional Papers, 8. University of Buffalo.Google Scholar
Stokoe, W. 1980. Sign language structure. Annual Review of Anthropology 9: 365–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, W. 1991. Semantic phonology. Sign Language Studies 71: 99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stojnić, U. 2017. Content in a dynamic context. Nous 53(2): 394–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokhof, M. 2012. The role of artificial languages. In Russell, G., & Fara, D. (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Language, pp. 553–4. Routledge.Google Scholar
Schwartz, J., Boë, L., & Abry, C. 2007. Linking the dispersion-focalization theory (DFT) and the maximum utilization of the available distinctive features (MUAF) principle in a Perception-for-Action-Control Theory (PACT). In Solé, M., Beddor, P., & Ohala, M. (eds.), Experimental Approaches to Phonology, pp. 104–24. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strevens, M. 2020. The Knowledge Machine. Liveright Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Szabó, Z. 2000. Compositionality. Routledge.Google Scholar
Strevens, M. (ed.) 2005. Semantics versus Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Strevens, M. 2009. The distinction between semantics and pragmatics. In Lepore, E., & Smith, B. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language, pp. 361–90. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Strevens, M. 2011. The case for compositionality. In Hinzen, W., Machery, E., & Werning, M. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality, pp. 64–80. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Strevens, M. 2022. Possible Human Languages. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Szabó, Z., & Thomason, R. 2019. The Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tallerman, M. 1998. Understanding Syntax. Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. 1933. The concept of truth in the languages of the deductive sciences.Google Scholar
Tiede, H., & Stout, L. 2010. Recursion, infinity and modeling. In van der Hulst, H. (ed.), Recursion and Human Language, pp. 147–58. Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. 2012. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. Routledge.Google Scholar
Thomason, R. 1974. Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers by Richard Montague. New Haven Press.Google Scholar
Thurner, S., Hanel, R., & Klimekl, P. 2018. Introduction to the Theory of Complex Systems. Oxford Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomalin, M. 2006. Linguistics and the Formal Sciences. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomalin, M. 2007. Reconsidering recursion in syntactic theory. Lingua 117: 1784–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. 2000. Origins of Human Communication. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Travis, C. 1994, On constraints of generality. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series 44, pp. 165–88. Aristotelian Society Publications.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. 1958 [1939]. Grundzüge der Phonologie. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, H. 1993. Units in the analysis of signs. Phonology 10: 209–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. (ed.) 2010. Recursion and Human Language. De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
van Heijenoort, J. 1967. Logic as calculus and logic as language. Synthese 17(3): 324–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Rooij, R., & Franke, M. 2022. Optimality-theoretic and game-theoretic approaches to implicature. In Zalta, E. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, Ł., & Polosukhin, I. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30.Google Scholar
Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. 1991. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veltman, F. 1996. Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25: 225–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veres, C. 2022. Large language models are not models of natural language: they are corpus models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.07055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeerbergen, M., van Herreweghe, M., Akach, P., & Matabane, E. 2007. Constituent order in Flemish Sign Language (VGT) and South African Sign Language (SASL): a cross-linguistic study. Sign Language & Linguistics 10(1): 23–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, D., & Strogatz, S. 1998. Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature 393(4): 440–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weisberg, M. 2007. Three kinds of idealization. Journal of Philosophy 104(12): 639–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, M. 2013. Simulation and Similarity: Using Models to Understand the World. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westera, M., & Boleda, G. 2019. Don’t blame distributional semantics if it can’t do entailment. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Semantics. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
White, E., Hutka, S., Williams, L., & Moreno, S. 2013. Learning, neural plasticity and sensitive periods: implications for language acquisition, music training and transfer across the lifespan. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2013.00090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wigner, E. 1960. The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 13(1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, S., & Wilcox, P. 2015. The analysis of signed languages. In Heine, B., & Narrog, H. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, pp. 843–64. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilcox, E., Levy, R., Morita, T., & Futrell, R. 2018. What do RNN language models learn about filler - gap dependencies? In Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pp. 211–21. Association for Computational Linguistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. 1988. Representation and relevance. In Kempson, R. (ed.), Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality, pp. 133–53. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. 2012. Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Anscombe, G., & Rhees, R. (eds.), Anscombe, G. E. M. (trans.). Blackwell.Google Scholar
Woschitz, J. 2020. Scientific realism and linguistics: two stories of scientific progress. In Nefdt, R., Klippi, C., & Karstens, B. (eds.), The Philosophy and Science of Language, pp. 143–77. Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, D. 2012. Lexical decomposition in grammar. In Werning, M., Hinzen, W., & Machery, E. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality, pp. 307–28. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yalcin, S. 2007. Epistemic modals. Mind 116: 983–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yalcin, S. 2012. Introductory notes on dynamic semantics. In Fara, D., & Russell, G. (eds.), The Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Language, pp. 253–79. Routledge.Google Scholar
Yalcin, S., & Knobe, J. 2014. Epistemic modals and context: experimental data. Semantics and Pragmatics 7: 1–21.Google Scholar
Yang, C. 2006. The Infinite Gift. Scribner.Google Scholar
Yang, Y., & Piantadosi, S. (2022). One model for the learning of language. PNAS 119(5): e2021865119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Youguo, P., Huailin, S., & Tiancai, L. (2007). The frame of cognitive pattern recognition. Chinese Control Conference, pp. 694–6.Google Scholar
Zeevat, H. 1989. A compositional approach to discourse representation theory. Linguistics & Philosophy 12: 95–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeevat, H. 2007. Optimal Interpretation as an Alternative to Gricean Pragmatics. Unpublished manuscript, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Zeevat, H. 2008. Where is pragmatics in optimality theory? In Kecskes, I., & Mey, J. (eds.), Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer, pp. 87–104. De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeevat, H. 2014. Language Production and Interpretation: Linguistics Meets Cognition. Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeevat, H. 2015. Perspectives on Bayesian natural language semantics and pragmatics. In Zeevat, H., & Schmitz, H. (eds.), Bayesian Natural Language Semantics and Pragmatics, Language, Cognition, and Mind 2, pp. 1–24. Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, J., & Hai, Z. 2019. Head-driven phrase structure grammar parsing on Penn Treebank. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 2396–408. Association for Computational Linguistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwarts, J., & Verkuyl, H. 1994. An algebra of conceptual structure; an investigation into Jackendoff’s conceptual semantics. Linguistics & Philosophy 17: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Ryan M. Nefdt, University of Cape Town
  • Book: The Philosophy of Theoretical Linguistics
  • Online publication: 25 April 2024
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009082853.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Ryan M. Nefdt, University of Cape Town
  • Book: The Philosophy of Theoretical Linguistics
  • Online publication: 25 April 2024
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009082853.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Ryan M. Nefdt, University of Cape Town
  • Book: The Philosophy of Theoretical Linguistics
  • Online publication: 25 April 2024
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009082853.011
Available formats
×