Grammar change

References

1. Avgustinova, T.
   (1997) Word order and clitics in Bulgarian. PhD Thesis. Saarbrücken: Universität des Saarlandes.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Becker, K. F.
   (1845) Schulgrammatik des Deutschen. Frankfurt: Verlag von G.F. Kettembeil.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Brenowitz E. A.
   (2008) Plasticity of the song control system in adult birds. InPh. H. Zeigler & P. Marler (eds). Neuroscience of birdsong. 332-349. Cambridge University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Bell, G. & Gonzalez, A.
   (2011) Adaptation and evolutionary rescue in metapopulations experiencing environmental deterioration. Science, 332 (6035), 1327–1329. 10.1126/science.1203105
   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1203105 [Google Scholar]
5. Biberauer, Th. & Walkden, G.
   (2015) Introduction: Changing views of syntactic change. InTh. Biberauer & G. Walkden (Eds.), Syntax over time. Lexical, morphological, and information-structural interactions (pp.1–13). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199687923.003.0001
   https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199687923.003.0001 [Google Scholar]
6. Bierwisch, M.
   (2012) The Concept of Evolution in Linguistics. InA. Fasolo (Ed.), The Theory of Evolution and Its Impact (pp.103–117). Milano: Springer. 10.1007/978‑88‑470‑1974‑4_7
   https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-1974-4_7 [Google Scholar]
7. Breslin, D.
   (2010) Generalising Darwinism to study socio-cultural change. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 30(7–8), 427–439. 10.1108/01443331011060760
   https://doi.org/10.1108/01443331011060760 [Google Scholar]
8. Bridges, K. & Hoff, E.
   (2014) Older sibling influences on the language environment and language development of toddlers in bilingual homes. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35(2), 225–241. doi:  10.1017/S0142716412000379
   https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716412000379 [Google Scholar]
9. Brinckmann, C. & Bubenhofer, N.
   (2012) Sagen kann man’s schon, nur schreiben tut man’s selten” – Die tun-Periphrase. InM. Konopka & R. Schneider, Grammatische Stolpersteine digital – Festschrift für Bruno Strecker zum 65. Geburtstag. Mannheim: Institut für deutsche Sprache. nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:mh39-14629
   [Google Scholar]
10. Cable, S.
    (2008) Configurationality and the Salish language. Theoretical perspectives on languages of the Pacific Northwest. Lecture notes. U. Mass at Amherst. [URL: https://people.umass.edu/scable/PNWSeminar/handouts/Config/Configurationality-Salish.pdf]
    [Google Scholar]
11. Christiansen, M. & Chater, N.
    (2016) The Now-or-Never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, E62. doi:  10.1017/S0140525X1500031X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X1500031X [Google Scholar]
12. Chomsky, N.
    (2011) Language and other cognitive systems. What is special about language?Language Learning and Development, 7(4), 263–278. doi:  10.1080/15475441.2011.584041
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2011.584041 [Google Scholar]
13. Comrie, B. & Kuteva, T.
    (2005) The evolution of grammatical structures and ‘functional need’ explanations. InM. Tallerman (Ed.) Language origins: perspective on evolution (pp.185–207). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Cornips, L.
    (1998) Habitual doen in Heerlen Dutch. InJ. A. van Leuvensteijn, I. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, M. van der Wal (Eds.), DO in English, Dutch and German – history and present-day variation (pp.83–101). Amsterdam: Stichting Nederlandistiek/Nodus Publikationen.
    [Google Scholar]
15. De Boer, B., Thompson, B., Ravignani, A. & Boeckx, C.
    (2020) Evolutionary dynamics do not motivate a single-mutant theory of human language. Nature Science Reports, 10, 451. doi:  10.1038/s41598‑019‑57235‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-57235-8 [Google Scholar]
16. Darwin, Ch.
    (1872) On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray (6th edition).
    [Google Scholar]
17. Dehé, N.
    (2004) On the order of objects in Icelandic double object constructions. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 16, 85–108.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Dixon, R.
    (1997) The rise and fall of languages. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511612060
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612060 [Google Scholar]
19. Dunn, M.
    (2014) Gender determined dialect variation. In: Corbett, G. G. (Ed.) The expression of gender (pp.39–67). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Ellegård, A.
    (1953) The auxiliary Do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. (Gothenburg Studies in English, vol. 2). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Eldredge, N. & Gould, St. J.
    (1972) Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Schopf, T. J. M. (Ed.) Models in Paleobiology (pp.82–115). San Francisco: Freeman Cooper.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Feder, A. F., Kryazhimskiy, S. & Plotkin, J. B.
    (2014) Identifying signatures of selection in genetic time series. Genetics, 196(2), 509–522. 10.1534/genetics.113.158220
    https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.113.158220 [Google Scholar]
23. Fisher, R. A.
    (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. 10.5962/bhl.title.27468
    https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.27468 [Google Scholar]
24. Foote, A. &, Liu, Y. T. & Gregg, W.
    (2015) Convergent evolution of the genomes of marine mammals. Nature Genetics, 47(3), 272–275. doi:  10.1038/ng.3198
    https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3198 [Google Scholar]
25. Gould, St. J.
    (2002): The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press. 10.2307/j.ctvjsf433
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjsf433 [Google Scholar]
26. Gazsi, D.
    (2011) Arabic-Persian Language Contact. In: Weninger, St. (Ed.) The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook. (pp.1015–1021). Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110251586.1015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110251586.1015 [Google Scholar]
27. Gibson, E., Futrell, R., Piandadosi, St. T., Dautriche, I., Mahowald, K., Bergen, L. & Levy, R.
    (2019) How efficiency shapes human language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(5), 389–407. 10.1016/j.tics.2019.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.02.003 [Google Scholar]
28. Gell-Mann, M. & Ruhlen, M.
    (2011) The origin and evolution of word order. PNAS, 108(42), 17290–17295. 10.1073/pnas.1113716108
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1113716108 [Google Scholar]
29. Goldin-Meadow, S., So, W. C., Özyürek, A., & Mylander, C.
    (2008) The natural order of events: How speakers of different languages represent events nonverbally. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 9163–9168. 10.1073/pnas.0710060105
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0710060105 [Google Scholar]
30. Goulding, J.
    (2020) Virus replication. British Society for Immunology. https://www.immunology.org/public-information/bitesized-immunology/pathogens-and-disease/virus-replication [March15 2020].
    [Google Scholar]
31. Gray, T. J., Reagan, A. J., Dodds, P. S. & Danforth, C. M.
    (2018) English verb regularization in books and tweets. PLoS ONE, 13(12), e0209651. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0209651
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209651 [Google Scholar]
32. Greenhill, S. J., Wu, C-H., Hua, X., Dunn, M., Levinson, St. C. & Gray, R. D.
    (2017) Evolutionary dynamics of language systems. PNAS, 114(42), E8822–E8829. 10.1073/pnas.1700388114
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1700388114 [Google Scholar]
33. Haider, H.
    (1991) Die menschliche Sprachfähigkeit – exaptiv und kognitiv opak. Kognitionswissenschaft, 2, 11–26.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Haider, H.
    (1999) On the survival of the fittest grammar (theory). Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 18, 216–218. 10.1515/zfsw.1999.18.2.216
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsw.1999.18.2.216 [Google Scholar]
35. Haider, H.
    (2013): Symmetry breaking in Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Haider, H.
    (2014) The VO-OV split of Germanic languages – a T3 & V2 production. Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis, 19(1), 57–79.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Haider, H.
    (2015a) “Intelligent design” of grammars – a result of cognitive evolution. In: A. Adli, M. García García & G. Kaufmann (Eds.), Variation in language: System- and usage-based approaches (pp.205–240). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110346855‑009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110346855-009 [Google Scholar]
38. Haider, H.
    (2015b) Head directionality – in syntax and morphology. In: A. Fábregas, J. Mateu & M. Putnam (Eds.), Contemporary linguistic parameters (pp.73–97). London: Bloomsbury Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Haider, H.
    (2019a) An anthropic principle in lieu of a “Universal Grammar”. In: J. M. Brown, A. Schmidt & M. Wierzba (Eds.), Of trees and birds (pp.363–381). Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Haider, H.
    (2019b) On absent, expletive, and non-referential subjects. In: P. Herbeck, B. Pöll, & A. C. Wolfsgruber (Eds.), Semantic and syntactic aspects of impersonality (pp.11–46). Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Haider, H.
    (2021) “OVS” – A misnomer for SVO languages with ergative alignment. lingbuzz/005680.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Haider, H. & Szusich, L.
    (2019) Slavic languages – “SVO” languages without SVO qualities? (in press). Theoretical Linguistics, 47. (lingbuzz/004973).
    [Google Scholar]
43. Haig, D.
    (2007) Weismann Rules! OK? Epigenetics and the Lamarckian temptation. Biology and Philosophy, 22, 415–428. doi:  10.1007/s10539‑006‑9033‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-006-9033-y [Google Scholar]
44. Hanke, D.
    (2004) Teleology: the explanation that bedevils biology. In: Cornwell, J. (Ed.), Explanations: Styles of explanation in science (pp.143–155). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Haspelmath, M.
    (1999) Optimality and diachronic adaptation. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 18, 180–205. 10.1515/zfsw.1999.18.2.180
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsw.1999.18.2.180 [Google Scholar]
46. Hawkins, J. A.
    (1994) A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Heath, J.
    (1984) Language contact and language change. Annual Review of Anthropology, 13, 367–384. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews, Inc. 10.1146/annurev.an.13.100184.002055
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.13.100184.002055 [Google Scholar]
48. Hodgson, G. M.
    (2013) Understanding organizational evolution: Toward a research agenda using Generalized Darwinism. Organization Studies, 34(7), 973–992. doi:  10.1177/0170840613485855
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840613485855 [Google Scholar]
49. Hodgson, G. M.
    (2011) Organizational Adaptation and Evolution: Darwinism versus Lamarckism?In: A. Grandori (Ed.), The Elgar Handbook of economic organization (pp.157–171). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
    [Google Scholar]
50. Hodgson, G. M. & Knudsen, Th.
    (2006) Why we need a generalized Darwinism and why a generalized Darwinism is not enough. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 61, 1–19. 10.1016/j.jebo.2005.01.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2005.01.004 [Google Scholar]
51. Hodgson, G. M. & Knudsen, Th.
    (2008) In search of general evolutionary principles: Why Darwinism is too important to be left to the biologists. Journal of Bioeconomics, 10, 51–69. doi:  10.1007/s10818‑008‑9030‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-008-9030-0 [Google Scholar]
52. Hull, D. L.
    (1988) Interactors versus vehicles. In: H. C. Plotkin (Ed.) The role of behavior in evolution (pp.19–50). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
53. Jäger, A.
    (2006) Typology of Periphrastic ‘do’-constructions. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Brock-meyer.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Jelinek, E. & Demers, R.
    (1994) Predicates and pronominal arguments in Straits Salish. Language, 70, 697–736. 10.2307/416325
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416325 [Google Scholar]
55. Jenkin, F.
    (1867) The origin of species. North British Review, 46, 277–318.
    [Google Scholar]
56. Jespersen, O.
    (1894) Progress in language. New York: McMillan & Co.
    [Google Scholar]
57. Johansson, S.
    (2005) Origins of Language: Constraints on hypotheses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.5 [Google Scholar]
58. Joseph, B.
    (2001) Review of R. M. W. Dixon, The rise and fall of languages. Journal of Linguistics, 37, 180–6.
    [Google Scholar]
59. Kant, I.
    (1790) Kritik der Urteilskraft. Berlin & Libau: Lagarde & Friedrich.
    [Google Scholar]
60. Karjus, A., Blythe, R. A., Kirby, S. & Smith, K.
    (2020) Challenges in detecting evolutionary forces in language change using diachronic corpora. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 5(1), 45. doi:  10.5334/gjgl.909
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.909 [Google Scholar]
61. Kiparsky, P.
    (2008) Universals constrain change; change results in typological generalizations. In: Good, J. (Ed.) Linguistic universals and language change (pp.23–53). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
62. Koonin, E. V.
    (2011) The logic of chance: The nature and origin of biological evolution. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: FT Press Science.
    [Google Scholar]
63. Koplenig, A., Meyer, P., Wolfer, S. & Müller-Spitzer, C.
    (2017) The statistical trade-off between word order and word structure – Large-scale evidence for the principle of least effort. PLOS ONE12(3): e0173614. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0173614
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173614 [Google Scholar]
64. Lamarck de Monet de, J.-B. P. A.
    (1809) Philosophie zoologique, ou, exposition des considérations relative à l’histoire naturelle des animaux. Paris: F. Savy.
    [Google Scholar]
65. Lasnik, H. &, Sobin, N.
    (2000) The who/whom puzzle: On the preservation of an archaic feature. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 18, 343–371. doi:  10.1023/A:1006322600501
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006322600501 [Google Scholar]
66. Lee, N.
    (2004) The neurobiology of procedural memory. In: J. H. Schumann, S. E. Crowell, N. E. Jones, N. Lee, Sara A. Schuchert, and L. A. Wood (Eds.), The neurobiology of learning: Perspectives from second language acquisition (pp.43–73). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
67. Lenormand, Th.
    (2002) Gene flow and the limits to natural selection. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 17(4), 183–189. 10.1016/S0169‑5347(02)02497‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(02)02497-7 [Google Scholar]
68. Levit, G. S. & Hossfeld, U. & Witt, U.
    (2011) Can Darwinism be “generalized” and of what use would this be?Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 21, Art. 545. doi:  10.1007/s00191‑011‑0235‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-011-0235-3 [Google Scholar]
69. Levy, R.
    (2008) Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106(3), 1126–1177. 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006 [Google Scholar]
70. Loison, L.
    (2018) Lamarckism and epigenetic inheritance: a clarification. Biology & Philosophy, 33(3–4), Art. 29. 10.1007/s10539‑018‑9642‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-018-9642-2 [Google Scholar]
71. Loewe, L. & Hill, W. G.
    (2010) The population genetics of mutations: good, bad and indifferent. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B365, 1153–1167. doi:  10.1098/rstb.2009.0317
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0317 [Google Scholar]
72. Loewe, L.
    (2008) Negative selection. Nature Education, 1(1), 59.
    [Google Scholar]
73. LI, C.
    (1967) Fundamental theorem of natural selection. Nature, 214, 505–506. 10.1038/214505a0
    https://doi.org/10.1038/214505a0 [Google Scholar]
74. MacKenzie, I.
    (2013) Participle-object agreement in French and the theory of grammatical viruses. Journal of Romance Studies, 13,19-33. 10.3828/jrs.13.1.19
    https://doi.org/10.3828/jrs.13.1.19 [Google Scholar]
75. Masel, J.
    (2011) Genetic drift. Current Biology, 21(20), PR837–R838. 10.1016/j.cub.2011.08.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.08.007 [Google Scholar]
76. Mayr, E.
    (1991) One long argument. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
77. Mayr, E.
    (1992) The idea of teleology. Journal of the history of ideas, 53(1), 117–135. 10.2307/2709913
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2709913 [Google Scholar]
78. Merkle, L.
    (1975) Bairische Grammatik. München: Hugendubel.
    [Google Scholar]
79. Morgan-Short, K. & Ullman, M. T.
    (2011) The neuro-cognition of second language. In: S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp.282–299). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
80. Morris, S.
    (1994) Fleeming Jenkin and the origin of species: A reassessment. The British Journal for the History of Science, 27(3), 313–343. doi:  10.1017/S0007087400032209
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007087400032209 [Google Scholar]
81. Nelson, R. R.
    (2007) Universal Darwinism and evolutionary social science. Biology and Philosophy, 22, 73–94. 10.1007/s10539‑005‑9005‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-005-9005-7 [Google Scholar]
82. Nesensohn, E.-M.
    (2012) Die Tun-Periphrase in der Kindersprache. Diploma ThesisUniv. Vienna. othes.univie.ac.at/20467/1/2012-05-13_0315904.pdf
83. Nettle, D.
    (1999) Linguistic diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
84. Newberry, M. G., Ahern, Ch. A., Clark, R. & Plotkin, J. B.
    (2017) Detecting evolutionary forces in language change. Nature, 551(7679), 223–226. doi:  10.1038/nature24455
    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24455 [Google Scholar]
85. Nichols, J.
    (1992) Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226580593.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226580593.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
86. Orr, H. A.
    (2009) Fitness and its role in evolutionary genetics. Nature Reviews Genetics, 10, 531–539. 10.1038/nrg2603
    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2603 [Google Scholar]
87. Oshima-Takane, Y., Goodz, E. & Derevensky, J. L.
    (1996) Birth order effects on early language development: Do second born children learn from overheard speech?Child Development, 67(2), 621–634. 10.2307/1131836
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1131836 [Google Scholar]
88. Paradis, M.
    (2009) Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sibil.40
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.40 [Google Scholar]
89. Peters, P.
    (2004) The Cambridge guide to English usage. Cambridge , UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511487040
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511487040 [Google Scholar]
90. Pinker, St. & Bloom, P.
    (1990) Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 13, 707–784. 10.1017/S0140525X00081061
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00081061 [Google Scholar]
91. Reesink, G., Singer, R. & Dunn, M.
    (2009) Explaining the linguistic diversity of Sahul using population models. PLoS Biololgy, 7(11), e1000241. doi:  10.1371/journal.pbio.1000241
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000241 [Google Scholar]
92. Rispoli, M., Hadley, P. & Holt, J.
    (2012) Sequence and system in the acquisition of tense and agreement. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55, 1007–1021. doi:  10.1044/1092‑4388(2011/10‑0272)
    https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0272) [Google Scholar]
93. Roossinck, M. J.
    (2011) The good viruses: viral mutualistic symbioses. Nature Review of Microbiology, 9, 99–108. 10.1038/nrmicro2491
    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro2491 [Google Scholar]
94. Roossinck, M. J. & Bazán, E. R.
    (2017) Symbiosis: viruses as intimate partners. Annual Review of Virology, 4(1), 123–139. 10.1146/annurev‑virology‑110615‑042323
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-virology-110615-042323 [Google Scholar]
95. Rubio, L., Guerri, J. & Moreno, P.
    (2013) Genetic variability and evolutionary dynamics of viruses of the family Closteroviridae. Frontiers in Microbiology, 4:151. 10.3389/fmicb.2013.00151
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2013.00151 [Google Scholar]
96. Sapir, E.
    (1921) Language an Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.
    [Google Scholar]
97. Schleicher, A.
    (1873) Die Darwinsche Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft. Weimar: H. Böhlau.
    [Google Scholar]
98. Schoenemann, P. Th.
    (2012) Evolution of brain and language. In: M. A. Hofman & D. Falk (Eds.), Progress in Brain Research195 (pp.443–459). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
99. Schütze, C.
    (1999) English expletive constructions are not infected. Linguistic Inquiry, 30(3), 467–484. 10.1162/002438999554156
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999554156 [Google Scholar]
100. Siewierska, A.
     (1996) Word order type and alignment type. STUF – Language Typology and Universals, 49(2), 149–176. 10.1524/stuf.1996.49.2.149
     https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.1996.49.2.149 [Google Scholar]
101. Siewierska, A. & Uhliřová, L.
     (2010) An overview of word order in Slavic languages. In: Siewierska, A. (Ed.) Constituent order in the languages of Europe (pp.105–150). Berlin: Mouton DeGruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
102. Simon, H.
     (1996) The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
103. Skipper, R. A. Jr. & Dietrich, M. R.
     (2012) Sewall Wright’s adaptive landscape: philosophical reflections on heuristic value. In: E. Svensson & R. Calsbeek (Eds.), The adaptive landscape in evolutionary biology (pp.17–25). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
104. Sobin, N.
     (1997) Agreement, default rules, and grammatical viruses. Linguistic Inquiry, 28(2), 318–343.
     [Google Scholar]
105. Solan, Z., Ruppin, E., Horn, D. & Edelman, S.
     (2005) Evolution of language diversity: why fitness counts. In: M. Tallerman (Ed.), Language origins: perspective on evolution (pp.357–371). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
106. Spielman, St. J., Weaver, St., Shank, St. D., Magalis, B. R., Li, M. & Kosakovsky Pond, S. L.
     (2019) Evolution of viral genomes: Interplay between selection, recombination, and other forces. In: M. Anisimova (Ed.) Evolutionary Genomics: Statistical and Computational Methods (pp.427–468). New York: Humana. 10.1007/978‑1‑4939‑9074‑0_14
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-9074-0_14 [Google Scholar]
107. Spocter M.A., Hopkins, W.D, Garrison, A.R, Bauernfeind, A.L., Stimpson, C.D., Hof, P.R. & Sherwood C.C.
     (2010) Wernicke’s area homologue in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and its relation to the appearance of modern human language. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 277 (1691), 2165-2174. 10.1098/rspb.2010.0011
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.0011 [Google Scholar]
108. Stringer, Ch. & Galway-Witham, J.
     (2017) On the origin of our species. Nature, 546, 212–214. doi:  10.1038/546212a
     https://doi.org/10.1038/546212a [Google Scholar]
109. Stromswold, K.
     (1990) Learnability and the acquisition of auxiliaries. PhD Thesis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
     [Google Scholar]
110. Sundquist, J. D.
     (2012) Negative movement in the history of Norwegian: the evolution of a grammatical virus. In: D. Jonas & J. Whitman (Eds.), Grammatical change: origins, nature, outcomes (pp.293–312). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
111. Szyf, M.
     (2014) Lamarck revisited: epigenetic inheritance of ancestral odor fear conditioning. Nature Neuroscience, 17, 2–4. doi:  10.1038/nn.3603
     https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3603 [Google Scholar]
112. Theißen, G.
     (2009) Saltational evolution: hopeful monsters are here to stay. Theory in Biosciences, 128, 43–51.) 10.1007/s12064‑009‑0058‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s12064-009-0058-z [Google Scholar]
113. Thomason, S. G. & Kaufman, T.
     (1988) Language contact, creolization and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. 10.1525/9780520912793
     https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520912793 [Google Scholar]
114. Ullman, M. T.
     (2001) A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/procedural model. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 717–726. 10.1038/35094573
     https://doi.org/10.1038/35094573 [Google Scholar]
115. Vermeer, A.
     (2001) Breadth and depth of vocabulary in relation to L1/L2 acquisition and frequency of input. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 217–234. 10.1017/S0142716401002041
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716401002041 [Google Scholar]
116. Voss, P., Thomas, M. E., Cisneros-Franco, J. M. & de Villers-Sidani, É.
     (2017) Dynamic brains and the changing rules of neuroplasticity: Implications for learning and recovery. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1657. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01657
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01657 [Google Scholar]
117. Wahlström, M.
     (2015) Loss of case inflection in Bulgarian and Macedonian. Doctoral Diss. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Modern Languages.
     [Google Scholar]
118. Winford, D.
     (2003) An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
119. Witt, U.
     (2006) Evolutionary concepts in economics and biology. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 16(5), 473–476. 10.1007/s00191‑006‑0034‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-006-0034-4 [Google Scholar]
120. Wright, S.
     (1932) The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding and selection in evolution. Proceedings of the 6th Int. Congress on Genetics1, 356–366.
     [Google Scholar]