Review of Boeckx (2021): Reflections on Language Evolution: From Minimalism to Pluralism

References

1. Berwick, R. C., & Chomsky, N.
   (2016) Why only us. Language and evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262034241.001.0001
   https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262034241.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
2. Berwick, R. C., & Chomsky, N.
   (2019) All or nothing: No half-Merge and the evolution of syntax. PLOS Biology, 17 (11). 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000539
   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000539 [Google Scholar]
3. Bickerton, D.
   (1984) The language bioprogram hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7(2), 173–188. 10.1017/S0140525X00044149
   https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00044149 [Google Scholar]
4. Chomsky, N.
   (1957) Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783112316009
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112316009 [Google Scholar]
5. Deacon, T. W.
   (2003) Multilevel selection in a complex adaptive system: The problem of language origins. InB. Weber, & D. Depew (Eds.), Evolution and Learning: The Baldwin Effect Reconsidered (pp.81–106). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Fitch, W. T.
   (2011) Unity and diversity in human language. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 3661, 376–388. 10.1098/rstb.2010.0223
   https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0223 [Google Scholar]
7. Fitch, W. T.
   (2014) Toward a computational framework for cognitive biology: Unifying approaches from cognitive neuroscience and comparative cognition. Physics of life reviews, 11(3), 329–364. 10.1016/j.plrev.2014.04.005
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2014.04.005 [Google Scholar]
8. Fitch, W. T.
   (2018) What animals can teach us about human language: The phonological continuity hypothesis. Current opinion in behavioral sciences, 211, 68–75. 10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.01.014
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.01.014 [Google Scholar]
9. Fitch, W. T., Hauser, M. D., & Chomsky, N.
   (2005) The evolution of language faculty: clarifications and implications. Cognition, 971, 179–210. 10.1016/j.cognition.2005.02.005
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.02.005 [Google Scholar]
10. Graf, T.
    (2020) Curbing feature coding: Strictly local feature assignment. Slides of a talk given at SCiL 2020, January 2–5, co-located with the LSA 2020.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T.
    (2002) The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?Science, 2981, 1569–1579. 10.1126/science.298.5598.1569
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.298.5598.1569 [Google Scholar]
12. Jackendoff, R.
    (2010) Your theory of language evolution depends on your theory of language. InR. K. Larson, V. Deprez, & H. Yamakido (Eds.), The evolution of human language: Biolinguistic perspectives (pp.63–72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511817755.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511817755.004 [Google Scholar]
13. Kirby, S.
    (2001) Spontaneous evolution of linguistic structure – an iterated learning model of the emergence of regularity and irregularity. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 5(2), 102–110. 10.1109/4235.918430
    https://doi.org/10.1109/4235.918430 [Google Scholar]
14. Martins, P. T., & Boeckx, C.
    (2019) Language evolution and complexity considerations: The no half-Merge fallacy. PLOS Biology, 17(11). 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000389
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000389 [Google Scholar]
15. Moro, A.
    (2015) I confini di Babele. Il cervello e il mistero delle lingue impossibili [The Boundaries of Babel. The Brain and the Enigma of Impossible Languages.]. Bologna: Il Mulino.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Rizzi, L.
    (2016) Monkey Morpho-Syntax and Merge-Based Systems. Theoretical Linguistics, 42 (1–2), 139–145. 10.1515/tl‑2016‑0006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2016-0006 [Google Scholar]
17. Rizzi, L.
    (2021) Some thoughts about merge: Typology, labeling, freezing effects. Presentation held in Goethe University, Frankfurt, on May 4.
    [Google Scholar]