1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Evolutionary Linguistic Theory
  4. Volume 5, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 5, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2589-1588
  • E-ISSN: 2589-1596
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

For decades, interdisciplinary research efforts have accumulated insights that diminish the significance of the classic nature versus nurture dichotomy, instead calling for a nuanced, multifactorial approach to ontogeny. Similarly, the role of genes in both phylogeny and ontogeny, once seen as rather deterministic, is now conceptualized as highly dependent on environmental factors, including behavior. Linguistic theories have, in principle, made an effort to incorporate these changing views. However, the central claim of the given paper is that this apparent compliance with biological insights remains superficial. As such, considerable disconnects between linguistic theory and what is known about the biological underpinnings of complex traits persist, negatively impacting pertinent views on language acquisition, language universals and the evolution of language. Given the breadth of these fields of study, the aim of this paper is to tackle the root of the problem: It begins by sketching out linguistic nativism as conceptualized within generativism, pointing to aspects within this position that stand in conflict with the interdisciplinary literature. It will then review select areas of research in a succinct manner in order to substantiate the criticism and characterize the counterposition as found within the biological sciences. The paper will culminate in addressing these disconnects on conceptual grounds, i.e. invoking the term as employed in neuroscience as a possible means to reconcile those biological insights with linguistic nativism.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00051.bre
2024-03-26
2024-12-12

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/elt.00051.bre
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bergelson, E., Casillas, M., Soderstrom, M., Seidl, A., Warlaumont, A. S., & Amatuni, A.
    (2019) What do North American babies hear? A large-scale cross-corpus analysis. Developmental Science, 22(1), article e127224. 10.1111/desc.12724
     https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12724 [Google Scholar]
  2. Berwick, R. C.
    (2011) All you need is Merge: Biology, computation, and language from the bottom-up. InA. M. di Sciullo & C. Boeckx, The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty, 461–491. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Berwick, R. C., & Chomsky, N.
    (2016) Why Only Us: Language and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. (2017) Why only us: recent questions and answers. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 431, 166–177. 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2016.12.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2016.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  5. Blakemore, C., & Cooper, G. F.
    (1970) Development of the brain depends on the visual environment. Nature, 228(5270), 477–478. 10.1038/228477a0
     https://doi.org/10.1038/228477a0 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brauer, J., Anwander, A., Perani, D., & Friederici, A. D.
    (2013) Dorsal and ventral pathways in language development. Brain and Language, 127(2), 289–295. 10.1016/j.bandl.2013.03.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2013.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brentari, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S.
    (2017) Language emergence. Annual Review of Linguistics, 31, 363–388. 10.1146/annurev‑linguistics‑011415‑040743
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040743 [Google Scholar]
  8. Breyl, M.
    (2021) Triangulating Neanderthal cognition: A tale of not seeing the forest for the tress. WIRES Cognitive Science, 12(2), article e1545. 10.1002/wcs.1545
     https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1545 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2023) The linguist’s guide to human fallibility and biases: Their evolution, cognitive significance and impact in decision making. Linguistische Treffen in Wrocław, 23(1), 17–37. 10.23817/lingtreff.23‑1
     https://doi.org/10.23817/lingtreff.23-1 [Google Scholar]
  10. Carmody, R. N., Weintraub, G. S., & Wrangham, R. W.
    (2011) Energetic consequences of thermal and nonthermal food processing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(48), 19199–19203. 10.1073/pnas.1112128108
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1112128108 [Google Scholar]
  11. Casillas, M., Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C.
    (2019) Early language experience in a Tseltal Mayan village. Child Development, 91(5), 1819–1835. 10.1111/cdev.13349
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13349 [Google Scholar]
  12. Casillas, M., Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C.
    (2020) Early language experience in a Papuan community. Journal of Child Language, 48(4), 792–814.10.1017/S0305000920000549
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000920000549 [Google Scholar]
  13. Chomsky, N.
    (1976a) Reflections on Language. London: Fontana.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. (1976b) On the nature of language. InS. Harnad, H. D. Steklis & J. Lancaster (eds.), Origins and Evolution of Language and Speech, 46–57. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. (1991) Linguistics and cognitive science: Problems and mysteries. InAsa Kasher (ed.), The Chomskyan Turn: Generative Linguistics, Philosophy, Mathematics, and Psychology, 26–55. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. (2002) On Nature and Language (A. Belletti & L. Rizzi, eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Cowley, S. J.
    (2001) The baby, the bathwater and the “language instinct” debate. Language Sciences, 23(1), 69–91. 10.1016/S0388‑0001(00)00017‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(00)00017-6 [Google Scholar]
  18. Dąbrowska, E.
    (2015) What exactly is Universal Grammar, and has anyone seen it?Frontiers in Psychology, 61, article 852. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00852
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00852 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dapschauskas, R., Göden, M. B., Sommer, C. & Kandel, A. W.
    (2022) The emergence of habitual ochre use in Africa and its significance for the development of ritual behavior during the middle stone age. Journal of World Prehistory, 351, 233–319. 10.1007/s10963‑022‑09170‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-022-09170-2 [Google Scholar]
  20. de Boer, B., Thompson, B., Ragignani, A., & Boeckx, C.
    (2020) Evolutionary dynamics do not motivate a single-mutant theory of human language. Scientific Reports, 101, article 451. 10.1038/s41598‑019‑57235‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-57235-8 [Google Scholar]
  21. Deacon, T.
    (1997) The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Human Brain. London: Penguin Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Dediu, D.
    (2021) Tone and genes: new cross-linguistic data and methods support the weak negative effect of the “derived” allele ASPM on tone, but not of Microcephalin. PLOS ONE, 16(6), article e0253546. 10.1371/journal.pone.0253546
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253546 [Google Scholar]
  23. Dediu, D., & Ladd, D. R.
    (2007) Linguistic tone is related to the population frequency of the adaptive haplogroups of two brain size genes, ASPM and Microcephalin. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(26), 10944–10949. 10.1073/pnas.0610848104
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0610848104 [Google Scholar]
  24. Dediu, D., & Levinson, S. C.
    (2013) On the antiquity of language: The reinterpretation of Neandertal linguistic capacities and its consequences. Frontiers in Psychology, 41, article 397. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00397
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00397 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2018) Neanderthal language revisited: Not only us. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 211, 49–55. 10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.01.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  26. Dékány, É.
    (2019) Foundations of generative linguistics. Acta Linguistica Academia, 66(3), 309–334. 10.1556/2062.2019.66.3.1
     https://doi.org/10.1556/2062.2019.66.3.1 [Google Scholar]
  27. Enard, W., Przeworski, M., Fischer, S. E., Lai, C. S. L., Wiebe, V., … Pääbo, S.
    (2002) Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language. Nature, 418(6900), 869–872. 10.1038/nature01025
     https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01025 [Google Scholar]
  28. Fitch, W. T.
    (2014) Toward a computational framework for cognitive biology: Unifying approaches from cognitive neuroscience and comparative cognition. Physics of Life Reviews, 111, 329–364. 10.1016/j.plrev.2014.04.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2014.04.005 [Google Scholar]
  29. Fitch, W. T., Hauser, M. D. & Chomsky, N.
    (2005) The evolution of the language faculty: Clarifications and implications. Cognition, 97(2), 179–210.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Garcia, J., Kimeldorf, D. J., & Koelling, R. A.
    (1955) Conditioned aversion to saccharin resulting from exposure to gamma radiation. Science, 122(3160), 157–158. 10.1126/science.122.3160.157
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.122.3160.157 [Google Scholar]
  31. Garcia, J., & Koelling, R. A.
    (1966) Relation of cue to consequence in avoidance learning. Psychonomic Science, 4(3), 123–124. 10.3758/BF03342209
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03342209 [Google Scholar]
  32. Goaillard, J.-M. & Marder, E.
    (2021) Ion channel degeneracy, variability, and covariation in neuron and circuit resilience. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 441, 335–357. 10.1146/annurev‑neuro‑092920‑121538
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-092920-121538 [Google Scholar]
  33. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2006) Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. (2019) Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Gopnik, M.
    (1990a) Feature-blind grammar and dysphasia. Nature, 344(6268), 715. 10.1038/344715a0
     https://doi.org/10.1038/344715a0 [Google Scholar]
  36. (1990b) Genetic basis of grammar defect. Nature, 347(6288), 26. 10.1038/347026a0
     https://doi.org/10.1038/347026a0 [Google Scholar]
  37. Gopnik, M., & Crago, M. B.
    (1991) Familial aggregation of a developmental language disorder. Cognition, 391, 1–50. 10.1016/0010‑0277(91)90058‑C
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90058-C [Google Scholar]
  38. Gowlett, J. A. J.
    (2016) The discovery of fire by humans: A long and convoluted process. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 3711, article 20150164. 10.1098/rstb.2015.0164
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0164 [Google Scholar]
  39. Hartshorne, J. K., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Pinker, S.
    (2018) A critical period for second language acquisition: Evidence from 2/3 million English speakers. Cognition, 1771, 263–277. 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.04.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.04.007 [Google Scholar]
  40. 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, 298(5598), 1569–1579.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Hopper, P. J.
    (1998) Emergent grammar. InM. Tomasello (ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Strucutre, 155–175. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Hubel, D. H.
    (1995) Eye, Brain, and Vision. New York & Oxford: Scientific American Library.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Hubel, D. H., & Wiesel, T. N.
    (1959) Receptive fields of single neurons in the cat’s striate cortex. The Journal of Physiology, 148(3), 574–591. 10.1113/jphysiol.1959.sp006308
     https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1959.sp006308 [Google Scholar]
  44. (1970) The period of susceptibility to the physiological effects of unilateral eye closure in kittens. The Journal of Physiology, 206(2), 419–436. 10.1113/jphysiol.1970.sp009022
     https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1970.sp009022 [Google Scholar]
  45. Hurst, J. A., Baraitser, M., Auger, E., Graham, F., & Norell, S.
    (1990) An extended family with a dominantly inherited speech disorder. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 32(4), 352–355. 10.1111/j.1469‑8749.1990.tb16948.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.1990.tb16948.x [Google Scholar]
  46. Itan, Y., Powell, A., Beaumont, M. A., Burger, J., & Thomas, M. G.
    (2009) The origins of lactase persistence in Europe. PLOS Computational Biology, 5(8), article e1000491. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000491
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000491 [Google Scholar]
  47. Jacob, F.
    (1977) Evolution and tinkering. Science, 196(4295), 1161–1166. 10.1126/science.860134
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.860134 [Google Scholar]
  48. Kissine, M.
    (2021) Autism, constructionism and nativism. Language, 97(3), e139–e160. 10.1353/lan.2021.0055
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2021.0055 [Google Scholar]
  49. Kissine, M., Luffin, X., Aiad, F., Bourourou, R., Deliens, G., & Gaddour, N.
    (2019) Noncolloquial Arabic in Tunisian children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A possible instance of language acquisition in a noninteractive context. Language Learning, 69(1), 44–70. 10.1111/lang.12312
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12312 [Google Scholar]
  50. Krause, J., Lalueza-Fox, C., Orlando, L., Enard, W., Green, R. E., Burbano, H. A., … Pääbo, S.
    (2007) The derived FOXP2 variant of modern humans was shared with Neandertals. Current Biology, 17(21), 1908–1912. 10.1016/j.cub.2007.10.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.10.008 [Google Scholar]
  51. Kuhl, P. K.
    (2007) Is speech learning ‘gates’ by the social brain?Developmental Science, 10(1), 110–120. 10.1111/j.1467‑7687.2007.00572.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00572.x [Google Scholar]
  52. (2010) Brain mechanisms in early language acquisition. Neuron, 67(5), 713–727. 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.08.038
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.08.038 [Google Scholar]
  53. Kuhl, P. K., Stevens, E., Hayashi, A., Deguchi, T., Kiritani, S., & Iverson, P.
    (2006) Infants show a facilitation effect for native language phonetic perception between 6 and 12 months. Developmental Science, 9(2), 13–21. 10.1111/j.1467‑7687.2006.00468.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00468.x [Google Scholar]
  54. Kuhl, P. K., Tsao, F.-M., & Liu, H.-M.
    (2003) Foreign-language experience in infancy: Effects of short-term exposure and social interaction on phonetic learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100(15), 9096–9101. 10.1073/pnas.1532872100
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1532872100 [Google Scholar]
  55. Lai, C. S. L., Fischer, S. E., Hurst, J. A., Vargha-Kadem, F., & Monaco, A. P.
    (2001) A forkhead-domain gene is mutated in a severe speech and language disorder. Nature, 413(6855), 519–523. 10.1038/35097076
     https://doi.org/10.1038/35097076 [Google Scholar]
  56. Laland, K. N.
    (2008) Exploring gene – culture interactions: Insights from handedness, sexual selection and niche-construction case studies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363(1509), 3577–3589. 10.1098/rstb.2008.0132
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0132 [Google Scholar]
  57. Levinson, S. C., & Dediu, D.
    (2013) The interplay of genetic and cultural factors in ongoing language evolution. InP. J. Richerson & M. H. Christiansen (eds.), Cultural evolution. Society, technology, language, and religion, 219–232. Cambride, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Lidz, J. & Gagliardi, A.
    (2015) How nature meets nurture: Universal grammar and statistical learning. Annual Review of Linguistics11, 333–2353. 10.1146/annurev‑linguist‑030514‑125236
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125236 [Google Scholar]
  59. Livingstone, M., & Hubel, D. H.
    (1988) Segregation of form, color, movement, and depth: Anatomy, physiology, and perception. Science, 240(4853), 740–749. 10.1126/science.3283936
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3283936 [Google Scholar]
  60. MacWhinney, B.
    (1998) Models of the emergence of language. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 199–227. 10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.199
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.199 [Google Scholar]
  61. Malmström, H., Linderholm, A., Lidén, K., Storå, J., Molnar, P., Holmund, G., Jakobsson, M., & Götherström, A.
    (2010) High frequency of lactose intolerance in a prehistoric hunter-gatherer population in northern Europe. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 101, article 89. 10.1186/1471‑2148‑10‑89
     https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-10-89 [Google Scholar]
  62. Mameli, M., & Bateson, P.
    (2011) An evaluation of the concept of innateness. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 366(1563), 436–443. 10.1098/rstb.2010.0174
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0174 [Google Scholar]
  63. Martins, P. T., & Boeckx, C.
    (2019) Language evolution and complexity considerations: The no half-Merge fallacy. PLOS Biology, 17(11), Article e3000389. 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000389
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000389 [Google Scholar]
  64. Mayberry, R. I., Lock, E., & Kazmi, H.
    (2002) Linguistic ability and early language exposure. Nature, 417(6884), 38. 10.1038/417038a
     https://doi.org/10.1038/417038a [Google Scholar]
  65. McNally, R. J.
    (2016) The legacy of Seligman’s “Phobias and Preparedness” (1971). Behavior Therapy, 471, 585–594. 10.1016/j.beth.2015.08.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2015.08.005 [Google Scholar]
  66. Newport, E. L.
    (1990) Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 14(1), 11–28. 10.1207/s15516709cog1401_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1401_2 [Google Scholar]
  67. O’Grady, W.
    (2008) The emergentist program. Lingua, 1181, 447–464. 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.12.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  68. Öhman, A., & Menika, S.
    (2001) Fears, phobias and preparedness: Toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning. Psychological Review, 108(3), 483–522. 10.1037/0033‑295X.108.3.483
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.483 [Google Scholar]
  69. Paixáo-Côrtez, V. R., Vicardi, L. H., Salzano, F. M., Hunemeier, T., & Bortolini, M. C.
    (2012) Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis and the Denisova specimen: New insights on their evolutionary histories using whole-genome comparisons. Genetics and Molecular Biology, 35(4), 904–911. 10.1590/s1415‑47572012000600003
     https://doi.org/10.1590/s1415-47572012000600003 [Google Scholar]
  70. Partanen, E., Kujala, T., Näätänen, R., Liitola, A., Sambeth, A., & Huotilainen, M.
    (2013) Learning-induced neural plasticity of speech processing before birth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(37), 15145–15150. 10.1073/pnas.1302159110
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1302159110 [Google Scholar]
  71. Pinker, S.
    (1991) Rules of language. Science, 253(5019), 530–535. 10.1126/science.1857983
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1857983 [Google Scholar]
  72. (1994) The Language Instinct: The New Science of Language and Mind. London: Penguin Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Pinker, S. & Bloom, P.
    (1990) Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 131, 707–784. 10.1017/S0140525X00081061
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00081061 [Google Scholar]
  74. Pinker, S. & R. Jackendoff
    (2005) The faculty of language: What’s special about it?Cognition, 951, 201–236. 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.08.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  75. Pinker, S., & Ullman, M. T.
    (2002) The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(11), 456–463. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(02)01990‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01990-3 [Google Scholar]
  76. Pleyer, M., & Hartmann, S.
    (2019) Constructing a consensus on language evolution? Convergences and differences between biolinguistics and usage-based approaches. Frontiers in Psychology, 101, article 2537. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02537
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02537 [Google Scholar]
  77. Ramonda, K.
    (2014) Goldberg’s construction grammar. InJ. Littlemore & R. R. Taylor (eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to cognitive linguistics, 60–71. London & New York: Bloomsbury Academic. 10.5040/9781472593689.ch‑004
     https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472593689.ch-004 [Google Scholar]
  78. Reich, D., Green, R. E., Kirchner, M., Krause, J., Patterson, N., Durand, E. Y., … Pääbo, S.
    (2010) Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberia. Nature, 468(7327), 1053–1060. 10.1038/nature09710
     https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09710 [Google Scholar]
  79. Richerson, P. J. & Boyd, R.
    (2010) Why possibly language evolved. Biolinguistics41, 289–306. 10.5964/bioling.8793
     https://doi.org/10.5964/bioling.8793 [Google Scholar]
  80. Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L.
    (1996) Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274(5294), 1926–1928. 10.1126/science.274.5294.1926
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.274.5294.1926 [Google Scholar]
  81. Sapolsky, R.
    (2017) Behave. The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst. London: Penguin Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Seligman, M. E.
    (1970) On the generality of the laws of learning. Psychological Review, 77(5), 406–418. 10.1037/h0029790
     https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029790 [Google Scholar]
  83. (1971) Phobias and preparedness. Behavior Therapy, 2(3), 307–320. 10.1016/S0005‑7894(71)80064‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(71)80064-3 [Google Scholar]
  84. Simoons, F. J.
    (1969) Primary adult lactose intolerance and the milking habit: A problem in biologic and cultural interrelations: I. Review of the medical research. The American Journal of Digestive Diseases, 14(12), 819–836. 10.1007/bf02233204
     https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02233204 [Google Scholar]
  85. (1970) Primary adult lactose intolerance and the milking habit: a problem in biologic and cultural interrelations: II. A culture historical hypothesis. The American Journal of Digestive Diseases, 15(8), 695–710. 10.1007/bf02235991
     https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02235991 [Google Scholar]
  86. Stahl, B., & Van Lancker Sidtis, D.
    (2015) Tapping into neural resources o communication: Formulaic language in aphasia therapy. Frontiers in Psychology, 81, article 1526. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01526
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01526 [Google Scholar]
  87. Thagart, P. & Stewart, T. C.
    (2014) Two theories of consciousness: Semantic pointer competition vs. information integration. Consciousness and Cognition, 301, 73–90. 10.1016/j.concog.2014.07.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2014.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  88. Vyshedskiy, A., Mahapatra, S., & Dunn, R.
    (2017) Linguistically deprived children: Meta-analysis of published research underlines the importance of early syntactic language use for normal brain development. Research Ideas and Outcomes, 31, article e20696. 10.3897/rio.3.e20696
     https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.3.e20696 [Google Scholar]
  89. Wilson, P. D., & Riesen, A. H.
    (1966) Visual development in rhesus monkeys neonatally deprived of patterned light. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 61(1), 87–95. 10.1037/h0022873
     https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022873 [Google Scholar]
  90. Wong, P. C. M., Chandrasekaran, B., & Zheng, J.
    (2012) The derived allele of ASPM is associated with lexical tone perception. PLOS ONE, 7(4), article e34243. 10.1371/journal.pone.0034243
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034243 [Google Scholar]
  91. Wong, P. C. M., Kang, X., Wong, K. H. Y., So, H.-C., Choy, K. W., & Geng, X.
    (2020) ASPM-lexical tone association in speakers of a tone language: direct evidence for the genetic-biasing hypothesis of language evolution. Science Advances, 6(22), article 1824. 10.1126/sciadv.aba5090
     https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba5090 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00051.bre
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): biolinguistics; construction grammar; generative grammar; linguistic theory; nativism; universal grammar

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error