Volume 40, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
Preview this article:


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Adger, David
    2015 Mythical myths: Comments on Vyvyan Evan’s “The language myth”. Lingua158: 76–80. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.02.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.02.006 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, Alun
    2014 Why language is neither an instinct nor innate. Review of The language myth: Why language is not an instinct, by Vyvyan Evans. The New Scientist, October18 2014 https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429911.000-why-language-is-neither-an-instinct-nor-innate?full=true
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson, Michael
    . in press. Précis of After Phrenology: Neural Reuse and the Interactive Brain . Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2015.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Auer, Peter
    2005 Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text25.1: 7–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Baker, Mark C
    2003Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511615047
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615047 [Google Scholar]
  6. Behme, Christina
    2014 A ‘Galilean’ science of language (Review article of The Science of Language: Interviews with James McGilvray, by Noam Chomsky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012). Journal of Linguistics50: 671–704. doi: 10.1017/S0022226714000061
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226714000061 [Google Scholar]
  7. Behme, Christina & Vyvyan Evans
    . 2015. Leaving the myth behind: A reply to Adger (2015). Lingua, 162: 149–159. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.05.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.05.004 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bloomfield, Leonard
    1933Language. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bowerman, Melissa
    2004 From universal to language-specific in early grammatical development [Reprint]. In K. Trott , S. Dobbinson , & P. Griffiths (eds.), The child language reader, 131–146. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 2007 Containment, support, and beyond: Constructing topological spatial categories in first language acquisition. In M. Aurnague , M. Hickmann , & L. Vieu (eds.), The categorization of spatial entities in language and cognition, 177–203. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.20.11bow
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.20.11bow [Google Scholar]
  11. Bowerman, Melissa , & Soonja Choi
    2003 Space under construction: Language-specific spatial categorization in first language acquisition. In D. Gentner , & S. Goldin-Meadow (eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought, 387–427. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bybee, Joan
    2006 From usage to grammar: the mind’s response to repetition. Language82.4: 711–733. doi: 10.1353/lan.2006.0186
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2010Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  14. Chao, Yuen Ren
    1934 On the non-uniqueness of phonemic solutions of phonetic systems. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica4: 363–397.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Chomsky, Noam
    1959 A review of BF Skinner’s Verbal behavior . Language35: 26–58. doi: 10.2307/411334
    https://doi.org/10.2307/411334 [Google Scholar]
  16. 1966Cartesian linguistics: a chapter in the history of rationalist thought. New York: Harper & Row.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2012The science of language: Interviews with James McGilvray. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139061018
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139061018 [Google Scholar]
  18. Couper-Kuhlen, E. and M. Selting
    2001Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sidag.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10 [Google Scholar]
  19. Chung, Sandra
    2012 Are lexical categories universal? The view from Chamorro. Theoretical Linguistics38 (1-2): 1–56. doi: 10.1515/tl‑2012‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2012-0001 [Google Scholar]
  20. De Busser, Rik & Randy J. LaPolla
    (eds.) 2015Language structure and environment: Social, cultural, and natural factors. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/clscc.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.6 [Google Scholar]
  21. Dryer, Matthew S
    2006 Functionalism and the Theory - Metalanguage confusion. InPhonology, morphology, and the empirical imperative: Papers in honour of Bruce Derwing, edited by Grace Wiebe , Gary Libben , Tom Priestly , Ron Smyth , and Sam Wang , pp. 27–59. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Dunbar, Ewan , Dave Kush , Norbert Hornstein , & David Adger
    2015 3 reasons why Evans’s Aeon piece is wrong and largely begs the questions that generative linguists have been trying to address for over 60 years (A short series of posts)www.reddit.com/r/linguistics/comments/2po7ht/3_reasons_why_evanss_aeon_piece_is_wrong_and/.
  23. Engh, A.E. , Hoffmeier, R.R. , Cheney, D.L. & Seyfarth, R.M
    2006 Who, me? Can baboons infer the target of vocalisations?Animal Behaviour71: 381–387. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.05.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.05.009 [Google Scholar]
  24. Evans, Nicholas & Stephen C. Levinson
    2009 The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences32: 429–492. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X0999094X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999094X [Google Scholar]
  25. Evans, Vyvyan
    2014 Real talk: There is no language instinct. Aeonaeon.co/magazine/culture/there-is-no-language-instinct.
  26. 2015a The shape-shifting malleability of ‘universals’ in UG. Language in the Mind blog, Psychology Todayhttps://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/language-in-the-mind/201501/the-shape-shifting-malleability-universals-in-ug.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2015b The structure of scientific revolutions: reflections on radical fundamentalism in language science. Language in the Mind blog, Psychology Todayhttps://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/language-in-the-mind/201504/the-structure-scientific-revolutions.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2015c Joining the dodo. Language in the Mind blog, Psychology Todayhttps://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/language-in-the-mind/201507/joining-the-dodo.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Everett, Daniel
    2005 Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã: another look at the design features of human language. Current Anthropology46: 621–646. doi: 10.1086/431525
    https://doi.org/10.1086/431525 [Google Scholar]
  30. Gibbs, Ray W. & Guy Van Orden
    2010 Adaptive cognition without massive modularity. Language and Cognition2: 149–176. doi: 10.1515/langcog.2010.006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/langcog.2010.006 [Google Scholar]
  31. Gray, Bennison
    1980 The impregnability of American linguistics: An historical sketch. Lingua50: 5–23. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(80)90077‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(80)90077-7 [Google Scholar]
  32. Halliday, M.A.K
    1994An introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edition. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Harris, Roy
    1981The language myth. London: Duckworth.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Haspelmath, Martin
    2002 Formal and functional explanation. Handout for lectures at Düsseldorf Summer School, 2002. Available fromwww.academia.edu/2244631/Functional_and_formal_explanation_Düsseldorf_summer_school_2002_
  35. 2004 Does linguistic explanation presuppose linguistic description?Studies in Language28.3: 554–579. doi: 10.1075/sl.28.3.06has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.28.3.06has [Google Scholar]
  36. 2010 Framework-free grammatical theory. In Heine, Bernd & Narrog, Heiko (eds.)The Oxford handbook of grammatical analysis, 341–365. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Hauser, Marc D. , Noam Chomsky , & W. Tecumseh Titch
    2002 The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?Science298: 1569–1579. doi: 10.1126/science.298.5598.1569
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.298.5598.1569 [Google Scholar]
  38. Hockett, Charles F
    1960 The origin of speech. Scientific American203: 89–97. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0960‑88
    https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0960-88 [Google Scholar]
  39. 1967 Where the tongue slips, there slip I. In: To honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the occasion of his seventieth birthday 11 October 1966 , 910–36. The Hague: Mouton. [Reprinted in Hockett 1977, 226-56.]
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 1968The state of the art. The Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 1977The view from language. Athens: The University of Georgia Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Holmes, Janet
    2008An introduction to sociolinguistics, 3rd edition. London: Pearson Education ESL.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Hopper, Paul
    2011 Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In P. Auer & S. Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, 22–44. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 2012 Emergent grammar. In James Paul Gee & Michael Handford (eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis, 301–314. London & New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Hornstein, Norbert
  46. 2015a Quotational dyslexia: Thank you Masked Man. facultyoflanguage.blogspot.ca/2015/01/quotational-dyslexia-thank-you-masked.html.
  47. 2015b Does the LSA and its flagship journal ‘Language’ have any regard for Generative Grammar?facultyoflanguage.blogspot.ca/2015/04/does-lsa-and-its-flagship-journal.html.
  48. Itkonen, Esa
    1996 Concerning the generative paradigm. Journal of Pragmatics25: 471–501. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(95)00025‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00025-9 [Google Scholar]
  49. Jackendoff, Ray
    2002Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  50. James, William
    1907 Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. Project Gutenberg EBook.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Kuhn, Thomas S
    1970The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [ International encyclopedia of Unified Science Vol. 2, No. 2 ]
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Lakoff, Robin
    1989 The way we were; or; the real actual truth about generative semantics: a memoir. Journal of Pragmatics13: 939–988. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(89)90016‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(89)90016-7 [Google Scholar]
  53. Langacker, Ronald W
    2000 A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 1–63. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 2002Concept, image, and symbol, 2nd edition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. LaPolla, Randy J
    2015 On the logical necessity of a cultural connection for all aspects of linguistic structure. In De Busser & LaPolla 2015: Language structure and environment: Social, cultural, and natural factors,33–44. doi: 10.1075/clscc.6
  56. Lee, Penny
    1996The Whorf theory complex. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sihols.81
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sihols.81 [Google Scholar]
  57. Levinson, Stephen C
    2006 On the human ‘interaction engine’. In N.J. Enfield & S.C. Levinson (eds.), Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction, 39–69. Oxford: Berg.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Lieberman, Philip
    2015 Review of The science of language: Interviews with James McGilvray, by Noam Chomsky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Modern Language Review110.1: 222–224. doi: 10.5699/modelangrevi.110.1.0222
    https://doi.org/10.5699/modelangrevi.110.1.0222 [Google Scholar]
  59. Love, Nigel
    2004 Cognition and the language myth. Language Sciences26: 525–544. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2004.09.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2004.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  60. Newmeyer, Frederick
    1998 The irrelevance of typology for grammatical theory. Syntaxis1: 161–197.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Onnis, Luca & Michael J. Spivey
    2012 A new model visualization for the language sciences. In L. Onnis & M.J. Spivey (eds.)Information, Special issue onCognition and Communication3(1): 124–150. doi: 10.3390/info3010124
    https://doi.org/10.3390/info3010124 [Google Scholar]
  62. Partan, S.R. & Marler, P
    1999 Communication goes multimodal. Science283: 1272–1273. doi: 10.1126/science.283.5406.1272
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.283.5406.1272 [Google Scholar]
  63. Passos, Maria de Lourdes R. da F. & Maria Amelia Matos
    2007 The influence of Bloomfield’s linguistics on Skinner. The Behavior Analyst30.2: 133–151.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Pinker, Steven
    1994The language instinct. New York: William Morrow. doi: 10.1037/e412952005‑009
    https://doi.org/10.1037/e412952005-009 [Google Scholar]
  65. Sampson, Geoffrey
    2001Empirical linguistics. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 1997[2005]Educating Eve: The ‘language instinct’ debate (Second revised edition published in 2005 as The ‘language instinct’ debate ). London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Sapir, Edward
    1921Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Seikel, J.A. , D.W. King , & D.G. Drumright
    2010Anatomy & physiology for speech, language, and hearing (4th ed.). Delmar, NY: Cengage Learning.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Seyfarth, Robert M. & Dorothy L. Cheney
    2008 Primate social knowledge and the origins of language. Mind & Society7:129–142. doi: 10.1007/s11299‑007‑0038‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-007-0038-2 [Google Scholar]
  70. 2015 Social cognition. Animal Behaviour103: 191–202. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.01.030
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.01.030 [Google Scholar]
  71. Slocombe, Katie E. , Bridget M. Waller , & Katja Liebal
    2011 The language void: the need for multimodality in primate communication research. Animal Behaviour81: 919–924. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  72. Thompson, Sandra A. & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2005 The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Language and Linguistics 6.4: 807–837.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Thompson, Sandra A. & Paul Hopper
    2001 Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. In Joan Bybee and Paul Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 27–60. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.45.03tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.03tho [Google Scholar]
  74. Tomasello, Michael
    1995 Language is not an instinct. Cognitive Development10: 131–156. doi: 10.1016/0885‑2014(95)90021‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2014(95)90021-7 [Google Scholar]
  75. Trudgill, Peter
    2011Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Wardaugh, Ronald
    2002An introduction to sociolinguistics, 4th edition. London: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Whiten, Andrew
    2013 Humans are not alone in computing how others see the world. Animal Behaviour86: 213–221. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.04.021
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.04.021 [Google Scholar]
  78. Whorf, Benjamin Lee
    1956Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, ed. by John B. Carroll . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Book Review
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