Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-zlvph Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T00:51:59.662Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On language and evolution: Why neo-adaptationism fails

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2008

Eric Reuland
Eric Reuland
Affiliation:
Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS, 3512 BL, Utrecht, The Netherlands. eric.reuland@let.uu.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I identify a number of problematic aspects of Christiansen & Chater's (C&C's) contribution. These include their suggestion that subjacency and binding reflect non-domain-specific mechanisms; that proto-language is a “cultural product”; and that non-adaptationism requires overly rich innate structures, and is incompatible with acceptable evolutionary processes. It shows that a fully UG (Universal Grammar)-free version of the authors' neo-adaptationism would be incoherent.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 31 , Issue 5 , October 2008 , pp. 531 - 532
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Baddeley, A. D. (2007) Working memory, thought and action. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berwick, R. C. & Weinberg, A. S. (1984) The grammatical basis of linguistic performance: Language use and acquisition. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on government and binding. Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986) Knowledge of language. Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995) The minimalist program. MIT Press.Google Scholar
de Saussure, F. (1916) Cours de linguistique générale [Course in general linguistics], ed. Bally, C. & Sechehaye, A., with the collaboration of A. Riedlinger. Payot. (Original publication).Google Scholar
Ellefson, M. R. & Christiansen, M. H. (2000) Subjacency constraints without universal grammar: Evidence from artificial language learning and connectionist modeling. In: The Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Cognitive Science Society Conference, ed. Gleitman, L. R. & Joshi, A. K., pp. 645–50. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
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):1569–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khomitsevich, O. (2008) Dependencies across phases. LOT International Series.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. & Bloom, P. (1990) Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13:707–27; discussion 727–84. Available at: http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.pinker.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuland, E. (2005a) On the evolution and genesis of language: The force of imagination. Lingue e Linguaggio 1:81–110.Google Scholar
Reuland, E. (2005b) Binding conditions: How are they derived? In: Proceedings of the HPSG05 Conference Department of Informatics, University of Lisbon, ed. Müller, S.. CSLI Publications. Available at: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuland, E. (in press) Language – Symbolization and beyond. In: The prehistory of language, ed. Knight, C. & Botha, R.. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reuland, E. (forthcoming) Imagination, planning and working memory: The emergence of language. In: Extended working memory and the evolution of modern thinking, ed. Coolidge, F. & Wynn, T.. Berger.Google Scholar
Reuland, E. (under contract) Anaphora and language design. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Slioussar, N. (2007) Grammar and information structure. LOT International Series.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. (2005) Strong vs. weak islands. In: The Blackwell companion to syntax, ed. Everaert, M. & Riemsdijk, H.. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2004) Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition 92:231–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed