Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

On language and evolution: Why neo-adaptationism fails

  • Eric Reuland (a1)
Abstract
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.

Copyright
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

A. D. Baddeley (2007) Working memory, thought and action. Oxford University Press.

M. D. Hauser , N. Chomsky & W. T. Fitch (2002) The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298(5598):1569–79.

M. T. Ullman (2004) Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition 92:231–70.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences
  • ISSN: 0140-525X
  • EISSN: 1469-1825
  • URL: /core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

This erratum applies to the following article(s)