The logical structure of linguistic theory

Language

Volumn 84, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 795-814

  Anderson, Stephen R ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67651211864     PISSN: 00978507     EISSN: 15350665     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1353/lan.0.0075     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. ANDERSON, STEPHEN R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. ANDERSON, STEPHEN R. 2004a. Doctor Dolittle's delusion: Animals and the uniqueness of human language. New Haven: Yale University Press.
3. ANDERSON, STEPHEN R. 2004b. Morphological universals and diachrony. Yearbook of Morphology2004.1-17.
4. ANDERSON, STEPHEN R., and DAVID W. LIGHTFOOT. 2002. The language organ: Linguistics as cognitive physiology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. ARNOLD, KATE, and KLAUS ZUBERBÜ HLER. 2006. Semantic combinations in primate calls. Nature441.303.
6. ARONOFF, MARK. 1994. Morphology by itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. BLEVINS, JULIETTE. 2004. Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. BLEVINS, JULIETTE. 2006a. A theoretical synopsis of evolutionary phonology. Theoretical Linguistics32.117-66.
9. BLEVINS, JULIETTE. 2006b. Reply to commentaries. Theoretical Linguistics32.245-56.
10. BLOOM, PAUL. 2004. Can a dog learn a word? Science304.1605-6.
11. BOCK, KATHRYN; ANNE CUTLER; KATHLEEN M. EBERHARD; SALLY BUTTERFIELD; J. COOPER CUTTING; and KARIN R. HUMPHREYS. 2006. Number agreement in British and American English: Disagreeing to agree collectively. Language82.64-113.
12. CHEETHAM, SARAH A.; MICHAEL D. THOM; FRANCINE JURY; WILLIAM E. R. OLLIER; ROBERT J. BEYNON; and JANE L.HURST. 2007. The genetic basis of individual-recognition signals in the mouse. Current Biology17.1771-77.
13. CHENEY, DOROTHY L., and ROBERT M. SEYFARTH. 1990. How monkeys see the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14. CHENEY, DOROTHY L., and ROBERT M. SEYFARTH. 2007. Baboon metaphysics: The evolution of a social mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15. CHOMSKY, NOAM. 1973. Conditions on transformations. A festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by Stephen R. Anderson and Paul Kiparsky, 232-86. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
16. CHOMSKY, NOAM. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
17. CORBALLIS, MICHAEL C. 2007. Recursion, language and starlings. Cognitive Science31.697-704.
18. CRAIN, STEPHEN, and MINEHARU NAKAYAMA. 1987. Structure dependence in grammar formation. Language63.522-43.
19. EVERETT, DANIEL L. 2005. Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã: Another look at the design features of human language. Current Anthropology36.621-46.
20. FITCH, W. TECUMSEH; MARC D. HAUSER; and NOAM CHOMSKY. 2005. The evolution of the language faculty: Clarifications and implications. Cognition97.179-210.
21. FOUTS, ROGER. 1997. Next of kin: What chimpanzees have taught me about who we are. New York: William Morrow.
22. GARDNER, R. ALLEN, and BEATRIX T. GARDNER. 1969. Teaching sign language to a chimpanzee. Science165.664-72.
23. GARRETT, ANDREW. 2008. Linguistic universals and language change. In Good, 125-43.
24. GENTNER, TIMOTHY Q.; KIMBERLY M. FENN; DANIEL MARGOLIASH; and HOWARD C. NUSBAUM. 2006. Recursive syntactic pattern learning by songbirds. Nature440.1204-7.
25. GOOD, JEFF (ed.) 2008. Linguistic universals and language change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26. HALLE, MORRIS. 1962. Phonology in generative grammar. Word18.54-72.
27. HARE, BRIAN; MICHELLE BROWN; CHRISTINA WILLIAMSON; and MICHAEL TOMASELLO. 2002. The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science298.1634-36.
28. HAUSER, MARC D.; NOAM CHOMSKY; and W. TECUMSEH FITCH. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science298.1569-79.
29. HAWKINS, JOHN A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. HAWKINS, JOHN A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31. HOCKETT, CHARLES F. 1960. Logical considerations in the study of animal communication. Animal sounds and animal communication, ed. by W. E. Lanyon and W. N. Tavolga, 392-430. Washington, DC: American Institute of Biological Sciences.
32. HUGHES, HOWARD C. 1999. Sensory exotica. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33. JANDA, RICHARD D. 1984. Why morphological metathesis rules are rare: On the possibility of historical explanation in linguistics. Berkeley Linguistics Society10.87-103.
34. KAMINSKI, JULIANE; JOSEP CALL; and JULIA FISCHER. 2004. Word learning in a domestic dog: Evidence for 'fast mapping'. Science304.1682-83.
35. KIPARSKY, PAUL. 2006. Amphichronic linguistics vs. evolutionary phonology. Theoretical Linguistics32.217-36.
36. KIPARSKY, PAUL. 2008. Universals constrain change; change results in typological generalizations. In Good, 23-53.
37. LABOV, WILLIAM. 2007. Transmission and diffusion. Language83.344-87.
38. LEGATE, JULIE ANNE, and CHARLES D. YANG. 2002. Empirical re-assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. Linguistic Review19.151-62.
39. LIGHTFOOT, DAVID. 1991. Subjacency and sex. Language and Communication11.67-69.
40. LIGHTFOOT, DAVID. 1997. Catastrophic change and learning theory. Lingua100.171-92.
41. LIGHTFOOT, DAVID. 1999. The development of language: Acquisition, change, and evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.
42. LOFTING, HUGH. 1920. The story of Doctor Dolittle. New York: Frederick A. Stokes.
43. MAIDEN, MARTIN. 1992. Irregularity as a determinant of mophological change. Journal of Linguistics28.285-312.
44. MAIDEN, MARTIN. 2005. Morphological autonomy and diachrony. Yearbook of Morphology2004.137-75.
45. MARCUS, GARY, and MATTHEW WAGERS. 2009. Tree structure and the representation of sentences: A reappraisal. New York: New York University, and College Park: University of Maryland, MS.
46. MCCARTHY, JOHN J. 1981. A prosodic theory of non-concatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry12.373-418.
47. NEWMEYER, FREDERICK J. 1990. Speaker-hearer asymmetry as a factor in language evolution: A functional explanation for formal principles of grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society16.241-47.
48. NEWMEYER, FREDERICK J. 2006. Possible and probable languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
49. PEPPERBERG, IRENE M. 2000. The Alex studies: Cognitive and communicative abilities of grey parrots. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
50. PERFORS, AMY; JOSHUA B. TENENBAUM; and TERRY REGIER. 2006. Poverty of the stimulus? A rational approach. Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. by R. Sun and N. Miyake, 663-68. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
51. PERFORS, AMY; JOSHUA B. TENENBAUM; and TERRY REGIER. 2009. The learnability of abstract syntactic principles. Cambridge, MA: MIT, and Chicago: University of Chicago, MS.
52. PINKER, STEVEN. 1994. The language instinct. New York: William Morrow.
53. PULLUM, GEOFFREY K., and BARBARA C. SCHOLZ. 2002. Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. Linguistic Review19.9-50.
54. QUIRK, RANDOLPH; SIDNEY GREENBAUM; GEOFFREY LEECH; and JAN SVARTVIK. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
55. SANDLER, WENDY, and DIANE LILLO- MARTIN. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56. SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH, SUE; STUART G. SHANKER; and TALBOT J. TAYLOR. 1998. Apes, language, and the human mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
57. SEIBERT, CHARLES. 2007. The communicators. New York Times. December 30.
58. SHERBOURNE, AMY L.; MICHAEL D. THOM; STEVE PATERSON; FRANCINE JURY; WILLIAM E. R. OLLIER; PAULA STOCKLEY; ROBERT J. BEYNON; and JANE L. HURST. 2007. The genetic basis of inbreeding avoidance in house mice. Current Biology17.2061-66.
59. SNYDER, WILLIAM. 2007. Child language: The parametric approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
60. SPENCER, ANDREW. 2006. Morphological universals. Linguistic universals, ed. by Ricardo Mairal and Juana Gil, 101-29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
61. WEBER, BRUCE H., and DAVID J. DEPEW (eds.) 2003. Evolution and learning: The Baldwin effect reconsidered. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
62. WUNDERLICH, DIETER. 2004. Why assume UG? Studies in Language28.615-41.
63. YAMAUCHI, HAJIME. 2001. The difficulty of the Baldwinian account of linguistic innateness. Advances in artificial life: Proceedings of the sixth European conference on artificial life, ed. by Jozef Kelemen and Petr Sosi'k, 391-400. Berlin: Springer.
64. YAMAUCHI, HAJIME. 2004. Baldwinian accounts of language evolution. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh dissertation.
65. ZUBERBÜHLER, KLAUS. 2002. A syntactic rule in forest monkey communication. Animal Behaviour63.293-99.