Evolutionary linguistics

Last updated

Evolutionary linguistics or Darwinian linguistics is a sociobiological approach to the study of language. [1] [2] Evolutionary linguists consider linguistics as a subfield of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. The approach is also closely linked with evolutionary anthropology, cognitive linguistics and biolinguistics. Studying languages as the products of nature, it is interested in the biological origin and development of language. [3] Evolutionary linguistics is contrasted with humanistic approaches, especially structural linguistics. [4]

Contents

A main challenge in this research is the lack of empirical data: there are no archaeological traces of early human language. Computational biological modelling and clinical research with artificial languages have been employed to fill in gaps of knowledge. Although biology is understood to shape the brain, which processes language, there is no clear link between biology and specific human language structures or linguistic universals. [5]

For lack of a breakthrough in the field, there have been numerous debates about what kind of natural phenomenon language might be. Some researchers focus on the innate aspects of language. It is suggested that grammar has emerged adaptationally from the human genome, bringing about a language instinct; [6] or that it depends on a single mutation [7] which has caused a language organ to appear in the human brain. [8] This is hypothesized to result in a crystalline [9] grammatical structure underlying all human languages. Others suggest language is not crystallized, but fluid and ever-changing. [10] Others, yet, liken languages to living organisms. [11] Languages are considered analogous to a parasite [12] or populations of mind-viruses. There is so far little scientific evidence for any of these claims, and some of them have been labelled as pseudoscience. [13] [14]

History

1863–1945: social Darwinism

Although pre-Darwinian theorists had compared languages to living organisms as a metaphor, the comparison was first taken literally in 1863 by the historical linguist August Schleicher who was inspired by Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species . [15] At the time there was not enough evidence to prove that Darwin's theory of natural selection was correct. Schleicher proposed that linguistics could be used as a testing ground for the study of the evolution of species. [16] A review of Schleicher's book Darwinism as Tested by the Science of Language appeared in the first issue of Nature journal in 1870. [17] Darwin reiterated Schleicher's proposition in his 1871 book The Descent of Man , claiming that languages are comparable to species, and that language change occurs through natural selection as words 'struggle for life'. Darwin believed that languages had evolved from animal mating calls. [18] Darwinists considered the concept of language creation as unscientific. [19]

August Schleicher and his friend Ernst Haeckel were keen gardeners and regarded the study of cultures as a type of botany, with different species competing for the same living space. [20] [16] Similar ideas became later advocated by politicians who wanted to appeal to working class voters, not least by the national socialists who subsequently included the concept of struggle for living space in their agenda. [21] Highly influential until the end of World War II, social Darwinism was eventually banished from human sciences, leading to a strict separation of natural and sociocultural studies. [16]

This gave rise to the dominance of structural linguistics in Europe. There had long been a dispute between the Darwinists and the French intellectuals with the topic of language evolution famously having been banned by the Paris Linguistic Society as early as in 1866. Ferdinand de Saussure proposed structuralism to replace evolutionary linguistics in his Course in General Linguistics , published posthumously in 1916. The structuralists rose to academic political power in human and social sciences in the aftermath of the student revolts of Spring 1968, establishing Sorbonne as an international centrepoint of humanistic thinking.

From 1959 onwards: genetic determinism

In the United States, structuralism was however fended off by the advocates of behavioural psychology; a linguistics framework nicknamed as 'American structuralism'. It was eventually replaced by the approach of Noam Chomsky who published a modification of Louis Hjelmslev's formal structuralist theory, claiming that syntactic structures are innate. An active figure in peace demonstrations in the 1950s and 1960s, Chomsky rose to academic political power following Spring 1968 at the MIT. [22]

Chomsky became an influential opponent of the French intellectuals during the following decades, and his supporters successfully confronted the post-structuralists in the Science Wars of the late 1990s. [23] The shift of the century saw a new academic funding policy where interdisciplinary research became favoured, effectively directing research funds to biological humanities. [24] The decline of structuralism was evident by 2015 with Sorbonne having lost its former spirit. [25]

Chomsky eventually claimed that syntactic structures are caused by a random mutation in the human genome, [7] proposing a similar explanation for other human faculties such as ethics. [22] But Steven Pinker argued in 1990 that they are the outcome of evolutionary adaptations. [26]

From 1976 onwards: Neo-Darwinism

At the same time when the Chomskyan paradigm of biological determinism defeated humanism, it was losing its own clout within sociobiology. It was reported likewise in 2015 that generative grammar was under fire in applied linguistics and in the process of being replaced with usage-based linguistics ; [27] a derivative of Richard Dawkins's memetics. [28] It is a concept of linguistic units as replicators. Following the publication of memetics in Dawkins's 1976 nonfiction bestseller The Selfish Gene , many biologically inclined linguists, frustrated with the lack of evidence for Chomsky's Universal Grammar, grouped under different brands including a framework called Cognitive Linguistics (with capitalised initials), and 'functional' (adaptational) linguistics (not to be confused with functional linguistics) to confront both Chomsky and the humanists. [4] The replicator approach is today dominant in evolutionary linguistics, applied linguistics, cognitive linguistics and linguistic typology; while the generative approach has maintained its position in general linguistics, especially syntax; and in computational linguistics.

View of linguistics

Evolutionary linguistics is part of a wider framework of Universal Darwinism. In this view, linguistics is seen as an ecological environment for research traditions struggling for the same resources. [4] According to David Hull, these traditions correspond to species in biology. Relationships between research traditions can be symbiotic, competitive or parasitic. An adaptation of Hull's theory in linguistics is proposed by William Croft. [3] He argues that the Darwinian method is more advantageous than linguistic models based on physics, structuralist sociology, or hermeneutics. [4]

Approaches

Evolutionary linguistics is often divided into functionalism and formalism, [29] concepts which are not to be confused with functionalism and formalism in the humanistic reference. [30] Functional evolutionary linguistics considers languages as adaptations to human mind. The formalist view regards them as crystallised or non-adaptational. [29]

Functionalism (adaptationism)

The adaptational view of language is advocated by various frameworks of cognitive and evolutionary linguistics, with the terms 'functionalism' and 'Cognitive Linguistics' often being equated. [31] It is hypothesised that the evolution of the animal brain provides humans with a mechanism of abstract reasoning which is a 'metaphorical' version of image-based reasoning. [32] Language is not considered as a separate area of cognition, but as coinciding with general cognitive capacities, such as perception, attention, motor skills, and spatial and visual processing. It is argued to function according to the same principles as these. [33] [34]

It is thought that the brain links action schemes to form–meaning pairs which are called constructions. [35] Cognitive linguistic approaches to syntax are called cognitive and construction grammar. [33] Also deriving from memetics and other cultural replicator theories, [3] these can study the natural or social selection and adaptation of linguistic units. Adaptational models reject a formal systemic view of language and consider language as a population of linguistic units.

The bad reputation of social Darwinism and memetics has been discussed in the literature, and recommendations for new terminology have been given. [36] What correspond to replicators or mind-viruses in memetics are called linguemes in Croft's theory of Utterance Selection (TUS), [37] and likewise linguemes or constructions in construction grammar and usage-based linguistics; [38] [39] and metaphors, [40] frames [41] or schemas [42] in cognitive and construction grammar. The reference of memetics has been largely replaced with that of a Complex Adaptive System. [43] In current linguistics, this term covers a wide range of evolutionary notions while maintaining the Neo-Darwinian concepts of replication and replicator population. [44]

Functional evolutionary linguistics is not to be confused with functional humanistic linguistics.

Formalism (structuralism)

Advocates of formal evolutionary explanation in linguistics argue that linguistic structures are crystallised. Inspired by 19th century advances in crystallography, Schleicher argued that different types of languages are like plants, animals and crystals. [45] The idea of linguistic structures as frozen drops was revived in tagmemics, [46] an approach to linguistics with the goal to uncover divine symmetries underlying all languages, as if caused by the Creation. [47]

In modern biolinguistics, the X-bar tree is argued to be like natural systems such as ferromagnetic droplets and botanic forms. [48] Generative grammar considers syntactic structures similar to snowflakes. [9] It is hypothesised that such patterns are caused by a mutation in humans. [7]

The formal–structural evolutionary aspect of linguistics is not to be confused with structural linguistics.

Evidence

There was some hope of a breakthrough at the discovery of the FOXP2 gene. [49] [50] There is little support, however, for the idea that FOXP2 is 'the grammar gene' or that it had much to do with the relatively recent emergence of syntactical speech. [51] There is no evidence that people have a language instinct. [52] Memetics is widely discredited as pseudoscience [14] and neurological claims made by evolutionary cognitive linguists have been likened to pseudoscience. [13] All in all, there does not appear to be any evidence for the basic tenets of evolutionary linguistics beyond the fact that language is processed by the brain, and brain structures are shaped by genes. [5]

Criticism

Evolutionary linguistics has been criticised by advocates of (humanistic) structural and functional linguistics. Ferdinand de Saussure commented on 19th century evolutionary linguistics:

"Language was considered a specific sphere, a fourth natural kingdom; this led to methods of reasoning which would have caused astonishment in other sciences. Today one cannot read a dozen lines written at that time without being struck by absurdities of reasoning and by the terminology used to justify these absurdities” [53]

Mark Aronoff, however, argues that historical linguistics had its golden age during the time of Schleicher and his supporters, enjoying a place among the hard sciences, and considers the return of Darwinian linguistics as a positive development. Esa Itkonen nonetheless deems the revival of Darwinism as a hopeless enterprise:

"There is ... an application of intelligence in linguistic change which is absent in biological evolution; and this suffices to make the two domains totally disanalogous ... [Grammaticalisation depends on] cognitive processes, ultimately serving the goal of problem solving, which intelligent entities like humans must perform all the time, but which biological entities like genes cannot perform. Trying to eliminate this basic difference leads to confusion.” [54]

Itkonen also points out that the principles of natural selection are not applicable because language innovation and acceptance have the same source which is the speech community. In biological evolution, mutation and selection have different sources. This makes it possible for people to change their languages, but not their genotype. [55]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ferdinand de Saussure</span> Swiss linguist (1857–1913)

Ferdinand de Saussure was a Swiss linguist, semiotician and philosopher. His ideas laid a foundation for many significant developments in both linguistics and semiotics in the 20th century. He is widely considered one of the founders of 20th-century linguistics and one of two major founders of semiotics, or semiology, as Saussure called it.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Functional linguistics</span> Approach to linguistics

Functional linguistics is an approach to the study of language characterized by taking systematically into account the speaker's and the hearer's side, and the communicative needs of the speaker and of the given language community. Linguistic functionalism spawned in the 1920s to 1930s from Ferdinand de Saussure's systematic structuralist approach to language (1916).

Memetics is a theory of the evolution of culture based on Darwinian principles with the meme as the unit of culture. The term "meme" was coined by biologist Richard Dawkins in his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, to illustrate the principle that he later called "Universal Darwinism". All evolutionary processes depend on information being copied, varied, and selected, a process also known as variation with selective retention. The information that is copied is called the replicator, and genes are the replicator for biological evolution. Dawkins proposed that the same process drives cultural evolution, and he called this second replicator the "meme". He gave as examples, tunes, catchphrases, fashions, and technologies. Like genes, memes are selfish replicators and have causal efficacy; in other words, their properties influence their chances of being copied and passed on. Some succeed because they are valuable or useful to their human hosts while others are more like viruses.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Noam Chomsky</span> American linguist and activist (born 1928)

Avram Noam Chomsky is an American professor and public intellectual known for his work in linguistics, political activism, and social criticism. Sometimes called "the father of modern linguistics", Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science. He is a laureate professor of linguistics at the University of Arizona and an institute professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Among the most cited living authors, Chomsky has written more than 150 books on topics such as linguistics, war, and politics. Ideologically, he aligns with anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism.

In linguistics, syntax is the study of how words and morphemes combine to form larger units such as phrases and sentences. Central concerns of syntax include word order, grammatical relations, hierarchical sentence structure (constituency), agreement, the nature of crosslinguistic variation, and the relationship between form and meaning (semantics). There are numerous approaches to syntax that differ in their central assumptions and goals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Universal grammar</span> Theory of the biological component of the language faculty

Universal grammar (UG), in modern linguistics, is the theory of the innate biological component of the language faculty, usually credited to Noam Chomsky. The basic postulate of UG is that there are innate constraints on what the grammar of a possible human language could be. When linguistic stimuli are received in the course of language acquisition, children then adopt specific syntactic rules that conform to UG. The advocates of this theory emphasize and partially rely on the poverty of the stimulus (POS) argument and the existence of some universal properties of natural human languages. However, the latter has not been firmly established, as some linguists have argued languages are so diverse that such universality is rare, and the theory of universal grammar remains controversial among linguists.

Cognitive linguistics is an interdisciplinary branch of linguistics, combining knowledge and research from cognitive science, cognitive psychology, neuropsychology and linguistics. Models and theoretical accounts of cognitive linguistics are considered as psychologically real, and research in cognitive linguistics aims to help understand cognition in general and is seen as a road into the human mind.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Generative grammar</span> Theory in linguistics

Generative grammar, or generativism, is a linguistic theory that regards linguistics as the study of a hypothesised innate grammatical structure. It is a biological or biologistic modification of earlier structuralist theories of linguistics, deriving from logical syntax and glossematics. Generative grammar considers grammar as a system of rules that generates exactly those combinations of words that form grammatical sentences in a given language. It is a system of explicit rules that may apply repeatedly to generate an indefinite number of sentences which can be as long as one wants them to be. The difference from structural and functional models is that the object is base-generated within the verb phrase in generative grammar. This purportedly cognitive structure is thought of as being a part of a universal grammar, a syntactic structure which is caused by a genetic mutation in humans.

The origin of language, its relationship with human evolution, and its consequences have been subjects of study for centuries. Scholars wishing to study the origins of language must draw inferences from evidence such as the fossil record, archaeological evidence, contemporary language diversity, studies of language acquisition, and comparisons between human language and systems of communication existing among animals. Many argue that the origins of language probably relate closely to the origins of modern human behavior, but there is little agreement about the facts and implications of this connection.

Construction grammar is a family of theories within the field of cognitive linguistics which posit that constructions, or learned pairings of linguistic patterns with meanings, are the fundamental building blocks of human language. Constructions include words, morphemes, fixed expressions and idioms, and abstract grammatical rules such as the passive voice or the ditransitive. Any linguistic pattern is considered to be a construction as long as some aspect of its form or its meaning cannot be predicted from its component parts, or from other constructions that are recognized to exist. In construction grammar, every utterance is understood to be a combination of multiple different constructions, which together specify its precise meaning and form.

<i>Syntactic Structures</i> Book by Noam Chomsky

Syntactic Structures is an important work in linguistics by American linguist Noam Chomsky, originally published in 1957. A short monograph of about a hundred pages, it is recognized as one of the most significant and influential linguistic studies of the 20th century. It contains the now-famous sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously", which Chomsky offered as an example of a grammatically correct sentence that has no discernible meaning, thus arguing for the independence of syntax from semantics.

Frame semantics is a theory of linguistic meaning developed by Charles J. Fillmore that extends his earlier case grammar. It relates linguistic semantics to encyclopedic knowledge. The basic idea is that one cannot understand the meaning of a single word without access to all the essential knowledge that relates to that word. For example, one would not be able to understand the word "sell" without knowing anything about the situation of commercial transfer, which also involves, among other things, a seller, a buyer, goods, money, the relation between the money and the goods, the relations between the seller and the goods and the money, the relation between the buyer and the goods and the money and so on. Thus, a word activates, or evokes, a frame of semantic knowledge relating to the specific concept to which it refers.

Langueandparole is a theoretical linguistic dichotomy distinguished by Ferdinand de Saussure in his Course in General Linguistics.

Structural linguistics, or structuralism, in linguistics, denotes schools or theories in which language is conceived as a self-contained, self-regulating semiotic system whose elements are defined by their relationship to other elements within the system. It is derived from the work of Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure and is part of the overall approach of structuralism. Saussure's Course in General Linguistics, published posthumously in 1916, stressed examining language as a dynamic system of interconnected units. Saussure is also known for introducing several basic dimensions of semiotic analysis that are still important today. Two of these are his key methods of syntagmatic and paradigmatic analysis, which define units syntactically and lexically, respectively, according to their contrast with the other units in the system.

Universal Darwinism, also known as generalized Darwinism, universal selection theory, or Darwinian metaphysics, is a variety of approaches that extend the theory of Darwinism beyond its original domain of biological evolution on Earth. Universal Darwinism aims to formulate a generalized version of the mechanisms of variation, selection and heredity proposed by Charles Darwin, so that they can apply to explain evolution in a wide variety of other domains, including psychology, linguistics, economics, culture, medicine, computer science, and physics.

Linguistics is the scientific study of language. Linguistics is based on a theoretical as well as a descriptive study of language and is also interlinked with the applied fields of language studies and language learning, which entails the study of specific languages. Before the 20th century, linguistics evolved in conjunction with literary study and did not employ scientific methods. Modern-day linguistics is considered a science because it entails a comprehensive, systematic, objective, and precise analysis of all aspects of language – i.e., the cognitive, the social, the cultural, the psychological, the environmental, the biological, the literary, the grammatical, the paleographical, and the structural.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Formalism (linguistics)</span> Concept in linguistics

In linguistics, the term formalism is used in a variety of meanings which relate to formal linguistics in different ways. In common usage, it is merely synonymous with a grammatical model or a syntactic model: a method for analyzing sentence structures. Such formalisms include different methodologies of generative grammar which are especially designed to produce grammatically correct strings of words; or the likes of Functional Discourse Grammar which builds on predicate logic.

Theory of language is a topic in philosophy of language and theoretical linguistics. It has the goal of answering the questions "What is language?"; "Why do languages have the properties they do?"; or "What is the origin of language?". In addition to these fundamental questions, the theory of language also seeks to understand how language is acquired and used by individuals and communities. This involves investigating the cognitive and neural processes involved in language processing and production, as well as the social and cultural factors that shape linguistic behavior.

The usage-based linguistics is a linguistics approach within a broader functional/cognitive framework, that emerged since the late 1980s, and that assumes a profound relation between linguistic structure and usage. It challenges the dominant focus, in 20th century linguistics, on considering language as an isolated system removed from its use in human interaction and human cognition. Rather, usage-based models posit that linguistic information is expressed via context-sensitive mental processing and mental representations, which have the cognitive ability to succinctly account for the complexity of actual language use at all levels. Broadly speaking, a usage-based model of language accounts for language acquisition and processing, synchronic and diachronic patterns, and both low-level and high-level structure in language, by looking at actual language use.

The basis of Noam Chomsky's linguistic theory lies in biolinguistics, the linguistic school that holds that the principles underpinning the structure of language are biologically preset in the human mind and hence genetically inherited. He argues that all humans share the same underlying linguistic structure, irrespective of sociocultural differences. In adopting this position Chomsky rejects the radical behaviorist psychology of B. F. Skinner, who viewed speech, thought, and all behavior as a completely learned product of the interactions between organisms and their environments. Accordingly, Chomsky argues that language is a unique evolutionary development of the human species and distinguished from modes of communication used by any other animal species. Chomsky's nativist, internalist view of language is consistent with the philosophical school of "rationalism" and contrasts with the anti-nativist, externalist view of language consistent with the philosophical school of "empiricism", which contends that all knowledge, including language, comes from external stimuli.

References

  1. ↑ Gontier, Nathalie (2012). "Selectionist approaches in evolutionary linguistics: an epistemological analysis". International Studies in the Philosophy of Science. 26 (1): 67–95. doi:10.1080/02698595.2012.653114. hdl: 10451/45246 . S2CID   121742473.
  2. ↑ McMahon, April; McMahon, Robert (2012). Evolutionary Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN   978-0521891394.
  3. 1 2 3 Croft, William (October 2008). "Evolutionary Linguistics". Annual Review of Anthropology. 37: 219–234. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.37.081407.085156.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Croft, William (1993). "Functional-typological theory in its historical and intellectual context". STUF - Language Typology and Universals. 46 (1–4): 15–26. doi:10.1524/stuf.1993.46.14.15. S2CID   170296028.
  5. 1 2 Gibson, Kathleen R.; Tallerman, Maggie, eds. (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Language Evolution. Oxford University Press. ISBN   9780199541119.
  6. ↑ Pinker, Steven (1994). The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language (PDF). Penguin Books. ISBN   9780140175295 . Retrieved 2020-03-03.
  7. 1 2 3 Berwick, Robert C.; Chomsky, Noam (2015). Why Only Us: Language and Evolution. MIT Press. ISBN   9780262034241.
  8. ↑ Anderson, Stephen R.; Lightfoot, David W. (2003). The Language Organ: Linguistics as Cognitive Psychology. Cambridge University Press. ISBN   9780521007832.
  9. 1 2 Chomsky, Noam (2015). The Minimalist Program. 20th Anniversary Edition. MIT Press. ISBN   978-0-262-52734-7.
  10. ↑ Bybee, Joan L.; Beckner, Clay (2015). "Usage-Based theory". In Heine, Bernd; Narrog, Heiko (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford University Press. pp. 953–980. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0032. ISBN   978-0199544004.
  11. ↑ van Driem, George (2005). "The language organism: the Leiden theory of language evolution". In Minett, James W.; Wang, William S.-Y. (eds.). Language Acquisition, Change and Emergence: Essays in Evolutionary Linguistics. pp. 331–340.
  12. ↑ Hung, Tzu-wei (2019). "How did language evolve? Some reflections on the language parasite debate". Biological Theory. 14 (4): 214–223. doi:10.1007/s13752-019-00321-x. S2CID   145846758 . Retrieved 2020-03-02.
  13. 1 2 Schwarz-Friesel, Monika (2012). "On the status of external evidence in the theories of cognitive linguistics". Language Sciences. 34 (6): 656–664. doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.007.
  14. 1 2 Polichak, James W. (2002). "Memes as pseudoscience". In Shermer, Michael (ed.). The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, Vol. 1. ABC Clio. pp. 664–667. ISBN   1-57607-653-9.
  15. ↑ Stamos, David N. (2006). Darwin and the Nature of Species. SUNY Press. p. 55. ISBN   9780791480885 . Retrieved 2020-03-03.
  16. 1 2 3 Aronoff, Mark (2017). "20 Darwinism tested by the science of language". In Bowern; Horn; Zanuttini (eds.). On Looking into Words (and Beyond): Structures, Relations, Analyses. SUNY Press. pp. 443–456. ISBN   978-3-946234-92-0 . Retrieved 2020-03-03.
  17. ↑ Müller, Max (1870). "Darwinism tested by the science of language (review)". Nature. 1: 256–259. doi:10.1038/001256a0. hdl: 11858/00-001M-0000-002C-5EFD-E . S2CID   176892155.
  18. ↑ Darwin, Charles (1981) [1871]. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (PDF). Princeton University Press. pp. 59–61. ISBN   0-691-08278-2 . Retrieved 2020-03-03.
  19. ↑ Schleicher, August (1869) [1863]. Darwinism Tested by the Science of Language, English translation. John Camden Hotten. ISBN   0-691-08278-2 . Retrieved 2020-03-03.
  20. ↑ Richards, Robert J. (2002). "The linguistic creation of man: Charles Darwin, August Schleicher, Ernst Haeckel, and themissing link in 19th century evolutionary theory". In Doerres, M. (ed.). The Experimenting in Tongues: Studies in Science and Language. Stanford University Press. pp. 21–48. ISBN   1-57607-653-9.
  21. ↑ Richards, R. J. (2013). Was Hitler a Darwinian?: Disputed Questions in the History of Evolutionary Theory. University of Chicago Press. ISBN   978-0-226-05893-1.
  22. 1 2 Smith, Neil (2002). Chomsky: Ideas and Ideals (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN   0-521-47517-1.
  23. ↑ Bricmont, jean; Franck, Julie (2010). Bricmont, jean; Franck, Julie (eds.). Chomsky Notebook. Columbia University Press. ISBN   9780231144759.
  24. ↑ Rhoten, Diana (July 19, 2016). "Interdisciplinary research: trend or transition?". Language Sciences. Retrieved 2020-03-03.
  25. ↑ Hazareesingh, Sudhir (September 19, 2015). "The decline of the French intellectual". Politico. Retrieved 2020-03-03.
  26. ↑ Pinker, Steven; Bloom, Paul (2011). "Natural language and natural selection" (PDF). Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 13 (4): 707–727. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.116.4044 . doi:10.1017/S0140525X00081061. S2CID   6167614. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-07-11. Retrieved 2017-10-24.
  27. ↑ de Bot, Kees (2015). A History of Applied Linguistics: From 1980 to the Present. Routledge. ISBN   9781138820654.
  28. ↑ Boesch, Christoophe; Tomasello, Michael (1998). "Chimpanzee and human cultures (with a comment from James D. Paterson)". Current Anthropology. 39 (5): 591–614. doi:10.1086/204785. S2CID   55562574 . Retrieved 2020-03-03.
  29. 1 2 Darnell; Moravcsik; Noonan; Newmeyer; Wheatley, eds. (1999). Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics, Vol. 1. John Benjamins. pp. 664–667. ISBN   9789027298799.
  30. ↑ Croft, William (2015). "Functional approaches to grammar". In Wright, James (ed.). International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier. ISBN   9780080970875.
  31. ↑ "About Cognitive Linguistics". cognitivelinguistics.org. ICLA - International Cognitive Linguistics Association. Archived from the original on 2019-12-09. Retrieved 2020-05-12.
  32. ↑ Lakoff, George (1990). "Iinvariance hypothesis: is abstract reasoning based on image-schemas?". Cognitive Linguistics. 1 (1): 39–74. doi:10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39. S2CID   144380802.
  33. 1 2 Croft, William; Cruse, Alan (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN   9780511803864.
  34. ↑ Geeraerts, Dirk (2006). "Introduction: a rough guide to Cognitive Linguistics". In Geeraerts, Dirk (ed.). Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. De Gruyter. ISBN   978-3-11-019990-1.
  35. ↑ Arbib, Michael A. (2015). "Language evolution – an emergentist perspective". In MacWhinney and O'Grady (ed.). Handbook of Language Emergence. Wiley. pp. 81–109. ISBN   9781118346136.
  36. ↑ Keller, Rudi (1994). On Language Change: the Invisible Hand in Language. CRC Press. ISBN   9780415076722.
  37. ↑ Croft, William (2006). "The relevance of an evolutionary model to historical linguistics". In Nedergaard Thomsen, Ole (ed.). Competing Models of Linguistic Change: Evolution and Beyond. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Vol. 279. John Benjamins. pp. 91–132. doi:10.1075/cilt.279.08cro. ISBN   978-90-272-4794-0.
  38. ↑ Kirby, Simon (2013). "Transitions: The Evolution of Linguistic Replicators". In Binder; Smith (eds.). The Language Phenomenon (PDF). The Frontiers Collection. Springer. pp. 121–138. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36086-2_6. ISBN   978-3-642-36085-5 . Retrieved 2020-03-04.
  39. ↑ Zehentner, Eva (2019). Competition in Language Change: the Rise of the English Dative Alternation. De Gruyter Mouton. ISBN   978-3-11-063385-6.
  40. ↑ Camarinha-Matos, Luis M.; Afsarmanesh, Hamideh (2008). Collaborative Networks: Reference Modeling. Springer. pp. 139–164. ISBN   978-0-387-79426-6.
  41. ↑ Fillmore, Charles J.; Baker, Collin (2014). "A frames Approach to Semantic Analysis" (PDF). In Heine & Narrog (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic analysis (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. pp. 791–816. ISBN   978-0199677078.
  42. ↑ Langacker, Roland (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press. p. 130. ISBN   978-0804738514.
  43. ↑ Frank, Roslyn M. (2008). "The Language–organism–species analogy: a complex adaptive systems approach to shifting perspectives on "language"". In Frank (ed.). Sociocultural Situatedness, Vol. 2. De Gruyter. pp. 215–262. ISBN   978-3-11-019911-6.
  44. ↑ Beckner, Blythe, Bybee, Christiansen, Croft, Ellis, Holland, Ke, Larsen-Freeman, Schoenemann (2009). "Language is a Complex Adaptive System: Position Paper" (PDF). Language Learning. 59 (1): 1–26. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00533.x. S2CID   143150253 . Retrieved 2020-03-04.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  45. ↑ Arbukle, John (1970). "August Schleicher and the Linguistics/ Philology Dichotomy: A Chapter in the History of Linguistics". Word. 26 (1): 17–31. doi: 10.1080/00437956.1970.11435578 .
  46. ↑ Pike, Kenneth Lee (1960). "Nucleation". Word. 44 (7): 291–295. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1960.tb01762.x.
  47. ↑ Seuren, Pieter (2015). "Prestructuralist and structuralist approaches to syntax". In Kiss and Alexiadou (ed.). Syntax--theory and analysis: An international handbook. De Gruyter. pp. 134–157. ISBN   9783110202762.
  48. ↑ Piattelli-Palmarini, Massimo; Vitiello, Giuseppei (2019). "Linguistics and some aspects of its underlying dynamics". Biolinguistics. 9: 96–115. arXiv: 1506.08663 . doi:10.5964/bioling.9033. ISSN   1450-3417. S2CID   14775156.
  49. ↑ Scharff C, Haesler S (December 2005). "An evolutionary perspective on FoxP2: strictly for the birds?". Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 15 (6): 694–703. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2005.10.004. PMID   16266802. S2CID   11350165.
  50. ↑ Scharff C, Petri J (July 2011). "Evo-devo, deep homology and FoxP2: implications for the evolution of speech and language". Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 366 (1574): 2124–40. doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0001. PMC   3130369 . PMID   21690130.
  51. ↑ Diller, Karl C.; Cann, Rebecca L. (2009). Rudolf Botha; Chris Knight (eds.). Evidence Against a Genetic-Based Revolution in Language 50,000 Years Ago. Oxford Series in the Evolution of Language. Oxford.: Oxford University Press. pp. 135–149. ISBN   978-0-19-954586-5. OCLC   804498749.{{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  52. ↑ Sampson, Geoffrey (2007). "There is no language instinct" (PDF). Ilha do Desterro (52): 35–63. Retrieved 2020-03-04.
  53. ↑ de Saussure, Ferdinand (1959) [First published 1916]. Course in general linguistics (PDF). New York: Philosophy Library. ISBN   9780231157278. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-04-14. Retrieved 2020-03-04.
  54. ↑ Itkonen, Esa (1999). "Functionalism yes, biologism no". Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft. 18 (2): 219–221. doi: 10.1515/zfsw.1999.18.2.219 . S2CID   146998564.
  55. ↑ Itkonen, Esa (2011). "On Coseriu's legacy" (PDF). Energeia (III): 1–29. doi:10.55245/energeia.2011.001. S2CID   247142924. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-01-14. Retrieved 2020-01-14.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.