Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:10:31.171Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Syntax is more diverse, and evolutionary linguistics is already here

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

William Croft
William Croft
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001. [email protected]://www.unm.edu/~wcroft
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Evans & Levinson (E&L) perform a major service for cognitive science. The assumption of Chomskyan generative linguistics – that there are absolute unrestricted universals of grammatical structure – is empirically untenable. However, E&L are too reluctant to abandon word classes and grammatical relations in syntax. Also, a cognitive scientist can already draw on a substantial linguistics literature on variationist, evolutionary models of language.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 32 , Issue 5 , October 2009 , pp. 453 - 454
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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.)

References

Croft, W. (1991) Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2000a) Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Longman.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001) Radical construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2003) Typology and universals, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2007) Beyond Aristotle and gradience: A reply to Aarts. Studies in Language 31:409–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2009) Methods for finding language universals in syntax. In: Universals of language today, pp. 145–64. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1969) Some methods of dynamic comparison in linguistics. In: Substance and structure of language, pp. 147–203. University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1978a) Diachrony, synchrony and language universals. In: Universals of human language, vol. 1: Method and theory, pp. 61–92. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1979) Rethinking linguistics diachronically. Language 55:275–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, M. (1979) On the failure of generative grammar. Language 55:859–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kazenin, K. I. (1994) Split syntactic ergativity: Toward an implicational hierarchy. Sprachtypololgie und Universalienforschung 47:78–98.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1994) Principles of linguistic change, vol. 1: Internal factors. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (2001) Principles of linguistic change, vol. 2: Social factors. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Langacker, W. (2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, J. (1992) Linguistic variation and change. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mufwene, S. (2001) The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mufwene, S. (2008) Language evolution: Contact, competition and change. Continuum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. ed. (1998) The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. ed. (2003b) The new psychology of language, vol. 2. Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1982) Why can you have a drink when you can't *have an eat? Language 58:753–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar