Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-s5tvr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-07T20:35:35.099Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Another look at the universal grammar hypothesis: Commentary on Evans 2014

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Adele E. Goldberg
Adele E. Goldberg*
Affiliation:
Princeton University*
*
Psychology Department, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ08544 [adele@princeton.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Alternative (Re)views
Information
Language , Volume 92 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 200 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 Linguistic Society of America

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

Adger, David. 2015. Mythical myths: A commentary on Vyvyan Evans’ ‘The language myth’. Lingua 158. 76–80. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.02.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, Ben, Pine, Julian Μ.; and Lieven, Elena V. Μ.. 2014. Child language acquisition: Why universal grammar doesn’t help. Language 90.3.e53–e90. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2014.0051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, Elizabeth. 1993. Modularity, domain specificity and the development of language. Discussions in Neuroscience 10.1.136–48.Google Scholar
Bergen, Benjamin. 2012. Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Blumberg, Mark. 2005. Basic instinct: The genesis of behavior. New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press.Google Scholar
Carnie, Andrew. 2013. Syntax: A generative introduction. 3rd edn. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Christiansen, Morten h., and Chater, Nick. 2008. Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31. 5. 489–509. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X08004998.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, Laurent, Lehéricy, Stéphane, Chochon, Florence, Lemer, Cathy, Rivaud, Sophie; and Dehaene, Stanislas. 2002. Language-specific tuning of visual cortex? Functional properties of the visual word form area. Brain 125.5.1054–69. DOI: 10.1093/brain/awf094.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Culicover, Peter W., and Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehaene, Stanislas, and Cohen, Laurent. 2011. The unique role of the visual word form area in reading. Trendsin Cognitive Sciences 15. 6. 254–62. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.04.003.Google ScholarPubMed
Elman, Jeffrey L., Bates, Elizabeth A., Johnson, Mark H., Karmiloff-Smith, Annette, Parisi, Domenico; and Plunkett, Kim. 1996. Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, and Levinson, Stephen С.. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32. 5. 429–48. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X0999094X.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, Vyvyan. 2014. The language myth: Why language is not an instinct. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everett, Daniel L. 2012. Language: The cultural tool. NewYork: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Fedorenko, Evelina, Behr, Michael К.; and Kanwisher, Nancy. 2011. Functional specificity for high-level linguistic processing in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108. 39. 16428–33. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1112937108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, Adele E. 1996. Jackendoff and construction-based grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 7.1.3–20. DOI: 10.1515/cogl.1996.7.1.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2013. Substantive learning bias or an effect of familiarity? Comment on Culbertson, Smolensky, and Legendre (2012). Cognition 127.3.420–26. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.02.017.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, Adele E. 2016. Subtle implicit language facts emerge from the functions of constructions. Frontiers in Psychology 6:2019. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02019.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hauser, Marc d., Chomsky, Noam; and Fitch, W. Tecumseh. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298.5598.1569–79. DOI: 10.1126/science.298.5598.1569.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herrmann, Esther, Call, Josep, Hernández-Lloreda, María Victoria, Hare, Brian; and Tomasello, Michael. 2007. Humans have evolved specialized skills of social cognition: The cultural intelligence hypothesis. Science 317.5843.1360–66. DOI: 10.1126/science.1146282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hurford, James R. 2012. The origins of grammar: Language in the light of evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lidz, Jeffrey, Waxman, Sandra; and Freedman, Jennifer. 2003. What infants know about syntax but couldn’t have learned: Experimental evidence for syntactic structure at 18 months. Cognition 89. 295–303. DOI: 10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00116-1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newmeyer, Frederick. 2016. Form and function in the evolution of grammar. Cognitive Science. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1994. The language instinct: The new science of language and mind. London: Penguin. Pinker, Steven. 2013 [1989]. The secret life of verbs. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure, New edn., xiii-xvii. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven, and Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. The faculty of language: What’s special about it? Cognition 95. 2. 201–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.08.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey. 2005. The ‘language instinct’ debate. Revised edn. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 1995. Language is not an instinct. Cognitive Development 10. 1. 131–56. DOI: 10.1016/0885-2014(95)90021-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2009. Why we cooperate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, Michael T. 2015. The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiological model of language learning, knowledge, and use. Neurobiology of language, ed. by Hickok, Gregory and Small, Steven, 945–68. London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Yang, Charles D. 2004. Universal grammar, statistics or both? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8. 10. 451–56. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.08.006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed