Representational Systems in Zoosemiotics and Anthroposemiotics Part II: On Meta-Representation and Human Language

Open access

Abstract

Following the conclusions of the previous paper (Uhlir, this issue), this paper adopts a theory that is based on the notion that the essence of language is uniquely human, with no homologue elsewhere in nature, and advances the possibility that human language is discontinuous not only within communication systems but also within representational systems. Linguistic data from disparate sources in Homo sapiens are contrasted with evidence from animals. After briefly discussing the dialectics between the mosaic approach to language and the holistic approach to an integrated left hemisphere, the paper culminates in a proposal of a general zoosemiotic theory of “Representational Systems” and a special anthroposemiotic theory of “Meta-representational Systems”.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • [1] Harris R.A. 1995. The linguistics wars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • [2] Chomsky N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

  • [3] Chomsky N. 1968. Language and mind. New York: Harcourt Brace and World.

  • [4] Chomsky N. 1980. Rules and representations. New York NY: Columbia University Press.

  • [5] Chomsky N. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature origin and use. New York: Praeger.

  • [6] Pinker S. 1984. Language learnability and language development. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

  • [7] Pinker S. 1995. The language instinct: How the mind creates language. New York NY: Harper Perennial.

  • [8] Berwick R.C. 1985. The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

  • [9] Lightfoot D. 1982. The language lottery: Toward a biology of grammars. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

  • [10] van der Hulst H. 2010. Re recursion. In van der Hulst H. (Ed.) Recursion and human language. Germany: Mouton de Gruyter

  • [11] van der Hulst H. 2010. A note on recursion in phonology. In van der Hulst H. (Ed.) Recursion and human language. Germany: Mouton de Gruyter pp. 285–300.

  • [12] van der Hulst H. (Ed.) 2010. Recursion and human language. Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • [13] Karlsson F. 2010. Recursion and iteration. In van der Hulst H. (Ed.) Recursion and human language. Germany: Mouton de Gruyter pp. 43–68.

  • [14] Perfors A. Tenenbaum J. Gibson E. et al. 2010. How recursive is language? A Bayesian exploration. In van der Hulst H. (Ed.) 2010. Recursion and human language. Germany: Mouton de Gruyter pp. 159–178.

  • [15] Jackendoff R. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

  • [16] Jackendoff R. 1977. X-bar syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

  • [17] Bever T.G. 1970. The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In Hayes J.R. (Ed.) Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley and Sons pp. 279–362.

  • [18] Sebeok T.A. Rosenthal R. (Eds.) 1981. The Clever Hans phenomenon: Communication with horses whales apes and people. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences Vol. 364.

  • [19] Umiker-Sebeok J. Sebeok T.A. (Eds.) 1980. Speaking of apes: A critical anthology of two-way communication with man. Berlin: Springer.

  • [20] Terrace H. Petitto L.A. Sanders R.J. et al. 1979. Can an ape create a sentence? Science 206 4421 891–902.

  • [21] Terrace H. Petitto L.A. Sanders R.J. et al. 1980. On the grammatical capacity of apes. In Nelson K. (Ed.) Children’s language vol. 2. New York: Gardner Press pp. 371–495.

  • [22] Terrace H. Petitto L.A. Sanders R.J. et al. 1981. Ape language. Science 211 87–88.

  • [23] Premack D. 1983. The codes of man and beasts. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 6(1) 125–37.

  • [24] Premack D. 1984. Possible general effects of language training on the Chimpanzee. Human Development 27 268–281.

  • [25] Premack D. 1988. Minds with and without language. In Weiskrantz L. (Ed.) Thought without language. A Fyssen Foundation Symposium. New York: Calderon Press 46–65.

  • [26] Seidenberg M.S. Petitto L.A. 1979. Signing behavior in apes: A critical review. Cognition 7 177–215.

  • [27] Seidenberg M.S. Petitto L.A. 1981. Ape signing: Problems of method and interpretation. In Sebeok T.A. Rosenthal R. (Eds.) The Clever Hans phenomenon: Communication with horses whales apes and people. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences Vol. 364 pp. 94–114.

  • [28] Sebeok T.A. 1980. Looking in the destination for what should have been sought in the source. In Umiker-Sebeok J. Sebeok T.A. (Eds.) Speaking of apes: A critical anthology of two-way communication with man. Berlin: Springer pp. 407–428.

  • [29] Sebeok T.A. 1981. The ultimate enigma of “Clever Hans”: The union of nature and culture. In Sebeok T.A. Rosenthal R. (Eds.) The Clever Hans phenomenon: Communication with horses whales apes and people. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences Vol. 364 pp. 199–205.

  • [30] Wallman J. 1992. Aping language. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • [31] Anderson S.R. 2004. Doctor Dolittle’s delusion: Animals and the uniqueness of human language. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.

  • [32] Tomasello M.E. 1994. Can an ape understand a sentence? A review of language comprehension in ape and child by E. D. Savage-Rumbaugh et al. Language and Communication 14 377–390.

  • [33] Tomasello M.E. 1999. The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

  • [34] Tomasello M.E. 2007. If They’re so good at grammar Then why don’t they talk? Hind from apes’ and humans’ use of gestures. Language Learning and Development 3 133–156.

  • [35] Pinker S. 1994. How could a child use verb syntax to learn verb semantics? Lingua 92 377–410.

  • [36] Passingham R.E. 1979. Specialization and the language areas. In Steklis H. Raleigh M.J. (Eds.) Neurobiology of social communication in primates. New York: Academic Press pp. 221–256.

  • [37] Anderson S.R. Lightfoot D.W. 2002. The language organ: Linguistics as cognitive physiology. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • [38] Gleitman L.R. Gleitman H. Landau B. et al. 1988. Where learning begins: Initial representations for langage learning. In Newmeyer F.J. (Ed.) Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey vol. III. Language: Psychological and biological aspects. New York: Cambridge University Press pp. 150–193.

  • [39] Gleitman L.R. 1986. Biological dispositions to learn language. In Demopoulos W. Madras A. (Eds.) Language leasing and koncept acquisition: Foundational issues. Norwood NJ: Ablex pp. 3–28.

  • [40] Bowerman M. 1973. Early syntactic development. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • [41] Clark H.H. Clark E.V. 1977. Psychology and language. New York: Hartcourt Brace.

  • [42] Cromer R. 1981. Reconceptualizing language acquisition and cognitive development. In Scheifelbusch R.L. Bricker D.D. (Eds.) 1981. Early language: Acquisition and intervention. Baltimore: University Park Press pp. 53–102.

  • [43] de Villiers J.G. de Villiers P.A. 1978. Early language. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

  • [44] Newport E.L. Gletiman H. Gleitman L.R. 1977. Mother i’d rather do it myself: Some effects and non-effects of maternal speech style. In Snow C.E. Ferguson C.A. (Eds.) Talking to children: Language input and acquisition. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press pp. 109–149.

  • [45] Josse G. Mazoyer B. Crivello F. et al. 2003. Left planum temporale: An anatomical marker of left hemispheric specialization for language comprehension. Cognitive Brain Research 18(1) 1–14.

  • [46] Josse G. Hervé P. Crivello F. et al. 2006. Hemispheric specialization for language: Brain volume matters. Brain Research 1068(1) 184–193.

  • [47] Josse G. Tzourio-Mazoyer N. 2004. Hemispheric specialization for language. Brain Research Reviews 44(1) 1–12.

  • [48] Witelson S.F. 1977. Anatomic asymmetry in the temporal lobes: Its documentation phylogenesis and relationship to functional asymmetry. In Diamond S.J. Blizard D.A. (Eds.) Evolution and lateralization of the brain. Annals of The New York Academy of Sciences Vol. 299 pp. 328–354.

  • [49] Chomsky N. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

  • [50] Boeckx C. 2006. Linguistic minimalism: Origins concepts methods and aims. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • [51] Boeckx C. (Ed.) 2006. Minimalist essays. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • [52] Al-Mutairi F.R. 2014. The minimalist program: The nature and plausibility of Chomsky’s biolinguistics. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • [53] Berwick R.C. Chomsky N. 2016. Why only us: Language and evolution. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

  • [54] Chomsky N. 1999. Derivation by phase. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

  • [55] Hauser M. Chomsky N. Fitch T. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it who has it and how did it evolve? Science 2985598 1569–1579.

  • [56] Fitch T. Hauser M. 2004. Computational constraints on syntactic processing in a Nonhuman primate. Science 303(56) 377–380.

  • [57] Hauser M. Fitch T. 2003. What are the uniquely human components of the language faculty? In Christiansen M. Kirby S. (Eds.) Language evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press pp. 158–181.

  • [58] Fitch T. Hauser M. Chomsky N. 2005. The evolution of the language faculty: Clarifications and implications. Cognition 97(2) 179–210.

  • [59] Enard W. Przeworski M. Fisher S.E. et al. 2002. Molecular evolution of FOXP2 a gene involved in speech and language. Nature 4186900 869–872.

  • [60] Vargha-Khadem F. Watkins K. Alcock K. et al. 1995. Praxic and nonverbal cognitive deficits in a large family with a genetically transmitted speech and language disorder. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 92(3) 930–933.

  • [61] Vargha-Khadem F. Gadian D.G. Copp A. et al. 2005. FOXP2 and the neuroanatomy of speech and language. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 6(2) 131–138.

  • [62] MacDermot K.D. Bonora E. Sykes N. et al. 2005. Identification of FOXP2 truncation as a novel cause of developmental speech and language deficits. The American Journal of Human Genetics 76(6) 1074–1080.

  • [63] Krause J. Alueza-Fox C. Orlando L. et al. 2007. The derived FOXP2 variant of modern humans was shared with Neandertals. Current Biology 17(21) 1908–1912.

  • [64] Christiansen M. Kirby S. (Eds.) 2003. Language evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • [65] Di Sciullo A.M. Boeckx C. (Eds.) 2011. The biolinguistic enterprise: New perspectives on the evolution and nature of the human language faculty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • [66] Pinker S. Jackendoff R. 2005. The faculty of language: what’s special about it? Cognition 95(2) 201–236.

  • [67] Jackendoff R. Pinker S. 2005. The nature of the language faculty and its implications for evolution of language (Reply to Fitch Hauser and Chomsky). Cognition 97(2) 211–225.

  • [68] Fitch T. 2011. “Deep homology” in the biology and evolution of language. In Di Sciullo A.M. Boeckx C. (Eds.) The biolinguistic enterprise: New perspectives on the evolution and nature of the human language faculty. Oxford: Oxford University Press pp. 135–168.

  • [69] Sebeok T.A. (Ed.) 1977. How animals communicate. Bloomington Indiana: Indiana University Press.

  • [70] Witzany G. (Ed.) 2014. Biocommunication of animals. Netherlands: Springer.

  • [71] Maynard-Smith J.; Harper D. 2003. Animal signals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • [72] Marler P. 1984. Animal communication: Affect or cognition? In Scherer K.R. Ekman P. (Eds.) Approaches to emotion. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates pp. 345–65.

  • [73] Seyfarth R.M. Cheney D.L. 1982. How Monkeys see the world: Areview of recent research on East African Vervet Monkeys. In Snowdon C.T. Brown C.H. Petersen M.R. (Eds.) Primate communication. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press pp. 239–52.

  • [74] Seyfarth R.M. Cheney D.L. 1986. Vocal development in vervet Monkeys. Animal Behaviour 34 1640–58.

  • [75] Zuberbühler K. 2002. A syntactic rule in forest monkey communication. Animal Behaviour 63(2) 293–299.

  • [76] Marler P. 1977. The evolution of communication. In Sebeok T.A. (Ed.) How animals communicate. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press pp. 45–70.

  • [77] Demers R.A. 1988. Linguistics and animal communication. In Newmeyer F.J. (Ed.) Linguistics: The cambridge survey vol. III. Language: Psychological and biological aspects. New York: Cambridge University Press pp. 314–335.

  • [78] Rendall D. Owren M.J. 2013. Communication without meaning or information: Abandoning language-based and informational constructs in animal communication theory. In Stegmann U.E. (Ed.) Animal communication theory: Information and influence. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press pp. 151–188.

  • [79] Haven Wiley R. 2013. Communication as a transfer of information: Measurement mechanism and meaning. In Stegmann U.E. (Ed.) Animal communication theory: Information and influence. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 113-132.

  • [80] Bowling D.L. Fitch W.T. 2015. Do animal communication systems have phonemes? Trends in Cognitive Sciences. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2015.08.011

  • [81] Yip M.J. 2006. The search for phonology in other species. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(10) 442–446.

  • [82] Marler P. 2000. Origins of music and speech: Insights from animals. In Wallin N. Merker B. Brown S. (Eds.) The origins of music. Cambridge: The MIT Press pp. 31–48.

  • [83] Barton R.A. Dunbar R. 1997. Evolution of the social brain. In Byrne R. Whiten A. (Eds.) Machiavellian intelligence II. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press pp. 240–263.

  • [84] Petrides M. 2013. Neuroanatomy of language regions of the human brain. Elsevier: Academic Press.

  • [85] Ardila A. Ostrosky-Solis F. (Eds.) 1989. Brain organization of language and cognitive processes. New York NY: Plenum Publishing Company.

  • [86] Breznitz Z. (Ed.) 2007. Brain research in language. Berlin: Springer.

  • [87] Schnelle H. 2010. Language in the brain. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • [88] Lamb S.M. 1999. Pathways of the brain: The neurocognitive basis of language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

  • [89] Pulvermüller F. 2002. The neuroscience of language: On brain circuits of words and serial order. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • [90] Wray A.J. 1992. The focusing hypothesis: The 49 theory of left hemisphere lateralised language re-examined. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

  • [91] Pike K.L. 1967. Language in relation to a unified theory of structure of human behavior. The Hague Netherlands: Mouton.

  • [92] Bloom P. 2000. How children learn the meanings of words. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

  • [93] Taylor C. 2016. The language animal: The full shape of the human linguistic capacity. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

  • [94] Lieberman P. 2013. The unpredictable species: What makes humans unique. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

  • [95] Jackendoff R. 1987. The status of thematic roles in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18 369–411.

  • [96] Saffran E.M. Schwartz M.F. Linebarger M.C. 1998. Semantic influences on thematic role assignment: Evidence from normals and aphasics. Brain and Language 62(2) 255–297.

  • [97] Bornkessel I. Schlesewsky M. Comrie B. et al. (Eds.) 2006. Semantic role universals and argument linking: Theoretical typological and psycholinguistic perspectives. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.

  • [98] Luraghi S. Narrog H. (Eds.) 2014. Perspectives on semantic roles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

  • [99] Terrace H.S. 1979. Nim: A Chimapnzee who learned sign language. New York: Knopf.

  • [100] Terrace H.S. 1979. How Nim Chimpsky changed my mind. Psychology Today November 1979 pp. 65–76

  • [101] Terrace H.S. 1980. More on Monkey talk: Response to Patterson ‘ s rejoinder to Martin Gardners review of Nim and speaking of apes. New York Review of Books 4 December 1980 p. 59.

  • [102] Terrace H.S. 1981. A report to the academy 1980. In Sebeok T.A. Rosenthal R. (Eds.) The Clever Hans phenomenon: Communication with horses whales apes and people. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences Vol. 364 pp. 94–114.

  • [103] Terrace. 1984

  • [104] Bowerman M. 1990. Mapping thematic roles onto syntactic functions: Are children helped by innate linking rules? Linguistics 28(6) 1253–1289.

  • [105] Noble C.H. Rowland C.F. Pine J.M. 2011. Comprehension of argument structure and semantic roles: Evidence from english-learning children and the forced-choice pointing paradigm. Cognitive Science 35(5) 963–982.

  • [106] Deffler S.A. Fox C. Ogle C.M. et al. 2016. All my children: The roles of semantic category and phonetic similarity in the misnaming of familiar individuals. Memory & Cognition 44(7) 989–99.

  • [107] Brooks P. Tomasello M. 1999. How children constrain their argument structure constructions. Language 75(4) 720–738.

  • [108] Theakston A.L. 2012. “The spotty cow tickled the pig with a curly tail”: How do sentence position preferred argument structure and referential complexity affect children’s and adults’ choice of referring expression? Applied Psycholinguistics (04) 691–724.

  • [109] McClure K. Pine J.M. Lieven E.V.M. 2006. Investigating the abstractness of children’s early knowledge of argument structure. Journal of Child Language 33(04) 693–720.

  • [110] Peter M. Chang F. Pine J.M. et al. 2015. When and how do children develop knowledge of verb argument structure? Evidence from verb bias effects in a structural priming task. Journal of Memory and Language 81 1–15.

  • [111] Naigles L.R. Lehrer N. 2002. Languagegeneral and language-specific influences on children’s acquisition of argument structure: A comparison of French and English. Journal of Child Language 29(03) 545–566.

  • [112] Braine M.D.S. Brody R.E. Fisch S.M. et al. 1990. Can children use a verb without exposure to its argument structure? Journal of Child Language 17(02) 313–342.

  • [113] Naigles L.R. Maltempo A. 2011. Verb argument structure acquisition in young children: Defining a role for discourse. Journal of Child Language 38(03) 662–674.

  • [114] Chomsky N. 1957. Syntactic structures Second Edition 2002. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • [115] Kako E. 1999. Elements of syntax in the systems of three language-trained animals. Learning & Behavior 27(1) 1–14.

  • [116] Powers S. 2001. A minimalist approach to phrase structure acquisition. In Alexandrova G.M. Arnaudova O. (Eds.) The minimalist parameter: Selected papers from the open linguistics forum Ottawa 21–23 March 1997 pp. 33–50.

  • [117] Fodor J.D. Crain S. 1987. Simplicity and generality of rules in language acquisition. In MacWhinney B. (Ed.) Mechanisms of language acquisition: Proceedings of the 20th Annual Carnegie Mellon Symposium on Cognition. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates pp. 35–64.

  • [118] Friederici A.D. 1983. Children’s sensitivity to function words during sentence comprehension. Linguistics 21(5) 717–739.

  • [119] Maloney E.M. Payne D.L. Redford M.A. 2012. What children’s pause patterns indicate about their constituent structure. In BUCLD 36 Proceedings Supplement. Boston MA.

  • [120] Taeschner T. Devescovi A. Volterra V. 1988. Affixes and function words in the written language of deaf children. Applied Psycholinguistics 9(04) 385–401.

  • [121] Schlaggar B.L. 2002. Functional neuroanatomical differences between adults and school-age children in the processing of single words. Science 2965572 1476–1479.

  • [122] Gass S. Ard J. 1980. L2 data: Their relevance for language universals. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Quarterly 14(4) 443–452.

  • [123] Gaer E.P. 1969. Children’s understanding and production of sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 8(2) 289–294.

  • [124] Karlsson F. 2007. Constraints on multiple centerembedding of clauses. Journal of Linguistics 43(2) 365–392.

  • [125] Clark A. Lappin S. 2011. Linguistic nativism and the poverty of the stimulus. Wiley-Blackwell.

  • [126] Laurence S. Margolis E. 2001. The poverty of the stimulus argument. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52(2) 217–276.

  • [127] Berwick R.C. Okanoya K. Beckers G.J.L. et al. 2011. Songs to syntax: The linguistics of birdsong. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 15(3) 113–121.

  • [128] Berwick R.C. Pietroski P. Yankama B. et al. 2011. Poverty of the stimulus revisited. Cognitive Science 35(7) 1207–1242.

  • [129] Vallauri E.L. 2004. The relation between mind and language: The innateness hypothesis and the poverty of the stimulus. The Linguistic Review 21(3) 345–387.

  • [130] Lidz J. Waxman S. 2004. Reaffirming the poverty of the stimulus argument: A reply to the replies. Cognition 93(2) 157–165.

  • [131] Legate J.A. Yang C.D. 2002. Empirical reassessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review 18(1–2) 151–162.

  • [132] Fodor J.D. Crowther C. 2002. Understanding stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review 18(1–2) 106–145.

  • [133] Thomas M. 2002. Development of the concept of “the poverty of the stimulus”. The Linguistic Review 18(1-2) 51–71.

  • [134] Pullum G.K. Scholz B.C. 2002. Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review 18(1–2) 9–50.

  • [135] Lasnik H. Uriagereka J. 2002. On the poverty of the challenge. The Linguistic Review 18(1–2) 147–150.

  • [136] Limber J. 1977. Language in child and chimp? American Psychologist 32 280–95.

  • [137] Redshaw M. 1978. Cognitive development in humans and gorilla infants. Journal of Human Evolution 7 133–141.

  • [138] Greenfield P.M. Savage-Rumbaugh S.E. 1993. Comparing communicative competence in child and chimp: The pragmatics of repetition. Journal of Child Language 20 1–26.

  • [139] Dalby M.A. 1977. Aetiological studies in language retarded children. Neuropediatrics 8(1) 499–500.

  • [140] Prior M.R. Frolley M. Sanson A. 1983. Language lateralization in specific reading retarded children and backward readers. Cortex 19(2) 149–163.

  • [141] Fowler A.E. 1984. Language Acquisition of Down’s Syndrome Children: Production and Comprehension. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation University of Pennsylvania.

  • [142] Paul R. Dykens E. Leckman J.F. et al. 1987. A comparison of language characteristics of mentally retarded adults with fragile X syndrome and those with nonspecific mental retardation and autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 17(4) 457–468.

  • [143] Abbeduto L. Boudreau D. 2004. Theoretical influences on research on language development and intervention in individuals with mental retardation. Development Disabilities Research Reviews 10(3) 184–192.

  • [144] Fedor A. Ittzés P. Szathmáry E. 2009. The biological background of syntax evolution. In Bickerton D. Szathmáry E. (Eds.) Biological foundations and origin of syntax. Cambridge MA: MIT Press pp. 15–40.

  • [145] Bishop D.V.M. 2009. What can developmental language impairment tell us about the genetic bases of syntax? In Bickerton D. Szathmáry E. (Eds.) Biological foundations and origin of syntax. Cambridge MA: MIT Press pp. 185–206.

  • [146] Dediu D. Ladd D. 2007. Linguistic tone is related to the population frequency ofthe adaptive haplogroups of two brain size genes Microcephalin and ASPM. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(26) pp. 10944–10949.

  • [147] Woods C.G. Bond J. Enard W. 2005. Autosomal recessive primary microcephaly (MCPH): A review of clinical molecular and evolutionary findings. The American Journal of Human Genetics 76(5) 717–728.

  • [148] Lenneberg E.H. 1967. Biological foundation of language. New York: John Wiley.

  • [149] Grela B.G. 2003. Do children with Down syndrome have difficulty with argument structure? Journal of Communication Disorders 36(4) 263–279.

  • [150] Pepperberg I. 1983. Cogniton in the African Grey Parrot: Preliminary evidence for auditory/vocal comprehension of the class concept. Animal Learning and Behavior 11 175–85.

  • [151] Pepperberg I. 1987. Acquisition of the same/different concept by an African Grey Parrot (Psittacus erithacus): Learning with respect to categories of color shape and material. Animal Learning and Behavior 15 423–432.

  • [152] Pepperberg I. 1987. Evidence for conceptual quantitative abilities in the African Grey Parrot: Labeling of cardinal sets. Ethology 75 37–61.

  • [153] Pepperberg I. 1990. Conceptual abilities of some nonprimate species with an emphasis on an African Grey Parrot. In: Parker S.T. Gibson K.R. (Eds.) „Language“ and intelligence in monkeys and apes. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press pp. 469–507.

  • [154] Pepperberg I. 1990. Cognition in an African Gray Parrot (Psittacus erithacus): Further evidence for comprehension of categories and labels. Journal of Comparative Psychology 104(1) pp. 41–52.

  • [155] Shettleworth S.J. 2010. Cognition evolution and behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • [156] Dapretto M. Bookheimer S.Y. 1999. Form and content: Dissociating syntax and semantics in sentence comprehension. Neuron 24(2) 427–432.

  • [157] Wright P. Stamatakis E.A. Tyler L.K. 2012. Differentiating hemispheric contributions to syntax and semantics in patients with lefthemisphere lesions. Journal of Neuroscience 32(24) 8149–8157.

  • [158] Ullman M.T. 2001. A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/procedural model. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2(10) 717–726.

  • [159] Miozzo M. Fischer-Baum S. Postman J.A. 2010. A selective deficit for inflection production. Neuropsychologia 48(9) 2427–2436.

  • [160] Połczyńska M. Curtiss S. Walshaw P. et al. 2014. Grammar tests increase the ability to lateralize language function in the Wada test. Epilepsy Research 108(10) 1864–1873.

  • [161] Bornkessel I. Zysset S. Friederici A.D.F. et al. 2005. Who did what to whom? The neural basis of argument hierarchies during language comprehension. NeuroImage 26(1) pp. 221–233.

  • [162] Menenti L. Gierhan S.M.E. Segaert K. et al. 2011. Shared language: Overlap and segregation of the neuronal infrastructure for speaking and listening revealed by functional MRI. Psychological Science 22(9) 1173–1182.

  • [163] Dronkers N.F. Wilkins D.P. Van Valin R.D.Jr. et al. 2004. Lesion analysis of the brain areas involved in language comprehension. Cognition 92(1–2) 145–177.

  • [164] Yamada Y. Neville H.J. 2007. An ERP study of syntactic processing in English and nonsense sentences. Brain Research 1130 167–180.

  • [165] Batterink L. Neville H.J. 2013. The human brain processes syntax in the absence of conscious awareness. Journal of Neuroscience 33(19) 8528–8533.

  • [166] Pulvermüller F. Shtyrov Y. Hasting A.S. et al. 2008. Syntax as a reflex: Neurophysiological evidence for early automaticity of grammatical processing. Brain and Language 104(3) 244–253.

  • [167] Pulvermüller F. Assadollahi R. 2007. Grammar or serial order? Discrete combinatorial brain mechanisms reflected by the syntactic mismatch negativity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 19(6) 971–980.

  • [168] Sauerland U. Gärtner H.M. (Eds.) 2007. Interfaces + recursion = language? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • [169] Terrace. 1983

  • [170] Rowe D.L. Cooper N.J. Liddell B.J. et al. 2007. Brain Structure and Function Correlates of general and social cognition. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience 06(01) 35–74.

  • [171] Atkinson A.P. Wheeler M. 2004. The grain of domains: The evolutionary-psychological case against domain-general cognition. Mind & Language 19(2) 147–176.

  • [172] Deaner R.O. van Schaik C.P. Johnson V. 2006. Do some taxa have better domain-general cognition than others? A meta-analysis of Nonhuman primate studies. Evolutionary Psychology 4(1) 149–196.

  • [173] Geary D.C. 2004. Origin of mind: Evolution of brain cognition and general intelligence. Washington DC USA: American Psychological Association (APA).

  • [174] Roberts M.J. (Ed.) 2007. Integrating the mind: Domain general versus domain specific processes in higher cognition. Hove UK: Psychology Press.

  • [175] Martindale C. Covello E. West A. 1986. Primary process cognition and hemispheric asymmetry. The Journal of Genetic Psychology 147(1) 79–87.

  • [176] Pulvermüller F. Kherif F. Hauk O. et al. 2009. Distributed cell assemblies for general lexical and category-specific semantic processing as revealed by fMRI cluster analysis. Human Brain Mapping 30(12) 3837–3850.

  • [177] Loring D.W. Meador K.J. Lee G.P. et al. 1992. Amobarbital effects and lateralized brain function: The Wada test. New York: Springer-Verlag.

  • [178] Abou-Khalil B. 2007. An update on determination of language dominance in screening for epilepsy surgery: The Wada test and newer noninvasive alternatives. Epilepsia 48(3) 442–455.

  • [179] Doss R.C. Zhang W. Risse G.L. et al. 2009. Lateralizing language with magnetic source imaging: Validation based on the Wada test. Epilepsia 50(10) 2242–2248.

  • [180] Gutbrod K. Spring D. Degonda N. et al. 2012. Determination of language dominance: Wada test and fMRI compared using a novel sentence task. Journal of Neuroimaging 22(3) 1–9.

  • [181] Gazzaniga M.S. 1980. The role of language for conscious experience: Observations from splitbrain man. Progress in Brain Research 54 689–696.

  • [182] Levy J. Trevarthen C. 1977. Perceptual semantic and phonetic aspects of elementary language processes in split-brain patients. Brain 100(1) 105–118.

  • [183] Goodman R.A. Whitaker H.A. 1985. Hemispherectomy: A review (1928-1981) with special reference to the linguistic abilities and disabilities if the residual right hemisphere. In Best C.T. (Ed.) Hemispheric function and collaboration in the child. New York: Academic Press pp. 121–156.

  • [184] Grabowecky M. Kingstone A. 2004. Can semantic information be transferred between hemispheres in the split-brain? Brain and Cognition 55(2) 310–313.

  • [185] Lambert A.J. 1991. Interhemispheric interaction in the split-brain. Neuropsychologia 29(10) 941–948.

  • [186] Kingstone A. Gazzaniga M.S. 1995. Subcortical transfer of higher order information: More illusory than real? Neuropsychology 9(3) 321–328.

  • [187] Lambert A.J. Beard C.T. Thompson R.J. 1988. Selective attention visual laterality awareness and perceiving the meaning of parafoveally presented words. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 40(4) 615–652.

  • [188] Linebarger M.C. Schwartz M.F. Saffran E.M. 1983. Sensitivity to grammatical structure in socalled agrammatic aphasics. Cognition 13(3) 361–392.

  • [189] Zurif E. Grodzinsky Y. 1983. Sensitivity to grammatical structure in agrammatic aphasics: A reply to Linebarger Schwartz and Saffran. Cognition 15(1–3) pp. 207–213.

  • [190] Linebarger M.C. Schwartz M.F. Saffran E.M. 1983. Syntactic processing in agrammatism: A reply to Zurif and Grodzinsky. Cognition 15(1–3) 215–225.

  • [191] Schwartz M.F. Linebarger M.C. Saffran E.M. et al. 1987. Syntactic transparency and sentence interpretation in aphasia. Language and Cognitive Processes 2(2) 85–113.

  • [192] Hinzen W. 2006. Mind design and minimal syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • [193] Hinzen W. 2007. An essay on names and truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • [194] Hinzen W. 2011. Language and thought. In: Boeckx C. (Ed.) The Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press Chapter 22.

  • [195] Hinzen W. 2012. The emergence of complex language. In McFarland D. Stenning K. McGonigle-Chalmers M. (Eds.) The complex mind an interdisciplinary approach. Basingstoke Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan pp. 243–263.

  • [196] Hinzen W. Sheehan M. 2013. The philosophy of universal grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • [197] Terrace H.S. 2005. Metacognition and the evolution of language. In Terrace H. Metcalfe J. (Eds.) The Missing link in cognition: Origins of self-reflective consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press pp. 84–115.

  • [198] Forrester G.S. 2008. A multidimensional approach to investigations of behaviour: Revealing structure in animal communication signals. Animal Behaviour 76(5) 1749–1760.

  • [199] Kauffman S.A. 2000. Investigations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • [200] Boeckx C. 2009. The nature of merge: Consequences for language mind and biology. In Piattelli-Palmarini M. Uriagereka J. Salaburu P. (Eds.) Of minds and language: a dialogue with Noam Chomsky in the Basque country. Oxford: Oxford University Press pp. 44–57.

  • [201] Boeckx C. 2012. The emergence of language from a biolinguistic point of view. In Tallerman M. Gibson K.R. (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of language evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press pp. 492–501.

  • [202] Chomsky N. 1990. On formalization and formal linguistics. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 8(1) 143–147.

  • [203] Jackendoff R. 1993. Patterns in the mind: Language and human nature. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

  • [204] Jackendoff R. 2002. Foundations of language: Brain meaning grammar evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • [205] Jackendoff R. 2007. A parallel architecture perspective on language processing. Brain Research 1146 2–22.

  • [206] Pinker S. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Search
Journal information
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 42 42 8
PDF Downloads 12 12 4