References

[ p. 213 ]References

Adorni, R. & Proverbio, A. M.
(2012) The neural manifestation of the word concreteness effect: An electrical neuroimaging study. Neuropsychologia, 50, 880–891. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berwick, R. C. & Chomsky, N.
(2016) Why only us: Language and evolution. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Borer, H.
(2013) Taking form: Structuring sense Vol. III. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) The categories of roots. In A. Alexiadou, H. Borer, & F. Schäfer (Eds.), The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax (pp. 112–148). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.
(2012) Domain-general processes as the basis for grammar. In T. Maggie & K. R. Gibson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language evolution (pp. 528–536). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1970) Remarks on nominalization. In R. A. Jacobs & P. S. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar (pp. 184–221). Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
(1981) Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
(1986) Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
(1995) The Minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
(2005) Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007a) Approaching UG from below. In U. Sauerland & H. M. Gärtner (Eds.). Interfaces + recursion = language? (pp. 1–29). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2007b) Of minds and language. Biolinguistics, 1, 9–27.Google Scholar
(2010) Some simple evo-devo theses: How true might they be for language? In R. K. Larson, V. Déprez, & H. Yamakido. (Eds). The evolution of human language: Biolinguistic perspectives (pp. 45–62). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Minimal recursion: Exploring the prospects. In T. Roeper & M. Speas (Eds.), Recursion: Complexity in cognition (pp. 1–15). Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N., Gallego, A. J., & Ott, D.
(2019) Generative grammar and the faculty of language: Insights, questions, and challenges. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 0, 229–261. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Embick, D.
(2015) The morpheme: A theoretical introduction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Embick, D. & Noyer, R.
(2007) Distributed morphology and the syntax-morphology interface. In G. Ramchand & C. Reiss. (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces (pp. 289–324). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fitch, W. T.
(2017) On externalization and cognitive continuity in language evolution. Mind & Language, 32 (5), 597–606. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A.
(1983) The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 214 ]
Fujita, H.
(2017) On the emergence of human language: With special reference to the evolution of lexical items (Unpublished master’s thesis). Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.Google Scholar
(2019) From lexical protolanguage to modern language with functional categories. Paper presented at the 6th edition of the Protolang conference series (Protolang 6), Lisbon. Available online: https://​sites​.google​.com​/view​/protolang​-6​/program
Fujita, K.
(2013) Seiseibumpo kara shinkagengogaku e: Seiseibumpo no aratana kuwadate [From generative grammar to evolutionary linguistics: New generative enterprise]. In M. Ike-uchi & G. Takuya. (Eds). Seisei gengo kenkyu no ima [Current generative linguistic research] (pp. 95–123). Tokyo: Hitsuzi Shobo (in Japanese).Google Scholar
(2017) On the parallel evolution of syntax and lexicon: A Merge-only view. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 43 (B), 178–192. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Golston, C.
(2018) Phi-features in animal cognition. Biolinguistics, 12, 55–98.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Marantz, A.
(1993) Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser. (Eds). The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of sylvain bromberger (pp. 111–176). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, H.
(2014) On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics, 40 (3–4), 225–276. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, P.
(2016) The meaning of ‘life’ and other abstract words: Insights from neuropsychology. Journal of Neuropsychology, 10 (2), 317–343. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hurford, J. R.
(2018) Mutation, modularity, merge, communication and selection. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 21, 76–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Imai, M.
(2013) Kotoba no hattatsu no nazo wo toku [The enigma of lexical acquisition: How children construct the system of the lexicon]. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobo (in Japanese).Google Scholar
Johnson, M.
(1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kousta, S., Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Andrews, M., & Del Campo, E.
(2011) The representation of abstract words: Why emotion matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(1), 14–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kyoya, I.
(2014) The relation between abstract concepts and concrete information: A comparison of concrete words and abstract words. The journal of cultural sciences, 636, 1031–1023 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2000) A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Marantz, A.
(1997) No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 4(2), 201–225.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, D.
(2020) Blind Merge (Unpublished master’s thesis). Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.Google Scholar
[ p. 215 ]
Matsuzawa, T.
(2001) Primate foundations of human intelligence: a view of tool use in nonhuman primates and fossil hominids. In T. Matsuzawa (Ed.), Primate origins of human cognition and behavior (pp. 3–25). Tokyo: Springer-Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J.
(1998) Language form and language function. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Pepperberg, I. M.
(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 & Behavior, 15 (4), 423–432. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) Cognitive and communicative abilities of Grey Parrots. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 83–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S.
(2010) The cognitive niche: Coevolution of intelligence, sociality, and language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 8893–8999. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pleyer, M. & Winters, J.
(2014) Integrating cognitive linguistics and language evolution research. Theoria et Historia Scientiarum, 11, 19–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pulman, S. G.
(1983) Word meaning and belief. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P., Chemla, E., & Zuberbühler, K.
(2016) What do monkey calls mean? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(12), 894–904. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seyfarth, R. M., Cheney, D. L., & Marler, P.
(1980) Monkey responses to three different alarm calls: Evidence of predator classification and semantic communication. Science 210 (4471), 801–803. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. R.
(2003)Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(1999) The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, Mass.; London, UK: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA; London, England: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Kousta, S.-T., Della Rosa, P. A., Vinson, D. P., Tettamanti, M., Devlin, J. T., & Cappa, S. F.
(2014) The neural representation of abstract words: The role of emotion. Cerebral Cortex, 24, 1767–1777. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vonk, J. M. J., Obler, L. K., & Jonkers, R.
(2019) Levels of abstractness in semantic noun and verb processing: The role of sensory-perceptual and sensory‑motor information. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48 (3), 601–615. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wright, A. A., & Cumming, W. W.
(1971) Color-naming functions for the pigeon. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 15, 7–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Fujita, Haruka & Koji Fujita
2021. Human language evolution: a view from theoretical linguistics on how syntax and the lexicon first came into being. Primates Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 april 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.