Related links

Authoritative: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X08005220   (Publisher's PDF... likely be available here.)

Web search: Google Web Search   ::   Google Scholar

Abstract

I identify a number of problematic aspects of Christiansen & Chater's (C&C's) contribution. These include their suggestion that subjacency and binding reflect non-domain-specific mechanisms; that proto-language is a ; and that non-adaptationism requires overly rich innate structures, and is incompatible with acceptable evolutionary processes. It shows that a fully UG (Universal Grammar)-free version of the authors' neo-adaptationism would be incoherent.

@article{reuland08BBScomments,
  author={Eric Reuland},
  title={On language and evolution: Why neo-adaptationism fails},
  journal={Behavioral and Brain Sciences},
  year={2008},
  volume={31},
  number={5},
  pages={531-532},
  doi={10.1017/S0140525X08005220},
  url={http://www.isrl.uiuc.edu/~amag/langev/paper/reuland08BBScomments.html}
}