Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-cx56b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-17T07:38:35.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Daniel L. Everett, Language: the cultural tool. New York: Pantheon Books. Pp. 351. ISBN 978-0-307-37853-8

Review products

Daniel L. Everett, Language: the cultural tool. New York: Pantheon Books. Pp. 351. ISBN 978-0-307-37853-8

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 March 2015

CHRISTINA BEHME*
Affiliation:
Mount Saint Vincent University, CanadaE-mail: christinabehme@gmail.com

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Review
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2015 

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

references

Arbib, M. A. (2005). From monkey-like action recognition to human language: an evolutionary framework for neurolinguistics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 105167.Google ScholarPubMed
Chomsky, N. (2012). The science of language – interviews with James McGilvray. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (1999). Toward a connectionist model of recursion in human linguistic performance. Cognitive Science, 23, 157205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Economist (2012). Understanding language talk, talk. Online: <http://www.economist.com/node/21550238> (last accessed 3 March 2015).+(last+accessed+3+March+2015).>Google Scholar
Enfield, N., & Levinson, S. (2006). Roots of human sociality: culture, cognition, and interaction. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Evans, N., & Levinson, S. (2009). The myth of language universals: language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 429448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, V. (2014). The language myth: why language is not an instinct. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gil, D. (2009). How much grammar does it take to sail a boat? In Sampson, G., Gil, D., & Trudgill, P. (Eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable (pp. 1933). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurford, J. (2011). The origins of grammar: language in the light of evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2011). What is the human language faculty? Two Views. Language, 87, 586624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R., & Pinker, S. (2005). the nature of the Language Faculty and its implications for the evolution of language (reply to Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky). Cognition, 97, 211225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D., & Lappin, S. (1997). A critique of the Minimalist Program. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 273333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, J. J. (1981). Language and other abstract objects. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. (1996). The unfinished Chomskyan revolution. Mind and Language, 11, 270294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, J. J., & Postal, P. M. (1991). Realism vs. conceptualism in linguistics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14, 515554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, P. (2013). The unpredictable species: what makes humans unique. New York: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2005). A unified model of language acquisition. In Kroll, J. F. & De Groot, A. M. B. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 4967). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2010). Computational models of child language learning. Journal of Child Language, 37, 477485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Postal, P. M. (2004). Skeptical linguistic essays. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar