Cover not available
Review published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 40:1 (2016) ► pp.235–252
Book review

Vyvyan Evans. The language myth: Why language is not an instinct. Cambridge University Press, 2014. xi, 304 pp. ISBN 978-1-107-61975-3paperback 978-1-107-04396-1hardback

Reviewed by
Published online: 29 April 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.40.1.09lap
References (78)
References
Adger, David. 2015. Mythical myths: Comments on Vyvyan Evan’s “The language myth”. Lingua 1581: 76–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Alun. 2014. Why language is neither an instinct nor innate. Review of The language myth: Why language is not an instinct, by Vyvyan Evans. The New Scientist, October 18 2014. [URL]
Anderson, Michael. in press. Précis of After Phrenology: Neural Reuse and the Interactive Brain . Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2015.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 2005. Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text 25.1: 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2003. Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Behme, Christina. 2014. A ‘Galilean’ science of language (Review article of The Science of Language: Interviews with James McGilvray, by Noam Chomsky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012). Journal of Linguistics 501: 671–704. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Behme, Christina & Vyvyan Evans. 2015. Leaving the myth behind: A reply to Adger (2015). Lingua, 1621: 149–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa. 2004. From universal to language-specific in early grammatical development [Reprint]. In K. Trott, S. Dobbinson, & P. Griffiths (eds.), The child language reader, 131–146. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2007. Containment, support, and beyond: Constructing topological spatial categories in first language acquisition. In M. Aurnague, M. Hickmann, & L. Vieu (eds.), The categorization of spatial entities in language and cognition, 177–203. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa, & Soonja Choi. 2003. Space under construction: Language-specific spatial categorization in first language acquisition. In D. Gentner, & S. Goldin-Meadow (eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought, 387–427. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2006. From usage to grammar: the mind’s response to repetition. Language 82.4: 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chao, Yuen Ren. 1934. On the non-uniqueness of phonemic solutions of phonetic systems. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 41: 363–397.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1959. A review of BF Skinner’s Verbal behavior . Language 351: 26–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1966. Cartesian linguistics: a chapter in the history of rationalist thought. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
. 2012. The science of language: Interviews with James McGilvray. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. and M. Selting. 2001. Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 2012. Are lexical categories universal? The view from Chamorro. Theoretical Linguistics 38 (1–2): 1–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Busser, Rik & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.). 2015. Language structure and environment: Social, cultural, and natural factors. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2006. Functionalism and the Theory – Metalanguage confusion. In Phonology, morphology, and the empirical imperative: Papers in honour of Bruce Derwing, edited by Grace Wiebe, Gary Libben, Tom Priestly, Ron Smyth, and Sam Wang, pp. 27–59. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Dunbar, Ewan, Dave Kush, Norbert Hornstein, & David Adger. 2015. 3 reasons why Evans’s Aeon piece is wrong and largely begs the questions that generative linguists have been trying to address for over 60 years (A short series of posts) [URL]
Engh, A. E., Hoffmeier, R. R., Cheney, D. L. & Seyfarth, R. M. 2006. Who, me? Can baboons infer the target of vocalisations? Animal Behaviour 711: 381–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Stephen C. Levinson. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 321: 429–492. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan. 2014. Real talk: There is no language instinct. Aeon [URL]
. 2015a. The shape-shifting malleability of ‘universals’ in UG. Language in the Mind blog, Psychology Today [URL]
. 2015b. The structure of scientific revolutions: reflections on radical fundamentalism in language science. Language in the Mind blog, Psychology Today [URL]
. 2015c. Joining the dodo. Language in the Mind blog, Psychology Today [URL]
Everett, Daniel. 2005. Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã: another look at the design features of human language. Current Anthropology 461: 621–646. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Ray W. & Guy Van Orden. 2010. Adaptive cognition without massive modularity. Language and Cognition 21: 149–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gray, Bennison. 1980. The impregnability of American linguistics: An historical sketch. Lingua 501: 5–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edition. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Harris, Roy. 1981. The language myth. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2002. Formal and functional explanation. Handout for lectures at Düsseldorf Summer School, 2002. Available from [URL]
. 2004. Does linguistic explanation presuppose linguistic description? Studies in Language 28.3: 554–579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Framework-free grammatical theory. In Heine, Bernd & Narrog, Heiko (eds.) The Oxford handbook of grammatical analysis, 341–365. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hauser, Marc D., Noam Chomsky, & W. Tecumseh Titch. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 2981: 1569–1579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1960. The origin of speech. Scientific American 2031: 89–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1967. Where the tongue slips, there slip I. In: To honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the occasion of his seventieth birthday 11 October 1966, 910–36. The Hague: Mouton. [Reprinted in Hockett 1977, 226–56.]Google Scholar
1968. The state of the art. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1977. The view from language. Athens: The University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 2008. An introduction to sociolinguistics, 3rd edition. London: Pearson Education ESL.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 2011. Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In P. Auer & S. Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, 22–44. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Emergent grammar. In James Paul Gee & Michael Handford (eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis, 301–314. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2014. The verdict is in regarding Evans’ book. [URL]
. 2015a. Quotational dyslexia: Thank you Masked Man. [URL]
. 2015b. Does the LSA and its flagship journal ‘Language’ have any regard for Generative Grammar? [URL]
Itkonen, Esa. 1996. Concerning the generative paradigm. Journal of Pragmatics 251: 471–501. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
James, William. 1907. Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. Project Gutenberg EBook.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [ International encyclopedia of Unified Science Vol. 2, No. 2]Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1989. The way we were; or; the real actual truth about generative semantics: a memoir. Journal of Pragmatics 131: 939–988. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 1–63. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2002. Concept, image, and symbol, 2nd edition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 2015. On the logical necessity of a cultural connection for all aspects of linguistic structure. In De Busser & LaPolla 2015: 33–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Penny. 1996. The Whorf theory complex. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2006. On the human ‘interaction engine’. In N. J. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (eds.), Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction, 39–69. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Lieberman, Philip. 2015. Review of The science of language: Interviews with James McGilvray , by Noam Chomsky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Modern Language Review 110.1: 222–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Love, Nigel. 2004. Cognition and the language myth. Language Sciences 261: 525–544. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick. 1998. The irrelevance of typology for grammatical theory. Syntaxis 11: 161–197.Google Scholar
Onnis, Luca & Michael J. Spivey. 2012. A new model visualization for the language sciences. In L. Onnis & M. J. Spivey (eds.) Information, Special issue on Cognition and Communication 3(1): 124–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partan, S. R. & Marler, P. 1999. Communication goes multimodal. Science 2831: 1272–1273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Passos, Maria de Lourdes R. da F. & Maria Amelia Matos. 2007. The influence of Bloomfield’s linguistics on Skinner. The Behavior Analyst 30.2: 133–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1994. The language instinct. New York: William Morrow. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey. 2001. Empirical linguistics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 1997 [2005]. Educating Eve: The ‘language instinct’ debate (Second revised edition published in 2005 as The ‘language instinct’ debate). London: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
Seikel, J. A., D. W. King, & D. G. Drumright. 2010. Anatomy & physiology for speech, language, and hearing (4th ed.). Delmar, NY: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Seyfarth, Robert M. & Dorothy L. Cheney. 2008. Primate social knowledge and the origins of language. Mind & Society 71:129–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Social cognition. Animal Behaviour 1031: 191–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slocombe, Katie E., Bridget M. Waller, & Katja Liebal. 2011. The language void: the need for multimodality in primate communication research. Animal Behaviour 811: 919–924. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2005. The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Language and Linguistics 6.4: 807–837.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Paul Hopper. 2001. Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. In Joan Bybee and Paul Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 27–60. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 1995. Language is not an instinct. Cognitive Development 101: 131–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wardaugh, Ronald. 2002. An introduction to sociolinguistics, 4th edition. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Whiten, Andrew. 2013. Humans are not alone in computing how others see the world. Animal Behaviour 861: 213–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whorf, Benjamin Lee. 1956. Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, ed. by John B. Carroll. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

LaPolla, Randy J.
2016. Once again on methodology and argumentation in linguistics. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 39:2 ► pp. 282 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 2024. 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.