The phylogeny and ontogeny of adaptations

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (3):283-284 (2006)
  Copy   BIBTEX


Locke & Bogin (L&B) rightly point to the absence of ontogeny in theories of language evolution. However, they overly rely upon ontogenetic data to isolate components of the language faculty. Only an adaptationist analysis, of the sort seen in evolutionary psychology, can carve language at its joints and lead to testable predictions about how language works.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,219

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The phylogeny fallacy and the ontogeny fallacy.Adam Hochman - 2013 - Biology and Philosophy 28 (4):593-612.
Language, tools, and brain revisited.Patricia M. Greenfield - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1):159-163.
Species selection on variability.Elisabeth A. Lloyd & Gould Stephen J. - 1993 - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 90:595-599.
Learning to internalize: A developmental perspective.Bruce Hood - 2001 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (4):676-677.
Evolution might select constructivism.James Hurford, Sam Joseph, Simon Kirby & Alastair Reid - 1997 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (4):567-568.


Added to PP

53 (#289,683)

6 months
8 (#303,628)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Can there ever be a non-specific adaptation? A response to Simon J. Hampton.Thomas E. Dickins - 2005 - Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 35 (3):329–340.

Add more references