Article
Licensed
Unlicensed
Requires Authentication
Empirical re-assessment of stimulus poverty arguments
-
Julie Anne Legate
Published/Copyright:
February 27, 2008
Abstract
It is a fact that the child learner does not entertain logically possible but empirically impossible linguistic hypotheses, despite the absence of sufficient disconfirming evidence. While Pullum & Scholz claim to have shown the existence of disconfirming evidence, they fail to demonstrate its sufficiency. By situating the acquisition problem in a quantitative and comparative framework, we show that the evidence is, after all, insufficient. Hence the argument from the poverty of the stimulus, and the innateness of linguistic knowledge, stand unchallenged.
Published Online: 2008-02-27
Published in Print: 2002-06-26
© Walter de Gruyter
You are currently not able to access this content.
You are currently not able to access this content.
Articles in the same Issue
- Introduction
- Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments
- Development of the concept of “the poverty of the stimulus”
- Exploring the richness of the stimulus
- Understanding stimulus poverty arguments
- On the poverty of the challenge
- Empirical re-assessment of stimulus poverty arguments
- Why language acquisition is a snap
- Searching for arguments to support linguistic nativism
Articles in the same Issue
- Introduction
- Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments
- Development of the concept of “the poverty of the stimulus”
- Exploring the richness of the stimulus
- Understanding stimulus poverty arguments
- On the poverty of the challenge
- Empirical re-assessment of stimulus poverty arguments
- Why language acquisition is a snap
- Searching for arguments to support linguistic nativism
