Understanding stimulus poverty arguments

Abstract The argument from the poverty of the stimulus as Pullum and Scholz define it (their APS) is undeniably true, given that all language learners acquire the ability to generate more sentences of the target language than they have heard. Uniformity across learners with respect to the additional sentences they project suggests that grammar induction is guided by general principles, which must be innate. What remains to be established is exactly which sentences can be projected on the basis of which others. The details of this are important to linguistic theory and to the psycho-computational modelling of natural language acquisition. They are not of great significance to the generic issue of nativism versus empiricism, except that they may clarify the extent to which the innate knowledge in question is specific to language. The argument for linguistic nativism appears to be solidly supported by the distinctive patterns of generalization that learners adopt in the absence of systematic negative evidence (a limitation that Pullum and Scholz exclude from APS). We argue that innate knowledge of how to represent natural language facts is necessary in order for learners to extract from their input the information that it does contain. Pullum and Scholz themselves rely on Universal Grammar in just this role when they make specific suggestions as to how learners arrive at the right generalizations.

[1]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  वाक्यविन्यास का सैद्धान्तिक पक्ष = Aspects of the theory of syntax , 1965 .

[2]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Problems of Knowledge and Freedom , 1971 .

[3]  John P. Kimball,et al.  The Formal Theory of Grammar , 1973 .

[4]  E. Newport MOTHERESE: THE SPEECH OF MOTHERS TO YOUNG CHILDREN. , 1975 .

[5]  H. Gleitman,et al.  Mother, Id rather do it myself: Some effects and non-effects of maternal speech style , 1977 .

[6]  C. A. Ferguson,et al.  Talking to Children: Language Input and Acquisition , 1979 .

[7]  Kenneth Wexler,et al.  Formal Principles of Language Acquisition , 1980 .

[8]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Lectures on Government and Binding , 1981 .

[9]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Rules and representations , 1980, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[10]  I. Crispin Wright on Wittgenstein , 1982 .

[11]  Noam Chomsky Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding , 1982 .

[12]  D. Osherson,et al.  Learning theory and natural language , 1984, Cognition.

[13]  Stephen Crain,et al.  Simplicity and Generality of Rules in Language Acquisition. , 1984 .

[14]  Steven Pinker,et al.  Language learnability and language development , 1985 .

[15]  Robert C. Berwick,et al.  The acquisition of syntactic knowledge , 1985 .

[16]  Noam Chomsky Knowledge of Language , 1986 .

[17]  Rita M. Manzini,et al.  Parameters, binding theory and learnability , 1987 .

[18]  R. Loui,et al.  Change in View , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[19]  S. Crain,et al.  Structure dependence in grammar formation , 1987 .

[20]  Steven Pinker Markedness and Language Development , 1989 .

[21]  G. Sampson LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: GROWTH OR LEARNING? , 1989 .

[22]  Y. Grodzinsky The language learner: A trigger-happy kid? , 1989, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[23]  D. Lightfoot The child's trigger experience: Degree-0 learnability , 1989, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[24]  B. MacWhinney The CHILDES project: tools for analyzing talk , 1992 .

[25]  Liliane Haegeman,et al.  Introduction to Government and Binding Theory , 1991 .

[26]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The Minimalist Program , 1992 .

[27]  G. Marcus Negative evidence in language acquisition , 1993, Cognition.

[28]  Michael R. Brent,et al.  From Grammar to Lexicon: Unsupervised Learning of Lexical Syntax , 1993, Comput. Linguistics.

[29]  Richard Hudson,et al.  About 37% of word-tokens are nouns , 1994 .

[30]  S. Pinker The Language Instinct , 1994 .

[31]  P. Niyogi,et al.  Learning from triggers , 1996 .

[32]  M. Brent Advances in the computational study of language acquisition , 1996, Cognition.

[33]  J. Elman,et al.  Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development , 1996 .

[34]  Janet Dean Fodor,et al.  Parsing to Learn , 1998 .

[35]  D. Lightfoot The Development of Language: Acquisition, Change, and Evolution , 1999 .

[36]  S. Pinker Words and Rules: The Ingredients of Language , 1999 .

[37]  Janet Dean Fodor,et al.  Language Acquisition and Learnability: The Structural Triggers Learner , 2001 .

[38]  Barbara C. Scholz,et al.  Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments , 2002 .