Empirical re-assessment of stimulus poverty arguments

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.