Abstract
My paper defends the use of the poverty of stimulus argument (POSA) for linguistic nativism against Cowie's (1999) counter-claim that it leaves empiricism untouched. I first present the linguistic POSA as arising from a reflection on the generality of the child's initial state in comparison with the specific complexity of its final state. I then show that Cowie misconstrues the POSA as a direct argument about the character of the pld. In this light, I first argue that the data Cowie marshals about the pld does not begin to suggest that the POSA is unsound. Second, through a discussion of the so-called `auxiliary inversion rule', I show, by way of diagnosis, that Cowie misunderstands both the methodology of current linguistics and the complexity of the data it is obliged to explain.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Bohanon, J., B. MacWhinney, and C. Snow: 1990, ‘No Negative Evidence Revisited: Beyond Learnability or Who Has to Prove What to Whom’, Developmental Psychology 26, 221–226.
Bohanon, J. and L. Stanowicz: 1988, ‘The Issue of Negative Evidence: Adult Responses to Children's Language Errors’, Developmental Psychology 24, 684–689.
Brown, R. and C. Hanlon: 1970, ‘Derivational Complexity and Order of Acquisition in Child Speech’, in J. Hayes (ed.), Cognition and the Development of Language, John Wiley, New York.
Chomsky, N.: 1957, Syntactic Structures, Mouton, The Hague.
Chomsky, N.: 1965, Aspects on the Theory of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, N.: 1968/72, Language and Mind (enlarged edition), Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York.
Chomsky, N.: 1975, Reflections on Language, Fontana, London.
Chomsky, N.: 1980, Rules and Representations, Columbia University Press, New York.
Chomsky, N.: 1986, Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use, Praeger, Westport.
Chomsky, N.: 1991, ‘Linguistics, a Personal View’, in A. Kasher (ed.), The Chomskyan Turn, Blackwell, Oxford.
Chomsky, N.: 1995, The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, N.: 2000, New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Collins, J.: 2000, ‘Theory of Mind, Logical Form, and Eliminativism’, Philosophical Psychology 13, 465–490.
Cowie, F.: 1999, What's Within? Nativism Reconsidered, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Cowie, F.: 2001, ‘On Cussing in Church: In Defence of What's Within’, Mind and Language 16, 231–245.
Crain, S.: 1991, ‘Language Acquisition in the Absence of Experience’, Brain and Behavioural Sciences 14, 597–615.
Crain, S. and R. Thornton: 1998, Investigation in Universal Grammar: A Guide to Experiments on the Acquisition of Syntax and Semantics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Demetras, M., K. Post, and C. Snow: 1986, ‘Feedback to First Language Learners: The Role of Repetitions and Clarification Questions’, Journal of Child Language 13, 275–292.
Feldman, H., S. Goldin-Meadow, and L. Gleitman: 1978, ‘Beyond Herodotus: The Creation of Language by Linguistically Deprived Deaf Children’, in A. Lock (ed.), Action, Symbol, and Gesture, Academic Press, New York.
Fodor, J.: 1998: Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Fodor, J.: 2001: ‘Doing Without What's Within: Fiona Cowie's Critique of Nativism’, Mind 110, 99–148.
Gleitman, L.: 1990, ‘The Structural Sources of Word Meaning’, Language Acquisition 1, 33–55.
Gleitman, L. and E. Warner: 1982, ‘Language Acquisition: the State of the Art’, in E. Warner and L. Gleitman (eds.), Language Acquisition: The State of the Art, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Gordon, P.: 1990, ‘Learnability and Feedback’, Developmental Psychology 26, 217–220.
Grimshaw, J.: 1981, ‘Form, Function, and the Language Acquisition Device’, in C. Baker and J. McCarthy (eds.), The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Grimshaw, J. and S. Pinker: 1989, ‘Positive and Negative Evidence in Language Acquisition’, Behavioural and Brain Sciences 12, 341.
Heath, S.: 1983, Ways with Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities and Classrooms, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., R. Treiman, and M. Schneiderman: 1984, ‘Brown and Hanlon Revisited: Mother's Sensitivity to Ungrammatical Forms’, Journal of Child Language 11, 81–88.
Klima, E. and U. Bellugi: 1979, Signs of Language, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Lightfoot, D.: 1993, How to Set Parameters: Arguments from Language Change, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Maratsos, A.: 1982, ‘The Child's Construction of Grammatical Categories’, in E. Warner and L. Gleitman (eds.), Language Acquisition: The State of the Art, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Marcus, G.: 1993, ‘Negative Evidence in Language Acquisition’, Cognition 46, 53–85.
Matthews, R.: 2001, ‘Cowie's Anti-nativism’, Mind and Language 16, 215–230.
Moerk, E.: 1991, ‘Positive Evidence for Negative Evidence’, First Language 11, 219–251.
Morgan, J. and L. Travis: 1989, ‘Limits on Negative Information in Language Input’, Journal of Child Language 16, 531–552.
Nakayama, M.: 1987, ‘Performance Factors in Subject-Auxiliary Inversion by Children’, Journal of Child Language 14, 113–125.
Newmeyer, F.: 1991, ‘Rules and Principles in the Historical Development of Generative Syntax’, in A. Kasher (ed.), The Chomskyan Turn, Blackwell, Oxford.
Newport, E., H. Gleitman, and E. Gleitman: 1977, ‘Mother, I'd Rather Do It Myself: Some Effects and Non-effects of Maternal Speech Style’, in C. Snow and C. Ferguson (eds.), Talking to Children: Language Input and Acquisition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Newport, E. and R. Meier: 1985, ‘The Acquisition of American Sign Language’, in D. Slobin (ed.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Penner, S.: 1987, ‘Parental Responses to Grammatical and Ungrammatical Child Utterances’, Child Development 58, 376–384.
Pinker, S.: 1984, Language Learnability and Language Development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Pinker, S.: 1987, ‘The Bootstrapping Problem in Language Acquisition’, in B. MacWhinney (ed.), Mechanisms of Language Acquisition, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Pinker, S.: 1999, Words and Rules: The Ingredients of Language,Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.
Pullum, G.: 1996, ‘Learnability, Hyperlearning, and the Poverty of Stimulus’, in J. Johnson, M. Junge, and J. Moxley (eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting: General Session and Parasession on the Role of Learnability in Grammatical Theory, Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley.
Putnam, H.: 1971, ‘The “Innateness Hypothesis” and Explanatory Models in Linguistics’, in J. Searle (ed.), The Philosophy of Language, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Saffran, J., R. Aslin, and E. Newport: 1996, ‘Statistical Learning by 8-Month Old Infants’, Science 274, 1926–1928.
Sampson, G.: 1989, ‘Language Acquisition: Growth or Learning?’ Philosophical Papers 18, 203–240.
Schieffelin, B. and A. Eisenberg: 1981, ‘Cultural Variation in Children's Conversations’, in R. Schiefelbusch and D. Bricker (eds.), Early Language: Acquisition and Intervention, University Park Press, Baltimore.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Collins, J. Cowie on the Poverty of Stimulus. Synthese 136, 159–190 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024738522031
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024738522031