Reaffirming the poverty of the stimulus argument: A reply to the replies

Cognition

Volumn 93, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 157-165

  Lidz, Jeffrey ^a   Waxman, Sandra ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Language acquisition; Poverty of the stimulus; Universal grammar

Indexed keywords

EMPIRICISM; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LEARNING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SEMANTICS; THEORETICAL MODEL;

EID: 7544244221     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.02.001     Document Type: Note

References (9)

1. Akhtar N., Callanan M., Pullum G., Scholz B. Learning antecedents for anaphoric one. Cognition. 93:2004;141-145
2. Baker C.L. Introduction to generative-transformational syntax. 1978;Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
3. Chomsky N. Lectures on government and binding. 1981;Foris, Dordrecht
4. Lidz J., Waxman S., Freedman J. What infants know about syntax but couldn't have learned: Evidence for syntactic structure at 18-months. Cognition. 89:2003;B65-B73
5. Pullum G., Scholz B. Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review. 19:2002;9-50
6. Regier T., Gahl S. Learning the unlearnable: The role of missing evidence. Cognition. 93:2004;147-155
7. Sperber D., Wilson D. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed:1995;Blackwell, Cambridge, MA
8. Tomasello M. Syntax or semantics? Response to Lidz et al. Cognition. 93:2004;139-140
9. Waxman S., Markow D. Object properties and object kind: 21-month-old infants extension of novel adjectives. Child Development. 69:1998;1313-1329