Poverty of the Stimulus Without Tears

References

• Abend, O., Kwiatkowski, T., Smith, N. J., Goldwater, S., & Steedman, M. (2017). Bootstrapping language acquisition. Cognition, 164, 116–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.02.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adriaans, F., & Swingley, D. (2012). Distributional learning of vowel categories is supported by prosody in infant-directed speech. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 34).
   Google Scholar
• Ambridge, B., Rowland, C. F., & Pine, J. M. (2008). Is structure dependence an innate constraint? New experimental evidence from children’s complex-question production. Cognitive Science, 32(1), 222–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210701703766
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angluin, D. (1980). Inductive inference of formal languages from positive data. Information and Control, 45(2), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(80)90285-5
   Google Scholar
• Angluin, D. (1988). Queries and concept learning. Machine Learning, 2(4), 319–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00116828
   Google Scholar
• Aslin, R. N. (2017). Statistical learning: A powerful mechanism that operates by mere exposure. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 8(1–2), e1373.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, C. L. (1978). Introduction to generative transformational syntax. Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, C. L., & McCarthy, J. (1981). The logical problem of language acquisition. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Belletti, A. (2017). Internal grammar and children’s grammatical creativity against poor inputs. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02074
   Google Scholar
• Bergelson, E., & Idsardi, W. (2009). Structural biases in phonology: Infant and adult evidence from artificial language learning. In BUCLD 33: Proceedings of the 33rd annual Boston university Conference on Language Development (pp. 85–96).
   Google Scholar
• Bowerman, M. (1988). The ’No Negative Evidence’ problem: How do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar? In J. Hawkins (Ed.), Explaining language universals (pp. 73–101). Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, R., & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition on child speech. In J. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 11–53). Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carey, S. (2011). Précis of The Origin of Concepts. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(3), 113–167. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000919
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chater, N., Clark, A., Goldsmith, J., & Perfors, A. (2015). Empiricism and language learnability. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N. (1971). Problems of knowledge and freedom. Fontana.
   Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on language. Pantheon Books.
   Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N. (1980a). Rules and representations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 1–61. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00001515
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N. (1980b). Rules and representations. Basil Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and problems of knowledge: The managua lectures. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N. (2000). The architecture of language. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chouinard, M. M., & Clark, E. V. (2003). Adult reformulations of child errors as negative evidence. Journal of Child Language, 30(3), 637–669. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000903005701
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, A., & Eyraud, R. (2007). Polynomial identification in the limit of substitutable context-free languages. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 8(Aug), 1725–1745.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, A., & Lappin, S. (2011). Linguistic nativism and the poverty of the stimulus. Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Cole, P., Hermon, G., & Yanti. (2017). The grammar of binding in the languages of the world: A response to Reuland. Cognition, 168, 380–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.04.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins, J. (2004). Faculty disputes. Mind & Language, 19(5), 503–533. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0268-1064.2004.00270.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowie, F. (1998). What’s within?: Nativism reconsidered. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Crain, S. (1991). Language acquisition in the absence of experience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14(4), 597–612. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00071491
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crain, S., & Nakayama, M. (1987). Structure dependence in grammar formation. Language, 63(3), 522–543. https://doi.org/10.2307/415004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crain, S., & Pietroski, P. (2002). Why language acquisition is a snap. The Linguistic Review, 19, 163–183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, K. F., Parker, K. P., & Montgomery, G. L. (2004). Sleep in infants and young children: Part one: Normal sleep. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 18(2), 65–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0891-5245(03)00149-4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dresher, E. (2003). Meno’s paradox and the acquisition of grammar. In S. Ploch (Ed.), Living on the Edge: 28 Papers in Honour of Jonathan Kaye (Studies in Generative Grammar 62) (pp. 7–27). Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Dunbar, E. (2019). Generative grammar, neural networks, and the implementational mapping problem: Response to Pater. Language. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2019.0000
   Google Scholar
• Fitz, H., & Chang, F. (2017). Meaningful questions: The acquisition of auxiliary inversion in a connectionist model of sentence production. Cognition, 166, 225–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fodor, J. D., & Sakas, W. G. (2017). Learnability. In I. Roberts (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of universal grammar (pp. 249–269). Oxford University.
   Google Scholar
• Fodor, J. D., & Crowther, C. (2002). Understanding stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review, 19, 105–145.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuson, K. (1988). Children’s counting and concepts of number. Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Garfield, J. L. (1994). Innateness (pp. 366–374).
   Google Scholar
• Gold, M. E. (1967). Language identification in the limit. Information and Control, 10(5), 447–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(67)91165-5
   Google Scholar
• Goodman, N. (1955). Fact, fiction and forecast (Vol. 74). JSTOR.
   Google Scholar
• Goodman, N., Tenenbaum, J. B., Feldman, J., & Griffiths, T. L. (2008). A rational analysis of rule-based concept learning. Cognitive Science, 32(1), 108–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210701802071
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon, P. (1986). Level-ordering in lexical development. Cognition, 21(2), 73–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(85)90046-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han, C.-H., Musolino, J., & Lidz, J. (2016). Endogenous sources of variation in language acquisition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(4), 942–947. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517094113
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. P.H. Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (2003). The early catastrophe: The 30 million word gap by age 3. American Educator, 27(1), 4–9.
   Google Scholar
• Heinz, J. (2016). Computational Theories of Learning and Developmental Psycholinguistics. In J. Lidz, W. Synder, & J. Pater (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of developmental linguistics (pp. 633–663). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heinz, J., & Rawski, J. (to appear). History of phonology: Learnability. In B. E. Dresher & H. van der Hulst (Eds.), The oxford handbook of the history of phonology.
   Google Scholar
• Horning, J. J. (1969). A study of grammatical inference (Tech. Rep.). Stanford University, Department of Computer Science.
   Google Scholar
• Hornstein, N., & Lightfoot, D. (1981). Introduction. In N. Hornstein (Ed.), Explanation in Linguistics: The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition (pp. 9–31). Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Hsu, A. S., & Chater, N. (2010). The logical problem of language acquisition: A probabilistic perspective. Cognitive Science, 34(6), 972–1016. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01117.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsu, A. S., Chater, N., & Vitányi, P. (2013). Language Learning From Positive Evidence, Recon- sidered: A Simplicity-Based Approach. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5(1), 35–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsu, A. S., Chater, N., & Vitányi, P. M. (2011). The probabilistic analysis of language acquisition: Theoretical, computational, and experimental analysis. Cognition, 120(3), 380–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.02.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Idsardi, W. J. (2005). Poverty of the stimulus arguments in phonology. Unpublished manuscript, University of Delaware.
   Google Scholar
• Jackendoff, R. S. (1994). Patterns in the mind: Language and human nature. Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Jain, S., Osherson, D., Royer, J. S., Sharma, A., et al. (1999). Systems that learn: An introduction to learning theory. MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, K. (2004). Gold’s theorem and cognitive science. Philosophy of Science, 71(4), 571–592. https://doi.org/10.1086/423752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kam, X. N. C., Stoyneshka, I., Tornyova, L., Fodor, J. D., & Sakas, W. G. (2008). Bigrams and the richness of the stimulus. Cognitive Science, 32(4), 771–787. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210802067053
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kemp, C., Perfors, A., & Tenenbaum, J. (2007). Learning overhypotheses with hierarchical Bayesian models. Developmental Science, 10(3), 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00585.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kemp, C., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2008). The discovery of structural form. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(31), 10687–10692. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0802631105
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kimball, J. P. (1973). The formal theory of grammar. Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• King, D. (2015). Poverty of the stimulus arguments and behaviorism. Behavior & Philosophy, 43.
   Google Scholar
• Kirby, S. (2017). Culture and biology in the origins of linguistic structure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(1), 118–137. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1166-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kripke, S. A. (1982). Wittgenstein on rules and private language: An elementary exposition. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lasnik, H. (1989). On certain substitutes for negative data. In R. Matthews & W. Demopoulos (Eds.), Learnability and linguistic theory (pp. 89–105). Kluwer/Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lasnik, H., & Lidz, J. L. (2017). The argument from the poverty of the stimulus. In The Oxford handbook of universal grammar (pp. 221–248).
   Google Scholar
• Laurence, S., & Margolis, E. (2001). The poverty of the stimulus argument. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 52(2), 217–276. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/52.2.217
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legate, J., & Yang, C. (2002). Empirical re-assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. Linguistic Review, 19, 151–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, M., & Vitányi, P. M. (1994). Inductive reasoning. In E. Ristad (Ed.), Language computations. American Mathematical Society.
   Google Scholar
• Lidz, J. (2018). The explanatory power of linguistic theory. In N. Hornstein, H. Lasnik, P. Patel- Grosz, & C. Yang (Eds.), Syntactic structures after 60 years: The impact of the chomskyan revolution in linguistics (Vol. 129, pp. 225–242). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
   Google Scholar
• Lidz, J., & Gleitman, L. R. (2004). Yes, we still need Universal Grammar. Cognition, 94(1), 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.03.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lidz, J., Waxman, S., & Freedman, J. (2003). What infants know about syntax but couldn’t have learned: Experimental evidence for syntactic structure at 18 months. Cognition, 89(3), B65–B73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00116-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lightfoot, D. (1989). The child’s trigger experience: Degree-0 learnability. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(2), 321–334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00048883
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lightfoot, D. (1998). Promises, promises: General learning algorithms. Mind & Language, 13(4), 582–587. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00094
   Google Scholar
• MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Marcus, G. (1993). Negative evidence in language acquisition. Cognition, 46(1), 53–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(93)90022-N
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marr, D. (1982). Vision. W.H. Freeman.
   Google Scholar
• Matthews, R. J. (2001). Cowie’s Anti-Nativism. Mind & Language, 16(2), 215–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00166
   Google Scholar
• Maye, J., Weiss, D. J., & Aslin, R. N. (2008). Statistical phonetic learning in infants: Facilitation and feature generalization. Developmental Science, 11(1), 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00653.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCoy, R. T., Frank, R., & Linzen, T. (2018). Revisiting the poverty of the stimulus: Hierarchical generalization without a hierarchical bias in recurrent neural networks. arXiv Preprint, arXiv:1802.09091.
   Google Scholar
• McNeill, D. (1996). Developmental psycholinguistics. In F. Smith & G. Miller (Eds.), The genesis of language (pp. 15–84). MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, J. L. (1986). From simple input to complex grammar. The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, J. L., Bonamo, K. M., & Travis, L. L. (1995). Negative evidence on negative evidence. Developmental Psychology, 31(2), 180. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.31.2.180
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newport, E. L. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 14(1), 11–28. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1401_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niyogi, P. (2006). The computational nature of language learning and evolution. MIT press Cambridge, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Pearl, L. (2007). Necessary Bias in Natural Language Learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park.
   Google Scholar
• Pearl, L. (2011). When unbiased probabilistic learning is not enough: Acquiring a parametric system of metrical phonology. Language Acquisition, 18(2), 87–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2011.554261
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearl, L., & Lidz, J. (2013). Parameters in language acquisition. In K. Grohmann & C. Boeckx (Eds.), The cambridge handbook of biolinguistics (pp. 129–159). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pearl, L., & Sprouse, J. (2013a). Computational Models of Acquisition for Islands. In J. Sprouse & N. Hornstein (Eds.), Experimental Syntax and Islands Effects (pp. 109–131). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pearl, L. (2017). Evaluation, use, and refinement of knowledge representations through acquisition modeling. Language Acquisition, 24(2), 126–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2016.1192633
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearl, L., & Phillips, L. (2018). Evaluating language acquisition models: A utility-based look at Bayesian segmentation. In A. Villavicencio & T. Poibeau (Eds.), Language, Cognition and Computational Models (pp. 185–224). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pearl, L. (2019). Fusion is great, and interpretable fusion could be exciting for theory generation: Response to Pater. Language, 95(1), e109–e114. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2019.0017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearl, L. (2021). How statistical learning can play well with Universal Grammar. In N. Allott, T. Lohndal, & G. Rey (Eds.), Wiley-blackwell companion to chomsky. Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Pearl, L. (in press). Modeling syntactic acquisition. In J. Sprouse (Ed.), Oxford handbook of experimental syntax. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pearl, L., & Lidz, J. (2009). When domain-general learning fails and when it succeeds: Identifying the contribution of domain-specificity. Language Learning and Development, 5(4), 235–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475440902979907
   Google Scholar
• Pearl, L., Lu, K., & Haghighi, A. (2017). The character in the letter: Epistolary attribution in Samuel Richardson’s. Clarissa. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 32(2), 355–376.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearl, L., & Mis, B. (2016). The role of indirect positive evidence in syntactic acquisition: A look at anaphoric one. Language, 92(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearl, L., & Sprouse, J. (2013b). Syntactic islands and learning biases: Combining experimental syntax and computational modeling to investigate the language acquisition problem. Language Acquisition, 20(1), 19–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2012.738742
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearl, L., & Sprouse, J. (2018). Comparing solutions to the linking problem using an integrated quantitative framework of language acquisition. University of California, Irvine and University of Connecticut. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003913
   Google Scholar
• Pearl, L., & Weinberg, A. (2007). Input filtering in syntactic acquisition: Answers from language change modeling. Language Learning and Development, 3(1), 43–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475440709337000
   Google Scholar
• Perfors, A., Tenenbaum, J., Griffiths, T., & Xu, F. (2011). A tutorial introduction ot Bayesian models of cognitive development. Cognition, 120(3), 302–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.11.015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perfors, A., Tenenbaum, J., & Regier, T. (2011). The learnability of abstract syntactic principles. Cognition, 118(3), 306–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.11.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perfors, A., Tenenbaum, J., & Wonnacott, E. (2010). Variability, negative evidence, and the acquisition of verb argument constructions. Journal of Child Language, 37(3), 607–642. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000910000012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perkins, L., Feldman, N., & Lidz, J. (2017). Learning an input filter for argument structure acquisition. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics (CMCL 2017) (pp. 11–19).
   Google Scholar
• Piantadosi, S., & Kidd, C. (2016). Endogenous or exogenous? The data don’t say. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(20), E2764–E2764. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1600603113
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Piantadosi, S., Tenenbaum, J., & Goodman, N. (2012). Bootstrapping in a language of thought: A formal model of numerical concept learning. Cognition, 123(2), 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.11.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (2017). From Zero to Fifty: Considerations on Eric Lenneberg’s Biological Foundations of Language and Updates. Biolinguistics, 11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinker, S. (1979). Formal models of language learning. Cognition, 7(3), 217–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(79)90001-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pinker, S. (2004). Clarifying the logical problem of language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 31(4), 949–953. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000904006439
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pullum, G. (1996). Learnability, hyperlearning, and the poverty of the stimulus. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 498–513). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
   Google Scholar
• Pullum, G., & Scholz, B. (2002). Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review, 19, 9–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and object (Studies in Communication). Technology Press of MIT.
   Google Scholar
• Quine, W. V. O. (1969). Ontological relativity and other essays (No. 1). Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ramsey, W., & Stich, S. (1991). Connectionism and three levels of nativism. In W. Ramsey, S. Stich, & D. Rumelhart (Eds.), Philosophy and Connectionist Theory. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Rawski, J., & Heinz, J. (2019). No free lunch in linguistics or machine learning: Response to Pater. Language, 95(1), e125–e135. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2019.0021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reali, F., & Christiansen, M. (2005). Uncovering the richness of the stimulus: Structure dependence and indirect statistical evidence. Cognitive Science, 29(6), 1007–1028. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_28
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Regier, T., & Gahl, S. (2004). Learning the unlearnable: The role of missing evidence. Cognition, 93(2), 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2003.12.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rey, G. (2014). Innate and learned: Carey, mad dog nativism, and the poverty of stimuli and analogies (yet again). Mind & Language, 29(2), 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rissanen, J., & Ristad, E. S. (1994). Language acquisition in the MDL framework. In E. S. Ristad (Ed.), Language computations (pp. 149–166).
   Google Scholar
• Rohde, D., & Plaut, D. (1999). Language acquisition in the absence of explicit negative evidence: How important is starting small? Cognition, 72(1), 67–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00031-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274(5294), 1926–1928. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.274.5294.1926
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sampson, G. (1989). Language acquisition: Growth or learning? Philosophical Papers, 18(3), 203–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/05568648909506320
   Google Scholar
• Sarnecka, B. (2016). How numbers are like the earth (and unlike faces, loitering, or knitting). In D. Barner & A. S. Baron (Eds.), Core Knowledge and Conceptual Change. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Saxton, M. (1997). The contrast theory of negative input. Journal of Child Language, 24(1), 139–161. https://doi.org/10.1017/S030500099600298X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saxton, M. (2000). Negative evidence and negative feedback: Immediate effects on the grammaticality of child speech. First Language, 20(60), 221–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/014272370002006001
   Google Scholar
• Saxton, M. (2005). ‘Recast’ in a new light: Insights for practice from typical language studies. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 21(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265659005ct279oa
   Google Scholar
• Saxton, M., Kulcsar, B., Marshall, G., & Rupra, M. (1998). Longer-term effects of corrective input: An experimental approach. Journal of Child Language, 25(3), 701–721. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000998003559
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scholz, B., & Pullum, G. (2002). Searching for arguments to support linguistic nativism. The Linguistic Review, 19, 185–223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scholz, B., & Pullum, G. (2006). Irrational nativist exuberance. In R. Stainton (Ed.). In Contemporary Debates in Cognitive Science.
   Google Scholar
• Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). Language acquisition and use: Learning and applying probabilistic constraints. Science, 275(5306), 1599–1603. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5306.1599
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skidelsky, L. (2016). The poverty of the stimulus argument once again. Análisis Filosófico, 36(2).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, L., & Yu, C. (2008). Infants rapidly learn word-referent mappings via cross-situational statistics. Cognition, 106(3), 1558–1568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.06.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stabler, E. P. (1998). Acquiring languages with movement. Syntax, 1(1), 72–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00004
   Google Scholar
• Stich, S. P. (1978). Empiricism, innateness, and linguistic universals. Philosophical Studies, 33(3), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00354373
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tenenbaum, J., & Griffiths, T. (2001). Generalization, similarity, and Bayesian inference. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(4), 629–640. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01000061
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valian, V. (2009). Innateness and learnability. In Handbook of child language (pp. 15–34). Cambridge University Press Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Valiant, L. (1984). A theory of the learnable. Communications of the ACM, 27(11), 1134–1142. https://doi.org/10.1145/1968.1972
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wexler, K. (1991). On the argument from the poverty of the stimulus. In A. Kasher (Ed.), The Chomskyan Turn. Basil Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Wharton, R. (1974). Approximate language identification. Information and Control, 26(3), 236–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(74)91369-2
   Google Scholar
• Wynn, K. (1990). Children’s understanding of counting. Cognition, 36(2), 155–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(90)90003-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wynn, K. (1992). Children’s acquisition of the number words and the counting system. Cognitive Psychology, 24(2), 220–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(92)90008-P
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, F., & Tenenbaum, J. (2007). Word learning as Bayesian inference. Psychological Review, 114(2), 245–272. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.245
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, C. (2004). Universal grammar, statistics or both? Trends in Cognitive Science, 8(10), 451–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.08.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, C. (2012). Computational models of syntactic acquisition. WIREs Cognitive Science, 3(2), 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1154
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zenker, F., & Schwartz, B. D. (2017). Topicalization from adjuncts in english vs. Chinese vs. Chinese-English Interlanguage. In M. LaMendola & J. Scott (Ed.), Proceedings of the 41st annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Cascadilla Press.
   Google Scholar