User:Zhujialei

cited from "Poverty of the stimulus"

Poverty of the stimulus (POS) is the argument from linguistics that children are not exposed to rich enough data within their linguistic environments to acquire every feature of their language. This is considered evidence contrary to the empiricist idea that language is learned solely through experience. The claim is that the sentences children hear while learning a language do not contain the information needed to home in on the grammar of the language.

The POS is often used as evidence for universal grammar. This is the idea that all languages conform to the same structural principles, which define the space of possible languages.

Both poverty of the stimulus and universal grammar are terms that can be credited to Noam Chomsky. Chomsky coined the term "poverty of the stimulus" in 1980, however he had argued for the idea since his 1959 review of B.F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior. The POS is also related to Nelson Goodman's new riddle of induction.

Content: the leading section is not well organized. The last sentence "The POS is also related to Nelson Goodman's new riddle of induction" does not have a source. How they are related is not explained and the following context does not mention this point at all. The second passage (on UG) is not cited.

Writing: [grammatical error '; however,"]

Rewrite the leading section as follows:

Poverty of the stimulus (POS) (Chomsky 1959, 1981) is the argument from linguistics that children are not exposed to rich enough data within their linguistic environments to acquire every feature of their language. The POS is often used as evidence for innate knowledge of universal grammar. This is considered evidence contrary to the empiricist idea that language is learned solely through experience. The claim is that the sentences children hear while learning a language do not contain the information needed to home in on the grammar of the language.

Examples[edit]

An overarching theme in examples provided as evidence for the poverty of the stimulus is that children acquire grammatical rules based on evidence that is consistent with multiple generalizations. And since children are not instructed in the grammar of their language, the gap must be filled in by properties of the learner.

Syntax[edit]

Binding theory – Principle C[edit]

1. While he was dancing, the Ninja Turtle ate pizza.
2. He ate pizza while the Ninja Turtle was dancing.

In general, pronouns can refer to any prominent individual in the discourse context. However, a pronoun cannot find its antecedent in certain structural positions, as defined by the Binding Theory. For example, the pronoun "he" can refer to the Ninja Turtle in (1) but not (2), above. Given that speech to children does not indicate what interpretations are impossible, the input is equally consistent with a grammar that allows coreference between "he" and "the Ninja Turtle" in (2) and one that does not. But, since all speakers of English recognize that (2) does not allow this coreference, this aspect of the grammar must come from some property internal to the learner.

Suggestions: define Principle C; explain more clearly how the acquisition principle C provides evidence for POS; citation is lacking

Rewritten as the following:

According to Principle C, which states that an R-expression cannot be bound, [linking to wikipedia Binding Theory Page?] the pronoun 'he' in (1) but not in (2) can refer to the Ninja Turtle because it is in a position that does not form a binding relation with the NP in the following clause. Crain and McKee (1985) present that children as young as 3 years old reject coreference for (2), where Principle C is violated. This indicates that 3-year-olds have the knowledge of Principle C. Principle C is crucially relevant to the argument of POS because it is a rule about impossible interpretations. Since children are only exposed to meaningful sentences, it is hard to explain how they can acquire the rule without resorting to some innate knowledge.

Passives[edit]

1. I believe the dog to be hungry
2. The dog is believed to be hungry
3. I believe the dog's owner to be hungry.
4. The dog's owner is believed to be hungry.
5. * The dog is believed's owner to be hungry.

The sentences in (1) and (2) illustrate the active-passive alternation in English. The Noun Phrase after the verb in the active (1) is the subject in the passive (2). Data like (2) would be compatible with a passive rule stated in terms of linear order (move the 1st NP after the verb) or syntactic structure (move the highest NP after the verb). The data in (3-5) illustrate that the actual rule is formulated in terms of structure. If it were stated in terms of linear order, then (4) would be ungrammatical and (5) would be grammatical. But the opposite is true. However, children may not be exposed to sentences like (3-5) as evidence in favor of the correct grammar. Thus, the fact that all adult speakers agree that (4) is grammatical and (5) is not suggests that the linear rule was never even considered and that children are predisposed to a structure based grammatical system.

Suggestions: People could argue that statistically, believed never co-occur with 's or that 's as a suffix or clitic cannot be stranded, and children only need this rule to exclude (5). How about we use the 'Is the man who is tall happy' example, which might be less ambiguous? Also missing citations

Rewritten as the following:

Anaphoric "one"[edit]

The English word "one" can refer back to a previously mentioned property in the discourse. For example in (1), "one" can mean "ball".

1. I like this ball and you like that one.
2. I like this red ball and you like that one.

In (2), one is interpreted as "red ball." However, even if a speaker intends (2) in this way, it would be difficult to distinguish that interpretation from one in which "one" simply meant "ball". This is because when a speaker refers to a red ball, they are also referring to a ball since the set of red balls is a subset of balls in general. 18-month-olds, like adults, show that they believe 'one' refers to 'red ball' and not 'ball'. The evidence available to children is systematically ambiguous between a grammar in which "one" refers back to Nouns and one in which "one" refers back to noun phrases. Despite this ambiguity, children learn the more narrow interpretation, suggesting that some property other than the input is responsible for their interpretations.

Island effects[edit]

In Wh-questions, the Wh-word at the beginning of the sentence (the filler) is related to a position later in the sentence (the gap). This relation can hold over an unbounded distance, as in (1). However, there are restrictions on the gap positions that a filler can be related to. These restrictions are called syntactic islands (2). Because questions with islands are ungrammatical, they are not included in the speech that children hear—but neither are grammatical Wh-questions that span multiple clauses. Because the speech children are exposed to is consistent with grammars which have island constraints and grammars which don't, something internal to the child must contribute this knowledge.

1. What did you claim that Jack bought _ ?
2. *What did you make the claim that Jack bought _ ? (Complex Noun Phrase Island)