Research Article

Criticism of the Poverty of the Stimulus Argument (POSA)

Pouya Vakili
Illinois State University, USA
* Corresponding author
DOI icon 10.24018/ejlang.2023.2.2.84

Read Counter
1021

Downloads
343

Citations

Share

Article Sidebar

Submitted 2023-03-03
Published 2023-04-04

Read counter = 1021 times

Table of Contents

Article Main Content

This paper intends to provide information about the Poverty of the Stimulus Argument (POSA) by presenting different viewpoints. At the outset a brief history of Nativism was provided, and then linguistic nativism and empiricism were elaborated on. Afterward, Plato’s ideas will be argued for and against and then Plato’s problem will be discussed in detail. For this purpose, his ideas will be compared and contrasted with Chomsky’s perspective of innateness. Chomsky’s Universal Grammar will be discussed in the scope of POSA, and its properties will be explained in detail. In addition, Chomsky’s viewpoints will be compared with Skinner’s and Tomasello’s to find out their perspectives on language learning processes. Finally, Universal Grammar will be discussed from the perspective of Usage-Based linguistics in order to highlight the shortcomings of Universal Grammar and address the questions that this theory is unable to resolve.

Keywords: empiricism nativism poverty of stimulus argument universal grammar

References

  1. Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of B. F. Skinner's verbal behavior. Language, 35, 26–58.
     Google Scholar
  2. Chomsky, N. (1984). Modular Approaches to the Study of the Mind (Vol. 1). San Diego State Univ. Press.
     Google Scholar
  3. Christiansen, M.H., Allen, J. and Seidenberg, M.S. (1998). Learning to segment speech using multiple cues: A connectionist model. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 221–268.
     Google Scholar
  4. Cook, V. J. (1985). Chomsky’s universal grammar and second language learning. Applied Linguistics 6(1), 2–18.
     Google Scholar
  5. Cowie, F. (1999). What’s within? Nativism reconsidered. Oxford University Press on Demand.
     Google Scholar
  6. Croft, W. (2007). Construction grammar. In The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press
     Google Scholar
  7. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
     Google Scholar
  8. Elman, J.L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14, 179–211.
     Google Scholar
  9. Fitch, W., Hauser, M., and Chomsky, N. (2005). The evolution of the language faculty. Cognition, 97, 179–210.
     Google Scholar
  10. Kirby, S., and Christiansen, M.H. (2003). From language learning to language evolution. In Language Evolution (Christiansen, M.H. and Kirby, S., eds). Oxford University Press.
     Google Scholar
  11. Laurence, S., & Margolis, E. (2001). The poverty of the stimulus argument. British Journal of Philosophical Science, 52, 217–276.
     Google Scholar
  12. Lewis, J.D., and Elman, J.L. (2001). Learnability and the statistical structure of language: Poverty of stimulus arguments revisited. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 359-370). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
     Google Scholar
  13. Locke, J. (1847). An essay concerning human understanding. Kay & Troutman.
     Google Scholar
  14. Mohammed, R., & Vakili, P. (2021). Using ideologically loaded concepts as a tool for reversing folk notions of linguistic & cultural diversity. Journal for Research Scholars and Professionals of English Language Teaching, 5 (25).
     Google Scholar
  15. O’Grady, W. (2008). Keynote article: The emergentist program. Lingua, 118, 447–464
     Google Scholar
  16. O’Grady, W. (2010). “An emergentist approach to syntax,” in The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, eds H. Narrog and B. Heine (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 257–283.
     Google Scholar
  17. Pullum, G.K. and Scholz, B. (2002). Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. Linguistic Review, 19, 9–50.
     Google Scholar
  18. Saffran, J., Aslin, R. and Newport E. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274, 1926–1928.
     Google Scholar
  19. Samuels, R. (2002). Nativism in cognitive science. Mind and Language, 17(3), 233–65.
     Google Scholar
  20. Scott, D. (2006). Plato’s Meno. Cambridge University Press.
     Google Scholar
  21. Tomasello, M. (1995). Language is not an instinct. Cognitive Development, 10, 131–56.
     Google Scholar
  22. Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Contractualization and constructional changes (Vol. 6). Oxford University Press.
     Google Scholar
  23. Vakili, P. (2019). How to learn a new language on your own. Grassroots Writing Research Journal, 9 (2).
     Google Scholar
  24. Vakili, P., & Mohammed, R. (2020). Grammar scares me: an exploration of American students’ perceptions of grammar learning. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature, and Translation, 3(12), 124–135.
     Google Scholar
  25. Vakili, P., & Mohammed, R. (2022). A Cross-disciplinary corpus-based analysis of the frequency and syntactic positions of adverbials. European Journal of Language and Culture Studies, 1(6), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejlang.2022.1.6.43.
     Google Scholar
  26. Vakili, P., (2022). Give me the rules, I’ll understand grammar better: exploring the effectiveness of usage-based grammar approach through explicit instruction of adverbials. [Theses and Dissertations]. 1626. https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/etd/1626.
     Google Scholar
  27. Vakili, P., and Mohammed R. (2021). Invitation Accepted: International students as a pedagogical source to increase American Students’ WE awareness. Journal of applied languages and linguistics, 5(3).
     Google Scholar