No negative evidence revisited: Beyond learnability or who has to prove what to whom.

Abstract

Gordon (1990), in his commentary on Bohannon and Stanowicz (1988), argued that (a) the originalGold (1967) learnability proof bears little relevance for innateness of language, (b) the Bohannonand Stanowicz results do not justify abandoning innate restraints on language learning, and (c) theremay be cases in which such feedback is unavailable. In this reply, the relevant and irrelevant aspectsof both the original Gold proof and more modern attempts at learnability are discussed. Uniqueness,a concept central to all modern formal models, is also adaptable to account for the negative evidenceavailable in the child's input language. Rates of feedback found in Bohannon and Stanowicz areshown to be sufficient to spur learning in many species, including concept formation tasks in hu-mans, and anecdotal counterevidence against the universality of negative evidence is discounted. Itis suggested that using innate factors as a default explanation is a dangerous and counterproductivescientific endeavor.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 64 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.