Poverty of the stimulus

In linguistics, the poverty of the stimulus is the claim that children are not exposed to rich enough data within their linguistic environments to acquire every feature of their language without innate language-specific cognitive biases. Arguments from the poverty of the stimulus are used as evidence for universal grammar, the notion that at least some aspects of linguistic competence are innate. The term "poverty of the stimulus" was coined by Noam Chomsky in Rules and Representations, 1980. A variety of linguistic phenomena have been used to argue for universal grammar on the basis that children do not have sufficient evidence to acquire the phenomena using general cognition alone. Critics of the universal grammar hypothesis have proposed alternative models that suggest acquisition of these phenomena may be less difficult than has been previously claimed. The empirical and conceptual bases of poverty of the stimulus arguments are a topic of continuing debate in linguistics.

Background and history

Noam Chomsky coined the term "poverty of the stimulus" in 1980. This idea is closely related to what Chomsky calls "Plato's Problem". He outlined this philosophical approach in the first chapter of Knowledge of Language in 1986. Plato's Problem traces back to Meno, a Socratic dialogue. In Meno, Socrates unearths knowledge of geometry concepts from a slave who was never explicitly taught them. Plato's Problem directly parallels the idea of the innateness of language, universal grammar, and more specifically the poverty of the stimulus argument because it reveals that people's knowledge is richer than what they are exposed to. Chomsky suggests that humans are not exposed to all structures of their language, yet they fully achieve knowledge of these structures.
Linguistic nativism is the theory that humans are born with some knowledge of language, and that one acquires a language not entirely through experience. According to Noam Chomsky, "The speed and precision of vocabulary acquisition leaves no real alternative to the conclusion that the child somehow has the concepts available before experience with language and is basically learning labels for concepts that are already a part of his or her conceptual apparatus." For most generative grammarians, the poverty of the stimulus argument is a central tenet of the broader argument for linguistic nativism.
Pullum and Scholz frame the poverty of the stimulus argument by examining all of the ways that the input is insufficient for language acquisition. First, children are exposed only to positive evidence: they do not receive explicit correction or instruction about what is not possible in the language. Second, the input that children receive is degenerate in terms of scope and quality. Degeneracy of scope means that the input does not contain information about the full extent of any grammatical rules. Degeneracy of quality means that children are exposed to speech errors, utterances by nonnative speakers, and false starts, potentially obscuring the underlying grammatical structure of the language. Furthermore, the linguistic data each child is exposed to is different, meaning the basis for language learning is idiosyncratic even within a particular language. However, despite these insufficiencies, children eventually acquire the grammar of the language they are exposed to. Further, other organisms in the same environment do not. From a nativist point of view, the insufficiency of the input leads to the conclusion that humans are hard-wired with a universal grammar, supporting the innateness hypothesis.
However, the argument that the poverty of the stimulus supports the innateness hypothesis remains controversial. For example, Fiona Cowie claims that the Poverty of Stimulus argument fails "on both empirical and conceptual grounds to support nativism".

Examples

The literature contains a variety of Poverty of the Stimulus arguments regarding a variety of phenomena.

Syntax

Binding theory – Principle C

While he was dancing, the Ninja Turtle ate pizza.
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 Binding Theory. For example, the pronoun "he" can refer to the Ninja Turtle in but not, 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 and one that does not. But, since all speakers of English recognize that does not allow this coreference, this aspect of the grammar must come from some property internal to the learner.

Passives

I believe the dog to be hungry
The dog is believed to be hungry
I believe the dog's owner to be hungry.
The dog's owner is believed to be hungry.
* The dog is believed's owner to be hungry.

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

Anaphoric "one"

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

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

In, "one" is interpreted as "red ball." However, even if a speaker intends 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

In Wh-questions, the Wh-word at the beginning of the sentence is related to a position later in the sentence. This relation can hold over an unbounded distance, as in. However, there are restrictions on the gap positions that a filler can be related to. These restrictions are called syntactic islands. 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 that have island constraints and grammars that do not, something internal to the child must contribute this knowledge.

What did you claim that Jack bought _ ?
*What did you make the claim that Jack bought _ ?
Phonology

Learning stress systems

Bergelson & Idsardi presented adults with words drawn from an artificial language. The words contained 3 CV syllables. If the last vowel was long, then it bore stress. Otherwise, stress fell on the first syllable. This pattern is consistent with two grammars. In one grammar, a long vowel bears stress if it is the last segment in the word. This is a rule based on absolute finality. In the other grammar, a long vowel bears stress only if it is the last vowel in the word. This is a rule based on relative finality. In natural languages stress rules make reference to relative finality but not to absolute finality. After being exposed to these words, participants were then tested to see whether they thought that a word with a long vowel in a closed syllable would bear stress. If it did, then that would be consistent with the relative-final grammar, but not with the absolute-final grammar. English-speaking adults were more likely to accept the words from the relative-final grammar than from the absolute-final grammar. Since the data they were exposed to was equally consistent with both grammars, and since neither rule is a rule of English, the source of this decision must have come from the participants, not from any aspect of their experience. In addition, eighth-month-old children were found to have the same preference as adults. Given that this preference could not have come from their exposure to either the artificial language or to their native language, the researchers concluded that human language acquisition mechanisms are "hardwired" to lead infants towards certain generalizations, consistent with the argument for the poverty of the stimulus.

English plural marker

Halle argues that the morphophonological rule governing the English plural produces forms that are consistent with two grammars. In one grammar, the plural is pronounced as if it follows one of the sounds ; otherwise it is pronounced as . In the other grammar, the plural is pronounced as if it follows a voiceless consonant. These rules are exactly equal in their coverage of English since the set of consonants that triggers the pronunciation is identical in the two cases. However, Halle also observes that English speakers consistently pluralize the German name Bach as, despite not having any experience with the /x/ sound, which is nonexistent in English. Since there is "no indication" that speakers could have acquired this knowledge, Halle argues that the tendency to build rules in terms of natural classes comes from a factor internal to the child and not from their experience.