3urylqjjsryhuwlhvvriiwkhhvwlpxoxvvzurqj $$frpsxwdwlrqdoodqggfrusxvedvhggfdvhhlqqsrlqwww

The Argument from the Poverty of the Stimulus (APS) still dominates a substantial part of the research in theoretical linguistics. While in generative approaches, the APS provides the foundation of the innateness hypothesis; in other paradigms (usage-based, interactionist, cognitivist) the argument is central because it is argued against it. Poverty of the stimulus arguments are indeed theoretical because they do little to empirically back their premises. Following Pullum & Scholz (2002) the logic of the argument has two premises. First, language is either genetically encoded or learned data-driven. The second premise, however, is meant to be empirical, that is, infants learn what is not given in the input. Since, by definition, data driven means that everything can be learned from the input, the empirical premise excludes data driven strategies as an option. Now, only one alternative remains in the initial premise. Thus one can deduce modus tollens the genetically encoded strategy as the correct alternative via exclusion. Although the conclusion is correct, the result can be questioned because the premises are far from plausible nowadays. Accepting that the two alternatives postulated in the first premise are somewhat sufficient, the empirical premise seems more problematic. Also known as lack of evidence, this premise is a simple assertion without a systematic and comprehensive proof. The assumption was certainly still acceptable at the time of its conception. Today, however, we have collected specific and representative corpora, developed a body of sophisticated methodologies for quantitative analyses, and used the computational power to carry out complex