What data or argumentation can confirm or refute nativism with respect to syntax? Common objections to nativism - such as, a) the presence of formulae in early child speech, b) input frequency effects, c) absence of productivity, d) lack of parsimony, e) presence of rich input - are either irrelevant or, in the case of some of the empirical claims, artifactual. In contrast, there are both empirical data (such as the use of Determiners and the comprehension of tense) and theoretical arguments (such as poverty of the stimulus with respect to abstract case) in favor of nativism.

Back to the main schedule