A Philosopher's War on Poverty of the Stimulus Arguments: A Review of Fiona Cowie's What's Within? Nativism Reconsidered.
A philosopher shows that learned language accounts can stand up to Chomsky’s nativist claims.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Ted (2005) read Fiona Cowie’s book What’s Within? Nativism Reconsidered.
He wrote a short review for The Analysis of Verbal Behavior.
The book attacks Chomsky’s idea that babies are born with built-in grammar rules.
What they found
Cowie says we don’t need a “language organ” to explain how kids talk.
She argues that plain old learning can do the job.
Ted agrees and tells readers the poverty-of-stimulus argument is weak.
How this fits with other research
Capaldi (1992) shows that many early reviews of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior were positive.
Both papers push back against Chomsky’s team, but from different angles.
Alonso-Alvarez (2023) also defends operant accounts, saying stimulus equivalence can’t be reduced to Pavlovian tricks.
Together the trio keeps the Skinner side of the debate alive.
Why it matters
If you teach language to learners with autism, you can feel sure that environmental arrangements matter.
You don’t need to wait for a “grammar gene” to kick in.
Use dense modeling, reinforcement, and errorless prompting.
Cowie’s critique gives you philosophical cover to stay operant.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Tell a colleague one reason you skip “innate grammar” talk and focus on teaching opportunities.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In What's Within? Nativism Reconsidered 1999 Fiona Cowie addresses three questions: (1) What is nativism? (2) What is meant by calling some trait "innate"? and (3) What types of evidence should be offered when claiming innateness? This review concentrates on these questions as they pertain to Chomsky's faculties-based account of language acquisition. In particular, this review focuses on Cowie's critique of three versions of the poverty of the stimulus argument (POSA): (1) the a posteriori POSA, (2) the logical problem POSA, and (3) the iterated POSA. In addition, counter arguments to her critique, and Cowie's response, in turn, to some of those counter arguments, are also reviewed.
The Analysis of verbal behavior, 2005 · doi:10.1007/BF03393021