Throwing fuel on the embers: Probability or Dichotomy, Cognitive or Linguistic?

TL;DR

This paper revisits the longstanding debate between probabilistic and dichotomous approaches in cognitive and linguistic theories, arguing that the debate's outcome favors a probabilistic perspective over Chomskian innateness.

Contribution

The paper provides a critical review of evidence supporting probabilistic models over Chomskian innate grammatical theories in language cognition.

Findings

Evidence favors probabilistic models in language understanding

The debate on innate grammar remains unresolved and ongoing

Chomskian innateness is challenged by recent empirical data

Abstract

Prof. Robert Berwick's abstract for his forthcoming invited talk at the ACL2016 workshop on Cognitive Aspects of Computational Language Learning revives an ancient debate. Entitled "Why take a chance?", Berwick seems to refer implicitly to Chomsky's critique of the statistical approach of Harris as well as the currently dominant paradigms in CoNLL. Berwick avoids Chomsky's use of "innate" but states that "the debate over the existence of sophisticated mental grammars was settled with Chomsky's Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory (1957/1975)", acknowledging that "this debate has often been revived". This paper agrees with the view that this debate has long since been settled, but with the opposite outcome! Given the embers have not yet died away, and the questions remain fundamental, perhaps it is appropriate to refuel the debate, so I would like to join Bob in throwing fuel on this fire by reviewing the evidence against the Chomskian position!