خلاصه ماشینی:
"Challenging Chomskys Innate Binding Principles in LI Acquisition Zia Tajeddin AUameh TabatabaH University Introduction Since the 1980s linguistic theory has undergone a shift in its approach from the formulation of a descriptively adequate grammar to the definition of principles and parameters.
In what follows, Chomskys Binding Theory will be challenged in light of(a)the fallacious nature of the poverty-of-the-stimulus argument for the innateness of Binding Principles,(b)the relevant experimental literature on the acquisition of such principles, and(c)the blatant impotency of Principle A as a single generalization about anaphors in English.
Since this lexical parameterization undoubtedly falls out of the domain of UG and is therefore the function of general learning strategies, it will not be impossible for the child, who draws on meager input to arrive at the right lexical parameterization, to develop knowledge of principles governing anaphors and pronominals by the same strategies.
Finally, given five-year-olds' lack of knowledge of allegedly innate Binding Principles, Chomskys concept of triggering as the minimal input necessary for the activation of principles loses its validity to the effect that even five years of exposure is not minimal enough to activate the principles which(a)are claimed to constitute the initial stage, and(b) according to the Chomskyan literature, require no triggering at all since it is parameters whose setting takes place as a result of triggering.
In addition, considering the fact that the child manages to avoid or eliminate errors and arrive at the correct peripheral grammar of his language in the Chomskyan worldwith no negative evidence and periphery-related innate constraints_ learning of the core, with so much regularity and intensity, is not inconceivable in the same world."