The following text discusses psycholinguistics.
The "poverty of the stimulus" argument, influential in linguistics, claims that children's language exposure is insufficient to explain the grammatical knowledge they acquire. Children hear only imperfect examples yet converge on complex grammatical rules, suggesting they bring innate linguistic knowledge to the task. Critics argue the claim rests on underestimating what children actually hear and overestimating what they must know innately. Statistical learning research shows that even infants can extract complex patterns from input, suggesting the stimulus may be richer than the poverty argument assumes.
What is the core disagreement about the poverty of the stimulus?
Whether children can learn any language at all
Whether language input is sufficient to explain children's grammatical knowledge
Whether grammar exists in any languages
Whether adults or children learn language faster
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. The debate is about whether "children's language exposure is insufficient"—the argument says yes (requiring innate knowledge), critics say "the stimulus may be richer" (sufficient).
- Evidence: Insufficient vs. richer than assumed.
- Reasoning: Input sufficiency determines need for innate knowledge.
- Conclusion: Input adequacy is the central question.
Choice A is incorrect because learning occurs; the question is how. Choice C is incorrect because grammar's existence isn't debated. Choice D is incorrect because adult learning isn't discussed.