Development of interventions for language impairment: Why universal grammar may be harmful (Commentary on Ambridge, Pine, and Lieven)

Abstract

Although theories of specific language impairment grounded in universal grammar (UG ) have advanced the description of SLI considerably, they provide limited utility as far as treatment is concerned. Because UG assumes deficits in language principles and parameter setting, remediation of the difficulty is not possible; rather, reliance on compensatory mechanisms is recommended. Compensatory mechanisms rely on the same learning principles as are adopted by theorists that adopt a more emergentist view. Thus, we agree with Ambridge, Pine, and Lieven that a UG-based approach is redundant and recommend focusing efforts on identifying and strengthening treatment strategies associated with general learning principles instead.

Challenges for a theory of islands: A broader perspective on Ambridge, Pine, and Lieven

“…The ensuing commentaries in Language (volume 90) can be classified, in terms of their overall message, into three groups. First, there are those who agree with the general claims that AP&L make, but suggest that their criticisms of UG-based approaches should be extended in various directions, or can be strengthened by additional argumentation, or should lead to more fundamental changes in how we study language learning: Behme (2014); Beekhuizen, Bod & Verhagen (2014); Owen Van Horne, Hall & Curran (2014). Second, there are those who focus on the need for all proponents of learning mechanisms to provide explicit computational models that will allow their claims to be rigorously tested (also advocated by Beekhuizen et al), and suggest that the outcome of such testing is likely to be that some UG-based proposals (perhaps not the ones targeted by AP&L) could turn out to be part of successful learning systems, and that some usage-based proposals could as well: Soderstrom (2014); Pearl (2014).…”