Jeff Lidz

[Jeff Lidz @JeffLidz]

Dig it! @tz_knowlton

https://t.co/y57Db304Ze

[Natural Language Semantics editors @NLS_editors]

New in NLS: Psycholinguistic evidence for restricted quantification, by Tyler Knowlton, Paul Pietroski, Alexander Williams, Justin Halberda & Jeffrey Lidz https://t.co/GJHclcqC04 @tz_knowlton @JeffLidz

[Jeff Lidz @JeffLidz]

hot off the presses @tz_knowlton :
https://t.co/PZhicXBf1t

[Jeff Lidz @JeffLidz]

@Logic_Cognition @cogsci_soc @tz_knowlton Nice!

[Jeff Lidz @JeffLidz]

@seb_mancha Right! Like when you say, “I used to have one dog but now I have zero dogs!”

[Jeff Lidz @JeffLidz]

@notnaughtknot That question is senseless ;-)

[Jeff Lidz @JeffLidz]

@bodhiswata Take a look at Maryland

[Jeff Lidz @JeffLidz]

@brianbuccola When that expression was coined, “prove” meant test. So basically it meant disprove.

[Jeff Lidz @JeffLidz]

@adelegoldberg1 @DavidAdger @ruipchaves @Languagelab @ejfranci2 I think you’re thinking of Postal 1974, “on certain ambiguities” LI

[Jeff Lidz @JeffLidz]

@Benambridge @LangDevRes @DavidAdger @GaryMarcus @spiantado @shota_momma @alexandersclark @ElliotMurphy91 @EvelinaLeivada @ev_fedorenko @adelegoldberg1 @tallinzen @notnaughtknot Great idea

[Jeff Lidz @JeffLidz]

@adelegoldberg1 @fernandaedi If we're looking for classic references on how biologists think about innateness and behavior, there's no better place to start than Gould's 1982 Ethology textbook

[Jeff Lidz @JeffLidz]

@adelegoldberg1 @fernandaedi I don't understand this point at all. Calling something "innate" opens up a wide range of questions - like how does that innate structure interact with the environment to guide development, how is innate knowledge expressed in different contexts, how is it encoded in brain/genes?

[Jeff Lidz @JeffLidz]

@fernandaedi https://t.co/ZclXxjpymi

[Jeff Lidz @JeffLidz]

@Benambridge @notnaughtknot @DavidAdger @GaryMarcus @spiantado @tallinzen @EvelinaLeivada @alexandersclark @adelegoldberg1 @patrickdelliott @roni_katzir More than happy to participate in a discussion, but I find debates generally unhelpful

[Jeff Lidz @JeffLidz]

@Benambridge @notnaughtknot @DavidAdger @GaryMarcus @spiantado @tallinzen @EvelinaLeivada @alexandersclark @adelegoldberg1 @patrickdelliott @roni_katzir For some more serious cases, try these: https://t.co/fufvXsGoaW or https://t.co/hZfmwxcARc

[Jeff Lidz @JeffLidz]

@Benambridge @notnaughtknot @DavidAdger @GaryMarcus @spiantado @tallinzen @EvelinaLeivada @alexandersclark @adelegoldberg1 @patrickdelliott @roni_katzir What’s funny to me is (a) nobody who would call themselves a generative acquisitionist these days relies on Gold much and (b) nobody seems to remember that when Chomsky introduced the subj-aux case it was as a “near trivial” example, not a hard challenge.

[Jeff Lidz @JeffLidz]

@Benambridge That said, I think we have to understand the role that categories play in the theory of grammar broadly (eg, in explaining dependencies of various sorts), in order to know how to characterize the innate knowledge underneath the categories we find in natural languages

[Jeff Lidz @JeffLidz]

@Benambridge Well, I do think it’s overly simplistic. But, I suspect that at the very least, there’s an innate expectation that there will be a category of sentential predicates (roughly VP) and a category of expressions that can be the subjects of those predicates (roughly DP)

[Jeff Lidz @JeffLidz]

@Benambridge My point was not about what’s true, but about the nature of the hypothesis. But of course if we disagree about the explananda, then there’s not much point in arguing. That said, I find the islands as backgroundedness hypothesis to be less compelling than you do

[Jeff Lidz @JeffLidz]

@Benambridge Yes