Ambridge, Pine, and Lieven (AP&L) claim that the knowledge attributed to children by the proponents of UG does not account for language acquisition, bringing evidence from several domains. In this response, we take issue with their claims with respect to two domains. In the case of categories, where distributional learning plays an important role, we argue that AP&L fail to recognize recent analyses showing that abstract representations yield better quantitative models for early child data. In the case of subjacency, we provide several empirical arguments against their claim that it can be reduced to some general discourse-pragmatic principles.

This article details a high school English teacher's experiences teaching a semester-long elective course on linguistics to tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grade students in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Students explore units covering an introduction to linguistics, phonetics, morphology, language acquisition, sociolinguistics, and the history of English. The article reviews related primary and secondary school projects that have been done in the United States and abroad, the curriculum of this specific survey course, successes and challenges encountered while teaching, and recommended resources relevant to secondary school students and their teachers.

Two weaknesses of Ambridge, Pine, and Lieven's (AP&L) argument against Universal Grammar are discussed in this commentary. First, their article treats the prosodic bootstrapping hypothesis (PBH) as a nativist theory, but PBH is entirely neutral with respect to the nativism-empiricism debate. Additional discussion of the plausibility of PBH is presented. Second, the rigor that AP&L direct toward nativist ideas must also be directed at empiricist claims. An understanding of how children acquire language will require nativist ideas, empiricist ideas, and ideas that are neutral on this dimension.

This article describes a tool that can be used by blind and visually impaired students in phonetics and phonology classrooms: a tactile International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) magnet-board system. This tool consists of IPA magnets and phonological rule symbols that are printed and embossed, so as to be readable by both sighted and visually impaired individuals. A user of the tool can lay out phonetic and phonological data on the magnet board for communicative, organizational, or problem-solving purposes. Since the magnet board can be read both visually and tactually, it can serve as a collaborative space that can be used by both sighted and visually impaired members of the classroom. Potential uses include group work in class and as an augmentation to chalkboard problem-solving demonstrations. The tool can complement already extant options for blind and visually impaired students and facilitate collaboration between sighted and visually impaired students. Here, we describe the tool, exemplify some potential uses, and offer suggestions for further improvement.

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.

This ‘short shot’ article draws attention to an unresolved contradiction between fundamental assumptions of modern linguistics and economics. Endogenous growth theory has become the consensus explanation of the phenomenon of long-term economic growth. This theory makes an assumption that is not seen as controversial by economists, namely, that the supply of new, unanticipated ideas is limited only by the level of resources committed to idea generation. Much linguistic theorizing, by contrast, assumes that potential human cognitive products are tightly constrained by biology. Although linguists and economists are primarily interested in different kinds of ‘ideas’, there is a real contradiction between the respective assumptions. The article does not offer a resolution of the contradiction, but encourages members of our discipline to be aware of it as a problem needing to be resolved.

The processing load of sentences with three different word orders (VOS, VSO, and SVO) in Kaqchikel Maya was investigated using a sentence-plausibility judgment task. The results showed that VOS sentences were processed faster than VSO and SVO sentences. This supports the traditional analysis in Mayan linguistics that the syntactically determined basic word order is VOS in Kaqchikel, as in many other Mayan languages. More importantly, the result revealed that the preference for subject-object word order in sentence comprehension observed in previous studies may not be universal; rather, the processing load in sentence comprehension is greatly affected by the syntactic nature of individual languages.