> Chomsky is brilliant, no doubt, and critically showed the world how much latent structure there is in language. However, he is IMHO pretty wrong in thinking that this latent structure can't be learned (e.g. inferring a probabilistic context-free grammar).
Presumably you have a critique of his poverty of stimulus argument and not merely a blanket dismissal?
The simple critique of the poverty of the stimulus argument is that there's no poverty of the stimulus: children receive ample, rich linguistic input as well as useful feedback. Children receive a lot more negative evidence than Chomsky suggests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_of_the_stimulus#Agains... Is Chomsky's argument for the poverty of the stimulus based on empirical observations of child language acquisition?
Presumably you have a critique of his poverty of stimulus argument and not merely a blanket dismissal?