> Overall, then, the case for [[universal grammar|linguistic nativism]]—in the form of [[represent|representational]] innateness—is very poor. > Combining all the data and arguments throughout this book, > we can say that: > > 1. there are virtually no linguistic items or structures that are [[human language grammar universal|universal]] in the world's [[human language|languages]]; > 2. there is no [[poverty of the stimulus]] in [[language acquisition|language acquisition]]; > 3. [[principles and parameters|linking]] does not work; > 4. parameters do not help; > 5. the [[continuity assumption]] is demonstrably false; > 6. [[linguistic performance|performance]] factors and the maturation of [[universal grammar]] are simply unprincipled fudge factors used to explain recalcitrant data; > 7. invoking extensive lexical learning as necessary for triggering parameters makes the theory basically indistinguishable from other learning theories—except that it has in addition the [[principles and parameters|linking problem]]; and > 8. although the empirical situations cited in support of biological bases for language acquisition mostly do demonstrate such bases, they do not demonstrate in any form representational innateness. - [[movements in cognitive science]] - [[dual inheritance]] - [[criticism of generative grammar]]