
doi: 10.1007/bf00233714
In this paper I introduced three of the central constraints of the learnability proof of Wexler and Culicover (1980). The question arose as to how we might handle in other ways the data that the Raising Principle accounts for. While a processing account appears plausible, it appears that at least one promising analysis of that sort does not work. In section 3 I suggested that processing explanations for data accounted for by another learnability constraint, the Freezing Principle, are not as straightforward as might have been supposed.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
