Responds to L. Eubank and K. R. Gregg article (this issue), suggesting they have misinterpreted and misrepresented claims made by B. Jacobs and J. Schumann. Claims discussed include the micro- and macro-organization of neurobiology and language, the Explananda, Jacobs and Schumann's acquisition mechanism, and reductionism. The single acquisition…

Responds to L. Eubank and K. R. Gregg article (this issue), negating their rejection of neurobiological accounts of language acquisition because they are not based on Government and Binding theory and addressing their ideas on the explanatory power of associative learning. A discourse between neurobiology and linguistics is possible only if…

John Schumann and colleagues have argued for a neurobiological perspective on language acquisition that denies a role for a specifically linguistic mental module of the sort proposed by, for example, N. Chomsky (1986). This report challenges this perspective by offering evidence that such a mental module must be involved in the acquisition of…

Responds to L. Eubank and K. R. Gregg article (this issue), suggesting that they present a narrow view of language that they wish the field of language acquisition to share. It is suggested that Eubank and Gregg contend that the only thing to be explained is the human capacity for grammatical competence. This belief discounts, misrepresents, or…