{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02193548387096774, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.466666666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
NEWS FLASH—HUME STILL DEAD

Ellis refers to a wide range of data supporting the uncontroversial claim that there are frequency effects in linguistic and other behavior. He further resurrects the long-discredited claim that language acquisition consists of frequency-based abstraction of regularities from input. What he fails to do is to show how the former claim leads to the latter, or indeed to show any evidence for this claim. Ellis ignores fundamental and well-known problems—the poverty of the stimulus, cases of instantaneous acquisition, evidence for innate knowledge, evidence that even children regularly ignore perceptual input, the compositionality of concepts, and the systematicity of language—that make his frequency-based account of acquisition a nonstarter.