When theories don't compete: Response to thomas, karaminis, and knowland's commentary on musolino, chunyo, and Landau

Thomas et al. (this issue) argue that someone interpreting our results through a generative prism would draw one set of conclusions, but that someone seeing the same results through a neuroconstructivist lens would draw radically different conclusions. We agree with Thomas et al. that there is a theoretical difference here, but it is not between one set of assumptions (i.e., generative/modular) versus another (i.e., neuroconstructivism); rather it is the difference between having a theory of the linguistic phenomenon under consideration versus not having one. Once this basic fact and its methodological and rhetorical implications are recognized, it is plain to see that what Thomas et al. have to offer falls far short of a genuine alternative to what we proposed.