> He takes those facts to be uncontroversial, and he says that that is what he means by systematicity and compositionality. Right, but Chemero's point is that

> He takes those facts to be uncontroversial, and he says that that is what he means by systematicity and compositionality. Right, but Chemero's point is that that premise is not so empirically grounded; it is an a priori assumption. I am not familiar with this literature, but it's ultimately the same point that he makes against Chomsky's poverty of the stimulus argument (the literature on which I know much better): that it's not an empirically grounded premise, and the evidence for such an a priori argument is weak.