WavesWashSands

(This is more of a comment than a question, but ...)

Most of your responses to others' views seem to have been to those on the Chomskyan front. Have you responded to criticisms (e.g. Bickerton 2009, Givón 2009, Mithun 2010) of the very Chomskyan notion of recursion itself, which you seem to tacitly assume is a coherent notion, even when saying it doesn't exist in Pirahã?

Doesn't this tacitly assume that meaning = definition? Or can one make this argument without reliance on such an assumption?