Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Buzzsaws and blueprints

Commentary

Bibliographic Data

ID20366303
AuthorsHelen Goodluck (0000-0001-5158-645X, University of Ottawa, corresponding author)
Year2000
Volume27
Issue3
Pages734-736
Publication date2000-10-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Child Language (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0305-0009 • E-ISSN: 1469-7602
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s0305000900004323
PMID11089348
OpenAlexW2153159646
LanguageEN

The review article by Sabbagh & Gelman (S & G) on The emergence of language (EL) mentions several criticisms of strong emergentism, the view that language emerges through an interaction between domain-general learning mechanisms and the environment, without crediting the organism with innate knowledge of domain-specific rules, a view that successful connectionist modelling is taken to support. One criticism of this view and the support for it that connectionist modelling putatively provides has been made frequently, and is noted by S & G: it is arguable that connectionist simulations work only because the input to the network in effect contains a representation of the knowledge that the net seeks to acquire. I think it is worth adding to this another criticism that to my mind is a fundamental one, but which has not featured so strongly in critiques of connectionism. A primary goal of modern linguistics has been to account not merely for what patterns we do see in human languages, but for those that we do not. The concept of Universal Grammar is precisely a set of limitations on what constitutes a possible human language. The kind of example used in teaching Linguistics 101 is the fact that patterns of grammaticality are structurally, not linearly, determined: in English we form a yes – no question by inverting the subject NP and auxiliary verb, not by inverting the first and second words of the equivalent declarative sentence, or the first and fifth words, or any number of conceivable non-structural operations. Could a connectionist mechanism learn such non-structural operations? Perhaps I have asked the wrong people, but when I have queried researchers doing connectionist modelling, the answer appears to be ‘yes’. If that's the case, then connectionist mechanisms as currently developed do not constitute an explanatory model of human language abilities: they are too powerful

Artificial neural network · Cognitive science · Connectionism · Criticism · Grammar · Grammaticality · Linguistics · Programming language · Sentence · Computer Science · Language and cultural evolution · Philosophy · Psychology · Speech and dialogue systems · Artificial Intelligence

Citation velocityhistorical
Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae