The role of competence theories in cognitive psychology

This paper discusses several common misunderstandings regarding theories of competence. Such theories are characterized as being concerned with the epistemological side of cognitive psychology and as being based primarily on evidence of a special kind: intuitions of competent performers. The nature of such evidence is examined in relation to the question of objectivity. The position that competence may be described in terms of implicit rules is discussed from several perspectives. Finally a number of empiricist objections to the notion of competence are examined: particularly ones based on the fact that whereas competence theories are infinitary, deterministic, and formally complete, observations of actual performance suggest that it is best characterized as finitary, probabilistic, and heuristically organized. Finally the question of the psychological reality of competence formalisms is discussed and it is argued that the claim of the psychological reality of amechanism, as opposed to a structural description, is only appropriate when the mechanism accounts parsimoniously for the widest possible range of empirical phenomena.

[1]  Ferdinand de Saussure Course in General Linguistics , 1916 .

[2]  Max Black,et al.  Language and Philosophy. , 1950 .

[3]  G. Pólya,et al.  Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning , 1956 .

[4]  A. Heyting,et al.  Intuitionism: An introduction , 1956 .

[5]  G. Miller,et al.  Plans and the structure of behavior , 1960 .

[6]  G. A. Miller,et al.  Finitary models of language users , 1963 .

[7]  Noam Chomsky Current Issues in Linguistic Theory , 1964 .

[8]  H A SIMON,et al.  INFORMATION PROCESSING IN COMPUTER AND MAN. , 1964, American scientist.

[9]  Abraham S. Luchins,et al.  Logical foundations of mathematics for behavioral scientists , 1965 .

[10]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  वाक्यविन्यास का सैद्धान्तिक पक्ष = Aspects of the theory of syntax , 1965 .

[11]  M. Braine,et al.  On the basis of phrase structure: a reply to Bever, Fodor, and Weksel. , 1965, Psychological review.

[12]  H. Savin,et al.  Grammatical structure and the immediate recall of english sentences , 1965 .

[13]  P. Suppes,et al.  Experiments in Second-Language Learning , 1967 .

[14]  E. Mark Gold,et al.  Language Identification in the Limit , 1967, Inf. Control..

[15]  John Lyons,et al.  Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics , 1971 .

[16]  Writing Transformational Grammars: An Introduction , 1968 .

[17]  Patrick Suppes,et al.  Stimulus-response theory of finite automata , 1969 .

[18]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Linguistic processes in deductive reasoning. , 1969 .

[19]  Sidney Hook Language and philosophy : a symposium , 1969 .

[20]  P. Menyuk Sentences Children Use , 1969 .

[21]  G. Miller,et al.  Plans and the structure of behavior , 1960 .

[22]  K. Salzinger Pleasing linguists: A parable , 1970 .

[23]  R. K. Lindsay What Computers Can't Do. A Critique of Artificial Reason. Hubert L. Dreyfus. Harper and Row, New York, 1972. xxxvi, 260 pp. $8.95 , 1972 .

[24]  Zenon W. Pylyshyn,et al.  Competence and psychological reality. , 1972 .

[25]  Terry Winograd,et al.  Understanding natural language , 1974 .

[26]  Jerome A. Feldman,et al.  Some Decidability Results on Grammatical Inference and Complexity , 1972, Inf. Control..

[27]  Allen Newell,et al.  Human Problem Solving. , 1973 .

[28]  Zenon W. Pylyshyn,et al.  Minds, machines and phenomenology: Some reflections on Dreyfus' ‘What computers can't do’ , 1975, Cognition.