Computational models and Rethinking innateness

I believe that the field of developmental psycholinguistics suffers from two major weaknesses. The first is its impressionistic and inexact formulations. The second is its divisive polarizations. One can see the reasons for the first weakness. Developmental psycholinguistics is only about  years old (ignoring diary studies which preceded the linguistic and cognitive surge of the sixties). But speculation and hypothesizing on the basis of relatively little data and passing acquaintance with phenomena has reached the level of customary ‘business as usual ’. We are skilful at hypothesis construction, yet we are regretfully delinquent at formulating clear tests of our hypotheses. We are fond of conjecture about causal relationships, but our empirical tests progress no further than weak forms of correlation. With regard to our second major weakness, our knack for polarizing opinion regarding chimerical questions such as the innateness of language can also be understood. After all, are we not following the classical dialectic model of thesis, antithesis and eventual synthesis? I think this is an idealized view of ourselves. In fact, we are driven by hunch and bias far more often than we would like to admit. Following hunches may be a real sign of creativity and vitality in our thinking. However, polarization driven by biases is ultimately detrimental. At some point we must disentangle ourselves from customary dialogue and transcend our deeply rutted patterns of thought. When I began Rethinking innateness, I had hoped that the book might help us overcome these two weaknesses. I believe that it contributes positively to the goal of increasing the precision of our hypotheses and their empirical substantiation. At the same time, I am afraid that it will have a negative impact by aggravating the degree of polarization in our field. Before proceeding to a discussion of the virtues and weaknesses of this book, a brief overview is in order. The book is divided into seven chapters: () New perspectives on development; () Why connectionism?; () Ontogenetic development: a connectionist synthesis ; () The shape of change; () Brain development; () Interactions, all the way down, and () Rethinking

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

[2]  E. Leeuwenberg A perceptual coding language for visual and auditory patterns. , 1971, The American journal of psychology.

[3]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Rules and Representations , 1982 .

[4]  C. L. Baker,et al.  The Logical problem of language acquisition , 1984 .

[5]  C Snow,et al.  Child language data exchange system , 1984, Journal of Child Language.

[6]  William D. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Crossed and nested dependencies in German and Dutch , 1986 .

[7]  Pat Langley,et al.  A general theory of discrimination learning , 1987 .

[8]  T. Bever,et al.  The relation between linguistic structure and associative theories of language learning—A constructive critique of some connectionist learning models , 1988, Cognition.

[9]  P. Marler,et al.  Sensitive periods for song acquisition from tape recordings and live tutors in the swamp sparrow , 2010 .

[10]  F Boselie,et al.  Against the likelihood principle in visual form perception. , 1988, Psychological review.

[11]  J. S. Johnson,et al.  Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.

[12]  Jeffrey L. Elman,et al.  Finding Structure in Time , 1990, Cogn. Sci..

[13]  V. Marchman,et al.  U-shaped learning and frequency effects in a multi-layered perception: Implications for child language acquisition , 1991, Cognition.

[14]  S. Crain Language acquisition in the absence of experience , 1991, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[15]  B. MacWhinney The CHILDES project: tools for analyzing talk , 1992 .

[16]  B. MacWhinney,et al.  Implementations are not conceptualizations: Revising the verb learning model , 1991, Cognition.

[17]  J. Elman Distributed Representations, Simple Recurrent Networks, And Grammatical Structure , 1991 .

[18]  Ming Li,et al.  An Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity and Its Applications , 1997, Texts in Computer Science.

[19]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Nature, nurture, and connections: Implications of connectionist models for cognitive development. , 1991 .

[20]  Nick Chater,et al.  FINDING LINGUISTIC STRUCTURE WITH RECURRENT NEURAL NETWORKS , 1992 .

[21]  J. Elman Learning and development in neural networks: the importance of starting small , 1993, Cognition.

[22]  L. Schauble,et al.  Beyond Modularity: A Developmental Perspective on Cognitive Science. , 1994 .

[23]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Generalization and connectionist language learning , 1994 .

[24]  Garrison W. Cottrell,et al.  Acquiring the Mapping from Meaning to Sounds , 1994, Connect. Sci..

[25]  Susanne Carroll,et al.  The hidden dangers of computer modelling: remarks on Sokolik and Smith's connectionist learning model of French gender , 1995 .

[26]  T. Gelder,et al.  Mind as Motion: Explorations in the Dynamics of Cognition , 1995 .

[27]  D. Lewkowicz,et al.  A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. , 2007, Journal of cognitive neuroscience.

[28]  Joseph P. Levy,et al.  Connectionist models of memory and language , 1995 .

[29]  Nick Chater,et al.  Neural networks: The new statistical models of mind , 1995 .

[30]  J. Elman,et al.  Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development , 1996 .

[31]  Peter C. M. Molenaar,et al.  On the Validity of Simulating Stagewise Development by Means of PDP Networks: Application of Catastrophe Analysis and an Experimental Test of Rule-Like Network Performance , 1996, Cogn. Sci..

[32]  Nick Chater,et al.  Reconciling simplicity and likelihood principles in perceptual organization. , 1996, Psychological review.

[33]  Curt Burgess,et al.  Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence , 1996 .

[34]  Jeffrey L. Elman,et al.  Exercises in Rethinking Innateness: A Handbook for Connectionist Simulations , 1997 .

[35]  T. Landauer,et al.  A Solution to Plato's Problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis Theory of Acquisition, Induction, and Representation of Knowledge. , 1997 .

[36]  David C. Plaut,et al.  Simple Recurrent Networks and Natural Language: How Important is Starting Small? , 1997 .

[37]  M. Raijmakers Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. , 1997 .

[38]  N. Ellis Emergentism, Connectionism, and Language Learning. , 1998 .

[39]  Nick Chater,et al.  Toward a connectionist model of recursion in human linguistic performance , 1999, Cogn. Sci..

[40]  N. Chater The Search for Simplicity: A Fundamental Cognitive Principle? , 1999 .

[41]  Patrick Juola,et al.  A connectionist model of english past tense and plural morphology , 1999, Cogn. Sci..