Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (6):1042-1043 (1999)
|Abstract||Clahsen's theory raises problems that make it seem untenable. As an alternative, a constructivist neural network model is reported that develops a modular architecture and in which a single associative mechanism produces all inflections, displaying an emergent dissociation between regular and irregular verbs. Thus, Clahsen's rejection of associative models of inflection concerns only a subgroup of these models.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
José E. Burgos (2001). A Neural-Network Interpretation of Selection in Learning and Behavior. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):531-533.
Aarre Laakso & Paco Calvo (2011). How Many Mechanisms Are Needed to Analyze Speech? A Connectionist Simulation of Structural Rule Learning in Artificial Language Acquisition. Cognitive Science 35 (7):1243-1281.
Gerard O'Brien & Jonathan Opie (1998). The Disunity of Consciousness. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 76 (3):378-95.
Margherita Orsolini (1999). On the Cross-Linguistic Validity of a Dual-Mechanism Model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (6):1033-1035.
M. E. J. Raijmakers (1997). Is the Learning Paradox Resolved? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (4):573-574.
Marc F. Joanisse & Todd R. Haskell (1999). The Dual-Mechanism Model of Inflectional Morphology: A Connectionist Critique. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (6):1026-1027.
Harald Clahsen (1999). The Dual Nature of the Language Faculty. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (6):1046-1055.
Gualtiero Piccinini (2008). Some Neural Networks Compute, Others Don't. Neural Networks 21 (2-3):311-321.
Enrico Blanzieri (1997). Dynamical Learning Algorithms for Neural Networks and Neural Constructivism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (4):559-559.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?