Switch to: References

Citations of:

Explaining systematicity

Mind and Language 12 (2):115-36 (1997)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Some Theoretical and Empirical Background to Fodor’s Systematicity Arguments.Kenneth Aizawa - forthcoming - Theoria. An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science.
    This paper aims to clarify certain features of the systematicity arguments by a review of some of the largely underexamined background in Chomsky’s and Fodor’s early work on transformational grammar.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Perceptual Symbol Systems.Lawrence W. Barsalou - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (4):577-660.
    Prior to the twentieth century, theories of knowledge were inherently perceptual. Since then, developments in logic, statis- tics, and programming languages have inspired amodal theories that rest on principles fundamentally different from those underlying perception. In addition, perceptual approaches have become widely viewed as untenable because they are assumed to implement record- ing systems, not conceptual systems. A perceptual theory of knowledge is developed here in the context of current cognitive science and neuroscience. During perceptual experience, association areas in the (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   561 citations  
  • The Language of Thought and Natural Language Understanding.Jonathan Knowles - 1998 - Analysis 58 (4):264-272.
    Stephen Laurence and Eric Margolis have recently argued that certain kinds of regress arguments against the language of thought (LOT) hypothesis as an account of how we understand natural languages have been answered incorrectly or inadequately by supporters of LOT ('Regress arguments against the language of thought', Analysis, 57 (1), 60-6, J 97). They argue further that this does not undermine the LOT hypothesis, since the main sources of support for LOT are (or might be) independent of it providing an (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • A Non-Representational Approach to Imagined Action.I. van Rooij - 2002 - Cognitive Science 26 (3):345-375.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Explaining Learning: From Analysis to Paralysis to Hippocampus.John Clark - 2005 - Educational Philosophy and Theory 37 (5):667-687.
    This paper seeks to explain learning by examining five theories of learning—conceptual analysis, behavioural, constructivist, computational and connectionist. The first two are found wanting and rejected. Piaget's constructivist theory offers a general explanatory framework but fails to provide an adequate account of the empirical mechanisms of learning. Two theories from cognitive science offering rival explanations of learning are finally considered; it is argued that the brain is not like a computer so the computational model is rejected in favour of a (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Connectionist Semantic Systematicity.Stefan L. Frank, Willem F. G. Haselager & Iris van Rooij - 2009 - Cognition 110 (3):358-379.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • A Non‐Representational Approach to Imagined Action.Iris Rooij, Raoul M. Bongers & F. G. Haselager - 2002 - Cognitive Science 26 (3):345-375.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Explaining Learning: From Analysis to Paralysis to Hippocampus.John Clark - 2005 - Educational Philosophy and Theory 37 (5):667–687.
    This paper seeks to explain learning by examining five theories of learning—conceptual analysis, behavioural, constructivist, computational and connectionist. The first two are found wanting and rejected. Piaget's constructivist theory offers a general explanatory framework but fails to provide an adequate account of the empirical mechanisms of learning. Two theories from cognitive science offering rival explanations of learning are finally considered; it is argued that the brain is not like a computer so the computational model is rejected in favour of a (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations