Skip to main content
Log in

Connectionism, explicit rules, and symbolic manipulation

  • General Articles
  • Published:
Minds and Machines Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

At present, the prevailing Connectionist methodology forrepresenting rules is toimplicitly embody rules in “neurally-wired” networks. That is, the methodology adopts the stance that rules must either be hard-wired or “trained into” neural structures, rather than represented via explicit symbolic structures. Even recent attempts to implementproduction systems within connectionist networks have assumed that condition-action rules (or rule schema) are to be embodied in thestructure of individual networks. Such networks must be grown or trained over a significant span of time. However, arguments are presented herein that humanssometimes follow rules which arevery rapidly assignedexplicit internal representations, and that humans possessgeneral mechanisms capable of interpreting and following such rules. In particular, arguments are presented that thespeed with which humans are able to follow rules ofnovel structure demonstrates the existence of general-purpose rule following mechanisms. It is further argued that the existence of general-purpose rule following mechanisms strongly indicates that explicit rule following is not anisolated phenomenon, but may well be a common and important aspect of cognition. The relationship of the foregoing conclusions to Smolensky's view of explicit rule following is also explored. The arguments presented here are pragmatic in nature, and are contrasted with thekind of arguments developed by Fodor and Pylyshyn in their recent, influential paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, J. R. (1976),Language, Memory and Thought, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajjanagadde, V. & Shastri, L. (1989), ‘Efficient Inference with Multi-Place Predicates and Variables in a Connectionist System’, Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Ann Arbor, pp. 396–403.

  • Barnden, J. A. (1988), ‘The Right of Free Association: Relative-Position Encoding for Connectionist Data Structures’, Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Montreal, pp. 503–509.

  • Clark, A. (1989),Microcognition: Philosophy, Cognitive Science, and Parallel Distributed Processing, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cottrell, G. W. & Tsung, F. (1989), ‘Learning Simple Arithmetic Procedures’, Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Ann Arbor, pp. 58–65.

  • Elman, J. L. (1989), ‘Structured Representations and Connectionist Models’, Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Ann Arbor, pp. 17–23.

  • Fodor, J. A. & Pylyshyn, Z.W. (1988), ‘Connectionism and Cognitive Architecture: A Critical Analysis’,Cognition 28, pp. 3–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadley, R. F. (1992), ‘Compositionality and Systematicity in Connectionist Language Learning’, Technical Report CSS-IS TR 92-03, Centre for Systems Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadley, R. F. (1989), ‘A Default-Oriented Theory of Procedural Semantics’,Cognitive Science 13, pp. 107–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirsh, D. (1990), ‘When is Information Explicitly Represented’, inInformation, Language, and Cognition: Vancouver Studies in Cognitive Science, Vol. 1. Hanson, P. P., ed., Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, S. & Prince, A. (1988), ‘On Language and Connectionism: Analysis of a Parallel Distributed Processing Model of Language Acquisition’,Cognition 28, pp. 73–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1984),Computation and Cognition, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smolensky, P. (1987), ‘The Constituent Structure of Mental States: A Reply to Fodor and Pylyshyn’,Southern Journal of Philosophy 26, Supplement, pp. 137–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smolensky, P. (1988), ‘On the Proper Treatment of Connectionism’,Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11, pp. 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • St. John, M. F. & McClelland, J. L. (1990), ‘Learning and Applying Contextual Constraints in Sentence Comprehension’,Artificial Intelligence 46, pp. 217–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Touretzky, D. S. & Hinton, G. E. (1988), ‘A Distributed Connectionist Production System’,Cognitive Science 12, pp. 423–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Gelder, T. (1990), ‘Compositionality: A Connectionist Variation on a Classical Theme’,Cognitive Science 14, pp. 355–384.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hadley, R.F. Connectionism, explicit rules, and symbolic manipulation. Mind Mach 3, 183–200 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00975531

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00975531

Key words

Navigation