On the structural ambiguity in natural language that the neural architecture cannot deal with
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (1):71-72 (2006)
Abstract
We argue that van der Velde's & de Kamps's model does not solve the binding problem but merely shifts the burden of constructing appropriate neural representations of sentence structure to unexplained preprocessing of the linguistic input. As a consequence, their model is not able to explain how various neural representations can be assigned to sentences that are structurally ambiguous.Author's Profile
DOI
10.1017/s0140525x06239025
My notes
Similar books and articles
Language, tools, and brain revisited.Patricia M. Greenfield - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1):159-163.
From neural dynamics to true combinatorial structures.Frank van der Velde & Marc de Kamps - 2006 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (1):88-104.
Neural computation, architecture, and evolution.Paul Skokowski - 1997 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (1):80-80.
How anchors allow reusing categories in neural composition of sentences.William J. Clancey - 2006 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (1):73-74.
Content and cluster analysis: Assessing representational similarity in neural systems.Aarre Laakso & Garrison W. Cottrell - 2000 - Philosophical Psychology 13 (1):47-76.
How neural is the neural blackboard architecture?Yoonsuck Choe - 2006 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (1):72-73.
On the unproductiveness of language and linguistics.David M. W. Powers - 2006 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (1):82-84.
Has the brain evolved to answer “binding questions” or to generate likely hypotheses about complex and continuously changing environments?Birgitta Dresp & Jean Charles Barthaud - 2006 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (1):75-76.
Analytics
Added to PP
2009-01-28
Downloads
26 (#449,930)
6 months
1 (#455,921)
2009-01-28
Downloads
26 (#449,930)
6 months
1 (#455,921)
Historical graph of downloads