Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (6):683-684 (2003)
Contra Jackendoff, we argue that within the parallel architecture framework, the generality of language does not require a rich conceptual structure. To show this, we put forward a delegation model of specialization. We find Jackendoff's alternative, the subdivision model, insufficiently supported. In particular, the computational consequences of his representational notion of modularity need to be clarified.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
An Algebra of Conceptual Structure; an Investigation Into Jackendoff's Conceptual Semantics.Joost Zwarts & Henk Verkuyl - 1994 - Linguistics and Philosophy 17 (1):1 - 28.
Connectionism, Modularity and Tacit Knowledge.Martin Davies - 1989 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40 (December):541-55.
Structural Flaws: Massive Modularity and the Argument From Design.Armin W. Schulz - 2008 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (4):733-743.
Cognitive Modularity in the Light of the Language Faculty.Johan De Smedt - 2009 - Logique Et Analyse 52 (208):373-387.
Moderately Massive Modularity.Peter Carruthers - 2003 - In Anthony O'Hear (ed.), Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement. Cambridge University Press. pp. 67-89.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads34 ( #152,946 of 2,177,862 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #317,245 of 2,177,862 )
How can I increase my downloads?