Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T19:26:19.369Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prediction is no panacea: The key to language is in the unexpected

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2013

Hugh Rabagliati  and
Douglas K. Bemis
Hugh Rabagliati
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9JZ, Scotland, United Kingdom. hugh.rabagliati@ed.ac.ukhttps://sites.google.com/site/hughrabagliati/
Douglas K. Bemis
Affiliation:
INSERM-CEA Cognitive Neuroimaging Unit, CEA/SAC/DSV/DRM/Neurospin Center, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France. Douglas.BEMIS@cea.frhttp://www.unicog.org/people/doug.bemis/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

For action systems, the critical task is to predict what will happen next. In language, however, the critical task is not to predict the next auditory event but to extract meaning. Reducing language to an action system, and putting prediction at center, mistakenly marginalizes our core capacity to communicate the novel and unpredictable.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , August 2013 , pp. 372 - 373
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Altmann, G. T. M. & Mirkovic, J. (2009) Incrementality and prediction in human sentence processing. Cognitive Science 33(4):583–609.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boatman, D., Gordon, B., Hart, J., Selnes, O., Miglioretti, D. & Lenz, F. (2000) Transcortical sensory aphasia: revisited and revised. Brain 123(8):1634–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P. & Kutas, M. (2005) Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience 8(8):1117–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dikker, S., Rabagliati, H. & Pylkkänen, L. (2009) Sensitivity to syntax in visual cortex. Cognition 110(3):293–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hale, J. (2001) A probabilistic early parser as a psycholinguistic model. In: North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL), Vol. 2, pp. 1–8. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hurley, S. (2008a) The shared circuits model (SCM): How control, mirroring, and simulation can enable imitation, deliberation, and mindreading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31(01):1–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levy, R. (2008) Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106(3):1126–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lichtheim, L. (1885) On aphasia. Brain 7(4):433–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50:696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar