Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-568f69f84b-lkk24 Total loading time: 0.178 Render date: 2021-09-19T12:06:03.490Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

On the adequacy of buzzsaws

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2000

MARILYN SHATZ
Affiliation:
University of Michigan

Abstract

For decades, controversy has swirled around the question of whether some kind of innate capacity is required for language to develop normally. Ostensibly, there has been progress over the years on the old ‘nature- nurture’ question. Only the most die-hard theorists would now publicly argue for anything other than some sort of interactionist position. Nonetheless, as Sabbagh & Gelman (S&G) note in their review of The emergence of language, there is little clarity about the nature of that interaction or about what constitutes an emergentist position on it. As good scientists, S&G propose to evaluate emergentism, despite its vagueness, by describing a ‘strong’ emergentist position as one that must include the following tenets: domain-general cognitive processes (‘buzzsaws’ as they call them) like attention and memory are sufficient to account for the elegance of language as well as the ease and speed of its acquisition by children; these domain- general processes do so without explicit rule-based knowledge representations; and the same processes account for all aspects of language. There is much to agree with in the review by S&G. They cite the importance of development and performance as pluses for emergentist views, but they also raise serious questions about the limitations of emergentist accounts: these often either leave unanalyzed crucial concepts like similarity or hide what look suspiciously like rule-governed knowledge representations. Despite their concerns, S&G are gracious in their conclusions; they seem cautiously optimistic about the enterprise of accounting for language development in an emergentist framework. Such optimism, however, seems appropriate only insofar as the framework is not taken in its strong form. S&G's arguments (made by others as well) about the vague and hidden aspects of some emergentist models give the lie to the claim that all aspects of language can be accounted for by the same domain-general processes. Those arguments also raise questions about whether domain-specific rule-based representations can be completely done away with.

Type
REVIEW ARTICLE AND DISCUSSION
Copyright
© 2000 Cambridge University Press

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.)

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

On the adequacy of buzzsaws
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

On the adequacy of buzzsaws
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

On the adequacy of buzzsaws
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *