Spring 2004
Foundations of Cognitive Science B
Cognitive Science 050.341/641
Prof. Paul Smolensky
T.A. Adam Buchwald
Prerequisites: At least one course at the 300-level or higher in cognitive science, psychology, computer science, linguistics, or philosophy of mind. Additionally, for 641: graduate standing.
Course goal: To expose students to the breadth within cognitive science of: empirical methods, theoretical methods and frameworks, general conceptual issues, and major authors. The course is short on concrete content, long on understanding and integrating the basic perspectives on cognition provided by multiple disciplines. The key skill focused upon is logical argumentation.
Course requirements: Reading (mostly major works from the research literature); daily written work on readings; class attendance, and participation in class discussion. The demands of reading an written assignments are rather high.
Course Requirements
Attendance and participation in class discussion is extremely important, as this is an entirely discussion-based class. A student may be asked to lead off the discussion one time during the semester.
There will generally be two readings per week. Each of these approximately 24 readings will be the topic of a write-up, except that students may waive this requirement for 6 papers of their choosing during the semester. Students are encouraged to treat both readings for a given week together, in a single write-up, but a write-up may address a single reading. The write-ups for a given week are due at the beginning of that week’s class.
(The goal of this requirement is to ensure that students have given sufficient thought to the day's reading prior to class to be able to contribute to a high-level discussion. Another goal is to gain experience in logically analyzing research papers, and in evaluating reasoned arguments in cognitive science.)
A write-up takes one of two forms: ‘prose’ or ‘diagram’. Students must submit at least 4 write-ups of each type.
The prose write-ups’ format is not prescribed, but they should by and large provide answers to the following sorts of questions:
(1) With what problems is the author mainly concerned?
(2) What are the author's main claims about these problems?
(3) What arguments are given to support these claims?
(4) On what methodologies are these arguments based?
(5) How do these claims relate to the major course issues?
(6) How do these claims relate to the claims of the other authors we've read?
Prose write-ups should never reiterate the reading. The write-ups address the content of the paper, not the paper itself. (Not “First the author talks about this and then she talks about that.”) If directly addressed to the point, and concise, such write-ups may require less a single page (single spaced). Two pages may be more realistic much of the time.
The format for the diagram write-ups is more prescribed. These are formal diagrams of the logic of the reading -- at least a substantial portion of it. These argument diagrams will be discussed in class; to get the general idea, check the large posters on the wall of the corridor containing the Cog Sci seminar room, Krieger 234, and the many actual examples of student diagrams on the wall next to my office.
Students are strongly encouraged to construct diagrams together; a group may submit a single diagram with the names of all group members. Prose write-ups must be written up individually.
Write-ups will not, in general, be checked in complete detail, simply assigned a grade on a 3- or 5-point scale based primarily on the degree of thought and effort exhibited.
There will be no exams and no final paper.
Late work/incompletes. Work handed in late will be marked down (one point per day), work more than a few days late will not be accepted, and no incompletes will be given, except for medical emergencies.
General Methodological Topics
Major distinctions and issues
Theory- vs. data-centering
Theories of behavior vs. theories of mental knowledge vs. theories of brain function
Levels of cognitive analysis
Explanation vs. description
Formal vs. non‑formal theories
Computational vs. non‑computational frameworks
Representational vs. non‑representational frameworks
Competence vs. performance
Mind as structure processor vs. mind as statistical processor
Nativism vs. empiricism
Conscious vs. unconscious processes
Knowledge/concepts as rules/definitions vs. as examples
Inference and decision making: logic‑based vs. non‑rational approaches
Serial vs. parallel processing
Independent mental faculties ('modules') vs. interactionism
Localized vs. distributed neural embodiment
Situated vs. non-situated cognition
Research methods
|
Empirical methods |
Theoretical methods |
|
Introspection |
Philosophical
analysis |
|
Linguistic
generalization |
Linguistic analysis |
|
Empirical
neuroscience |
Computational and
mathematical modeling |
|
Experimental
psychology |
Theoretical
psychology |
Covert aphorisms of cognitive science
Philosophy of science
Science = Data or Data » Theory
Data = Experiments
Better theory = More data coverage
Serious constraint on theory Þ Data or AI, Philosophy Þ BS
Theory = Description
Theory = Empirical generalizations
Unmeasurable Þ Unscientific
Precise theory Þ Computer implementation
Precise theory Þ Mathematical formalism
Implausible (introspective intuition) Þ False
Explanation Þ External (e.g., functional) justification
Internal explanation Þ Circular reasoning
Functional fable Þ Explanation
Demystification Þ Trivialization/Denigration
Simplification Þ Irrelevance
Model Þ Theory
Substantive
Mind = Brain
Cognition = Behavior
Thought Þ ¬Logic
Mind Þ ¬Formal system
Knowledge = Experience
Knowledge = Rules
Concept = Definition
Category = Categorization
¬[Computational Þ Intentional]
Level of representation = Level of cognitive computation
Connectionism Þ Associationism
Connectionism Þ Empiricism
Neurally informed Þ Neural model
Language = X (= Communication; Words; Speech recognition)
|
Wk |
Topic |
Authors |
Date |
|
2 |
Philosophy of mind; epistemology |
Locke 1690 pp. 1-41, 56-68, 84-89, |
Feb. 4 |
|
3 |
Nativism & development |
Piaget 1980; Chomsky 1980 |
11 |
|
4 |
Anti-modular theories |
MacDonald, Pearlmutter and Seidenberg 1994 [pdf] |
18 23 |
|
5 |
Nativism & comparative psychology |
Hauser, Chomsky and
Fitch 2002 [pdf] |
25 March 1 |
|
6 |
Nativism, creoles & |
Kegl 2002 |
3 |
|
7 |
Neuropsychology |
Caramazza |
10 |
|
8 |
Perception |
Ecological psychology (J. J. Gibson) |
24 |
|
9 |
Markedness |
Jakobson 1941/1968 |
31 |
|
10 |
Cognitive Linguistics |
Langacker 1987: Ch. 11 (Optional: Section
11.2) |
April 7 |
|
11 |
Philosophy of language |
Frege — Hales 2002: 1-13, 21-32 |
14 |
|
12 |
Functionalist linguistics |
Givón 1995: Preface (xv-xvii); Chapter
1 (1-23); Sections 2.1-2.2.1.3 (25-30); 2.6 (58-69); 5.1-5.3 (175-182); 5.9
(216-223) |
21 |
|
13 |
Nativism & sign language phonology |
Poizner, Klima and
Bellugi 1990:
Chapter
1 + for phonologists: Brentari 1998: (22-51), (53-83), 177-186, (213-246), 292-306; 313; Notes |
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philosophy of science |
Salmon/Whewell |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Linguistics: traditional |
Saussure; structuralism |
|
|
|
generative |
Newmeyer (OT?) |
|
|
|
Linguistic relativity |
Boas/Sapir/Whorf |
|
|
|
Nativism & linguistics |
Crain |
|
|
|
Phrenology & fMRI |
|
|
|
|
Dynamical systems |
|
|
References
Brentari, Diane. 1998. A Prosodic Model of Sign Language Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1980. On cognitive structures and their development: A reply to Piaget. In Language and Learning: The Debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky, ed. Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, 35-52. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Christiansen, Morten H., and Kirby, Simon. 2003. Language evolution: The hardest problem in science? In Language Evolution, eds. Morten H. Christiansen and Simon Kirby, 1-15. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fitch, W. Tecumseh, and Hauser, Marc D. 2004. Computational constraints on syntactic processing in a nonhuman primate. Science 303:377-380.
Givón, Talmy. 1995. Functionalism and Grammar. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hales, Steven D. ed. 2002. Analytic Philosophy: Classic Readings. Stamford, CT: Thomson Learning.
Hauser, Marc D., Chomsky, Noam, and Fitch, W. Tecumseh. 2002. The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298:1569-1579.
Hauser, Marc D., and Fitch, W. Tecumseh. 2003. What are the uniquely human components of the language faculty? In Language Evolution, eds. Morten H. Christiansen and Simon Kirby, 158-181. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jakobson, Roman. 1941/1968. Child Language, aphasia and phonological universals. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.
Kegl, Judy. 2002. Language emergence in a language-ready brain. In Directions in Sign Language Acquisition, eds. Gary Morgan and Bencie Woll, 207-254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm von. New Essays on Human Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Oress.
Locke, John. 1690. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Cambridge: Hackett.
MacDonald, Maryellen C., Pearlmutter, Neal, and Seidenberg, Mark S. 1994. Lexical Nature of Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution. Psychological Review 101:676-703.
Piaget, Jean. 1980. The psychogenesis of knowledge and its epistemological significance. In Language and learning: The debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky, ed. Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, 24-34. Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press.
Piattelli-Palmarini, Massimo. 1980. Language and learning: The debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky. Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press.
Piattelli-Palmarini, Massimo. 1994. Ever since language and learning: Afterthoughts on the Piaget-Chomsky debate. Cognition 50:315-346.
Poizner, Howard, Klima, Edward, and Bellugi, Ursula. 1990. What the Hands Reveal About the Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Seidenberg, Mark S., and MacDonald, Maryellen C. 1999. A probabilistic constraints approach to language acquisition and processing. Cognitive Science 23:568-588.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. How language structures space. In Toward a Cognitive Semantics, 178-254. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wilson, Brendan. 1998. Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations: A Guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.