INNATENESS AND EMERGENTISM

By E. Bates, Jeffrey L. Elman, Mark H. Johnson, Annette Karmiloff-Smith, Domenico Parisi, Kim Plunkett. 1996

Subfields: Cognitive Science & Psychology, Linguistics

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Science & Psychology

In Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

Continuous Dynamics in Real-Time Cognition (2006, background): “…many researchers examine the continuous temporal dynamics of cognitive development, tracking the time course of weeks to months (e.g., Elman et al., 1996; Thelen & Smith, 1994), there is comparatively little research on the continuous temporal dynamics of real-time cognition,…”
The Acquisition of Anaphora by Simple Recurrent Networks (2013, background): “As Elman et al. (1996) have emphasized, the connectionist approach does not deny the importance of innately provided inductive bias; instead it locates such bias in the properties of neural architecture, for instance the number, type, and connectivity of neural units, rather than in innate…”
Stepping off the pendulum: Why only an action-based approach can transcend the nativist–empiricist debate (2013, background): “For example, the suggestion that innateness claims are “vacuous” or “empty” because they do not provide any insight into the complex prior interactions that must have taken place to give rise to development (Elman et al., 1996; Spencer et al., 2009; Johnston, 2001); or, more broadly, that a developm”
Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change (2007, background): “In such an experiencedbased grammar, linguistic categories and linguistic structures are associated with activation (or probability) values that are determined by their relative frequencies in language use (cf. Elman et al. 1996; Jurafsky 1996; Bod et al. 2003; Bod 2003).”