Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-24T14:37:54.332Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theory Format and SLA Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Graham Crookes
Graham Crookes
Affiliation:
University of Hawai'i
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper reviews work in the philosophy of science pertinent to theory formats and relates it to recent second language acquisition (SLA) theories. Recent developments in philosophy of science and science studies have shown that the theory format advocated by philosophy of science for much of this century is unhelpful; developments in theory format in cognitive science, particularly psychology, artificial intelligence, and linguistics, have proceeded on lines independent of the older tradition in theory format. The naturalization of philosophy of science has resulted in improved understandings of what is necessary in a theory if it is to be adequately explanatory. SLA theory development has largely taken place in ignorance of such recent developments, and initial critiques of SLA theory from within the field reflected the earlier conception of theory. However, SLA research has reached the stage where a meta-understanding of theory formats, in terms of the components of a theory and the language in which a theory is couched (its formalism), is badly needed to facilitate theory development.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , December 1992 , pp. 425 - 449
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

Achinstein, P. (1971). Law and explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Achinstein, P. (1983). The nature of explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Addis, L. (1989). [Review of L. D. Smith, Behaviorism and logical positivism.] Synthese, 78, 345–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, R. (1979). The relationship between first language transfer and second language overgeneralization. In Andersen, R. (Ed.), The acquisition and use of Spanish and English as first and second languages (pp. 43–58). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Andersen, R. (Ed.). (1983). Pidginization and creolization as language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronson, J. L. (1984). A realist philosophy of science. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, M. (1982). Explanations in the study of child language development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Balzer, W., Moulines, C. U., & Sneed, J. D. (1987). An architechtonic for science. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, W. (1988). Philosophy of science: An overview for cognitive science. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Beretta, A. (1991). Theory construction in SLA: Complementarity and opposition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 493–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beretta, A., & Crookes, G. (1992). Cognitive and social determinants in the context of discovery in SLA. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Bhaskar, R. (1975). A realist theory of science. Leeds, UK: Leeds Books.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (1990). The competence of processing: Classifying theories of second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 635–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boden, M. A. (1988). Computer models of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Botha, R. P. (1989). Challenging Chomsky. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brodbeck, M. (1959). Models, meaning, and theories. In Gross, L. (Ed.), Symposium in sociological theory (pp. 373–403). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Brodbeck, M. (1968). Explanation, prediction, and “imperfect” knowledge. In Brodbeck, M. (Ed.), Readings in the philosophy of the social sciences (pp. 363–398). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bunge, M. (1973). Method, model and matter. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callebaut, W., & Pinxton, R. (Eds.). (1987). Evolutionary epistemology: A multiparadigm program. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Case, R. (1978). Intellectual development from birth to adulthood: A neo-Piagetian interpretation. In Siegler, R. S. (Ed.), Children's thinking: What develops? (pp. 37–71). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1986). The interaction of quantitative and qualitative approaches to research: A view of the second language classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 709–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1959). [Review of B. F. Skinner, Verbal Behavior.] Language, 35, 26–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1962). Explanatory models in linguistics. In Nagel, E., Suppes, P., & Tarski, A. (Eds.), Logic and philosophy of science (pp. 528–548). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1966). Syntactic structures. Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. New York: Columbia Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1982a). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1982b). The generative enterprise. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and problems of knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Churchland, P. M. (1989). A neurocomputational perspective: The nature of mind and the structure of science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1984). The acquisition of German word order: A test case for cognitive approaches to L2 development. In Andersen, R. (Ed.), Second languages: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 219–242). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Clark, A. (1990). Connectionism, competence, and explanation. British Journal of Philosophy of Science, 41, 195–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clement, J. (1989). Learning via model construction and criticism. In Glover, J. A., Ronning, R. R., & Reynolds, C. R. (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 341–381). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culp, S., & Kitcher, P. (1989). Theory structure and theory change in contemporary molecular biology. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 40, 459–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, R. (1983). The nature of scientific explanation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cushing, J. T. (1989). The justification and selection of scientific theories. Synthese, 78, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DaCosta, N. C. A., & French, S. (1990). The model-theoretic approach in the philosophy of science. Philosophy of Science, 57, 248–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darden, L. (1983). Artificial intelligence and philosophy of science: Reasoning by analogy in theory construction. In Asquith, P. D. & Nickles, T. (Eds.), PSA 1982 (pp. 147–165). East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dretske, F. I. (1974). Explanation in linguistics. In Cohen, D. (Ed.), Explaining linguistic phenomena (pp. 21–41). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Einstein, A. (1934). Essays in science. New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1985). A variable competence model of second language acquisition. IRAL, 23, 47–59.Google Scholar
Estes, W. K., Koch, S., MacCorquodale, K., Mueller, C. G. Jr, Schoenfeld, W. N., & Verplanck, W. S. (1954). Modern learning theory. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Finke, R. A. (1989). Principles of mental imagery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. W. (1980). A theory of cognitive development: The control and construction of hierarchies of skills. Psychological Review, 87, 477–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frege, G. (1964). The basic laws of arithmetic (Furth, M., Trans.). Berkeley: University of California Press. (Original work published 1893).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garfield, J. L. (1988). Belief in psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, A. (1981). Forms of explanation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Gasser, M. (1990). Connectionism and universals of second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, G., Klein, E., Pullum, G., & Sag, I. (1985). Generalized phrase structure grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (1982). Are scientific analogies metaphors? In Miall, D. S. (Ed.), Metaphor: Problems and perspectives (pp. 106–132). Brighton, UK: Harvester.Google Scholar
Gentner, D., & Stevens, A. (1983). Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gholson, B., Shadish, W. R., Neimeyer, R. A., & Houts, A. C. (1989). Psychology of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, R. N. (1979). Understanding scientific reasoning. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
Giere, R. N. (1985). Philosophy of science naturalized. Philosophy of Science, 52, 331–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregg, K. (1984). Krashen's monitor and Occam's razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, 79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregg, K. (1988). Epistemology without knowledge: Schwartz on Chomsky, Fodor and Krashen. Second Language Research, 4, 66–80.Google Scholar
Gregg, K. (1989). Second language acquisition theory: The case for a generative perspective. In Gass, S. M. & Schachter, J. (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 15–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregg, K. (1990). The variable competence model of second language acquisition, and why it isn't. Applied Linguistics, 11, 364–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregg, K. (in press). Krashen's theory, second language acquisition theory, and theory. In Barasch, R. (Ed.), Responses to Krashen. New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Harré, R. (1960). An introduction to the logic of the sciences. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Harré, R. (1970). The principles of scientific thinking. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harré, R. (1985a). The philosophies of science (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harré, R. (1985b). Theory families, plausibility, and the defense of modest realism. In Rescher, N. (Ed.), Reason and rationality in natural science (pp. 53–81). Lanham, NY: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Harré, R. (1986). Varieties of realism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haugeland, J. (1978). The nature and plausibility of cognitivism. Behavioral and Brain Science, 2, 215–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawes, L. C. (1975). Pragmatics of analoguing: Theory and model construction in communication. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Heise, E., & Westermann, R. (1989). Anderson's theory of cognitive architecture (ACT*). In Westermeyer, H. (Ed.), Psychological theories from a structuralist point of view (pp. 103–127). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation. In Hempel, C. G., Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays (pp. 331–496) New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G., & Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15, 567–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hesse, M. (1963). Models and analogies in science. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Hintikka, J., & Sandu, G. (1991). On the methodology of linguistics: A case study. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hinton, G. E., McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1986). Distributed representations. In Rumelhart, D. E. & McClelland, J. L. (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing (Vol. 1, pp. 77–109). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hintzman, D. L. (1991). Why are formal models useful in psychology? In Hockley, W. E. & Lewandowsky, S. (Eds.), Relating theory and data (pp. 39–56). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hull, C. L., Hovland, C. I., Ross, R. T., Hall, M., Perkins, D. T., & Fitch, F. B. (1940). Mathematico-deductive theory of rote learning. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hunt, E. (1989). Cognitive science: Definition, status, and questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 603–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kantorovitch, A. (1988). Philosophy of science: From justification to explanation. British Journal of the Philosophy of Science, 39, 469–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellerman, E. (1984). The empirical evidence for the influence of the L1 on interlanguage. In Davies, A., Criper, C., & Howatt, A. P. R. (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 98–122). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, J. (1973). Causation, nomic subsumption, and the concept of 'Event'. Journal of Philosophy, 70, 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P., & Salmon, W. C. (Eds.). (1989). Scientific explanation (Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science, 13). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Klahr, D., Langley, P., & Neches, R. (Eds.). (1987). Production system models of learning and development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, W. (1990). A theory of language is not so easy. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, W. (1991). SLA theory: Prolegomena to a theory of language acquisition and implications for theoretical linguistics. In Huebner, T. & Ferguson, C. A. (Eds.), Crosscurrents in second language acquisition and linguistic theories (pp. 169–194). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, S. (1954). Clark L. Hull. In Estes, W. K., Koch, S., MacCorquodale, K., Mueller, C. G. Jr, Schoenfeld, W. N., & Verplanck, W. S., (Eds.), Modern learning theory (pp. 1–176). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Koch, S. (Ed.). (1959). Psychology: A study of a science. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Kohlberg, L., Levine, C., & Hewer, A. (1983). Moral stages. Basel: Karger.Google Scholar
Kosslyn, S. M. (1980). Image and mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1983). Newmark's “Ignorance Hypothesis” and current second language acquisition theory. In Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 135–153). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to SLA research. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Laschyk, E. (1986). Heuristics for scientific and literary creativity: The role of models, analogies, and metaphors. In Margolis, J., Krausz, M., & Burian, R. M. (Eds.), Rationality, relativism, and the human sciences (pp. 151–185). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Leary, D. E. (Ed.). (1990). Metaphors in the history of psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. M. (1985). Great expectations: Second language acquisition research and classroom teaching. Applied Linguistics, 6, 173–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. G. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377–393). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1990). The least a second language acquisition theory needs to explain. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 649–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loritz, D. (1991). Cerebral and cerebellar models of language learning. Applied Linguistics, 12, 299–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, R. D. (1989). Mathematical psychology and the computer revolution. In Keats, J. A., Taft, R., & Lovibond, S. H. (Eds.), Mathematical and theoretical systems (pp. 123–137). Dordrecht: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Mach, E. (1957). The analysis of sensations and the relation of the physical to the psychical (Williams, C. M. & Waterslow, S., Trans.). New York: Dover. (Original work published 1886)Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1987). Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Manicas, P. T. (1987). A history and philosophy of the social sciences. London: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Martin, J., & Harré, R. (1982). Metaphor in science. In Miall, D. S. (Ed.), Metaphor: Problems and perspectives (pp. 89–105). Brighton, UK: Harvester.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language acquisition. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1990). Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11, 113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McShane, J. (1987). Do we need a metatheory of language development? Language and Communication, 7, 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1990). Linguistics, psychologists, and the cognitive sciences. Language, 66, 317–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E. R., & Pribram, H. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neches, R., Langley, P., & Klahr, D. (1987). Learning, development, and production systems. In Klahr, D., Langley, P., & Neches, R., (Eds.), Production system models of learning and development (pp. 1–53). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nersessian, N. J. (1988). Reasoning from imagery and analogy in scientific concept formation. In PSA 1988 (Vol. 1, pp. 41–47). East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Newell, A. (1967). Studies in problem solving (Tech. Rep.). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Institute of Technology, Center for the Study of Information Processing.Google Scholar
Newell, A. (1980). Physical symbol systems. Cognitive Science, 4, 135–183.Google Scholar
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1963). GPS, a program that simulates human thought. In Feigenbaum, E. A. & Feldman, J. (Eds.), Computers and thought (pp. 279–293). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (1980). Linguistic theory in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nickles, T. (Ed.). (1980). Scientific discovery, logic and rationality. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, D. A. (1987). Reflections on cognition and parallel distributed processing. In McClelland, J. L., Rumelhart, D. E., and the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing (Vol. 2, pp. 531–546). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
O'Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., & Walker, C. (1987). Some applications of cognitive theory to second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 287–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peacocke, C. (1986). Explanation in computational psychology: Language, perception, and level 1.5. Mind and Language, 1, 101–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J. (1983). Piaget's theory. In Mussen, P. H. (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 703–732). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1987). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. In Pfaff, C. (Ed.), First and second language acquisition processes (pp. 143–168). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1987). The bootstrapping problem in language acquisition. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 399–441). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pinker, S., & Prince, A. (1987). On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition, 28, 73–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitt, J. C. (Ed.). (1988). Theories of explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Postal, P. (1964). Constituent structure: A study of contemporary models of syntactic description. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1973). The role of competence theories in cognitive psychology. Journal of Psycholinguists Research, 2, 21–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1984). Computation and cognition: Toward a foundation for cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quine, V. W. O. (1951). Two dogmas of empiricism. Philosophical Review, 60, 31–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and prediction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Reynolds, P. D. (1971). A primer in theory construction. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Robinson, D. N. (1985). Science, psychology, and explanation: Synonyms or antonyms? In Koch, S. & Leary, D. E. (Eds.), A Century of psychology as science (pp. 60–74). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Rubinstein, R. A., Laughlin, C. D. Jr, & McManus, J. (1984). Science as cognitive process. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1986). On learning the past tenses of English verbs. In Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., and the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (pp. 216–271). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, G. A. (1974). Introduction—Issues of explanation in linguistics. In Cohen, D. (Ed.), Explaining linguistic phenomena (pp. 1–20). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1988). The potential of parallel distributed processing for SLA theory and research. University of Hawai'i Working Papers in ESL, 7(1), 55–66.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1992). Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 357–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumann, J. H. (1978). The pidginization process. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schumann, J. H. (1990). Extending the scope of the acculturation/pidginization model to include cognition. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 667–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumann, J. H. (1991, October). Falsification: Has it ever happened in SLA? Paper presented at the Applied Linguistics at Michigan State conference on Theory Construction and Methodology in Second Language Acquisition Research, East Lansing, MI.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A., & Gregg, L. W. (1967). Process models and stochastic theories of simple concept formation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 4, 246–276.Google Scholar
Simon, T. W. (1979). Philosophical objections to programs as theories. In Ringle, M. (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives in artificial intelligence (pp. 225–242). Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1950). Are theories of learning necessary? Psychological Review, 57, 193–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In Ferguson, C. & Slobin, D. (Eds.), Studies of child language acquisition (pp. 175–208). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Smith, L. D. (1986). Behaviorism and logical positivism: A reassessment of the alliance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, N., & Wilson, D. (1979). Modern linguistics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, T. L. (1988). Neo-Skinnerian psychology: A non-radical behaviorism. In Fine, A. & Leplin, J. (Eds.), PSA 1988 (pp. 143–148). East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Sneed, J. D. (1971). The logical structure of mathematical physics. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sneed, J. D. (1977). The structural approach to descriptive philosophy of science. Communication and Cognition, 10, 79–86.Google Scholar
Sokolik, M. E. (1990). Learning without rules: PDP and a resolution of the adult language learning paradox. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 685–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Starosta, S. (1987). Generative grammar: The hypothetico-deductive science of language. Taipei: Crane Publishing.Google Scholar
Stegmüller, W. (1973). The structure and dynamics of theories. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Steinberg, D. (1982). Psycholinguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Stemberger, J. P. (1985). An interactive activation model of language production. In Ellis, A. (Ed.), Progress in the psychology of language (pp. 143–186). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Suchman, L. A. (1988). Representing practice in cognitive science. Human Studies, 11, 305–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppe, F. (1972). What's wrong with the Received View on the structure of scientific theories? Philosophy of Science, 39, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppe, F. (1974). The search for philosophic understanding of scientific theories. In Suppe, F. (Ed.), The structure of scientific theories (pp. 3–241). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Suppe, F. (1989). The semantic conception of theories and scientific realism. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. (1957). Introduction to logic. New York: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. (1960). A comparison of the meaning and uses of models in mathematics and the empirical sciences. Synthese, 12, 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppes, P. (1967). What is a scientific theory? In Morgenbesser, S. (Ed.), Philosophy of science today (pp. 55–67). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Thagard, P. (1988). Computational philosophy of science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Geert, P. (1990). Essential unpredictability. In Baker, W. J., Hyland, M. E., van Hezewik, R., & Terwee, S. (Eds.), Recent trends in theoretical psychology (pp. 193–209). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Lehn, K., Brown, J. S., & Greeno, J. (1984). Competitive argumentation in computational theories of cognition. In Kintsch, W., Miller, J. R., & Poison, P. G. (Eds.), Methods and tactics in cognitive science (pp. 235–262). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Van Lehn, K. (1990). Mind bugs: The origins of procedural misconceptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Verplanck, W. S. (1954). Burrhus F. Skinner. In Estes, W. K., Koch, S., MacCorquodale, K., Meehl, P. E., Mueller, C. G. Jr, Schoenfeld, W. N., & Verplanck, W. S., Modern learning theory (pp. 267–316). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Westmeyer, H. (Ed.). (1989). Psychological theories from a structural point of view. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, K., & Culicover, P. W. (1980). Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. (1979). Scientific explanation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 30, 41–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, J. (1988). Understanding regression. In Fine, A. & Leplin, J. (Eds.), PSA 1988 (pp. 255–269). East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Youngquist, W. A. (1971). Models, theories, and metaphors. In Youngquist, W. A., Theoretical essays (pp. 3–34). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.Google Scholar