Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-shngb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T00:29:03.436Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can evolution provide perfectly optimal solutions for a universal model of reading?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 August 2012

Christina Behme
Christina Behme*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Dalhousie University, Halifax B3H 4P9, Canada. Christina.Behme@dal.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Frost has given us good reason to question the universality of existing computational models of reading. Yet, he has not provided arguments showing that all languages share fundamental and invariant reading universals. His goal of outlining the blueprint principles for a universal model of reading is premature. Further, it is questionable whether natural evolution can provide the optimal solutions that Frost invokes.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 35 , Issue 5 , October 2012 , pp. 279 - 280
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Berwick, R. & Chomsky, N. (2010) The biolinguistic program: The current state of its evolution and development. In: Biolinguistic investigations, ed. Di Sciullo, A. M. & Aguero, C., pp. 19–42. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Blanchard, D., Heinz, J. & Golinkoff, R. (2010) Modeling the contribution of phonotactic cues to the problem of word segmentation. Journal of Child Language 37:487–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2010) Some reflections on Darwin's Problem in the context of Cartesian biolinguistics. In: The biolinguistic enterprise: New perspectives on the evolution and nature of the human language faculty, ed. Di Sciullo, A. M. & Boeckx, C., pp. 42–64. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995) The minimalist program. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2007) Biolinguistic explorations: Design, development, evolution. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 15(1):1–21.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2010) The mysteries of nature how deeply hidden? In: Chomsky notebook, by N. Chomsky, ed. Bricmont, J. & Franck, J., pp. 3–33. Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emberson, L., Convey, C. & Christiuancen, M. (2011) Timing is everything: Changes in presentation rate have opposite effects on auditory and visual implicit statistical learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 64(5):1021–40.Google Scholar
Evans, N. & Levinson, S. C. (2009) The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 32:429–92.Google Scholar
Everett, D. (2005) Biology and language: A consideration of alternatives. Journal of Linguistics 41:157–75.Google Scholar
Fitch, T. (2007) Linguistics: An invisible hand. Nature 449:665–67.Google Scholar
Jacobs, A. M. & Grainger, J. (1994) Models of visual word recognition – Sampling the state of the art. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 20:1311–34.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. & Lappin, S. (1997) A critique of the minimalist program. Linguistics and Philosophy 20:273–333.Google Scholar
Postal, P. (2003) (Virtually) Conceptually necessary. Journal of Linguistics 39:1–22.Google Scholar
Postal, P. (2004) Skeptical linguistic essays. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Seuren, P. (2004) Chomsky's minimalism. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. (1998) Rhyme and reason: An introduction to minimalist syntax. MIT Press.Google Scholar