Topics in Cognitive Science最新文献

Mastering how to convey meanings using language is perhaps the main challenge facing any language learner. However, satisfactory accounts of how this is achieved, and even of what it is for a linguistic item to have meaning, are hard to come by. Nick Chater was one of the pioneers involved in the early development of one of the most successful methodologies within the cognitive science of language for discovering meaning: distributional semantics. In this article, we review this approach and discuss its successes and shortcomings in capturing semantic phenomena. In particular, we discuss what we dub the "distributional paradox:" how can models that do not implement essential dimensions of human semantic processing, such as sensorimotor grounding, capture so many meaning-related phenomena? We conclude by providing a preliminary answer, arguing that distributional models capture the statistical scaffolding of human language acquisition that allows for communication, which, in line with Nick Chater's more recent ideas, has been shaped by the features of human cognition on the timescale of cultural evolution.

The 25th anniversary of the Rumelhart Prize in Cognitive Science and a special issue of Topics in Cognitive Science celebrating the achievements of two recent Rumelhart Prize recipients provides an opportunity to reflect on the prize, the scientists that it honors, and the scientific values it seeks to promote. I offer my perspective on these topics as a long-time member of the Cognitive Science Society, a collaborator and friend of David Rumelhart, and as the first chair of the Rumelhart Prize selection committee. I see the prize as celebrating several aspects of what I believe many cognitive scientists aspire to achieve. We seek to make contributions to our understanding of our unique human ability to make sense of the world and of each other. We seek to employ a wide range of tools and methods, as well as insights from a wide range of perspectives. We seek to engage with our colleagues and our students, to create community, and even to have fun while we pursue our scientific goals. The careers of Dave Rumelhart and of the two Rumelhart Prize Winners celebrated in this special issue all richly exemplify these traits.

Research over the past four decades has built a convincing case that co-speech hand gestures play a powerful role in human cognition . However, this recent focus on the cognitive function of gesture has, to a large extent, overlooked its emotional role-a role that was once central to research on bodily expression. In the present review, we first give a brief summary of the wealth of research demonstrating the cognitive function of co-speech gestures in language acquisition, learning, and thinking. Building on this foundation, we revisit the emotional function of gesture across a wide range of communicative contexts, from clinical to artistic to educational, and spanning diverse fields, from cognitive neuroscience to linguistics to affective science. Bridging the cognitive and emotional functions of gesture highlights promising avenues of research that have varied practical and theoretical implications for human-machine interactions, therapeutic interventions, language evolution, embodied cognition, and more.

For young children, gesture is found to precede and predict language development. However, we are still building a knowledge base about the specific nature of the relationship between gesture and speech. While much of the research on this topic has been conducted with neurotypical children, there is a growing body of work with children who have or are at increased likelihood of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Here, we summarize the literature on relations between gesture and speech, including the role of child gesture production as well as that of gesture exposure (caregiver gesture). We include literature on both neurotypical children and children with or at likelihood of ASD, highlight the similarities and differences across populations, and offer implications for research as well as early identification and intervention.

Gesture and speech are tightly linked and form a single system in typical development. In this review, we ask whether and how the role of gesture and relations between speech and gesture vary in atypical development by focusing on two groups of children: those with peri- or prenatal unilateral brain injury (children with BI) and preterm born (PT) children. We describe the gestures of children with BI and PT children and the relations between gesture and speech, as well as highlight various cognitive and motor antecedents of the speech-gesture link observed in these populations. We then examine possible factors contributing to the variability in gesture production of these atypically developing children. Last, we discuss the potential role of seeing others' gestures, particularly those of parents, in mediating the predictive relationships between early gestures and upcoming changes in speech. We end the review by charting new areas for future research that will help us better understand the robust roles of gestures for typical and atypically-developing child populations.

This paper attempts to reconcile the claims that the mind is both flat (Chater, 2018) and highly rational (Oaksford & Chater, 2020). According to the flat mind hypothesis, the mind is a mass of inconsistent and contradictory fragments of experience. However, standard accounts of rationality from formal epistemology argue that to be rational, our beliefs must be consistent, and we must believe all the logical consequences of our beliefs. A social account of rationality is developed based on Brandom's (1994) logical expressivism, in which respecting the norms of logic and probability theory is still central but where these standards apply to our public commitments in social dialogical contexts rather than to our individual belief systems (Skovgaard-Olsen, 2017). According to this account, even if someone's individual beliefs are inconsistent, they cannot be condemned as irrational if they acknowledge the inconsistency and seek to resolve it. It is shown how this approach interacts with people's fragmented and shallow world knowledge, and its social distribution yields some counterintuitive consequences, such as it sometimes being rational individually not seeking to resolve contradictions. Other consequences of this social expressivist approach are considered, including for dual process theories of reasoning, our view of beliefs, the status of logic, and Fodor's (1983) view of central systems. It is concluded that people can have flat minds and yet be highly rational.

Studies of homesigns have shed light on the human capacity for language and on the challenging problem of language acquisition. The study of homesign has evolved from a perspective grounded in gesture studies and child development to include sign language linguistics and the role of homesigns in language emergence at the community level. One overarching finding is that homesigns more closely resemble sign languages used by linguistic communities than they resemble the gestures produced by hearing people along with spoken language. Homesigns may not exhibit all of the linguistic properties of community languages, but the properties they do exhibit are language properties, and for the people who use them, homesigns are their language. Further, the linguistic structures in homesigns are innovated by the deaf people who use them and are imperfectly learned by their hearing communication partners. I close with a call to action: We cannot celebrate discoveries about the mind made possible by studies of homesigns and emerging languages while ignoring the pervasiveness of language deprivation among deaf people, and the relative lack of deaf participation in science, even in studies of sign languages. While the scientific community learns much from studying homesigns and sign languages, we also have a responsibility to work toward ensuring that every deaf person has access to language, communication, and education.

How should we identify interesting topics in cognitive science? This paper suggests that one useful research strategy is to hunt for, and attempt to resolve, paradoxes: that is, apparent or real contradictions in our understanding of the mind and of thought. The rationale for this strategy is the assumption that our current thinking, and our various partial theories, of any topic are typically ill-defined, inconsistent or both. Thus, contradictions and confusions abound. Isolating paradoxes helps us expose vagueness and contradictions and demands that we formulate our ideas more precisely. From this point of view, finding a robust and puzzling contradiction in our current thinking should be celebrated as an achievement in itself. Ideally, of course, we then make further progress by clarifying how the paradox may be resolved, by clarifying our theories or finding new data that may decide between inconsistent assumptions. This approach is illustrated through examples from the author's research over several decades, which seems in retrospect to involve a repeated, if largely unwitting, application of this strategy.

Susan Goldin-Meadow is the 2021 Recipient of the Rumelhart Prize. Goldin-Meadow's body of research addresses the roles of gesture in language creation, communication, learning, and cognition. In one major strand of her research, Goldin-Meadow has studied gestures in children who are not exposed to any structured language input, specifically, deaf children of hearing parents who do not expose their children to sign language. These children create a highly structured, language-like system with their hands-a homesign. In another major strand, Goldin-Meadow has focused on the gestures that people produce along with speech. She has examined how gestures contribute to producing and comprehending language at the moment of speaking or signing, how gestures contribute to learning language and to learning other concepts and skills, and how gestures may actually constitute and change people's thinking. This topic collection is made up of papers that represent and extend these strands of Goldin-Meadow's work. This introductory article provides a brief biography of Goldin-Meadow, and it highlights ways in which the contributions to the topic collection exemplify several notable characteristics of Goldin-Meadow's body of work, including (1) a focus on multiple timescales of behavior and behavior change; (2) use of diverse methods, approaches, and populations; and (3) considerations of equity and inclusion, both in research and in educational and clinical practice.