Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:50:11.618Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adaptive cognition without massive modularity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2014

Raymond W. Gibbs Jr.  and
Guy C. Van Orden
Raymond W. Gibbs Jr.
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Cruz University of Cincinnati
Guy C. Van Orden*
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Cruz University of Cincinnati
*
Correspondence addresses: Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr., Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA. E-mail: gibbs@ucsc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Massive modularity theory has replaced classic, Fodorian modularity as a major focus of research within cognitive science. The massive modularity thesis posits that there are a large number of knowledge and action stories, designed in a piecemeal fashion over evolutionary time to solve specific, adaptive problems. We criticize massive modularity as a general theory of human cognition, with particular attention to the issue of context-sensitive perception, thought, and language. First, the experimental methods used to uncover individual modules are notoriously inadequate and fail to meet reasonable standards by which modules may be dissociated from one another. Second, input criteria, by which modules are presumably defined, may be impossible to discover given the context-embedded nature of human performance. Third, catalogues of experimental effects that are assumed to demonstrate the presence of modules do not constitute a comprehensive theory of the acknowledged interaction of brain, body, and world in ordinary cognition. An alternative conception of cognitive performance, based on principles of self-organization, better explains the embedded, context-sensitive mechanisms of adaptive cognition.

Keywords

adaptive cognitionmassive modularityrelevance theoryevolutionary psychologypsycholinguistics
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , June 2010 , pp. 149 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2010

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

Adamatsky, A. 2005. Dynamics of crowd minds: Patterns of irrationality in emotions, beliefs and actions. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific.Google Scholar
Atran, S. 2005. Adaptationism for human cognition: Strong, spurious, or weak? Mind and Language 20. 39–67.Google Scholar
Bak, P. 1996. How nature works: The science of self-organized criticality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barrett, H. C. 2005. Enzymatic computation and cognitive modularity. Mind and Language 20. 259–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, H. C. & Kurzban, R.. 2006. Modularity in cognition: Framing the debate. Psychological Review 113. 628–647.Google Scholar
Bassingthwaighte, J., Liebovitch, L. & West, B.. 1994. Fractal physiology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Camazine, S., Deneubourg, J.-L., Franks, N., Sneyd, J., Theraulaz, G. & Bonabeau, E.. 2003. Self-organization in biological systems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Capone, A. 2009. Default semantics and the architecture of the mind. Unpublished paper retrieved from the semanticsarchive.net.Google Scholar
Carruthers, P. 2006. The architecture of the mind: Massive modularity and the flexibility of thought. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Carruthers, P. 2008. On Fodor-fixation, flexibility, and human uniqueness: A reply to Cowie, Machery and Wilson. Mind and Language 23. 293–303.Google Scholar
Cosmides, L. 1989. The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task. Cognition 31. 187–276.Google Scholar
Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J.. 1992. Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In Barkow, J., Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (eds.), The adapted mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cowie, F. 2008. Us, them and it: Modules, genes, environments and evolution. Mind and Language 23. 284–292.Google Scholar
Depew, D. & Weber, B.. 1995. Darwinism evolving: Systems dynamics and the genealogy of natural selection. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Elsabbagh, M. & Karmiloff-Smith, A.. 2006. Modularity of mind and language. In Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edition. Volume 8. 218–224. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Farrar, W. & Van Orden, G.. 2001. Errors as multistable response options. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences 5. 223–265.Google Scholar
Fiddick, L., Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J.. 2000. No interpretation without representation: The role of domain-specific representation and inferences in the Wason selection task. Cognition 77. 1–79.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. 1983. Modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fowler, C., Richardson, M., Marsh, K. & Shockley, K.. 2008. Language use, coordination, and the emergence of cooperative action. In Fuchs, A. & Jirsa, V. (eds.), Coordination: Neural, behavioral, and social dynamics, 161–180. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Galantucci, B., Fowler, C. & Turvey, M.. 2006. The motor theory of speech perception reviewed. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 13. 361–377.Google Scholar
Garrod, S. & Pickering, M.. 2004. Why is conversation so easy? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8. 8–11.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R.W. Jr. 1994. The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R.W. Jr. 2006. Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R.W. Jr. & Bryant, G.. 2008. Striving for optimal relevance in answering questions. Cognition 106. 345–369.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R.W. Jr. & Cameron, L.. 2007. Social-cognitive dynamics of metaphor performance. Cognitive Systems Research 9. 64–75.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R.W. Jr. & Tendahl, M.. 2006. Cognitive effort and effects in metaphor comprehension: Relevance theory and psycholinguistics. Mind and Language 21. 379–403.Google Scholar
Gilden, D. 2001. Cognitive emissions of 1/f noise. Psychological Review 108. 33–56.Google Scholar
Goldfield, E. 1995. Emergent forms: Early development of human action and perception. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldinger, S. & Azuma, T.. 2003. Puzzle-solving science: The quixotic quest for units in speech perception. Journal of Phonetics 31. 305–320.Google Scholar
Guastello, S., Koopmans, M. & Pincus, D.. (eds.). 2009. Chaos and complexity in psychology: The theory of nonlinear dynamical systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haley, K. & Fessler, D.. 2005. Nobody's watching? Subtle cues affect generosity in an anonymous economic game. Evolution and Human Behavior 26. 245–256.Google Scholar
Hollis, G., Kloos, H. & Van Orden, G.. 2009. Origins of order in cognitive activity. In Guastello, S., Koopmans, M. & Pincus, D. (eds.), Chaos and complexity in psychology: The theory of nonlinear dynamical systems, 206–241. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hooker, C. (ed.). 2009. Handbook of the philosophy of science. Volume 10: Philosophy of complex systems. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Kauffman, S. 1993. The origin of order. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kello, C. 2003. The emergence of a double dissociation in the modulation of a single control parameter in a single dynamic system. Cortex 39. 132–134.Google Scholar
Kello, C., Beltz, B., Holden, J. & Van Orden, G.. 2007. The emergent coordination of cognitive function. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 136. 551–568.Google Scholar
Kelso, J.S. 1984. Phase transitions and critical behavior in human bimanual coordination. American Journal of Physiology: Regulatory, Integrative, and Comparative 15. R1000–R1004.Google Scholar
Kelso, J.S. 1995. Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kelso, J.S. & Engstrøm, D.. 2006. The complementary nature. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Cameron, L.. 2008. Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Machery, E. 2008. Modularity and the flexibility of human cognition. Mind and Language 23. 263–272.Google Scholar
McKinstry, C., Dale, R. & Spivey, M.. 2008. Action dynamics reveal parallel competition in decision making. Psychological Science 19. 22–24.Google Scholar
Noe, A. 2009. Out of our heads. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
Oudeyer, P.-Y. 2006. Self-organization in the evolution of speech. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Patterson, K. & Plaut, D.. 2009. Shallow draughts intoxicate the brain: Lessons from cognitive science for cognitive neuropsychology. Topics in Cognitive Science 1. 39–58.Google Scholar
Prigogine, I. 1997. The end of certainty: Time, chaos, and the new laws of nature. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Ra̧czsazek-Leonardi, J., Shapir, L., Tuller, B. & Kelso, J. S.. 2008. Activating basic category exemplars in sentence contexts: A dynamical account. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 37. 87–113.Google Scholar
Richardson, M., Marsh, K., Isenhower, R., Goodman, J. & Schmidt, R.. 2007. Rocking together: Dynamics of intentional and unintentional interpersonal coordination. Human Movement Science 26. 867–891.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roskies, A. In press. Saving subtraction: A reply to Van Orden and Paap. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar
Shallice, T. 1988. From neuropsychology to mental structure. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shockley, K., Richardson, D. & Dale, R.. 2009. Conversation and coordinative structures. Topics in Cognitive Science 1. 305–319.Google Scholar
Solé, R. & Goodwin, B.. 2000. Signs of life: How complexity pervades biology. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. 2002. In defense of massive modularity. In Dupoux, E. (ed.), Language, brain, and cognitive development: Essays in honor of Jacques Mehler, 47–57. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. 2005. Modularity and relevance: How can a massively modular mind be flexible and context-sensitive? In Carruthers, P., Laurence, S. & Stich, S. (eds.), The innate mind: Structure and content, 53–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.. 1995. Relevance and communication, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.. 2002. Pragmatics, modularity and mindreading. Mind and Language 17. 3–23.Google Scholar
Stephen, D., Boncoddo, R., Magnuson, J. & Dixon, J.. 2009. The dynamics of insight: Mathematical discovery as a phase transition. Memory and Cognition 37. 1132–1149.Google Scholar
Spivey, M. 2007. The continuity of mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tabor, W. & Hutchins, S.. 2004. Evidence for self-organized sentence processing: Digging in effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30. 431–450.Google Scholar
Tschacher, W. & Dauwalder, J.-P. (eds.). 2003. The dynamical systems approach to cognition. River Edge, NJ: World Scientific.Google Scholar
Tuller, B. 2005. Categorization and learning in speech perception as dynamical processes. In Riley, M. & Van Orden, G. (eds.), Tutorials in contemporary nonlinear methods for the behavioral sciences, 353–400. http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/bcs/pac/nmbs/nmbs.jspGoogle Scholar
Uttal, W. 2007. Neural theories of mind: Why the mind-brain problem may never be solved. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Van Orden, G., Haar, M. Jansen op de & Bosman, A.. 1997. Complex dynamic systems also predict dissociations, but they do not reduce to autonomous components. Cognitive Neuropsychology 14. 131–165.Google Scholar
Van Orden, G. & Kloos, H.. 2003. The module mistake. Cortex 39. 164–166.Google Scholar
Van Orden, G., Kloos, H. & Wallot, S.. 2009. Living in the pink: Intentionality, wellness, and complexity. In Hooker, C. (ed.), Handbook of the philosophy of science. Volume 10: Philosophy of complex systems, 639–682. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Van Orden, G. & Paap, K.. 1997. Functional neuroimages fail to discover pieces of mind in the parts of the brain. Philosophy of Science 64. Supplement. S85–S94.Google Scholar
Van Orden, G., Pennington, B. & Stone, G.. 2001. What do double dissociations prove? Cognitive Science 25. 111–172.Google Scholar
Van Rooji, I., Bongers, R. & Haselager, W.. 2002. A non-representational approach to imagined action. Cognitive Science 26. 345–375.Google Scholar
Ward, L. 2002. Dynamical cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Weiskopf, D. In press. Concepts and the modularity of thought. Dialectica.Google Scholar
West, B. 2006. Where medicine went wrong: Rediscovering the path to complexity. London: World Scientific.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. & Sperber, D.. 2004. Relevance theory. In Horn, L. & Ward, G. (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wijnants, M., Bosman, A., Hasselman, F., Cox, R. & Van Orden, G.. 2009. 1/f Scaling in movement time changes with practice in precision aiming. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and the Life Sciences 13. 79–98.Google Scholar
Zewail, A. (ed.). 2008. Physical biology: From atoms to medicine. Hackensack, NJ: Imperial College Press.Google Scholar