Dynamics in language from a linguistic and neurocognitive perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18778/1427-9665.10.04Keywords:
cognitivism, dynamic approach , embodimentAbstract
Cognitive sciences are grouped together according to their substantial disciplines such as neurobiology, psychology, linguistics and many others. From more than ten years a search has been undertaken for the best fitting cognitive research method, that does not influence the scientific output. More recently attention has been turned to systems which might operate through their dynamic aspect, called the dynamic approach. Their great advantage is to see the old linguistic axioms such as connectivity in a new way.Downloads
References
Atkinson D. (2011), Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition, London, New York. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203830932
Basar E. (1990), Chaos in Brain Function, Berlin. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-75545-3
Cohnitz D. (2005), Is Compositionality an a Priori Principle? In: Wening M., Machery E., Schurz G. (Hrsg.), The Compositionality of Concepts and Meanings, Ontos. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110323627.23
Elman J. L. (1990), Finding Structure in Time. In: Cognitive Science, 14, S. 179–211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(90)90002-E
Elman J. L. (1991), Distributed Representations, Simple Recurrent Networks, and Grammatical Structure. In: Machine Learning, 7, S. 195–224. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022699029236
Elman J. L. (1995), Language as a Dynamical System. In: Port R., van Gelder T. (Hrsg.), Mind as Motion, Cambridge.
Frege G. (1879), Begriffsschrift, eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens. Halle/S.
Gallagher S. (2005), How the Body Shapes the Mind, New York. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0199271941.001.0001
Jordan M. I., Rosenbaum D. A. (1988), Action. Technical Report 88-26, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Kelso J. A. S., Ding M., Schöner G. (1992), Dynamic Pattern Formation: A Primer. In: Baskin A. B., Mittenthal J. E. (Hrsg.), Principles of Organization in Organisms. SFI Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, AddisonWesley. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2523.003.0006
Malsburg von der C. (1999), The What and Why of Binding: The Modeler’s Perspective. In: Neuron, 24, S. 95–104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(00)80825-9
Port R. F., Gelder van T. (Hrsg.), (1995), Mind as Motion. Explorations in the Dynamics of Cognition, Cambridge, Bradford.
Senge P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, New York.
Seppänen A., Suuronen T., Hofmann S., Majamaa K., Alafuzoff I. (2007), Distribution of Collagen XVII in the Human Brain. In: Brain Res., 1158, S. 50–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.04.073
Singer W. (1999), Neuronal Synchrony: A Versatile Code for the Definition of Relations? In: Neuron, 24, S. 49–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(00)80821-1
Stephan A. (2005), Emergenz. Von der Unvorhersagbarkeit zur Selbstorganisation, Tübingen.
Tarnopolski O. (2012), Constructivist Blended Learning Approach to Teaching English for Specific Purposes, London. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/9788376560014
Thelen E., Smith L. B. (1996), A Dynamic Systems Approach to the Development of Cognition and Action, Cambridge, London.
Werning M. (2004), Compositionaltity, Context, Categories and the Indeterminacy of Translation. In: Erkenntnis, 60, S. 145–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ERKE.0000012876.85940.b3
Wildgen W. (1998), Chaos, Fractals and Dissipative Structures in Language or the End of Linguistic Structuralism. In: Koch W., Altmann G. (Hrsg.), Systems: New Paradigms for the Human Sciences, Berlin, S. 596–620. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110801194.596
Wildgen W. (2008), Kognitive Grammatik. Klassische Paradigmen und neue Perspektiven, Berlin. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110976724
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
