Interactionism in language: from neural networks to bodies to dyads

Falandays, J. Benjamin; Batzloff, Brandon; Spevack, Samuel; Spivey, Michael J.

doi:10.1080/23273798.2018.1501501

Cited by 17 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 96 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thompson, Roberts, & Lupyan, 2020). Due to the highly interactive nature of the brain/mind, linguistic knowledge influences thought and action in myriad ways (Falandays, Batzloff, Spevack, & Spivey, 2020;Spevack, Falandays, Batzloff, & Spivey, 2018). Thus, there is some reason to think that if our language licenses particular ontological commitments, then our thought will be biased accordingly.…”

Section: Weird and General Biases Towards Substancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This suggests a view of nature as composed of multifarious, overlapping, oscillatory dynamics. In this light, a process-reading of Daoist thought may have much to offer the scientific theories at every level in which oscillatory dynamics figure prominently, including self-organizing chemical systems (Kondepudi, De Bari, & Dixon, 2020), neuronal systems (Buzsáki & Draguhn, 2004;Falandays, Batzloff, et al, 2020), agent-environment or agent-agent couplings (Haken, Kelso, & Bunz, 1985;Richardson, Marsh, Isenhower, Goodman, & Schmidt, 2007), and population dynamics (Matsuda, Ogita, Sasaki, & Satō, 1992).…”

Section: Process Turn In Cognitive Science 25mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…But despite this relative fixedness of structure at short time-scales, and the cliqueishness of the networks therein, the activity of relatively distinct sub-networks is not always synchronized. Instead, we can observe the correlations in activity among sub-networks adaptively reconfigure in real time based on the task context (Bassett, Meyer-Lindenberg, Achard, Duke, & Bullmore, 2006), suggesting that higher-order functional units consisting of two or more subsystems are constantly emerging and dissipating (see (Falandays, Batzloff, et al, 2020) for a toy model describing the emergence of synchrony among sub-networks). In line with this, an enactive view of cognition understands skillful behavior as the mastery of "sensorimotor contingencies," which are regularities in the interactive flows of brain, body, and environment (Di Paolo, Buhrmann, & Barandiaran, 2017).…”

Section: Process Turn In Cognitive Science 43mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Shedding Our Substantial Baggage: Towards a Process-Ontological Turn in Cognitive Science

Falandays¹

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the fallout of the replication crisis, several authors have pointed to an underlying "theory crisis" in the cognitive sciences, which are argued to lack a core set of shared principles, assumptions, and methodologies. In this essay, I contend that one major barrier to an integrated field stems from a widespread, often implicit ontological commitment among scientists to substance ontology: the metaphysical view that reality is composed of one or more fundamental, static, independent entities. I argue that this metaphysical assumption contributes to the impression that alternative theoretical decompositions of systems are logically incompatible. I consider cognitive, cultural, and historical reasons for the little-challenged dominance of substance thinking in scientific thought, but suggest that the philosophical foundations are shaky. As such, the field may benefit from engaging more deeply with alternative metaphysical traditions that can be grouped as "process ontologies": the family of views that tend to deny the idea of a fundamental level, take existence to be inherently relational, and emphasize that nature is inherently dynamic. I offer a brief survey of Western philosophical traditions that speak to one or more aspects of process thought, but shine a spotlight in particular on useful concepts from Buddhist and Daoist philosophical traditions. I consider three necessary aspects of all living systems that cannot be accounted for within substance ontology, but can by process: (1) fuzzy boundaries, (2) causal loops, and (3) change. I conclude by suggesting that process ontology may help the field of cognitive science progress by dissolving ill-founded debates regarding the fundamental level of analysis, opening a path for a rigorous meta-theory of cognition.

show abstract

Section: Weird and General Biases Towards Substancementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Process Turn In Cognitive Science 25mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Process Turn In Cognitive Science 43mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Shedding Our Substantial Baggage: Towards a Process-Ontological Turn in Cognitive Science

Falandays¹

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Related work has shown that a highly constraining discourse context can make an anomalous sentence get processed as though it has no anomalies (Nieuwland & van Berkum, ) and can even elicit the anticipation of specific upcoming words (van Berkum et al, ). More recent EEG studies have begun to explore exactly how it is that different brain regions might cooperate with each other to carry out these context effects, finding that phase synchronization of large‐scale neuronal activation patterns may be fundamental (e.g., Lam, Bastiaansen, Dijkstra, & Rueschemeyer, ; Lewis, Schoffelen, Hoffmann, Bastiaansen, & Schriefers, ; Rommers, Dickson, Norton, Wlotko, & Federmeier, ; see also Falandays, Batzloff, Spevack, & Spivey, in press).…”

Section: Neural Measures Of Interactive Language Processing In a Humanmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interactivity of language

Spevack¹,

Falandays²,

Batzloff³

et al. 2018

Language and Linguist. Compass

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In previous decades, the language sciences made important advances by dividing language into its different information formats, such as phonetics, semantics, and syntax. Such division generally implied that language processing is divorced from context. In more recent decades, however, important advances in the language sciences have been made in understanding how linguistic information interacts with context. These contextual influences stem from a broad range of sources. They include linguistic and non‐linguistic processes within and between individuals. This brief review touches on experimental results from both behavioral and neural measures, and from both individuals processing prepared linguistic stimuli and dyads sharing unscripted conversation. Overall, the findings generally support a view of language processing that must somehow allow for the different information formats of language to retain their unique labels but also accommodate the fact that they frequently interact and overlap with other, even non‐linguistic, formats of information.

show abstract

“…In recent decades, psychology, linguistics, and neuroscience have seen a shift away from the assumption that the mind and brain can be understood in isolation through the lens of highly simplified and restrictive tasks (Dhami et al, 2004;Falandays et al, 2018;Hamilton & Huth , 2018;Meteyard & Bose, 2018). This is part of a broader acknowledgement in the cognitive sciences that restricted lab-based 'in vacuo' tasks (Clark, 2018b), prized for their high degree of experimental control, may not accurately or validly reflect the cognitive processes that take place in real-world 'in situ' situations (Clark, 1996;Clark, 2018a;Hamilton & Huth, 2018;Meteyard & Vigliocco, 2018;Owen et al, 2010;Vigliocco et al, 2014;Willems, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is Functional Communication? A Theoretical Framework for Real-World Communication Applied to Aphasia Rehabilitation

Doedens

Meteyard

2022

Neuropsychol Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aphasia is an impairment of language caused by acquired brain damage such as stroke or traumatic brain injury, that affects a person’s ability to communicate effectively. The aim of rehabilitation in aphasia is to improve everyday communication, improving an individual’s ability to function in their day-to-day life. For that reason, a thorough understanding of naturalistic communication and its underlying mechanisms is imperative. The field of aphasiology currently lacks an agreed, comprehensive, theoretically founded definition of communication. Instead, multiple disparate interpretations of functional communication are used. We argue that this makes it nearly impossible to validly and reliably assess a person’s communicative performance, to target this behaviour through therapy, and to measure improvements post-therapy. In this article we propose a structured, theoretical approach to defining the concept of functional communication. We argue for a view of communication as “situated language use”, borrowed from empirical psycholinguistic studies with non-brain damaged adults. This framework defines language use as: (1) interactive, (2) multimodal, and (3) contextual. Existing research on each component of the framework from non-brain damaged adults and people with aphasia is reviewed. The consequences of adopting this approach to assessment and therapy for aphasia rehabilitation are discussed. The aim of this article is to encourage a more systematic, comprehensive approach to the study and treatment of situated language use in aphasia.

show abstract

Interactionism in language: from neural networks to bodies to dyads

Cited by 17 publications

References 96 publications

Shedding Our Substantial Baggage: Towards a Process-Ontological Turn in Cognitive Science

Shedding Our Substantial Baggage: Towards a Process-Ontological Turn in Cognitive Science

Interactivity of language

What is Functional Communication? A Theoretical Framework for Real-World Communication Applied to Aphasia Rehabilitation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About