Constituent similarity and systematicity: The limits of first-order connectionism

Connection Science

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 45-63

  Phillips, Steven ^a  

^a ELECTROTECHNICAL LABORATORY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Connectionism; Constituent; Novelty, relation; Similarity; Systematicity; Transverse patterning

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034341617     PISSN: 09540091     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/095400900116195     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Astur, R. S., and Sutherland, R. J., 1998, Configural learning in humans: the transverse patterning problem. Psychobiology, 26 (3): 176-182.
2. Boden, M., and Niklasson, L., in press, Semantic systematicity and context in connectionist networks. Connection Science, 12 (1).
3. Bringsjorg, S., Noel, R., and Bringsjord, E. 1998, In defence of logical minds. In M. A. Gersbacher and S. J. Derry (eds) Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Erlbaum Erlbaum), pp. 173-178.
4. Brousse, O. J., 1991, Generativity and Systematicity in Neural Network Combinatorial Learning, PhD thesis. University of Colarado, Boulder, CO.
5. Chalmers, D. J., 1990, Syntactic transformations on distributed representations. Connection Science, 2: 53-62.
6. Chrisman, L. 1991, Learning recursive distributed representations for holistic computation. Connection Science, 3: 345-366.
7. Clark, A., and Thornton, C., 1997, Trading spaces: computation, representation and the limits of uniformed learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20: 57-90.
8. Elman, J. L., 1990, Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14: 179-211.
9. Elman, J. L., 1993, Learning and development in neural networks: the importance of starting small. Cognition, 48: 71-99.
10. Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., and Plunkett, K., 1996, Rethinking innateness: a connectionist perspective on development. In Neural Network Modeling and Connectionism (Cambridge MA: MIT Press).
11. Fodor, J. A., 1997, Connectionism and the problem of systematicity (continued): why Smolensky's solution still doesn't work. Cognition, 63 (1): 109-119.
12. Fodor, J. A., and Pylyshyn, Z. W., 1988, Connectionism and cognitive architecture: a critical analysis. Cognition, 28: 3-71.
13. Goldstone, R. L., Medin, D., and Genter, D., 1991, Relational similarity and the non-independence of features in similarity judgements. Cognitive Psychology, 23: 222-264.
14. Hadley, R. F., 1994a, Systematicity in connectionist language learning. Mind and Language, 9 (3): 247-272.
15. Hadley, R. F., 1994b, Systematicity revisited: reply to Chater and Christiansen and Niklasson and van Gelder. Mind and Language, 9 (4): 431-444.
16. Hadley, R. F., 1999, Cognition and the computational power of connectionist networks. In M. Hahn and S. C. Stoness (eds) Proceedings of the Twentyfirst Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum), pp. 196-201.
17. Hadley, R. F., and Hayward, M. B., 1997, Strong semantic systematicity from Hebbian connectionist learning. Minds and Machines, 7: 1-37.
18. Halford, G. S., 1993, Children's Understanding: The Development of Mental Models (Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum).
19. Halford, G. S., Bain, J. D., Maybery, M. T., and Andrews, G., 1998a, Induction of relational schemas: common processes in reasoning and complex learning. Cognitive Psychology, 35: 201-245.
20. Halford, G. S., Wilson, W. H., Guo, J., Gayler, R. W., Wiles, J., and Stewart, J. E. M., 1994. Connectionist implications for processing capacity limitations in analogies. In K. J. Holyoak and J. Barnden (eds) Advances in Connectionist and Neural Network Theory, Ch. 7 (Norwood NJ: Ablex).
21. Halford, G. S., Wilson, W. H., and Phillips, S., 1998b, Processing capacity defined by relational complexity: implications for comparative, developmental, and cognitive psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21 (6): 803-831.
22. Harnad, S., 1990, The symbol grounding problem. Physica D, 42: 335-346.
23. Hinton, G. E., 1990, Mapping part-whole hierarchies in connectionist networks. Artificial Intelligence, 46 (1-2): 47-76.
24. Hummel, J. E., and Holyoak, K. J., 1997, Distributed representations of structure: a theory of analogical access and mapping. Psychological Review, 104 (3): 427-466.
25. Karmiloff-Smith, A., 1992, Beyond Modularity: A Developmental Perspective on Cognitive Science (Cambridge MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books).
26. Kirsh, D., 1990, When is information explicitly represented? In P. Hanson (ed.) Information. Language and Cognition: Vancouver Studies in Cognitive Science (Vancouver BC: UBC Press).
27. Marcus, G., 1998a, Can connectionism save constructivism? Cognition, 66: 153-182.
28. Marcus, G., 1998b, Rethinking eliminative connectionism. Cognitive Psychology, 37: 243-282.
29. Marslen-Wilson, W., and Tyler, L. K., 1998, Rules, representations, and the English past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2 (11): 428-435.
30. Niklasson, L., and Boden, M., 1999, Content, context and connectionist networks. In M. Hahn and S. C. Stoness (eds) Proceedings of the Twentyfirst Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum), pp. 474-479.
31. Niklasson, L., and van Gelder, T., 1994, Systematicity and connectionist language learning. Mind and Language, 9 (3): 288-302.
32. Phillips, S., 1994, Strong systematicity within a connectionist framework: the tensor-recurrent network. In A. Ram and K. Eiselt (eds) Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum), pp. 723-727.
33. Phillips, S., 1995, Connectionism and the Problem of Systematicity, PhD thesis, The University of Queensland, Department of Computer Science, Brisbane, Australia. Available from http://www. etl.go.jp/~stevep.
34. Phillips, S., 1998, Are feedforward and recurrent networks systematic? Analysis and implications for a connectionist cognitive architecture. Connection Science, 10 (2): 137-160.
35. Phillips. S., 1999, Systematic minds, unsystematic models: learning transfer in humans and networks. Minds and Machines, 9 (3): 383-398.
36. Phillips, S., and Halford, G. S., 1997, Systematicity: psychological evidence with connectionist implications. In M. G. Shafto and P. Langley (eds) Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 614-619.
37. Phillips, S., Halford, G. S., and Wilson, W. H., 1995, The processing of associations versus the processing of relations and symbols: a systematic comparison. In J. D. Moore and J. F. Lehman (eds) Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 688-691.
38. Pollack, J. B., 1990, Recursive distributed representations. Artificial Intelligence, 46: 77-105.
39. Shastri, L., and Ajjanagadde, V., 1993, From simple associations to systematic reasoning: a connectionist representation of rules, variables and dynamic binding using temporal synchrony. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16 (3): 417-494.
40. Shepard, R., and Chipman, S., 1970, Second-order isomorphism of internal representations: shapes of states. Cognitive Psychology, 1: 1-17.
41. Smolensky, P. 1990, Tensor product variable binding and the representation of symbolic structures in connectionist systems. Artificial Intelligence, 46: 159-216.
42. Sun, R., and Alexandre, F. (eds), 1997, Connectionist-Symbolic Integration: From Unified to Hybrid Approaches (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum).
43. van Gelder, T., and Niklasson, L., 1994, Classicism and cognitive architecture. In A. Ram and K. Eiselt (eds) Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum), pp. 905-909.