Scribd
Upload
121 views2 pages

Modularity

This document discusses modularity in the brain according to Fodor's theory. It describes input systems called modules that operate in a domain-specific manner and are informationally encapsulated. The central system receives inputs from modules and generates higher-level cognition. The language system is proposed to be modular, with semantics and syntax as separable processes. Evidence from event-related potentials suggests semantics and syntax elicit distinct but additive brain responses, supporting some independence. However, limitations in understanding the underlying processes mean stronger conclusions about separability cannot yet be drawn.

Uploaded by

Pablo Guerra
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
121 views2 pages

Modularity

This document discusses modularity in the brain according to Fodor's theory. It describes input systems called modules that operate in a domain-specific manner and are informationally encapsulated. The central system receives inputs from modules and generates higher-level cognition. The language system is proposed to be modular, with semantics and syntax as separable processes. Evidence from event-related potentials suggests semantics and syntax elicit distinct but additive brain responses, supporting some independence. However, limitations in understanding the underlying processes mean stronger conclusions about separability cannot yet be drawn.

Uploaded by

Pablo Guerra
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Modularity (Fodor) In the brain there are transductors, modules and the central system. Input systems.

They create the informational inputs processing the information (los ingredientes). This lower level cognitive system work as a modular system, with some characteristics: 1. They are domain-specifics (modules only operate on certain kinds of inputs). 2. Informational encapsulation, modules need not refer to other psychological systems in order to operate. They dont mix information between each other. It is the field of information that a system use to elaborate the output. 3. They are fast. 4. They have a ontogenetic established neural architecture. Central system This system receives the inputs and generates the higher cognitive level information. It is an ethereal system, responsable of the fixation of beliefs. Mental life would be an interaccion between the modules and the central system. What about the language? According to Fodor, the language is modular, and needs a central system to share all the information that we see, hear, remind... Are semantics and syntactic processes separable and independent (as modules)? Semantically inappropriate words (selectional restriction violations) (e.g., he spread the warm bread with socks) elicit an enhanced negative wave called N400 (because the peak amplitude is elicitated at about 400 msec). N400 is specific for semantics, not applying to another unexpected stimulus (e.g., size of the letter). When incongruence and physical changes are combined, an additive effect happens. These findings suggest that both componenst are largely independent, and these processes work in parallel.

But do semantics and syntactics processes work as well in the brain? Evidence that events ocurring at the syntactic and semantic levels elicit distinct brain responeses (differ in timing, distribution and polarity) could be construed as evidence that separable syntactic and semantic processes exist. Syntantic anomally elicits normally a positive wave that begins about 600 msec after presentation of the word. This effect is called P600. Evidence shows that doubly anomalous words elicited both effects, and these effects summated in an approximately linear manner. At least under certain experimental conditions, syntactic and semantic anomalies elicit qualitatively distinct and largely independent brain responses. But we dont have a great knowledge about these processes in the brain. These limitations of underlying processes are particularly important when considering how the present findings relate to previous claims about the modularity or informational encapsulation of syntactic processing. Although some findings have been taken as evidence that the initial syntactic analysis of a sentence is unaffected by semantic and pragmatic knowledge, other findings suggest that semantic and pragmatic information can be used very quickly to influence the earliest stages of syntactic analysis. The present findings demostrate that the brain responds quite differently to syntactic and semantic/pragmatic anomalies, and that the response to each category of anomaly is relatively unaffected by the simultaneous presence of the other category of anomaly (supporting the modularity theory). Unfortunately, until we know more about the underlying processes, stronger inferences about the separability and independence of linguistic processes remain premature.

You might also like