Ambridge argues that there is widespread agreement among child language researchers that learners store linguistic abstractions. In this commentary the authors first argue that this assumption is incorrect; anti-representationalist/exemplar views are pervasive in theories of child language. Next, the authors outline what has been learned from this body of work, including insights into mechanisms underlying language learning. Interestingly, some of these mechanisms are at odds with counterarguments in Ambridge, such as the finding that forgetting is a critical process of language.
AmbridgeB. (2020). Against stored abstractions: A radical exemplar model of language acquisition. First Language40(5-6): 509–559.
2.
ChemeroA. (2000). Anti-representationalism and the dynamical stance. Philosophy of Science, 67, 625–647. https://doi.org/10.1086/392858
3.
ColungaE.SmithL. B. (2008). Shape bias special section: Knowledge embedded in process: The self-organization of skilled noun learning. Developmental Science, 11, 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00665.x
GentnerD.HolyoakK. J.KokinovB. N. (2001). The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science. The MIT Press.
6.
GoswamiU. (2013). The development of reasoning by analogy. In BarrouilletP.GauffroyC. (Eds.), The development of thinking and reasoning (pp. 49–70). Psychology Press.
KroghL.VlachH. A.JohnsonS. P. (2013). Statistical learning across development: Flexible yet constrained. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, Article 598. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00598
9.
KuckerS. C.McMurrayB.SamuelsonL. K. (2015). Slowing down fast mapping: Redefining the dynamics of word learning. Child Development Perspectives, 9, 74–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12110
SamuelsonL. K.JenkinsG. W.SpencerJ. P. (2015). Grounding cognitive-level processes in behavior: The view from dynamic systems theory. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7, 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
SmithL. B. (2000). Learning how to learn words: An associative crane. In GolinkoffR.Hirsh-PasekK.BloomL.SmithL. B.AkhtarN.TomaselloM.HollichG. (Eds.), Becoming a word learner: A debate on lexical acquisition (pp. 51–80). Oxford University Press.
SmithL. B.SamuelsonL. K. (1997). Perceiving and remembering: Category stability, variability and development. In LambertsK.ShanksD. R. (Eds.), Studies in cognition: Knowledge, concepts and categories (pp. 161–195). The MIT Press.
16.
SmithL. B.SamuelsonL. K. (2003). Different is good: Connectionism and dynamic systems theory are complementary emergentist approaches to development. Developmental Science, 6, 434–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.00298
SpencerJ. P.AustinA.SchutteA. R. (2012). Contributions of dynamic systems theory to cognitive development. Cognitive Development, 27, 401–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2012.07.006
20.
ThelenE.SchönerG.ScheierC.SmithL. B. (2001). The dynamics of embodiment: A field theory of infant perseverative reaching. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003910
21.
VlachH. A. (2014). The spacing effect in children’s generalization of knowledge: Allowing children time to forget promotes their ability to learn. Child Development Perspectives, 8, 163–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12079
22.
VlachH. A. (2019). Learning to remember words: Memory constraints as double-edged sword mechanisms of language development. Child Development Perspectives, 13, 159–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12337