In this commentary, I suggest that it may be helpful to think about the formidable problem space that Westergaard’s (2021) Linguistic Proximity Model seeks to address at the three levels of analysis that Marr (1982) famously proposed are needed to understand any complex cognitive system. I argue that at the computational level of analysis, where it appears the Linguistic Proximity Model is epistemiologically situated, the notion of copying grammatical representations is unproblematic, contrary to Westergaard’s concerns.
BaggioGvan LambalgenMHagoortP (2015) Logic as Marr’s computational level: Four case studies. Topics in Cognitive Science7: 287–298.
2.
BerwickRCChomskyN (2016) Why only us: Language and evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
ChomskyN1965. Aspects of the Thoery of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4.
JohnsonM (2017) Marr’s levels and the minimalist program. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review24: 171–74.
5.
MarrD (1982) Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco, CA: WH Freeman.
6.
SchwartzBDSprouseRA (1996) L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research12: 40–72.
7.
WestergaardM (2021) Microvariation in multilingual situations: The importance of property-by-property acquisition. Second Language Research37(3): 379–407.
