Talk:Language module

I

I have tried to summarise the current debate over the putative language module, with an indication for the current opinion in the field: that there is no strict language module but rather more functionally specialised systems couched in more general cognition.Neuropsychology 20:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I liked this article. In reading it I wanted to pursue the Fodor 2005 reference, but could not find it in the references list. Is it actually "Modularity of Mind" or something else? Is there any mental function that is fairly well established to be a "module" ? Is the putative definition of module changing ? DCDuring 16:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

DCDuring:Is it actually "Modularity of Mind" or something else? Neuropsychology: This is it here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=e7nrSeibJZYC&dq=fodor+modularity+of+mind&pg=PP1&ots=omSH0BTGb0&sig=mtMTVaki-jq2bspD5ic71SKyzoM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result

DCDuring: Is there any mental function that is fairly well established to be a "module" ? Neuropsychology: Sure. In the visual system there are quite a few. Colour, for example, is localised to the area V4/V8. In the motor cortex there is reliable mapping to body parts. Most of the 'lower' level processing is modular in some way. The 'higher' you get the more interconnected and non-modular it gets.

DCDuring: Is the putative definition of module changing ? DCDuring 16:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Neuropsychology: The problem is the term is used sloppily across the literature. Evo psychologists talk about modules with regard to conceptual systems in the brain that have evolved for a certain function (e.g. cheater detection). Cog psychologists will talk about it in strict Fodorian terms (insular information processing). Neuro people talk about discrete biological bits of neural matter (like V4/V8) when they think about modules.

Note however that this article is seriously lacking, in failing to make clear that the concept of a language module comes originally from Chomsky. His ideas, as developed by other linguists including Pinker, were one of the primary motivations for Fodor, who then tacked on some philosophy-cruft that cognitive scientists don't necessary want to buy into. Looie496 (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Information encapsulation

In section about encapsulation, you use McGurk effect as an argument against encapsulation. That is a fallacy, McGurk effect says nothing about information encapsulation, in concrete, It does not say that your wishes, beliefs or goals affect what phoneme you will hear. It is at most evidence against domain specificity of language module, in concrete, evidence that the domain of stimuli also includes some visual information. The same holds for all the remaining paragraph: all the evidence you present there actually speaks only about domain specificity. The neuro evidence about motor control is even less related to encapsulation. 89.24.44.41 (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)