John St. Julien wrote:
> I find a lot of this reasoning pretty convincing. But only if you start
> with the assumption that language is generated by rules. (It is a different
> thesis to say it can be _described_ by rules.)
Quite.
> Connectionists and the larger group of those who also turn to a dynamic
> style of analysis would disagree with this premise and claim that the
> patterns we describe as rules are an emergent regularity of a
> self-organizing system.
So does that mean that connectionists would argue that folks with a language
disability (as measured by your typical language tests as well as by functional
measures) actually have a disability with apprehending the "emergent regularity
of a self-organizing system"? That would suggest more pervasive disabilties,
such as you find with, e.g., autism. Just asking.
Tane Akamatsu
School psychologist
Toronto District School Board