A new paradigm?

2002 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 621-622
Author(s):  
John D. Bonvillian ◽  
Francine G. P. Patterson

Shanker & King argue for a shift in the focus of ape language research from an emphasis on information processing to a dynamic systems approach. We differ from these authors in our understanding of how this “new paradigm” emerged and in our perceptions of its limitations. We see information processing and dynamic systems as complementary approaches in the study of communication.

2002 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 605-620 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart G. Shanker ◽  
Barbara J. King

In recent years we have seen a dramatic shift, in several different areas of communication studies, from an information-theoretic to a dynamic systems paradigm. In an information processing system, communication, whether between cells, mammals, apes, or humans, is said to occur when one organism encodes information into a signal that is transmitted to another organism that decodes the signal. In a dynamic system, all of the elements are continuously interacting with and changing in respect to one another, and an aggregate pattern emerges from this mutual co-action. Whereas the information-processing paradigm looks at communication as a linear, binary sequence of events, the dynamic systems paradigm looks at the relation between behaviors and how the whole configuration changes over time.One of the most dramatic examples of the significance of shifting from an information processing to a dynamic systems paradigm can be found in the debate over the interpretation of recent advances in ape language research (ALR). To some extent, many of the early ALR studies reinforced the stereotype that animal communication is functional and stimulus bound, precisely because they were based on an information-processing paradigm that promoted a static model of communicative development. But Savage-Rumbaugh's recent results with bonobos has introduced an entirely new dimension into this debate. Shifting the terms of the discussion from an information-processing to a dynamic systems paradigm not only highlights the striking differences between Savage-Rumbaugh's research and earlier ALR studies, but further, it sheds illuminating light on the factors that underpin the development of communication skills in great apes and humans, and the relationship between communicative development and the development of language.


2002 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 639-640
Author(s):  
David Spurrett

Shanker & King (S&K) trumpet the adoption of a “new paradigm” in communication studies, exemplified by ape language research. Though cautiously sympathetic, I maintain that their argument relies on a false dichotomy between “information” and “dynamical systems” theory, and that the resulting confusion prevents them from recognizing the main chance their line of thinking suggests.


2002 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 646-651 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart G. Shanker ◽  
Barbara J. King

We group the issues raised in the commentaries into five major sections. In the first, section R1, we consider some of the antecedents to dynamic systems (DS) in psychology, biology, anthropology, and primatology and note the key changes that have occurred in DS over the past ten years. Next, in section R2, we explain the ways in which co-regulation differs markedly from interactional synchrony, focusing in particular on the creation of meaning inherent in co-regulated communication. The following section (R3) clarifies the challenge that DS poses to Cartesian assumptions about the nature of communication and contrasts this position with behaviorism. In the next section (R4) we reject the notion that IP and DS may be, in fact, compatible paradigms. Finally, we explain the exciting future we envision for using DS to facilitate consideration of evolutionary questions, particularly those concerning the comparative evolutionary development of socio-emotional dynamics between partners (section R5).


2002 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 643-644
Author(s):  
Yves-Marie Visetti ◽  
Victor Rosenthal

We support Shanker & King's (S&K's) proposal for a dynamic systems approach in ape language research, but question their vision of what it means to have language. Language plays an essential role in the making of the human mind. It underlies any kind of human interaction and codetermines perception and action. Moreover, what gives human thought the very characteristic architecture of textuality criterially requires a third party.


2002 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 645-646
Author(s):  
Chris Westbury

Whatever else language may be, it is complex and multifaceted. Shanker & King (S&K) have tried to contrast a dynamic interactive view of language with an information processing view. I take issue with two main claims: first, that the dynamic interactive view of language is a “new paradigm” in either animal research or human language studies; and second, that the dynamic systems language-as-dance view of language is in any way incompatible with an information-processing view of language. That some information is defined in coregulated social interaction guarantees the dancing. That all information is composed of relevant differences guarantees the information processing.


2002 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 635-636
Author(s):  
Joseph J. Pear

Although Shanker & King (S&K) disregard the behavioral paradigm, their arguments are reminiscent of those in Skinner's Verbal Behavior (1957). Like S&K, Skinner maintained that communication is not appropriately characterized as the transmission of information between individuals. In contrast to the paradigm advocated by S&K, however, the behavioral paradigm emphasizes prediction and control as important scientific goals.


2001 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 172-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence A. Pervin

David Magnusson has been the most articulate spokesperson for a holistic, systems approach to personality. This paper considers three concepts relevant to a dynamic systems approach to personality: dynamics, systems, and levels. Some of the history of a dynamic view is traced, leading to an emphasis on the need for stressing the interplay among goals. Concepts such as multidetermination, equipotentiality, and equifinality are shown to be important aspects of a systems approach. Finally, attention is drawn to the question of levels of description, analysis, and explanation in a theory of personality. The importance of the issue is emphasized in relation to recent advances in our understanding of biological processes. Integrating such advances into a theory of personality while avoiding the danger of reductionism is a challenge for the future.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Gilbert

AbstractWithin the broad and deep field of topological materials, there are an ever-increasing number of materials that harbor topological phases. While condensed matter physics continues to probe the exotic physical properties resulting from the existence of topological phases in new materials, there exists a suite of “well-known” topological materials in which the physical properties are well-characterized, such as Bi2Se3 and Bi2Te3. In this context, it is then appropriate to ask if the unique properties of well-explored topological materials may have a role to play in applications that form the basis of a new paradigm in information processing devices and architectures. To accomplish such a transition from physical novelty to application based material, the potential of topological materials must be disseminated beyond the reach of condensed matter to engender interest in diverse areas such as: electrical engineering, materials science, and applied physics. Accordingly, in this review, we assess the state of current electronic device applications and contemplate the future prospects of topological materials from an applied perspective. More specifically, we will review the application of topological materials to the general areas of electronic and magnetic device technologies with the goal of elucidating the potential utility of well-characterized topological materials in future information processing applications.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document