Digital infrastructure evolution as generative entrenchment: The formation of a core-periphery structure

This paper empirically investigates the process by which a digital infrastructure evolved and took the architectural form of a digital platform as a core-periphery structure over a 20-year pe-riod. Our study pays special attention to the developmental dependencies of the components of the infrastructure’s installed base and how the interdependencies between the platform core and periphery evolve over time. We use the notion of “generative entrenchment” to provide an ac-count of the formation and unfolding of a core-periphery structure from an evolving digital in-frastructure that highlights three aspects of the process. First, the process of architectural evolu-tion that our study depicts, comprises three phases showing a gradual reversal of the entrench-ment relationship of the platform core and periphery: 1) Entrenchment of the periphery; 2) Mu-tual entrenchment of the core and periphery; and 3) Entrenchment of the core. Second, we show how the generatively entrenched infrastructure’s installed base shaped the decisions and choices regarding the initial platform core. Third, we identify three architectural practices (creating re-dundancy in the core; augmenting the core with novelty; and reducing the heterogeneity of an entrenched peripherical component and later integrating it into the core) that weakened the en-trenchment of the peripherical components, amplified the role of the core, and consolidated the core-periphery structure.

Generative entrenchment and an evolutionary developmental biology for culture

Mesoudi et al.'s new synthesis for cultural evolution closely parallels the evolutionary synthesis of Neo-Darwinism. It too draws inspiration from population genetics, recruits other fields, and, unfortunately, also ignores development. Enculturation involves many serially acquired skills and dependencies that allow us to build a rich cumulative culture. The newer synthesis, evolutionary developmental biology, provides a key tool, generative entrenchment, to analyze them.

La théorie des systèmes développementaux et la construction sociale des maladies mentales1

RésuméDans ce texte, nous proposons un cadre, qui vise à intégrer les contributions des approches constructionnistes et biologiques dans un domaine précis, celui des maladies mentales. Pour ce faire, nous utiliserons quelques propositions récentes faites par des philosophes de la biologie — plus spécifiquement les idées avancées par les tenants de la « théorie des systèmes développementaux » (TSD dans ce qui suit ; Griffiths et Gray, 1994 ; Griffiths et Stoltz, 2000 ; Oyama, 1999) ainsi que la notion d’« enracinement génératif » (generative entrenchment ; Wimsatt, 1986, 1999, 2000).

Developmental dynamics in L1 and L2 acquisition: Processability Theory and generative entrenchment

This paper has two major objectives: (1) to summarise Processability Theory, a processing-oriented approach to explaining language development and (2) to utilise this theory in the comparison of development in LI and L2 acquisition. Proponents of the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (between L1 and L2) assume that L1 development can be explained with reference to Universal Grammar (UG) which, in their view, is inaccessible to L2 learners. Instead, they claim that a second language develops on the basis of language processing strategies.I will show that the fundamentally different developmental paths inherent in first and second language acquisition can both be explained on the basis of the same language processing mechanics (as specified in Processability Theory). I will demonstrate that the developmental differences between L1 and L2 are caused by the qualitatively different early structural hypotheses which propagate through the acquisition process. The concept of “propagation of structural features” will be viewed as “generative entrenchment,” a logical-mathematical concept, which has proved to be highly productive in examining other kinds of developmental processes.

On the “wrong-headedness” of generative entrenchment

The main thesis Pienemann puts forward is that while L1 acquisition and L2 acquisition of a particular language (e.g. German) exhibit non-parallel paths of development, such a difference does not entail that the processing resources claimed to be responsible for transitioning from one stage to the next are any different in the two situations. The cause of the difference in routes, he suggests, is the difference in departure points. In the German case at hand, L1 acquirers begin with an SOV grammar, while L2 acquisition, according to Pienemann, starts off SVO (“canonical order”). “Generative entrenchment” of SVO is what makes the ensuing development distinct from that of L1 German: “once a decision has been made and a new structure has been added, it is very costly, if not impossible, for the developmental process to move to a different developmental path.” I think there's something very right about this general picture – but also that part of it is “wrong-headed.”