Linguists, Psychologists, and the Cognitive Sciences

Abstract

Under the guise of a book review, Stephen R. Anderson (1989) has written a thoughtful critique of attempts by linguists and psychologists to collaborate in a venture called cognitive science. The general thrust of Anderson's argument is that psychologists ignore linguistic discoveries when building their theories of cognition and, evenhandedly, that linguists have neglected to explain the implications of their discoveries in a form that psychologists could appreciate. As one who has frequently worked in the cracks between these two disciplines, I am moved to add my own perspectives on the issues that Anderson raises. The problem of interdisciplinary communication has been around a long time, but not until the late 1970s did it command everyone's attention. A philanthropic program conceived by Kenneth Klivington and adopted by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation offered financial support for something that they called cognitive science. Since the offer presupposed a unitary science of cognition, interested parties were financially motivated to create one. Many interdisciplinary conferences followed. I once described one of those conferences as follows (Miller 1986:279):

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 25 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.