Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Prominent examples of such domain-general views include Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, and the views of many modern connectionists. Proponents of domain specificity argue that domain-general learning mechanisms are unable to overcome the epistemological problems facing learners in many domains, especially language.
Therefore, whereas domain-general theories would propose that acquisition of language and mathematical skill are developed by the same broad set of cognitive skills, domain-specific theories would propose that they are genetically, neurologically and computationally independent. Domain specificity has been
Domain-specificity has been defined by Frankenhuis and Ploeger as that “a given cognitive mechanism accepts, or is specialized to operate on, only a specific class of information”. [12] Furthermore, domain-specific learning prescribes different learning activities for students in order to meet required learning outcomes.
Evolutionary psychologists propose that the mind is made up of genetically influenced and domain-specific [9] mental algorithms or computational modules, designed to solve specific evolutionary problems of the past. [10] Modules are also used for central processing. This theory is sometimes referred to as massive modularity. [8]
The general social situations and behavioral co-occurrences in which speakers prefer one code over another are termed domains. Domain specificity has been expanded to include the idea of metaphorical code-switching. Charles A. Ferguson's 1959 work on diglossia served as a foundation for Joshua Fishman's later work on domain specificity ...
One of the fundamental beliefs of domain specificity and the theory of modularity suggests that it is a consequence of natural selection and is a feature of our cognitive architecture. Researchers Hirschfeld and Gelman propose that because the human mind has evolved by natural selection, it implies that enhanced functionality would develop if ...
These ideas de-emphasized domain general theories and emphasized domain specificity or modularity of mind. [92] Modularity implies that different cognitive faculties may be largely independent of one another, and thus develop according to quite different timetables, which are "influenced by real world experiences". [92]
Since domain ontologies are written by different people, they represent concepts in very specific and unique ways, and are often incompatible within the same project. As systems that rely on domain ontologies expand, they often need to merge domain ontologies by hand-tuning each entity or using a combination of software merging and hand-tuning.