From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Cognitive Phonology (was: Cognitive linguistics...)
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:34:32 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 8365@midway.uchicago.edu, goer@ellis.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) writes:
>In article <81918@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>
>>Remember that the novice human, in the
>>generative scenario, is trying to achieve an understanding of what is well-
>>formed.  Grammar construction is the method that allows him/her to do this.
>
>When you speak of grammar construction as a means to the achivement of the
>aforesaid knowledge, are you claiming that grammar construction is purely
>an inductive process, or are you claiming that it involves modification or
>application of innate principles?

I understand generative theory to be saying both.  You must have induction in
order to learn what the outside world requires of you.  The innate principles
force preconceptions of what it can require of you.  The point I was trying to
make was that generative theory sees the grammar as the source of grammatical
knowledge.  But how does grammatical knowledge grow?  How do you know that your
grammar isn't working properly if the only thing you have to tell you what is
proper is your grammar?  There has to be extra-grammatical knowledge about what
is well-formed.   That has always struck me as a little difficult for a generative
grammarian to talk about, but maybe I'm the only one with the problem.  In any
case, language acquisition studies seldom pay attention to the growth of 
grammatical intuitions.  You can only observe changes in behavior, and the
generative concept of "grammar" does not directly constrain behavior.  So how
can you make generalizations about the growth of grammars by observing 
behavior?  

>>The novice human in the NP scenario is only trying to pronounce words.
>
>What does this mean?  Was my son's initial effort at directed speech
>motivated solely by a desire to pronounce words?

Does this idea present a problem for you?  If he wasn't trying to say words,
then what was he trying to say?

>Rick, as I read your posting, I honestly don't feel I have any idea of what
>you are saying.  Maybe I'm just not on your wavelength, or maybe I'm just in
>over my head.  Or maybe you're not articulating yourself very clearly.  In
>all likelihood I'm at fault somewhere here, so please accept my apologies if
>my puzzlement seems annoying.

It doesn't annoy me, and I'll do my best to make myself clearer.  One quibble,
though.  You must have *some* idea of what I'm saying.  We just may be talking
at cross purposes.  With respect to language learning and Natural Phonology, I
am just saying that the child's difficulty is the same as the adult's who is
learning a foreign language.  Words are hard to pronounce, and your native
phonology just gets in the way.  You must modify your native phonology--inhibit
it somehow--in order to pronounce a foreign language correctly.  The child's
native phonology is the so-called "innate" set of processes that kick in with
the first attempts at pronouncing words.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Xref: sparky sci.lang:7116 alt.usage.english:7310