From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Cognitive Phonology (was Cognitive Linguistics...)
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:01:12 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 92Sep30165206@adler.ims.uni-stuttgart.de, arild@adler.ims.uni-stuttgart.de (Arild Hestvik) writes:
>    +------------+         +------------+     |
>    | static     |        / parser/    /      |
>    | linguistic | <---> / production /  <----|----> world
>    | knowledge  |       \  system   /        |
>    +------------+        \_________/         |
> 
>The subject is given the task of judging whether "bnip" is a possible word
>in English. [bnip] comes in through the parser/production system. A
>representation is constructed. "Something" takes this representation and
>consults the static linguistic knowledge. The answer is returned that
>[bnip] is not generated by that system. This information is registered
>perceptually or perhaps even emotionally. The registered information is
>passed on out to the world as behavior (e.g. subject utters "this does not
>sound like a possible English word to me").

If Arild's model is different from the one that I thought I was imputing to
generative linguistics, then my words didn't convey my meaning.  All that I
have been saying about the difference between Natural Phonology and Generative
Linguistic theory is the following:  there is no "static linguistic knowledge"
component in NP.  There is a general cognitive ability to review the performance
of the "parser/production system" introspectively.  Introspective review allows
you to imagine how you would pronounce words, and that is one of the most 
important knowledge source of grammatical intutions in adults.  The "phonological
system" in NP is part of what Arild calls the "parser/production system."  So
"bnip" is judged to be "ill-formed" because its imagined production is impeded.
There is nothing in the theory that states "/bn/ is an illegal sequence in
syllable-initial position."  That information is derived by inference from
introspectively simulated pronunciation.

In an email exchange, Arild asked how the NP model could handle cases of
aphasia, where production suffers, but intuition remains intact.  My response
was that I expect intuition to degrade in many cases of aphasia.  But there
are ways of explaining the tenacity of intuitions in such cases.  First of
all, I am not claiming that the knowledge source for grammatical intuitions
is monolithic.  Rather, I expect that several different types of information
go into making such judgments, including perceptual strategies.  Pronounceability
is probably a dominant knowledge source for accomplished speakers--those who
feel that they can produce the language satisfactorily.  Aphasia sufferers would
not qualify as such.  Secondly, I rely on the same strategy to explain aphasia
that generativists do--the knowlege source remains undamaged, but the speaker
loses the ability to use it.  In the case of motor aphasia, the NP model suggests
that one of the things you lose is suppressions or restrictions on Processes
that were acquired during acquisition.  That is why you get something like the
effect noted by Jakobson:  that aphasics seem to lose language in the reverse
direction from which they acquired it.  Thus, /r/, /l/, /th/ (theta), etc., are
among the first sounds to become unpronounceable to aphasics.  In NP, these are
the sounds that serve as input to the largest number of processes.  Hence, it
takes learners longest to master them.  You have to suppress more Processes.
(Generative phonology cannot explain why aphasics appear to acquire new 
"phonological rules" suddenly.  You would expect that brain damage would lead to
the loss of something.  Only NP can explain the apparent paradox.)

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

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: sci.lang