A

Language, Modularity, and Psycholinguistics — Key Concepts

Modularity and Domain-Specific Processing

  • The mind/brain is composed of distinct computational systems called modules, specialized for particular tasks, not a single universal system. This view is associated with Fodor (1983).
  • Modules are domain-specific processing systems: they only receive inputs of a certain kind, concerning a particular subject matter (e.g., the visual system handles visual inputs; the auditory system handles auditory inputs).
  • Vision is currently thought to comprise modular subsystems responsible for:
    • shape
    • color
    • movement
    • face recognition
    • contrast
  • LANGUAGE AND MODULARITY: language is thought to be decomposed into distinct modules, such as MORPHO-SYNTAX and PHONOLOGY; some authors also include SEMANTICS, PHONETICS, or PRAGMATICS as separate modules.
  • The phonological system is connected to visual input (lip reading) and enhances perception in noisy environments; lip reading is unconsciously practiced by all humans.
  • Example: audition provides information for multiple modules, including:
    • all-purpose audition (perception of sounds produced by animals)
    • voice recognition (identifying humans by voice)
    • auditory affect perception (emotion detector)
    • perception of linguistically relevant phonetic material
  • The sensory system “chops” input into pieces that are relevant for each computational system, enabling specialized processing streams.
  • DESCRIPTION VS. EXPLANATION (topic contrast): descriptions focus on how things are; explanations aim to account for why they are that way (implied distinction in cognitive science discussions).

Language Modularity: Modules Within Language

  • Language is decomposed into modules (e.g., morphology, syntax, phonology); depending on authors, semantics, phonetics, or pragmatics may also be treated as modules.
  • The modular view implies language processing involves interacting but distinct sub-systems with domain-specific inputs and functions.

Description vs. Explanation (Linguistics Context)

  • Traditional linguistics often emphasizes taxonomic description of language structure (classifying categories, forms, functions).
  • Description tends to catalog what exists; explanation seeks to account for why language shows certain universals and patterns.

Taxonomy in Linguistics (Page 2 content)

  • Linguistics has historically used taxonomy (classification) to assign words to grammatical categories (parts of speech) based on:
    • semantic properties (meaning)
    • morphological properties (forms, inflection)
    • syntactic properties (word order, sentence position)
  • Traditional grammar’s main goal: description rather than explanation.

Chomsky’s Cognitive Approach (Page 2)

  • In contrast to taxonomic description, Chomsky emphasizes a cognitive approach to grammar.
  • Grammatical knowledge is tacit (subconscious) rather than explicit (conscious).
  • Humans lack conscious awareness of the mental processes involved in speaking and understanding their native language.

Main Theoretical Frameworks (Page 2–3)

  • Theory of language STRUCTURE: studies the hierarchical, structural properties of natural language.
  • Theory of language ACQUISITION: how first and second languages are learned.
  • Theory of language USE: interaction of linguistic and nonlinguistic knowledge in real-world use; language as a cultural tool for social interaction.
  • Structure is foundational: to study acquisition and use, one must first understand what language is.

LINGUISTICS (Page 3)

  • Describes languages, dialects, and speech styles accurately and in detail.
  • Studies include:
    • SPEECH SOUNDS (phonetics/phonology)
    • how SENTENCES are constructed (syntax)
    • meanings of words (semantics)
    • how speakers MAKE NEW WORDS (productive morphology/lexical creation)
    • differences between FORMAL and INFORMAL language
    • changes in RAPID and CASUAL SPEECH
    • how languages CHANGE OVER TIME (historical and pre-historic)
  • Provides concepts and vocabulary for accurate problem description.
  • Catalogues differences and similarities across languages/dialects without value judgments.

PSYCHOLINGUISTICS (Page 3)

  • Studies how we manage speaking, understanding, reading, and writing.
  • Example questions:
    • How do sound waves reaching the ear become meaningful understanding in under 0.5 seconds?
    • How do we locate the right words from thousands stored in memory, order them correctly, and pronounce them so others understand?
  • Speaking requires highly complex motor coordination.
  • Uses experiments and observations to study fast, skilled language performance.
  • Integrates neurolinguistics: how language is remembered and deployed by the brain.

PRELIMINARY DEFINITIONS (Page 3)

  • General psychological theory: how information is stored in the mind and retrieved when needed.
  • Specific psycholinguistic theory: how sentences are formed in the head before being spoken, and how the words in those sentences are ordered and stressed to convey meaning.

HOW TO STUDY LANGUAGE STRUCTURE? (Page 4)

  • Grammars: detailed descriptions of particular languages (rules, principles, constraints).
    • Grammar enables us to speak and understand a language, including forming, pronouncing, and interpreting phrases and sentences.
  • Chomsky and Generative Grammar: language faculty as modular (modularity).
  • Grammar components: morpho-syntax, semantics, phonology.
  • Universal grammar: search for linguistic universals shared across languages.
  • Grammar equates to linguistic abilities.
  • COMPETENCE VS. PERFORMANCE:
    • Competence: native speakers' tacit grammatical knowledge (how to form and interpret words, phrases, sentences).
    • Performance: the actual use of language, which can be affected by fatigue, distractions, intoxication, etc.
    • Descriptive grammar aims to uncover the internalized linguistic system (competence).
  • COMPETENCE VS. PERFORMANCE (continued):
    • Performance is an imperfect reflection of competence; long sentences are limited by cognitive/physiological constraints.
  • Pragmatics: theory of language use; includes nonlinguistic information and personal beliefs.
  • FIRST LANGUAGE ACQUISITION (lead-in): how children acquire language and the rules governing it.

HOW IS LANGUAGE ACQUIRED? (Page 5)

  • Children extract general principles/rules that govern formation, interpretation, and pronunciation of new sentences.
  • Language is rule-governed, evidenced by child language examples:
    • Plurality: boy, boys; girl, girls; child, children (note: the slide lists “childs” as an example of an overgeneralized past form in erroneous form).
    • Past tense forms: kicked, picked, drank → but the slide uses “drinked” as an example of an incorrect form.
    • Modal verbs & inversion: Is I can do that? / Is you should eat the apple? (illustrates incorrect use of inversion with modals in English).

LANGUAGE CREATIVITY (Page 5)

  • Vocabulary is finite, but language is not simply a random arrangement of words.
    • Example contrasts:
    • She has what a man wants.
    • She wants what a man has.
  • NATIVE SPEAKERS’ INTUITION: Pragmatic oddness vs. semantic ill-formedness vs. grammaticality.
    • Pragmatically odd vs. linguistically ill-formed/well-formed sentences.
    • Ill-formed = ungrammatical; well-formed = grammatical.
    • Sentences can be syntactically ill-formed, semantically ill-formed, or pragmatically odd:
    • Mary murdered the chair. → pragmatically odd but grammatical.
    • Mary murdered Tom, but he didn’t die. → semantically ill-formed/contradictory.
    • Murdered Tom Mary. → syntactically ill-formed (no verb-initial declarative in English).
    • I run the hill up. → syntactically ill-formed; I run up the hill. → correct.
  • Examples of ambiguity and pragmatics:
    • You could not go to the party. → ambiguous (context-dependent interpretation)
    • For sale: an antique desk suitable for lady with thin legs and large drawers. → pragmatically odd/insensitive phrasing
    • My cat thinks I’m a complete retard. → pragmatically odd
    • Who did you meet at the party? vs. Whom did you meet at the party? → prescriptive/pronunciation aspects vs. reflexive pronouns
  • NATIVE SPEAKERS INTUITION summary: language consists of lexicon plus rules for sentence formation and judgments; rules enable infinite sentence generation; linguistic units include segments, morphemes, phrases, words, and their combinations; examples show sequences like psychotherapist, piglet (not random compounds).
  • Native speakers have phonological, morphological, syntactic, and semantic competence reflected in intuitions.

LANGUAGE CREATIVITY AND GENERATIVE THEORY (Page 6)

  • Competence is reflected in judgments about well-formedness, including for novel sentences.
  • Creativity in language allows infinite combinations via finite rules; cannot be learned by simple imitation.
  • Generativism (Chomsky) vs Behaviorism (Skinner):
    • Behaviorism posits acquisition through linguistic habits and imitation.
    • Generativism posits an innate language faculty.
  • Infinite sentences would require infinite storage; thus, a finite set of recursive rules suffices to generate infinite well-formed sentences.
  • Examples of complex adjective and prepositional phrase use to illustrate infinite generation:
    • Adjectives: a smart, beautiful, tall, blonde, smiling girl.
    • Prepositional phrases modifying nouns: I like the girl [in jeans] [with long hair] [on the stage].
    • Nested clauses: This is the cat THAT killed the rat THAT ate the malt THAT lay in the house THAT Jack built.
    • Conjunctions: and, or.
  • The linguist’s task: devise a finite set of rules to form, interpret, and pronounce an infinite set of well-formed sentences.

A PERFECT LINGUISTIC THEORY? (Page 6)

  • Core idea: Competence equals acquiring a finite set of rules that generate an infinite set of sentences.
  • Rules are tacit (subconscious).
  • A perfect theory should have:
    • Universality: describe the grammar of any natural language.
    • Maximal constraint: describe only human languages, including all and only grammatical forms.

GRAMMATICALITY: DESCRIPTIVE VS PRESCRIPTIVE (Page 7)

  • Grammaticality vs correctness:
    • Grammaticality refers to whether a sentence conforms to the internal grammar of a language.
    • Correctness is a prescriptive notion about how language should be used.
  • Descriptive grammar vs prescriptive grammar:
    • Descriptive grammars aim to describe the grammar that exists in the mind/in actual use.
    • Prescriptive grammars prescribe “correct” forms and usages.
  • Grammatical ≠ correct (classic example): Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. (syntactically well-formed but semantically odd)
  • No language is superior or inherently better: all languages are equally complex, logical, and able to generate infinite sentences.
  • PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH:
    • Language purists argue for “correct forms” and try to enforce rules; historically influenced by Latin grammar.
    • Example: Robert Lowth’s prescriptive rules.

PRESCRIPTIVE RULES AND LANGUAGE CHANGE (Page 8)

  • Examples of prescriptive corrections:
    • I don’t have none → I don’t have any.
    • You was wrong about that → You were wrong about that.
  • Language changes dynamically and logically; prescriptive rules often ignore language history and nature, sometimes labeling changes as “corruption.”
  • Practical implication: language education and policy must consider descriptive realities of actual speech rather than enforcing outdated norms.

SUMMARY CONNECTIONS AND REAL-WORLD RELEVANCE

  • Modularity implies cognitive architecture is composed of specialized, interacting subsystems; explains why different language aspects (phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics) can be studied somewhat independently yet integrate for fluent use.
  • Language as a cultural tool emphasizes the social and pragmatic functions of linguistic knowledge beyond pure structure; acquisition and use depend on interactional context.
  • The competence/performance distinction helps separate what speakers know from how they actually speak under various conditions, guiding both theoretical modeling and empirical testing.
  • The generative grammar perspective provides a parsimonious account of language as an innate capacity with finite descriptive rules generating infinite sentences, contrasted with behaviorist views that emphasize imitation.
  • Descriptive grammar reflects actual knowledge of language; prescriptive grammar reflects normative judgments about usage, which may lag behind language evolution.
  • Pragmatics and semantic/pragmatic ill-formedness illustrate that grammaticality alone does not capture all aspects of language use, which are influenced by context, meaning, and speaker intent.
  • The material highlights the importance of examples, judgments, and intuitions in understanding language structure, acquisition, and variation across languages and communities.

Note on Figures, Equations, and Formulas

  • No numerical data, statistical references, or mathematical formulas were provided in the transcript.
  • Where formulas would appear (e.g., in formal grammar definitions or search for universals), they are not included in this content. If needed, future notes can incorporate formal notation (e.g., { ext{UG}}, { ext{COMPETENCE}}, { ext{PERFORMANCE}}) for precise definitions.