Phonotactic constraints in cognitive phonology
Phonotactics is a central concern in phonology. However, the status of these constraints in cognitive linguistics is different from that in the traditional generative approaches. In cognitive linguistics, meaningfulness is the essential characteristic of language and it may be that speakers do not e...
محفوظ في:
| الحاوية / القاعدة: | URI:https://journals.openedition.org/corela, |
|---|---|
| المؤلف الرئيسي: | |
| التنسيق: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| اللغة: | Français |
| منشور في: |
Corela
2009
|
| الموضوعات: | |
| الوصول للمادة أونلاين: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| id |
openedition-oai:revues.org:corela_137 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
openedition |
| spelling |
openedition-oai:revues.org:corela_137 https://doi.org/10.4000/corela.137 urn:doi:10.4000/corela.137 fr https://journals.openedition.org/corela/137 2009-06-26T02:00:00Z info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess article info:eu-repo/semantics/article urn:handle:20.500.13089/eev9 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ Phonotactic constraints in cognitive phonology Corela Université de Poitiers info:eu-repo/semantics/reference/issn/1638-573X URI:https://journals.openedition.org/corela Välimaa-Blum, Riitta phonotactic constraints cognitive phonology phonologie cognitive contraintes phonotactiques Phonotactics is a central concern in phonology. However, the status of these constraints in cognitive linguistics is different from that in the traditional generative approaches. In cognitive linguistics, meaningfulness is the essential characteristic of language and it may be that speakers do not even spontaneously form autonomous memory structures of meaningless units like the speech sounds, but only of the symbolic ones (Liberman et al. 1980; Read et al. 1986; Lotto and Holt, 2000; Port and Leary 2005; Välimaa-Blum 2005, 2009, in press). Consequently, phonotactic constraints, which pertain to meaningless units, would constitute no independent knowledge base either. Also, languages are learned in function of their actual use, and negative phonotactic constraints, characterizing something that cannot be said, must be excluded on these grounds as well from a speaker’s grammar since it would be difficult to learn them in the absence of positive data (Taylor 2002). However, it has been shown that listeners are able to distinguish phonotactically well-formed nonce words from those that are ill formed (Schatzman and Kager 2007). I will now argue that this does not yet mean that speakers must have independent knowledge of the phonemes or phonotactic principles. The ability to separate what is phonotactically well formed from the ill formed is the result of the interplay of (i) two kinds of knowledge of the positive constraints, i.e., procedural and schematic, and (ii) an auditorily represented mental lexicon (Coleman 1998). Knowing the positive constraints entails knowing the negative ones as well, but without any pure abstract phonotactic constraints. Les contraintes phonotactiques positives correspondent aux séquences de phonèmes autorisées dans une langue et les contraintes négatives, à celles qui leur sont interdites. Cet article tente de préciser le statut de ces contraintes dans la phonologie cognitive. La linguistique cognitive présuppose que les langues sont des systèmes symboliques. Dans ce cadre, il n’est pas évident que les locuteurs disposentdes structures mnésiques des unités non-sémantiques telles que les phonèmes ou la phonotactique (Liberman et al. 1980; Read et al. 1986; Lotto et Holt, 2000; Port et Leary 2005; Välimaa-Blum 2009, sous presse). Aussi, les cognitivistes se fondent sur l’idée que les langues émergent en fonction de leur utilisation. En conséquence, les contraintes pour ce qui ne se dit pas n’ont pas de place dans la linguistique cognitive (Taylor 2002). Néanmoins, Schatzman et Kager (2007) ont démontré que dans des conditions expérimentales, les sujets sont capables, parmi une serie de mots inventés, de rejeter plus rapidement ceux qui vont à l’encontre des contraintes phonotactiques que ceux qui sont en conformité avec eux. Je vais proposer ici que cette capacité est le résultat de l’interaction (i) des connaissances procédurales et schématiques des séquences permises et (ii) d’un lexique auditif (Coleman 1998). Si un locuteur connait les contraintes positives, il connait aussi les contraintes négatives, toutes les deux sans contraintes abstraites. |
| collection |
OpenEdition Journal |
| language |
Français |
| format |
Article ou chapitre numérique |
| building |
0/Bibliothèque numérique/ 1/Bibliothèque numérique/OpenEdition Journals/ |
| topic |
phonotactic constraints cognitive phonology phonologie cognitive contraintes phonotactiques |
| spellingShingle |
phonotactic constraints cognitive phonology phonologie cognitive contraintes phonotactiques Välimaa-Blum, Riitta Phonotactic constraints in cognitive phonology |
| description |
Phonotactics is a central concern in phonology. However, the status of these constraints in cognitive linguistics is different from that in the traditional generative approaches. In cognitive linguistics, meaningfulness is the essential characteristic of language and it may be that speakers do not even spontaneously form autonomous memory structures of meaningless units like the speech sounds, but only of the symbolic ones (Liberman et al. 1980; Read et al. 1986; Lotto and Holt, 2000; Port and Leary 2005; Välimaa-Blum 2005, 2009, in press). Consequently, phonotactic constraints, which pertain to meaningless units, would constitute no independent knowledge base either. Also, languages are learned in function of their actual use, and negative phonotactic constraints, characterizing something that cannot be said, must be excluded on these grounds as well from a speaker’s grammar since it would be difficult to learn them in the absence of positive data (Taylor 2002). However, it has been shown that listeners are able to distinguish phonotactically well-formed nonce words from those that are ill formed (Schatzman and Kager 2007). I will now argue that this does not yet mean that speakers must have independent knowledge of the phonemes or phonotactic principles. The ability to separate what is phonotactically well formed from the ill formed is the result of the interplay of (i) two kinds of knowledge of the positive constraints, i.e., procedural and schematic, and (ii) an auditorily represented mental lexicon (Coleman 1998). Knowing the positive constraints entails knowing the negative ones as well, but without any pure abstract phonotactic constraints. |
| author |
Välimaa-Blum, Riitta |
| author_facet |
Välimaa-Blum, Riitta |
| author_sort |
Välimaa-Blum, Riitta |
| title |
Phonotactic constraints in cognitive phonology |
| title_short |
Phonotactic constraints in cognitive phonology |
| title_full |
Phonotactic constraints in cognitive phonology |
| title_fullStr |
Phonotactic constraints in cognitive phonology |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Phonotactic constraints in cognitive phonology |
| title_sort |
phonotactic constraints in cognitive phonology |
| publisher |
Corela |
| publishDate |
2009 |
| container_title |
URI:https://journals.openedition.org/corela |
| url |
https://ezproxy.univ-orleans.fr/login?url=https://doi.org/10.4000/corela.137 https://ezproxy.univ-orleans.fr/login?url=https://journals.openedition.org/corela/137 |
| _version_ |
1877244384933576704 |