2011年8月12日,星期五

How 无情的 are im体育的 representations?

Something has been bothering me lately with respect to im体育的 theory. It is assumed that im体育的 representations are 抽象 entities not tied to any sensory or motor systems. Why then are im体育的 representations defined in terms of 运动关节特征? Does this bother anyone?

16条评论:

维莱姆Kodytek说过...

嗨格雷格:
对于您的联合博客David Poeppel来说,这似乎是一个问题’t it?
我同意’s bothering if we think of speech as of acoustic phenomenon only. However, if we consider speech perception as bimodal (i.e., in a sense 无情的) because it - in typical case - integrates speech sounds and lipreading, then the definition in terms of 运动关节特征 seems more reasonable.
维莱姆

格雷格希科克说过...

I'm thinking about it more from a purely formal (generative phonology) perspective where the representations are considered 抽象 and amodel, but the representational space is tied to the motor system.

关于言语感知,我不知道't think lipreading phenomena makes 运动关节特征 any more reasonable. I believe, for empirical reasons, that visual speech has the effect it does because of cross-sensory integration, not because of sensory-motor integration.

维莱姆Kodytek说过...

当然,跨感官整合。

也许我’我对这个主题一无所知,但我不知道’认为形式语言学考虑的是运动表征。它对能力而不是性能感兴趣,据我所知,它不支持任何一种运动理论。例如特色功能(我认为是您的"运动关节特征"), though apparently 抽象ed from speech production rather than perception, are pure 抽象ion rather than motor representation and so are phonemes (segments).

格雷格希科克说过...

That is precisely the thing that bugs me. Distinctive features in phonology, which are assumed to be 抽象, are defined in terms of how speech is produced. Why is that? Why aren't formal im体育的 representations be defined in terms of acoustic features?

维莱姆Kodytek说过...

因为语言学从来没有把注意力更多地集中在生产上。

还有一个愚蠢的注释:想象一下钦奇利亚的正式语言理论'的知觉。独特的功能几乎不会在其中起作用。

维莱姆Kodytek说过...

更准确地说:一些独特的特征可能是龙猫的一部分'im体育感知理论。但是,我们所谈论的没有鲜明的特征。

马克·埃特林格 said...

首先,我'd like to point out that modern im体育的 theory is quite different from what it was in 1968. There is a range of opinions on how "grounded" or modal, im体育的 features are, e.g.,:
-黑尔& Reiss (2008) which argues for complete 抽象ion
-Blevins(2004),类似,但是减少了共时音系学的大部分作用,所以它没有't matter too much
-海斯·基希纳& Steriade (2004), which argue for completely 接地, modal phonology
- Motor theory, wherein the features are 接地 but not 接地 to a domain that seems to make sense to some of us.
- Dresher (2009), which I think gets 在 the part-B of your question as the features are 抽象, but they are only tied to modal feature names for convenience, as I understand it.
-Johnson(1997),Hume(2004)和Mielke(2004)'建议使用传统功能'确实可以解决问题,但是基于im体育相似性存在自然的电话类别;这可以解释为破坏您的假设。

第二,如果你'再问一下关于电机与声学的问题'关于这方面的文献很长。它应该取决于哪种方式可以最好地同时捕捉声音模式-声学v马达功能问题从未真正引起我的兴趣,所以我 '我不确定答案是否正确。

第三,我同意,您绝对应该向Poeppel博士提出关于无物质im体育的热情辩护-它'P的一部分,Idsardi&van Wassenheove(2008)框架,我个人认为's one of the flaws.

话虽如此,我'我不确定我在一定程度上理解这个问题。例如,我们还应如何指代F1 btw为100-300的自然元音,或用舌头在牙槽周围某处制成的自然辅音?
The fact is that phones pattern together in their behavior based on myriad factors, foremost of which are their acoustic and articulatory properties. These classes need to be labeled somehow even though you might postulate that the im体育的 system doesn'注意形式化泛化的水平。所以我可以'不能告诉您问题是,特征如何模态,或者什么'对假定的功能使用一组特定标签的社会历史原因是什么?

格雷格希科克说过...

Thanks Marc for the update on the state of various ideas in im体育的 theory. It is much appreciated.

这里's really what I'进来:语言学家研究了im体育学,这是许多心理语言学家和神经语言学家在im体育产生和im体育感知模型中的基础。我认为传统的基于特征的视图是最常见的观点是正确的"used"im体育学理论的变体,因为它被应用于处理/神经问题,所以我在这篇文章中将其作为目标。 (也许我'm wrong here?) In any case, it is commonly assumed that the same 抽象 im体育的 representations are 用过的 both for production and for comprehension. I have questioned this assumption in the past, as have others. Now I'我想知道,im体育学理论更多地基于运动空间这一事实是否意味着它更像是im体育产生理论(或感觉-运动整合,背流),而不是im体育感知理论(或感觉-概念整合,腹侧流)。

所以让 me ask you the question directly Marc: do you believe in an 抽象 phonology that is 用过的 both for speech production and speech comprehension?

肯尼·瓦登(Kenny Vaden)说过...

I thought that im体育的 representations are 抽象, yes, but they still are linked to or represent fairly specific sensory or motor criteria. They are 抽象 only in the sense that numerous variations can be ignored in qualifying some speech sound as a particular im体育的 representation.

从发音特征上定义音素在历史上可能与指导传教士和其他需要学习或说外语的旅行者有关。

马克·埃特林格 said...

嗨,格雷格,

是的,它'神经科学家肯定是使用抽象主义者模型的情况;一个不是't really 用过的 by most linguists anymore, I might add. The dominant paradigm within phonology right now is OT, as you probably know, but some of the details might seem quite foreign/odd to neuroscientists. This includes the idea of richness of the base, which stipulates, among other things, that underlying representations are fully specified and generally the same as surface representations. This contradicts some of Lahiri'例如,有关规格不足的早期工作。那里'关于这个主题还有很多要思考的问题,但是基本上,OT方法本质上依赖于神经网络框架,我认为这不是't particularly compatible with the (double) disassociation paradigms 用过的 in neuro experiments.

继续您的直接问题:

不可否认的是,代表越来越多"abstract"当声音信号在处理流中移动时。耳蜗中的表示几乎是声音信号,脑干中的表示反映了一些重要的信息。"abstraction" of certain information but is still fairly veridical. The representation in the primary auditory cortex certainly seems to reflect the extraction of acoustic features that are 抽象ions of the signal. It only seem reasonable that this trend continues 传入地.

不可否认,感知和生产系统在开发的早期就紧密地联系在一起。

我不穿't know very much about is the nature of the motor system wrt to the 抽象ion of gestural features over the motor routines for related phones. But let's假设它镜像了感知系统。

Given that, it would seem pretty uncontroversial to suggest that 抽象 perceptual representations are connected to an 抽象 production representations.

即将发生什么,我想您的问题的真正实质是:

What is the nature of these 抽象ions? The evidence for a purely feature-based 抽象ion of the perceptual representation is far weaker than one would expect to have found 在 this juncture. Paired with the evidence that the representation is not, in fact, exclusively featural, suggests that the "abstraction"例如,上面提到的功能比SPE功能要复杂得多。

即使我们假设特征合适,我们也可以指向一组神经元说,这是[+ high]特征,它将某些归一化F1共振峰的感知表示与[[ i],/ I /和[u]?这个问题使我震惊,类似于"grandmother neuron"辩论。是否存在一组与祖母/ [+ high]的所有模态表示完全分离的神经元?

我想以某种方式对这些问题有所了解。我认为这确实会为im体育产生和感知的神经基础提供很多启示。

格雷格希科克说过...

感谢Marc的周到答复。我同意你所说的一切。但是那里'是您的讨论中缺少的组件。

MARC:"不可否认的是,代表越来越多"abstract" as an acoustic signal moves 通过处理流."

是。但是,关键是,*哪个*处理流?有很好的证据表明两种不同的方式,一种将听觉与运动联系起来,另一种将听觉与概念联系起来。

MARC:It also seems undeniable that the perception and production systems end up very tightly linked early on in development. Given that, it would seem pretty uncontroversial to suggest that 抽象 perceptual representations are connected to an 抽象 production representations."

是肯定的。但这只是我们要做的一半"phonological" information.

所以让's take your argument that processing information involves 抽象ion. And let'我的观点是,涉及两个处理流。那这边's the question: Is the 抽象ion(s) involved in one stream (auditory-motor) the same as the 抽象ion(s) involved in the other (auditory-conceptual)? And here's my answer: No. Further, the 抽象ion(s) captured by (most) im体育的 theories are relevant primarily to only one stream, the auditory-motor stream.

马克·E said...

感谢您清理问题的这个维度。我简短地为选择时要使用的单词而苦恼"afferently" and "通过处理流"因此,它没有'在我看来,这才是关键。

I'我对您的最后一点感到惊讶。对于某些(许多?)im体育学家来说,功能全都与听觉概念系统有关,即使与处理完全相关。电机集成度通常被公认为为H&P建议-促进声音信号分解为特征。我不'记得史蒂文(2002)关于该特定问题的细节,但是's似乎是许多模型的基础。

史蒂文斯(Stevens)建立基于声学界标和独特特征的词汇访问模型。 J Acoust Soc Am。 2002年4月; 111(4):1872-91。

格雷格希科克说过...

是的,史蒂文斯(Stevens)使用声学界标来识别无发音器的特征,例如[元音]和[辅音],然后使用这些特征以及上下文来导出与发音器绑定的特征,例如[嘴唇],[鼻]...。是什么促成词法访问。一世'm建议我们在听觉概念映射中取消发音器绑定的功能。换句话说,im体育学家一直在研究人们如何产生im体育(即,使他们的嘴巴移动以再现其语言的声音),并且已经发展了一些不错的理论,其中许多毫无疑问地利用了与im体育发音器相关的功能。然后假定这些理论适用于所有事物"phonological"包括我们如何感知和理解im体育。我认为这是我们需要重新考虑的一种假设;即我认为这个假设是错误的。

vkodytek said...

I’一直享受着格雷格和马克的精彩讨论,’不想干涉。但是我可以’帮助添加一些注释:最后一个格雷格’的评论是问题的核心。例如,Halle(1983)说:

“我下面的讨论专门针对im体育制作… This …不是因为感觉感知不如生产重要,而是因为…我们对发音领域的问题有更好的把握…” (Halle 2002: 110).

事实上,哈雷 ’s distinctive features (as well as those of the 1968 SPE and many other) should be considered neither articulatory nor perceptual but simply 抽象. Moreover, it’确实(并且很容易理解),im体育学家/im体育学家主要(尽管不是唯一地)关注与背流相对应的内容。当我在上面说那个语言学家时’我一直专注于生产而不是关注,我的意思正是这两件事。

有马尔的语言比喻’s视觉水平:(1)计算/形式,(2)算法/功能(心理处理),(3)实现/神经实例化(请参阅Jackendoff 2002)。 Podpel,Idsardi对此有一个有趣的应用& van Wassenhove’s(2008):( 1)鲜明的特征,(2)综合分析,(3)多次分辨率。但。提到史蒂文斯(2002)时,他们说:

“In our view, words are represented in the mind/brain as a series of segments each of which is a bundle of distinctive 指示发音配置的功能 underlying the im体育的 segment. (…) The fact that the elements of im体育的 organization can be interpreted as articulatory gestures with distinct acoustic consequences suggests a tight and efficient architectural organization of the speech system in which speech production and perception are intimately connected through the unifying concept of distinctive features.” (p. 1072)

我们现在在哪里?在正式一级?还是心理或神经层面?是“指示发音配置的功能”=发音特征?这是否意味着单词在大脑/大脑中表现为多种发音特征,还是可以被解释为表达能力?在哪个级别?

最后,我同意Poeppel&Embick 2005年提出,语言神经科学(以及心理语言学)应该围绕形式语言学的现有抽象发展(并向他们提供反馈),而不是发展自己的形式理论。关键是形式理论及其解释的选择。 1968年的SPE(及其变异)绝对比目前的各种更好“Against sth”理论(某物=例如标记,通用语法,音素)。 OT可能会更好,但是我’d想知道为什么。顺便说一句,最好的OT是Ollaha和Ettlinger的鼻子OT(不,我不’t mean it, I’m not “Against OT”!).

比尔·伊德萨尔迪说过...

大卫上周要求我在此主题上发布一些内容,但我'我太忙了。非常简短(我不't mean to speak with any authority for 大卫 and Virginie) we see the 抽象 features as a both a perspicuous coding and as the glue between auditory and articulatory representations (what I take to be the Jakobson-Fant-Halle position). As an efficient code it is also 用过的 to store representations in long-term memory (another analogy would be that they are like macros in programming languages). Now is this "amodal" or "multi-modal"(或者是其他东西)?我不 '认为这个问题很重要(想想詹姆斯'的现金价值),因为我可以't see what's 在 stake.
现在,有一种方法可以使Generative Phonology qua计算系统做出非模态承诺:在可能发生的变化中(例如规则)。因此,存在这样的想法,即要素同步,串联,插入,删除等不取决于要素的内容,而仅取决于要素的(抽象)状态。因此,规则的一般格式(A->B / C _ D)在SPE中。我对这种观点仍然持怀疑态度,尤其是鉴于对语法的概率解释。在贝叶斯公式中,我们可以将UG作为语法许多方面的先验概率,因此,我很高兴地说,词定音符比词定音符更具有先验概率(可以选择Blevins辩论之一) 。 (我知道这在这个问题上处于弱势。)
最后,莫里斯·哈勒'多年来,他对这个问题的看法已经发生了变化,他在引言中叙述了从记忆到言语和向后(Mouton 2002)。简而言之,他的论据是,只要他修改了特征定义,他就会发现当他使用发音定义时,分析会变得更好。

维莱姆Kodytek说过...
此评论已被作者删除。