4.4 Review

Phonology: A review and proposals from a connectionist perspective

期刊

BRAIN AND LANGUAGE
卷 79, 期 3, 页码 511-579

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1006/brln.2001.2566

关键词

phonology; language; conduction aphasia; slip of the tongue; parallel distributed processing; connectionist; auditory-verbal short-term memory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A parallel distributed processing (PDP) model of phonological processing is developed. including component,, to support repetition. auditory processing, comprehension, and language production. From the performance of the PDP reading model of Plaut, McClelland, Seidenberg, and Patterson (1996), it is inferred that the acoustic-articulatory motor pattern associator that supports repetition provides the basis for phonological sequence knowledge. From the observation that many patients make phonemic paraphasic error, in language production, as in repetition, it is argued that there must be a direct link between distributed concept representations (lexical semantic knowledge) and this network representation of sequence knowledge. In this way, both lexical semantic and phonotactic constraints are brought to bear on language production, The literature on phonological function in normal subjects (slip-of-the-tongue corpora) and in patients With aphasia is critically reviewed from this perspective. The relationship between acoustic and articulatory motor representation,,; in the process of phonetic perception is considered. Repetition and reproduction conduction aphasia are reviewed in detail and extended consideration is given to the representation or auditory verbal short-term memory in the model. Finally, the PDP model is reconciled with information processing models of phonological processing, including that of Lichtheim, and with current knowledge of the anatomic localization of phonological processing Although no simulations of the model were run, a number of simulation studies are proposed. (C) Elsevier Science.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据