Re: Most developed conlang

On 4/23/07, Benct Philip Jonsson <conlang@...> wrote:
>
> A quick googling showed that the term "dual-route" model of
> morphological processing is mostly used in connexion with
> learning to read. Can you point me to some sources on this
> controversy.
Certainly. Here are some references.

Dual-route models:

Pinker, Steven, 1991. Rules of language. Science 253: 530-534.

Pinker, Steven and Alan Prince, 1988. On language and connectionism:
Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language
acquisition. Cognition 28, 73-193.

Pinker, Steven and Alan Prince, 1994. Regular and irregular morphology
and the psychological status of rules of grammar. In: S. D. Lima, R.
L. Corrigan, G. K. Iverson (eds), The reality of linguistic rules,
321-351. Amsterdam, Benjamins.

Prasada, S. and Steven Pinker, 1993. Generalisation of regular and
irregular morphological patterns. Language and Cognitive Processes 8,
1-56.

Single-route models:

Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Bybee, Joan. 1988. Morphology as lexical organization. In: M. Hammond,
M. Noonan (eds), Theoretical approaches to morphology, 119-141. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Stemberger, J. P. 1994. Rule-less morphology at teh phonology-lexicon
interface. In: S. D. Lima, R. L. Corrigan, G. K. Iverson (eds), The
reality of linguistic rules, 147-169. Amsterdam, Benjamins.

I must say that IME I use the single-route
> model as a native speaker, but the dual-route model for
> foreign languages :-) -- probably an artifact of having seen
> derivational morphemes listed in grammars and the like.
> Experience from trying to discuss morphology with my son
> (now 9 y.o.) makes me come down on the side of the single-
> route model as the natural one.  I wonder if and how
> speakers of polysynthetical languages may differ, though.
There are two separate issues here, I think. First, as native speakers
of mildly inflecting languages (English and Swedish), I think that a
single-route model most adequately explains our morphological
processing. The issue of *learning*, however, is separate. In
conscious learning, it is advantageous to learn productive patterns,
drill their application to novel forms, and memorize the exceptions.
To the extent that a second language is internalized and "nativized",
this dichotomy between rule application and simple recall is blurred.

I have not seen any detailed treatment of a polysynthetic language
within either a dual-route or single-route model of language
processing. Since such studies depend experimental evidence as well as
on large corpora of natural language, it will be difficult to get
adequate results for languages which have no such corpora or for which
native speakers are not readily available as experimental
participants; most (if not all) polysynthetic languages fall into that
category. So we're left to speculate.

My Personal Opinion is that there is less "chunking" in polysynthetic
languages than we might expect. That is, what we might consider to be
a single word in such a language (based on solid linguistic analysis)
may in fact be broken up in to two or three pieces by a native speaker
in processing. Now I have no evidence for this, but based on what I
have seen of the prefixal phonology and morphology of Navajo verbs, it
seems a reasonable idea to begin with.

Verbal prefixes in Navajo, of which there may be up to ten, are
divided into two groups: conjunct, which are closest to the stem; and
disjunct, which are further away from it. The phonology of the
conjunct prefixes is very complex, and riddled with "exceptions". The
conjunct prefixes also carry basic inflectional categories such as
aspect, mood, and subject/object agreement. The disjunct prefixes are
much more regular and carry adverbial meanings (among other things).
So it is not hard to divide each verbal "word" into two parts: the
disjunct, which might be seen as a type of auxiliary, and the
conjunct, or the verb proper. Joyce McDonough defends this idea in her
PhD thesis from 1990.

It may be possible to extend this idea (splitting rather than
chunking) to other instances of polysynthesis, but this is an
empirical question.

Dirk