Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:30:28.371Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the generalizability of the Chunk-and-Pass processing approach: Perspectives from language acquisition and music

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2016

Usha Lakshmanan  and
Robert E. Graham
Usha Lakshmanan
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale, IL 62901. [email protected]@siu.edu
Robert E. Graham
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale, IL 62901. [email protected]@siu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Christiansen & Chater (C&C) offer the Chunk-and-Pass strategy as a language processing approach allowing humans to make sense of incoming language in the face of cognitive and perceptual constraints. We propose that the Chunk-and-Pass strategy is not adequate to extend universally across languages (accounting for typologically diverse languages), nor is it sufficient to generalize to other auditory modalities such as music.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e80
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Courtney, E. H. & Saville-Troike, M. (2002) Learning to construct verbs in Navajo and Quechua. Journal of Child Language 29:623–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelly, B., Wigglesworth, G., Nordlinger, R. & Blythe, J. (2014) The acquisition of polysynthetic languages. Language and Linguistics Compass 8(2):51–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koelsch, S. (2005) Neural substrates of processing syntax and semantics in music. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 15(2):207–12.Google Scholar
Lakshmanan, U. (2000) The acquisition of relative clauses by Tamil children. Journal of Child Language 21:587–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakshmanan, U. (2006) Assessing linguistic competence: Verbal inflection in child Tamil. Language Assessment Quarterly 3(2):171–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClelland, J. L. (1987) The case for interactionism in language processing. In: Attention & performance XII: The psychology of reading, ed. Coltheart, M., pp. 3–35. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rose, Y. & Brittain, J. (2011) Grammar matters: Evidence from phonological and morphological development in Northern East Cree. In: Selected proceedings of the 4th Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 2010), Somerville, MA, pp. 193–208, ed. Pirvulescu, M., Cuervo, M. C., Pérez-Leroux, A. T., Steele, J. & Strik, N.. Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Available at: www.lingref.com, document #2596.Google Scholar
Sarma, V. (2003) Noncanonical word order: Topic and focus in adult and child Tamil. In: Word order and scrambling, ed. Karimi, S., pp. 238–72. Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar