In Defense of the Motor Theory.
| Number | 804 |
|---|---|
| Year | 1991 |
| Drawer | 15 |
| Entry Date | 11/05/1999 |
| Authors | Mattingly, I. G. |
| Contact | |
| Publication | Paper from the symposium Current Phonetic Research Paradigms: Implications for Speech Motor Control. Stockholm, Sweden, August 13-16, 1991. (pp.167-172). |
| url | http://www.haskins.yale.edu/Reprints/HL0804.pdf |
| Abstract | MacNeilage (1991) criticizes the Motor Theory of Speech Perception as untestable and in conflict with what is known about language acquisition. To this it is responded that the theory indeed needs a more specific definition of a phonetic gesture, and proposals for this definition are made. However, the theory is certainly testable, and has in fact been tested. A genetically determined capacity for phonetic gestures is not improbable if the gestures are seen as constituting a system. The fact that it is some time before phonetic gestures are properly executed by a child is not inconsistent with such a capacity, when the asymmetry between production and perception are taken account of. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that phonetic capacity unfolds according to a biologically predetermined schedule. |
| Notes |
Search Publications