1. Psychological status of phonological analyses Before Chomsky linguists didn't talk about psychological aspects of linguistics Chomsky called linguistics “a branch of cognitive psychology” and said linguistic rules are psycologically real The best description of a process was considered to represent the psychologically real process

2. Psychological status of phonological analyses Two senses of psychological reality Strong sense Mental processing has stages or operations corresponding to linguistic analysis

3. Psychological status of phonological analyses Two senses of psychological reality Strong sense Mental processing has stages or operations corresponding to linguistic analysis Weak sense Speakers must “draw on knowledge of their language” which the linguistic analysis describes If the analysis and speakers produce same output the process is weakly real The content of the process, not the steps and procedures are real

4. Psychological status of phonological analyses The best analysis isn't necessarily the psychologically real one Geography uses latitude and longitude, but realized that the equator isn't real like the Nile is We need to distinguish artifacts of phonological notation and rules from actual processes We need to distinguish the search for linguistic realities and psychological realities

5. Psychological status of phonological analyses The best analysis isn't necessarily the psychologically real one Geography uses latitude and longitude, but realized that the equator isn't real like the Nile is We need to distinguish artifacts of phonological notation and rules from actual processes We need to distinguish the search for linguistic realities and psychological realities Chomsky recognized this: “There is a question of physical (or psychological) reality apart from truth in a certain domain”

6. Psychological status of phonological analyses Empiricality Logic, math, philosophy aren't empirical (scientific) Other fields of study are What is the difference?

7. Psychological status of phonological analyses Empiricality Logic, math, philosophy aren't empirical (scientific) Other fields of study are What is the difference? Falsifiability Scientific theories must be potentially falsifiable If X happens the theory is wrong Theory: Humans are inherently moral What would possibly falsify that? Theory: Human are inherently inmoral? What would possibly falsify that?

8. Psychological status of phonological analyses Spatiotemporality Scientific theories deal with things that happen in real time and real space Formal rules and processes don't happen in real time Sentences that undergo transformations have more processing steps. Studies showed they don't take more processing time. Chomsky said transformations aren't real time processes, so they are not spaciotemporal Grammar of ideal speaker-hearer is goal of generative linguistics. Ideal speaker isn't real.

9. Psychological status of phonological analyses Spatiotemporality “What kind of reality can be ascribed to the notion of a rule whose mental existence is not open to introspection and whose operations are ordered in non-real time?”

10. Psychological status of phonological analyses Autonomous versus non-autonomous linguistics Autonomous approaches Study language in isolation from speaker Don't do psychological testing of theories Study patterns and structures in languages Human language studied without reference to humans

11. Psychological status of phonological analyses Autonomous versus non-autonomous linguistics Non-autonomous approaches Study linguistics with same tools as psychologists Tries to see how people actually process language

12. Psychological status of phonological analyses Psychological reality of autonomous versus non- autonomous linguistics Autonomous “Reflects a kind of abstract complexity with which somehow the human brain must cope” but not how Non-autonomous Reflects more closely how people handle language

13. Psychological status of phonological analyses Value of each Autonomous Finds patterns and structures Non-autonomous Tries to see how people process those structures or patterns

14. Psychological status of phonological analyses Kinds of evidence Internal Surface regularities Alternations between phones Phonotactic regularities External Language games, speech errors, aphasia Historical change, variation Experiments

15. Psychological status of phonological analyses Kinds of evidence Internal (autonomous:structuralists and generativists) Surface regularities Alternations between phones Phonotactic regularities External (non-autonomous: psycholinguists) Language games, speech errors, aphasia Historical change, variation Experiments

16. Psychological status of phonological analyses Autonomous evidence Shows patterns that exist Non-autonomous Shows how/if patterns are stored, retrieved, processed