Nozari Nazbanou
Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, US.
Center for Neural Basis Cognition (CNBC), US.
J Cogn. 2020 Sep 3;3(1):19. doi: 10.5334/joc.102.
Roelofs (2020) has put forth a rebuttal of the criticisms raised against comprehension-based monitoring and has also raised a number of objections against production-based monitors. In this response, I clarify that the model defended by Roelofs is not a comprehension-based monitor, but belongs to a class of monitoring models which I refer to as production-perception models. I review comprehension-based and production-perception models, highlight the strength of each, and point out the differences between them. I then discuss the limitations of both for monitoring production at higher levels, which has been the motivation for production-based monitors. Next, I address the specific criticisms raised by Roelofs (2020) in light of the current evidence. I end by presenting several lines of arguments that preclude a single monitoring mechanism as meeting all the demands of monitoring in a task as complex as communication. A more fruitful avenue is perhaps to focus on what theories are compatible with the nature of representations at specific levels of the production system and with specific aims of monitoring in language production.
罗洛夫斯(2020年)对针对基于理解的监测所提出的批评进行了反驳,同时也对基于产出的监测器提出了一些反对意见。在本回应中,我澄清罗洛夫斯所捍卫的模型并非基于理解的监测器,而是属于一类监测模型,我将其称为产出-感知模型。我回顾了基于理解的模型和产出-感知模型,突出了每种模型的优势,并指出它们之间的差异。然后,我讨论了这两种模型在监测更高层次产出方面的局限性,而这正是基于产出的监测器产生的动机。接下来,我根据现有证据回应罗洛夫斯(2020年)提出的具体批评。最后,我提出了几条论据,表明不存在单一的监测机制能够满足像交流这样复杂任务中的所有监测需求。或许一条更有成效的途径是关注哪些理论与产出系统特定层次的表征性质以及语言产出中监测的特定目标相兼容。