<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P84-1092">
  <Title>From HOPE en I'ESPERANCE On the Role of Computational Neurolinguistics in Cross-Language Studies I</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="0" end_page="452" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
2. FOCUS ON PROCESS
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> In developing CN models, the claim is that by focusing on process independently from representation, we gain several perspectives that are unattainable from other more usual approaches. CN models include processing which is neurally plausible. Language is seen as the behavioral result of an interactive, time-dependent process.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> This frees us from pre-specifying either all &amp;quot;correct&amp;quot; linguistic possibilities for constraint satisfaction at all levels of representation, or all possible errors or recognized omissions as in more flexible approaches (Hayes and Mouradian, 1981; Kwasny and Sondheimer, 1981; Lehnert, Dyer, Johnson, Yong, and Hurley, 1983; Weischeidel and Black, 1980).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2">  We utilize what has been discovered by these other approaches to be the most likely, most plausible set of relevant features to tune our &amp;quot;normal&amp;quot; model. Through interconnections at a metalinguistic level, between recognized phonetic word representations, grammatical aspects of meaning, and specific referential meaning for disambiguated words, CN models must tune the process so that asynchronously activated instantiations at these interpretable levels which result from local contextual recognition achieve the same behavioral results that are defined within different methodologies. In other words, we use the A! preconditions or ATN states with as much corroboration from psychological, and linguistic studies as is available to tune our models for &amp;quot;normal&amp;quot; processing.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> This provides an extremely valuable means of studying processing effects in neurally motivated &amp;quot;lesion&amp;quot; states that are consistent within our system, and completely defined over our model of study in a mathematical sense. This has been discussed in detail elsewhere in Gigley (1982b; 1983a; 1983b), and Gigley and Duffy (1982) and will not be repeated here.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>