The processing architecture sketched in Fig. 7.2, of course, treats phonological working memory as only one
department or“blackboard”in linguistic workingmemory. And to repeat a point from thelast section, I want to think
of workingmemory not just as a shelf where the brain stores material, but as a workbench where processing goes on,
where structures are constructed. There seems no point in relegating processing to a“central executive,”when it has
become abundantly clear that the brain is thoroughly decentralized.^100
7.4 More about lexical access
As a sampleof how the parallelcompetencemodel can playa role in theorizing about processing, we willspend a little
time deconstructing the notion of lexical access in processing. The objective is not to pass judgment on experimental
work but to clarify the questions that experimental work addresses.
7.4.1 Lexical access in perception
Elaborating the discussion in section 7.2, consider what is involved in a simple“call to the lexicon”in language
perception. At this point in processing, the auditory–phonological interface has presented a certain amount of
sequenced phoneticstructuretothephonology“blackboard,”and thephonologyintegrative processor has madesome
preliminary guesses about syllable and word boundaries, based on the phonotactics of the language.
Now, when the lexicon is called, should we think of the processor callingthe lexicon for a match? Or should we think
of the lexicon, as part of the interface processor, as actively attempting to impose itself on the input? This perhaps
awaits a better understanding of brain dynamics. (One thing ought to be certain, though: lexical access cannot be a
serial search, as was envisaged by some in the early days.)
IMPLICATIONS FOR PROCESSING 207
(^100) For the relation between linguistic working memory, attention, and consciousness, see Jackendoff (1987 : esp. chs. 6, 13, and 14).