I think we're talking about, and possibly conflating, two different things here: speech and writing. I was explicitly talking about written language, in as much

I think we're talking about, and possibly conflating, two different things here: speech and writing. I was explicitly talking about written language, in as much as that was the domain of the linked article (and the grandparent comment, or at least I thought as much). Frankly, I'm largely responsible for this conflation. I didn't draw clear enough distinctions, and in fact, I probably lost sight of the distinctions myself in responding. That's 100% on me. Nevertheless, the fact remains, a statement like "no conscious understanding of the rules is required" is overly broad and sweeping. It lends itself to about a thousand interpretations, mine being merely one of them. There are too many contexts for the expression of language, and methods of communication by which to express it (written, verbal, etc.), to make a categorical statement like that.