…

Sear

Psycholinguistics

Psycholinguistics or psychology of
language is the study of the interrelation
between linguistic factors and
psychological aspects.[1]

The field is concerned with psychological

and neurobiological factors that enable
humans to acquire, use, comprehend and
produce language. The discipline is
mainly concerned with the mechanisms
in which languages are processed and
represented in the mind and brain.[2]

Modern research makes use of biology,

neuroscience, cognitive science,
linguistics, and information science to
study how the mind-brain processes
language, and less so the known
processes of social sciences, human
development, communication theories
and infant development, among others.
There are a number of sub-disciplines
with non-invasive techniques for studying
the neurological workings of the brain;
for example, neurolinguistics has
become a field in its own right. Initial
forays into psycholinguistics were found
in philosophical and educational fields,
due mainly to their location in
departments other than applied sciences
(e.g., cohesive data on how the human
brain functioned).

Psycholinguistics is concerned with the

cognitive faculties and processes that
are necessary in order for grammatical
forms of language to be produced from a
mental grammar and the lexicon. It is
also concerned with the perception of
these constructions by a listener.
Developmental psycholinguistics,as a
branch of psycholinguistics, concerns
itself with the child's ability to learn
language.

Areas of study
Psycholinguistics is an interdisciplinary
field. Hence, it is studied by researchers
from a variety of different backgrounds,
such as psychology, cognitive science,
linguistics, speech and language
pathology, and discourse analysis.
Psycholinguists study many different
topics, but these topics can generally be
divided into answering the following
questions: (1) how do children acquire
language (language acquisition)?; (2)
how do people comprehend language
(language comprehension)?; (3) how do
people produce language (language
production)?; and (4) how do people who
already know one language acquire
another one(second language
acquisition)?

Subdivisions in psycholinguistics are

also made based on the different
components that make up human
language.

Linguistics-related areas:
Phonetics and phonology are
concerned with the study of speech
sounds. Within psycholinguistics,
research focuses on how the brain
processes and understands these
sounds.
Morphology is the study of word
structures, especially the relationships
between related words (such as dog
and dogs) and the formation of words
based on rules (such as plural
formation).
Syntax is the study of the patterns
which dictate how words are combined
to form sentences.
 Semantics deals with the meaning of
words and sentences. Where syntax is
concerned with the formal structure of
sentences, semantics deals with the
actual meaning of sentences.
Pragmatics is concerned with the role
of context in the interpretation of
meaning.

A researcher interested in language

comprehension may study word
recognition during reading to examine
the processes involved in the extraction
of orthographic, morphological,
phonological, and semantic information
from patterns in printed text. A
researcher interested in language
production might study how words are
prepared to be spoken starting from the
conceptual or semantic level (this
concerns connotation, and possibly can
be examined through the conceptual
framework concerned with the semantic
differential). Developmental
psycholinguists study infants' and
children's ability to learn and process
language.[3]

History of psycholinguistics

Language acquisition and

innateness
…
Psycholinguistics, in seeking to
understand the properties of language
acquisition has roots in debates
regarding innate vs acquired behaviors
(both in biology and psychology). For
some time the concept of an innate trait,
was something that was not present in
the psychology of the individual[4] .
However, with the redefining of
innateness as time progressed,
behaviors considered innate could once
again be analyzed as behaviors that
interacted with the psychological aspect
of an individual. After the diminished
popularity of the behaviorist model,
ethology became once again a leading
train of thought within psychology, and by
these means language, as an innate
behavior within humans, could be
examined once more in the scope of
psychology[4].

Origin of designation …

Even though psycholinguistics originated

in terms of methodology, and in
theoretical framework from a time before
the end of the nineteenth century it was
called only "Psychology of Language".
The nomenclature for the science as
Psycholinguistics did not begin to come
about until 1936 when Jacob Kantor, a
prominent Psychologist of the time, used
the term ‘Psycholinguistic’ as a
description within the book An Objective
Psychology of Grammar.[5] The term only
came to relevant usage, however in 1946
when the student of Kantor, Nicholas
Pronko published an article by the title
Psycholinguistics: A Review .[6] Pronko's
desire was to unify the myriad of
theoretical approaches within the realm
of Psycholinguistics under a single
name.[5][6] It was used for the first time to
talk about an interdisciplinary science
"that could be coherent"[7] as well as in
the title of Psycholinguistics: A Survey of
Theory and Research Problems, a 1954
book by Charles E. Osgood and Thomas
A. Sebeok.[8]

Theories
In this section, some influential theories
are discussed for each of the
fundamental questions listed in the
section above.

Language acquisition …
There are essentially two schools of
thought as to how children acquire or
learn language, and there is still much
debate as to which theory is the correct
one. The first theory states that all
language must be learned by the child.
The second view states that the abstract
system of language cannot be learned,
but that humans possess an innate
language faculty, or an access to what
has been called universal grammar. The
view that language must be learned was
especially popular before 1960 and is
well represented by the mentalistic
theories of Jean Piaget and the
empiricist Rudolf Carnap. Likewise, the
school of psychology known as
behaviorism (see Verbal Behavior (1957)
by B.F. Skinner) puts forth the point of
view that language is a behavior shaped
by conditioned response, hence it is
learned.

The innatist perspective began with

Noam Chomsky's highly critical review of
Skinner's book in 1959.[9] This review
helped to start what has been termed
"the cognitive revolution" in psychology.
Chomsky posited humans possess a
special, innate ability for language and
that complex syntactic features, such as
recursion, are "hard-wired" in the brain.
These abilities are thought to be beyond
the grasp of the most intelligent and
social non-humans. According to
Chomsky, children acquiring a language
have a vast search space to explore
among all possible human grammars, yet
at the time there was no evidence that
children receive sufficient input to learn
all the rules of their language (see
poverty of the stimulus). Hence, there
must be some other innate mechanism
that endows a language ability to
humans. Such a language faculty is,
according to the innateness hypothesis,
what defines human language and
makes it different from even the most
sophisticated forms of animal
communication.

The field of linguistics and

psycholinguistics since then has been
defined by reactions to Chomsky, pro and
con. The pro view still holds that the
human ability to use language
(specifically the ability to use recursion)
is qualitatively different from any sort of
animal ability.[10] This ability may have
resulted from a favorable mutation or
from an adaptation of skills evolved for
other purposes. The view that language
can be learned has had a recent
resurgence inspired by emergentism.
This view challenges the "innate" view as
scientifically unfalsifiable; that is to say, it
can't be tested. With the amount of
computer power increasing since the
1980s, researchers have been able to
simulate language acquisition using
neural network models.[11] These models
provide evidence that there may, in fact,
be sufficient information contained in the
input to learn language, even syntax. If
this is true, then an innate mechanism is
no longer necessary to explain language
acquisition.
Language comprehension …

The structures and uses of language are

related to the formation of ontological
insights.[12] Some see this system as
"structured cooperation between
language-users" using "conceptual
difference""semantic deference" in order
to exchange meaning and knowledge
and give meaning to language, examining
and describing "semantic processes
bound by a ‘stopping’ constraint which
are not cases of ordinary deferring.
Deferring is normally done for a reason,
and a rational person is always disposed
to defer if there is good reason.[13]

The theory of the Semantic differential

supposes universal distinctions such as
factors of "Typicality" (that included
scales such as "regular-rare", "typical-
exclusive"), "Reality" ("imaginary-real",
"evident-fantastic", "abstract-concrete"),
as well as factors of "Complexity"
("complex-simple", "unlimited-limited",
"mysterious-usual"), "Improvement" or
"Organization" ("regular-spasmodic",
"constant-changeable", "organized-
disorganized", "precise-indefinite"),
Stimulation ("interesting-boring", "trivial-
new"), calling it " in the measurement of
attitudes.[14]"

Reading
One question in the realm of language
comprehension is how people
understand sentences as they read (also
known as sentence processing).
Experimental research has spawned a
number of theories about the
architecture and mechanisms of
sentence comprehension. Typically these
theories are concerned with what types
of information contained in the sentence
the reader can use to build meaning, and
at what point in reading does that
information become available to the
reader. Issues such as "modular" versus
"interactive" processing have been
theoretical divides in the field.

A modular view of sentence processing

assumes that the stages involved in
reading a sentence function
independently in separate modules.
These modulates have limited interaction
with one another. For example, one
influential theory of sentence processing,
the garden-path theory,[15] states that
syntactic analysis takes place first. Under
this theory as the reader is reading a
sentence, he or she creates the simplest
structure possible in order to minimize
effort and cognitive load. This is done
without any input from semantic analysis
or context-dependent information.
Hence, in the sentence "The evidence
examined by the lawyer turned out to be
unreliable," by the time the reader gets to
the word "examined" he or she has
committed to a reading of the sentence
in which the evidence is examining
something because it is the simplest
parse. This commitment is made despite
the fact that it results in an implausible
situation; we know from experience that
evidence can rarely if ever examine
something. Under this "syntax first"
theory, semantic information is
processed at a later stage. It is only later
that the reader will recognize that he or
she needs to revise the initial parse into
one in which "the evidence" is being
examined. In this example, readers
typically recognize their misparse by the
time they reach "by the lawyer" and must
go back and re-parse the sentence.[16]
This reanalysis is costly and contributes
to slower reading times.

In contrast to a modular account, an

interactive theory of sentence
processing, such as a constraint-based
lexical approach[17] assumes that all
available information contained within a
sentence can be processed at any time.
Under an interactive account, for
example, the semantics of a sentence
(such as plausibility) can come into play
early on in order to help determine the
structure of a sentence. Hence, in the
sentence above, the reader would be able
to make use of plausibility information in
order to assume that "the evidence" is
being examined instead of doing the
examining. There are data to support
both modular and interactive accounts;
which account is the correct one is still
up for debate.

Language production …

Language production concerns how

people produce language, either in
written or spoken form, in a way that
conveys meanings comprehensible to
others. One of the most effective ways to
explain the way people represent
meanings using rule-governed languages
is by observing and analyzing instances
of speech errors. They include speech
dysfluencies like false starts, repetition,
reformulation and constant pauses in
between words or sentences; also, slips
of tongue, like blendings, substitutions,
exchanges (e.g. Spoonerism), and
various pronunciation errors. These
speech errors yield significant
implication on language production, in
that they reflect that:[18]

1. Speech is planned in advance:

speech errors like substitution and
exchanges show that one does not
plan his/her entire sentence before
s/he speaks. Rather, their language
faculty is constantly tapped during
the speech production process. This
 is accounted for by the limitation of
the working memory. In particular,
errors involving exchanges imply
that one plans ahead in their
sentence but only about significant
ideas (e.g. the words that constitute
the core meaning) and only to a
certain extent of the sentence.
2. Lexicon is organized semantically
and phonologically: substitution and
pronunciation errors show that
lexicon is organized not only by its
meaning, but also its form.
3. Morphologically complex words are
assembled: errors involving
 blending within a word reflect that
there seems to be a rule governing
the construction of words in
production (and also likely in mental
lexicon). In other words, speakers
generate the morphologically
complex words by merging
morphemes rather than retrieving
them as chunks.

It is useful to differentiate between three

separate phases of production:
conceptualization "(determining what to
say), formulation (translating the
intention to say something into linguistic
form), and execution (the detailed
articulatory planning and articulation
itself)."[19] Most psycholinguistic
research has largely concerned itself
with the study for formulation because
the phase of conceptualization largely
remains an elusive and mysterious
period of development.[19]

For models of speech production, see

Psycholinguistics/Models of Speech
Production.

Methodologies

Behavioral tasks …
Many of the experiments conducted in
psycholinguistics, especially earlier on,
are behavioral in nature. In these types of
studies, subjects are presented with
linguistic stimuli and asked to perform an
action. For example, they may be asked
to make a judgment about a word (lexical
decision), reproduce the stimulus, or
name a visually presented word aloud.
Reaction times to respond to the stimuli
(usually on the order of milliseconds) and
proportion of correct responses are the
most often employed measures of
performance in behavioral tasks. Such
experiments often take advantage of
priming effects, whereby a "priming"
word or phrase appearing in the
experiment can speed up the lexical
decision for a related "target" word
later.[20]

As an example of how behavioral

methods can be used in
psycholinguistics research, Fischler
(1977) investigated word encoding using
the lexical decision task. He asked
participants to make decisions about
whether two strings of letters were
English words. Sometimes the strings
would be actual English words requiring
a "yes" response, and other times they
would be nonwords requiring a "no"
response. A subset of the licit words
were related semantically (e.g., cat-dog)
while others were unrelated (e.g., bread-
stem). Fischler found that related word
pairs were responded to faster when
compared to unrelated word pairs. This
facilitation suggests that semantic
relatedness can facilitate word
encoding.[21]

Eye-movements …

Recently, eye tracking has been used to

study online language processing.
Beginning with Rayner (1978)[22] the
importance and informativity of eye-
movements during reading was
established. Later, Tanenhaus et al.
(1995)[23] used the visual-world paradigm
to study the cognitive processes related
to spoken language. Assuming that eye
movements are closely linked to the
current focus of attention, language
processing can be studied by monitoring
eye movements while a subject is
presented auditorily with linguistic input.

Language production errors …

The analysis of systematic errors in
speech, writing and typing of language as
it is produced can provide evidence of
the process which has generated it.
Errors of speech, in particular, grant
insight into how the mind processes
language production while a speaker is in
the midst of an utterance. Speech errors
tend to occur in the lexical, morpheme,
and phoneme encoding steps of
language production, as seen by the
ways errors can manifest.[24] The types
of speech errors, and some examples,
are:[24][25][26]
Substitutions (phoneme and lexical) –
replacing a sound with an unrelated
sound, or a word with an antonym, and
saying "verbal outfit" instead of
"verbal output", or "He rode his
bike tomorrow" instead of
"...yesterday", respectively,
Blends – mixing two synonyms
together and saying
"my stummy hurts" in place of either
"stomach" or "tummy",
Exchanges (phoneme [a.k.a.
Spoonerisms] and morpheme) –
swapping two onset sounds or two
root words, and saying "You hissed
my mystery lectures" instead of
"You missed my history lectures", or
"They're Turking talkish" instead of
"They're talking Turkish", respectively,
Morpheme shifts – moving a function
morpheme such as "-ly" or "-ed" to a
different word and saying "easy
enoughly" instead of "easily enough",
Perseveration – continuing to start a
word with a sound that was in the
utterance previously and saying
"John gave the goy a ball" instead of
"John gave the boy a ball", and
Anticipation – replacing a sound with
one that is coming up later in the
 utterance and saying "She drank a cot
cup of tea" instead of "She drank a hot
cup of tea."

Speech errors will usually occur in the

stages that involve lexical, morpheme, or
phoneme encoding, and usually not the
first step of semantic encoding.[27] This
can be credited to how a speaker is still
conjuring the idea of what to say, and
unless he changes his mind, can not be
mistaken in what he wanted to say.

Neuroimaging …
Until the recent advent of non-invasive
medical techniques, brain surgery was
the preferred way for language
researchers to discover how language
works in the brain. For example, severing
the corpus callosum (the bundle of
nerves that connects the two
hemispheres of the brain) was at one
time a treatment for some forms of
epilepsy. Researchers could then study
the ways in which the comprehension
and production of language were
affected by such drastic surgery. Where
an illness made brain surgery necessary,
language researchers had an opportunity
to pursue their research.

Newer, non-invasive techniques now

include brain imaging by positron
emission tomography (PET); functional
magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI);
event-related potentials (ERPs) in
electroencephalography (EEG) and
magnetoencephalography (MEG); and
transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS).
Brain imaging techniques vary in their
spatial and temporal resolutions (fMRI
has a resolution of a few thousand
neurons per pixel, and ERP has
millisecond accuracy). Each type of
methodology presents a set of
advantages and disadvantages for
studying a particular problem in
psycholinguistics.[28]

Computational modeling …

Computational modelling, such as the

DRC model of reading and word
recognition proposed by Max Coltheart
and colleagues,[29] is another
methodology and refers to the practice of
setting up cognitive models in the form
of executable computer programs. Such
programs are useful because they
require theorists to be explicit in their
hypotheses and because they can be
used to generate accurate predictions for
theoretical models that are so complex
that they render discursive analysis
unreliable. Other examples of
computational modelling is McClelland
and Elman's TRACE model of speech
perception[30] and Franklin Chang's Dual-
Path model of sentence production.[31]

Issues and areas of research

Psycholinguistics is concerned with the
nature of the computations and
processes that the brain undergoes to
comprehend and produce language. For
example, the cohort model seeks to
describe how words are retrieved from
the mental lexicon when an individual
hears or sees linguistic input.[20][32]

Recent research using new non-invasive

imaging techniques seeks to shed light
on just where certain language
processes occur in the brain.

There are a number of unanswered

questions in psycholinguistics, such as
whether the human ability to use syntax
is based on innate mental structures or
emerges from interaction with other
humans, and whether some animals can
be taught the syntax of human language.

Two other major subfields of

psycholinguistics investigate first
language acquisition, the process by
which infants acquire language, and
second language acquisition. In addition,
it is much more difficult for adults to
acquire second languages than it is for
infants to learn their first language
(bilingual infants are able to learn both of
their native languages easily). Thus,
sensitive periods may exist during which
language can be learned readily.[33] A
great deal of research in
psycholinguistics focuses on how this
ability develops and diminishes over
time. It also seems to be the case that
the more languages one knows, the
easier it is to learn more.[34]

The field of aphasiology deals with

language deficits that arise because of
brain damage. Studies in aphasiology
can both offer advances in therapy for
individuals suffering from aphasia, and
further insight into how the brain
processes language.

A 2016 empirical study showed that

personal associations are mutually inter-
related and that the concepts of self and
world are internally connected via direct
and mediated dependences, which
reflects the structuring of perception and
understanding of self and world in
people's minds and discusses its
implications for psycholinguistics.[35]

See also
Animal language
Communication
Determiner phrase
Educational psychology
Human brain
 Interpersonal communication
Language acquisition
Language processing
Linguistic relativity
Neurolinguistics
Psychological nativism
Second language acquisition
Speech perception
TRACE model

References
1. Jodai H (June 2011). "An
introduction to psycholinguistics"
(PDF). ERIC:ED521774.
2. Nordquist R. "Psycholinguistics
definition and examples" .
ThoughtCo.
3. Houston DM, Jusczyk PW (2000).
"The Role of Talker-Specific
Information in Word Segmentation
by Infants" (PDF). Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance. 26 (5):
1570–1582. doi:10.1037/0096-
1523.26.5.1570 . Archived from the
original (PDF) on 5 October 2013.
Retrieved 1 March 2012.
4. Griffiths, Paul (2017), "The
Distinction Between Innate and
Acquired Characteristics" , in Zalta,
Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring
2017 ed.), Metaphysics Research
Lab, Stanford University, retrieved
2019-10-31
5. Levelt, W. J. M. (Willem J. M.), 1938-
(2013). A history of
psycholinguistics : the pre-
Chomskyan era. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
ISBN 9780191627200.
OCLC 824525524 .
6. Pronko, N. H. (May 1946). "Language
and psycholinguistics: a review".
Psychological Bulletin. 43 (3): 189–
239. doi:10.1037/h0056729 .
ISSN 1939-1455 . PMID 21027277 .
7. Levelt WJ (2013). A history of
psycholinguistics: the pre-
Chomskyan era. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
ISBN 9780199653669.
8. Murray DJ (2001). "Language and
psychology: 19th-century
developments outside the Germany:
A Survey". In Auroux S (ed.).
Geschichte der
Sprachwissenschaften (vol. 2
History of the Language Sciences:
An International Handbook on the
Evolution of the Study of Language
from the Beginnings to the Present.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. pp. 1679–
1692. ISBN 3110167352.
 9. Chomsky N, Skinner BF (1959). "A
Review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal
Behavior". Language. 35 (1): 26–58.
doi:10.2307/411334 . ISSN 0097-
8507 . JSTOR 411334 .
10. Hauser MD, Chomsky N, Fitch WT
(November 2002). "The faculty of
language: what is it, who has it, and
how did it evolve?". Science. 298
(5598): 1569–79.
doi:10.1126/science.298.5598.1569
. PMID 12446899 .
11. Elman J, Bates E, Johnson M,
Karmiloff-Smith A, Parisi D, Plunkett
K (1998). Rethinking innateness: A
connectionist perspective on
development. The MIT Press.
12. Mou B (1999). "The Structure of the
Chinese Language and Ontological
Insights: A Collective-Noun
Hypothesis". Philosophy East and
West. 49 (1): 45–62.
doi:10.2307/1400116 .
JSTOR 1400116 .
13. Woodfield A (2000). "Reference and
Deference". Mind and Language. 15
(4): 433–451. doi:10.1111/1468-
0017.00143 .
14. Himmelfarb (1993) p 57
15. Frazier L, Rayner K (1982). "Making
and correcting errors during
sentence comprehension: Eye
movements in the analysis of
structurally ambiguous sentences".
Cognitive Psychology. 14 (2): 178–
210. doi:10.1016/0010-
0285(82)90008-1 .
16. Rayner K, Carlson M, Frazier L
(1983). "The interaction of syntax
and semantics during sentence
processing: Eye movements in the
analysis of semantically biased
sentences". Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior. 22 (3):
358–374. doi:10.1016/s0022-
5371(83)90236-0 .
17. Trueswell J, Tanenhaus M (1994).
"Toward a lexical framework of
constraint-based syntactic ambiguity
resolution". Perspectives on
Sentence Processing: 155–179.
18. Fromkin V (1973). "Speech errors as
linguistic evidence". hdl:11858/00-
001M-0000-002B-2D04-D .
19. Harley TA (2011). Psycholinguistics.
Los Angeles, Calif.: SAGE.
ISBN 9781446263013.
OCLC 846651282 .
20. Packard JL (2000). "Chinese words
and the lexicon". The Morphology of
Chinese: A Linguistic and Cognitive
Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. pp. 284–309.
21. Fischler I (May 1977). "Semantic
facilitation without association in a
lexical decision task". Memory &
Cognition. 5 (3): 335–9.
doi:10.3758/bf03197580 .
PMID 24202904 .
22. Rayner K (May 1978). "Eye
movements in reading and
information processing".
Psychological Bulletin. 85 (3): 618–
60. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.294.4262 .
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.85.3.618 .
PMID 353867 .
23. Tanenhaus MK, Spivey-Knowlton MJ,
Eberhard KM, Sedivy JC (June 1995).
"Integration of visual and linguistic
information in spoken language
comprehension". Science. 268
(5217): 1632–4.
Bibcode:1995Sci...268.1632T .
doi:10.1126/science.7777863 .
PMID 7777863 .
24. "Slips of the Tongue: Windows to the
Mind | Linguistic Society of
America" .
www.linguisticsociety.org. Retrieved
2017-05-02.
25. "Lecture No. 16 -- Speech Errors" .
www.departments.bucknell.edu.
Retrieved 2017-05-02.
26. "Speech Errors and What They
Reveal About Language" .
www.omniglot.com. Retrieved
2017-05-02.
27. Fromkin VA (1973). Speech Errors as
Linguistic Evidence. The
Netherlands: Mouton & Co. N. V.
pp. 157–163.
28. Aguirre GK (2014-03-01). "Functional
neuroimaging: technical, logical, and
social perspectives" . The Hastings
Center Report. Spec No (s2): S8-18.
doi:10.1002/hast.294 .
PMID 24634086 .
29. Coltheart M, Rastle K, Perry C,
Langdon R, Ziegler J (January 2001).
"DRC: a dual route cascaded model
of visual word recognition and
reading aloud". Psychological
Review. 108 (1): 204–56.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.1.204 .
PMID 11212628 .
30. McClelland JL, Elman JL (January
1986). "The TRACE model of speech
perception". Cognitive Psychology.
18 (1): 1–86. doi:10.1016/0010-
0285(86)90015-0 . PMID 3753912 .
31. Chang F (September 2002).
"Symbolically speaking: a
connectionist model of sentence
production". Cognitive Science. 26
(5): 609–651.
doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2605_3 .
ISSN 0364-0213 .
32. Altmann GT (1997). "Words, and how
we (eventually) find them.". The
Ascent of Babel: An Exploration of
Language, Mind, and Understanding.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
pp. 65–83.
33. Seidner SS (1982). Ethnicity,
Language, and Power from a
Psycholinguistic Perspective.
Bruxelles: Centre de recherche sur le
pluralinguisme. pp. 4–7.
34. Seidner SS (1982). Ethnicity,
Language, and Power from a
Psycholinguistic Perspective.
Bruxelles: Centre de recherche sur le
pluralinguisme.
35. Kuška M, Trnka R, Kuběna AA,
Růžička J (2016). "Free Associations
Mirroring Self- and World-Related
Concepts: Implications for Personal
Construct Theory, Psycholinguistics
and Philosophical Psychology" .
Frontiers in Psychology. 7: 981.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00981 .
PMC 4928535 . PMID 27445940 .

Further reading
A short list of books that deal with
psycholinguistics, written in language
accessible to the non-expert, includes:

Belyanin VP (2000). Foundations of

Psycholinguistic Diagnostics (Models of the
World) (in Russian). Moscow.
Chomsky N (2000). New Horizons in the
Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Harley T (2008). The Psychology of
Language: From data to theory (3rd ed.).
Hove: Psychology Press.
Harley T (2009). Talking the talk: Language,
psychology and science. Hove: Psychology
Press.
Lakoff G (1987). Women, fire, and
dangerous things: what categories reveal
about the mind . Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Menn L (2016). Psycholinguistics:
Introduction and Applications (2nd ed.). San
Diego: Plural Publishing, Inc.
Piattelli-Palmarini M (1980). Language and
learning: the debate between Jean Piaget
and Noam Chomsky. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Pinker S (1994). The Language Instinct.
New York: William Morrow.
Rayner K, Pollatsek A (1989). The
Psychology of Reading . New York: Prentice
Hall.
 Steinberg DD, Nagata H, Aline DP (2001).
Psycholinguistics: Language, Mind and
World (2nd ed.). Longman.
Aitchison J (1998). The Articulate Mammal:
An Introduction to Psycholinguistics.
Routledge.
Scovel T (1998). Psycholinguistics. Oxford
University Press.

External links

Wikiversity has learning resources

about Psycholinguistics

Psycholinguistics at Curlie
Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Psycholinguistics&oldid=930269657"

Last edited 1 month ago by Citation bot

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless

otherwise noted.