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 brain.[2]

Modern research makes use of biology, neuroscience, cognitive science, linguistics, and information science to study
how the 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 subdisciplines 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 has roots in education and philosophy, and covers the "cognitive processes" that make it possible to
generate a grammatical and meaningful sentence out of vocabulary and grammatical structures, as well as the
processes that make it possible to understand utterances, words, text, etc. Developmental psycholinguistics studies
children's ability to learn language.

Contents
Areas of study
Origin of term
Theories
Language acquisition
Language comprehension
Reading
Language production
Methodologies
Behavioral tasks
Eye-movements
Language production errors
Neuroimaging
Computational modeling
Issues and areas of research
See also
References
Further reading
External links

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 process and
comprehend language (language comprehension)?; (3) how do people produce language (language production)?; and
(4) how do people acquire a new language (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
thought the conceptual framework concerned with the semantic differential. Developmental psycholinguists study
infants' and children's ability to learn and process language.[3]

Origin of term
The term psycholinguistics was coined in 1936 by Jacob Robert Kantor in his book An Objective Psychology of
Grammar and started being used among his team at Indiana University, but its use finally became frequent thanks to
the 1946 article "Language and psycholinguistics: a review," by his student Nicholas Henry Pronko.[4] It was used for
the first time to talk about an interdisciplinary science "that could be coherent"[5] 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.[6]

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.[7] 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.[8] 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.[9] 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 is related to the formation of ontological insights[10]. 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.[11]"

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[12]."

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,[13] 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.[14] 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[15] 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:[16]

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)."[17] 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.[17]

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.[18]

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.[19]

Eye-movements
Recently, eye tracking has been used to study online language processing. Beginning with Rayner (1978)[20] the
importance and informativity of eye-movements during reading was established. Later, Tanenhaus et al. (1995)[21]
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.[22] The types of speech
errors, and some examples, are:[22][23][24]

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.[25] 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.[26]

Computational modeling
Computational modelling, such as the DRC model of reading and word recognition proposed by Max Coltheart and
colleagues,[27] 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[28] and Franklin Chang's Dual-Path model of sentence production.[29]

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.[18][30]

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.[31] 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.[32]

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.

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

References
 1. Jodai, Hojat (June 2011). "An introduction to psycholinguistics" (https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED521774.pdf)
(PDF). ERIC:ED521774.
2. Nordquist, Richard. "Psycholinguistics definition and examples" (https://www.thoughtco.com/psycholinguistics-169
1700). ThoughtCo.
3. Houston, D.M.; Jusczyk, P.W. (2000). "The Role of Talker-Specific Information in Word Segmentation by Infants"
(https://web.archive.org/web/20131005004725/http://www.iupui.edu/~babytalk/pdfs/Houston_2011.pdf) (PDF).
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 26 (5): 1570–1582. doi:10.1037/0096-
1523.26.5.1570 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0096-1523.26.5.1570). Archived from the original (http://www.iupui.ed
u/~babytalk/pdfs/Houston_2011.pdf) (PDF) on 5 October 2013. Retrieved 1 March 2012.
4. Pronko, N. H. (May 1946). "Language and psycholinguistics: a review". Psychological Bulletin. 40 (3): 189–239.
doi:10.1037/h0056729 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0056729).
5. Levelt, W. J. M. (2013). A history of psycholinguistics: the pre-Chomskyan era. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ISBN 9780199653669.
6. Murray, D. J. (2001). Language and psychology: 19th-century developments outside the Germany: A Survey (pp.
1679-1692). En S. Auroux (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. (Ill.)
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 911 pp. ISBN 3110167352)
7. Chomsky, N; Skinner, B. F. (1959). "A Review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior". Language. 35 (1): 26–58.
doi:10.2307/411334 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F411334). ISSN 0097-8507 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0097-8
507). JSTOR 411334 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/411334).
8. Hauser M.D.; Chomsky N.; Fitch W. (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 (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.
298.5598.1569). PMID 12446899 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12446899).
9. Elman, Jeffrey; Bates Elizabeth; Johnson Mark; Karmiloff-Smith Annette; Parisi Domenico; Plunkett Kim (1998).
Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. The MIT Press.
10. Mou, Bo (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 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F140011
6). JSTOR 1400116 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1400116).
11. Woodfield, Andrew (2000). "Reference and Deference". Mind and Language. 15 (4): 433–451. doi:10.1111/1468-
0017.00143 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1468-0017.00143).
12. Himmelfarb (1993) p 57
13. 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 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2F0010-0285%2882%2990008-1).
14. 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 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fs0022-5371%2883%
2990236-0).
15. Trueswell J.; Tanenhaus M. (1994). "Toward a lexical framework of constraint-based syntactic ambiguity
resolution". Perspectives on Sentence Processing: 155–179.
16. V., Fromkin (1973). "Speech errors as linguistic evidence". hdl:11858/00-001M-0000-002B-2D04-D (https://hdl.ha
ndle.net/11858%2F00-001M-0000-002B-2D04-D).
17. Psycholinguistics. Harley, Trevor A. Los Angeles, Calif.: SAGE. 2011. ISBN 9781446263013. OCLC 846651282
(https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/846651282).
18. Packard, Jerome L (2000). "Chinese words and the lexicon." The Morphology of Chinese: A Linguistic and
Cognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 284-309.
19. Fischler I. (1977). "Semantic facilitation without association in a lexical decision task". Memory & Cognition. 5 (3):
335–339. doi:10.3758/bf03197580 (https://doi.org/10.3758%2Fbf03197580). PMID 24202904 (https://www.ncbi.nl
m.nih.gov/pubmed/24202904).
20. Rayner K. (1978). "Eye movements in reading and information processing". Psychological Bulletin. 85 (3): 618–
660. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.294.4262 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.294.4262).
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.85.3.618 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0033-2909.85.3.618). PMID 353867 (https://www.nc
bi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/353867).
21. Tanenhaus M. K.; Spivey-Knowlton M. J.; Eberhard K. M.; Sedivy J. E. (1995). "Integration of visual and linguistic
information in spoken language comprehension". Science. 268 (5217): 1632–1634. doi:10.1126/science.7777863
(https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.7777863). PMID 7777863 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7777863).
22. "Slips of the Tongue: Windows to the Mind | Linguistic Society of America" (http://www.linguisticsociety.org/resourc
e/slips-tongue-windows-mind). www.linguisticsociety.org. Retrieved 2017-05-02.
23. "Lecture No. 16 -- Speech Errors" (http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/linguistics/lectures/05lect16.html).
www.departments.bucknell.edu. Retrieved 2017-05-02.
24. "Speech Errors and What They Reveal About Language" (http://www.omniglot.com/language/articles/speecherror
s.htm). www.omniglot.com. Retrieved 2017-05-02.
25. Fromkin, Victoria A. (1973). Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence. The Netherlands: Mouton & Co. N. V. pp. 157–
163.
26. Aguirre, Geoffrey K. (2014-03-01). "Functional Neuroimaging: Technical, Logical, and Social Perspectives".
Hastings Center Report. 44 (s2): S8–S18. doi:10.1002/hast.294 (https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fhast.294).
ISSN 1552-146X (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1552-146X). PMID 24634086 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm
ed/24634086).
27. Coltheart M.; Rastle K.; Perry C.; Langdon R.; Ziegler J. (2001). "DRC: "A dual route cascaded of visual word
recognition and reading aloud". Psychological Review. 108 (1): 204–256. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.1.204 (http
s://doi.org/10.1037%2F0033-295X.108.1.204). PMID 11212628
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11212628).
28. McClelland, J.L.; Elman, J.L. (1986). "The TRACE model of speech perception". Cognitive Psychology. 18 (1): 1–
86. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(86)90015-0 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2F0010-0285%2886%2990015-0).
PMID 3753912 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3753912).
29. Chang, Franklin (September 2002). "Symbolically speaking: a connectionist model of sentence production".
Cognitive Science. 26 (5): 609–651. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2605_3 (https://doi.org/10.1207%2Fs15516709co
g2605_3). ISSN 0364-0213 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0364-0213).
30. Altmann, Gerry T.M. (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.
31. Seidner, Stanley S. (1982). Ethnicity, Language, and Power from a Psycholinguistic Perspective. Bruxelles:
Centre de recherche sur le pluralinguisme. pp. 4-7.
32. Seidner, Stanley S. (1982). Ethnicity, Language, and Power from a Psycholinguistic Perspective. Bruxelles:
Centre de recherche sur le pluralinguisme. p. 11.

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

Belyanin V.P. Foundations of Psycholinguistic Diagnostics (Models of the World) (https://web.archive.org/web/200

51111090813/http://www.textology.ru/belyanin/bel_ann1.html). Moscow, 2000 (in Russian)
Chomsky, Noam. (2000) New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Harley, Trevor. (2008) The Psychology of Language: From data to theory (3rd. ed.) (https://web.archive.org/web/2
0080914072626/http://www.psypress.com/harley/) Hove: Psychology Press.
Harley, Trevor. (2009) Talking the talk: Language, psychology and science. Hove: Psychology Press.
Lakoff, George. (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Menn, Lise. (2016). Psycholinguistics: Introduction and Applications, 2nd ed. San Diego: Plural Publishing, Inc.
Piattelli-Palmarini, Massimo. (ed.) (1980) Language and learning: the debate between Jean Piaget and Noam
Chomsky. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Pinker, Steven. (1994) The Language Instinct. New York: William Morrow.
Rayner, K. and Pollatsek, A. (1989) The Psychology of Reading. New York:Prentice Hall.
Steinberg, Danny D., Hiroshi Nagata, and David P. Aline, ed. (2001) Psycholinguistics: Language, Mind and
World (http://www.ling.ed.ac.uk/linguist/issues/13/13-55.html), 2nd ed. Longman
 Aitchison, Jean. (1998). The Articulate Mammal: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics. Routledge.
Scovel, Thomas. (1998). Psycholinguistics. Oxford University Press.

External links
‹The template Curlie is being considered for deletion.› Psycholinguistics (https://curlie.org/Science/Social_Sciences/Linguistics/
Psycholinguistics) at Curlie
[[Category:Words coined in the 1930s]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psycholinguistics&oldid=895668470"

This page was last edited on 5 May 2019, at 20:14 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using
this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.