Lecture: Psycholinguistics Professor Dr. Neal R. Norrick _____________________________________...

Lecture: Psycholinguistics Professor Dr. Neal R. Norrick

_____________________________________

Psycholinguistics

Universität des SaarlandesDept. 4.3: English Linguistics

SS 2009

Organization

• website: script, bibliography, PowerPoint presentations

• attendance, quiz, certificates/credits

1. Introduction

Psycholinguistics = the study of language and mind

mind versus brain • mind as understanding, senses, spirit, psyche• mind as total of cognitive capacities• myth of the ghost in the machine

language as communication versus

language as thought

• thought as silent, internal speech• language as representation of underlying

thought

Psycholinguistics is:• either - study of underlying language system (in

memory)• or - study of language production & comprehension

reflecting distinction of competence versus performance

Psycholinguistics versus neighbor disciplines: Sociolinguistics, Neurolinguistics, Cognitive Linguistics

2. Biological foundations of speech

2.1 Organs of speech

humans have no specific organs of speech,

but we find specialization for speech in

many parts of system

• evolution of human physiology (phylogenesis)• development of children from birth (ontogenesis)

result in contemporary adult human speechsystem

• erect posture frees hands to develop fine motor skills

• fine motor skills in tool-making lead to brain development

• brain development enables symbolic representation

• erect posture lowers epiglottis and larynx• larger mouth and lower tongue expand range of

sounds

2.2 Nervous system

central versus peripheral

descending, versus ascending, motor sensory

but both systems function together in complex activity, so that brain gets feedback on effects

nerve development from birth to two yearsreflects growth in motor and language skills

newborn baby

six-month old

fifteen-month old

twenty-four-month old

special areas of brain for language skills

organization of perception, language

and articulation in the brain:

motor cortex:

2.3 Brain Lateralization

specialization of function in left and right

hemispheres as part of evolutionary

development in brain

still, corpus callosum connects the two

hemispheres

lateralization of language functions in brain:

•contralateral organization and handedness•dominance of left-brain in language ability

Dichotic Listening:

Dichotic listening tests have shown a right ear advantage in recognizing linguistic sounds, while non-verbal sounds received through the left ear are processed faster.

3. Linguistics and mental entities

3.1 Words and concepts

• word meaning as mental image• words as signs of concepts, labels for concepts• concepts might be figures, images, models etc• concepts include perceptual and functional

information

Miller & Johnson-Laird's concept:

3.2 Sounds and phonemes

phonemes as psychologically real entities

abstract phoneme /p/

versus positionally variant allophones:

• aspirated [ph] word-initial, as in pill• preglottalized [p] word-final, as in lip• unaspirated [p-] after initial s, as in spill

these allophones are predictable variants

they don't distinguish meanings

ability to distinguish meanings defines

phonemes

hence: minimal pair test

pill - bill

but experiments show:words are recognized faster than phonemes

we recognize the letter b and the sound /b/faster in the word bat than in isolation

words are more salient than phonemes

suprasegmental features are alsopsychologically salient

intonation distinguishes statements

and questions

Sally's here. versus Sally's here?

stress focuses on any constituent in questions

Sally gave the new car to Judy today?• can question whether it was Sally (not Suzy),• whether she gave (not loaned) the car,• whether it was the new (not the old) car etc

other salient suprasegmentals are volumeand speed, they signal speaker attitudesand emotional states.

3.3 Sentences and propositions

sentences as grammatical representations

of underlying meaning in the form of (logical)

propositions

propositions in language of thought clarify (logical) relations between

words

and sentences, represent entailments,

inferences etc

versus

sentences following the rules of some

natural language

grammar rules transform underlying

meanings into grammatical sentences of

natural language

so a single underlying logical proposition

has multiple possible representations in any

given natural language, e.g.

the cat is on the mat, the cat is on top of the mat

the mat is under the cat, the mat is beneath the cat etc

But where would such a logical language

of propositions come from if not from

communication in a natural language?

But if our language of thought is some acquired

natural language, then the specific

characteristics of that language determine our

patterns of thinking - and this leads to the

Sapir Whorf Hypothesis.

3.4 Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis sees language and

human cognition as related in non-arbitrary

ways

Sapir 1921, 1929, 1949, Whorf 1950, 1956

proposed a relationship between language,

meaning, culture, and personality, generally

called the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

The strong version of the hypothesis says our language determines our perception. We see the things and processes our language has names for and ignore or cannot see what our language doesn't name.

The weak version of the hypothesis says our language influences our perception. We attend to the things and processes our language has names for and tend to ignore or find it difficult to attend to what our language doesn't name, e.g.

English speakers with only a single word wall

find it difficult to understand and make the

distinctions necessary for choosing Wand

versus Mauer in German.

German and English speakers group together

all kinds of spherical objects with the single

word ball, they would not normally distinguish

the objects categorized in French as ball from

those called ballon.

In French, speakers must attend to

differences in size and determine whether

an object is inflated or not to categorize it as

ball versus ballon.

Also, the grammar of the language we're

speaking at any given time (be it our native

language or not) forces us to think in certain

ways.

Slobin's ‘thinking for speaking’ notes that any

language system enforces certain choices in

grammar and lexis, no matter how our

underlying thought patterns work,

e.g. because of the tense/aspect system of

English, all the following questions are relevant

in talking about an event:

• When did the action take place?

present versus past tense • Is it completed?

perfective versus simple aspect • Was it an ongoing process or a momentary

activity?

progressive versus simple aspect • Did it only happen once or does it always

happen?

progressive versus simple aspect

But in various languages, the questions below

are important for determining grammatical

forms (word order, cases):

• Did I (as speaker) see the event or just hear about it?

• Is this statement a fact or just my opinion? • What kinds of words are typically subjects? And

what kinds objects?

Compare:

I like it, mir gefällt es, mi piace, I'm cold, mich friert, mir ist kalt, isch hann kalt, j'ai frois

If we must always attend to certain distinctionsand ignore others, in speaking and thinking,shouldn't that influence the way we think?

Nevertheless, we manage to translate between languages and to learn other languages, so apparently our thought patterns can extend and adapt.

We can grasp and learn to use words from other languages, even if they have no counterpart in our native language, e.g.

Schadenfreude blind date