lecture: psycholinguistics professor dr. neal r. norrick _____________________________________...
TRANSCRIPT
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