Lecture: Psycholinguistics Professor Dr. Neal R. Norrick _____________________________________

1. Psycholinguistics Universität des Saarlandes Dept. 4.3: English Linguistics SS 2009 Lecture: Psycholinguistics Professor Dr. Neal R. Norrick_____________________________________

2. Organizational matters attendance: don‘t miss more than 2 lectures! (make sure you sign into the Anwesenheitsliste every week) tutorial: mandatory for magister, Erasmus (to get full credit), LAG alt (if you‘re taking the exam or wish to do 3 SWS)  recommended for everyone as preparation for the final exam

3. there will be no lectures in July (7th, 14th, 21th)!!!  last lecture: 6-30-09 final exam: will take place on 07-28-09 in the lecture hall (at the regular time) signing up for the exam (Neue Studiengänge): • via sign-up list – will be passed around in the last two weeks of the lecture in June (exact procedure to be announced later!)

4. updated script and bibliography are now online!!! website: http://www.uni-saarland.de/fak4/norrick/index.html

5. 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

6. these allophones are predictable variants they don't distinguish meanings ability to distinguish meanings defines phonemes hence: minimal pair test pill - bill

7. 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 also psychologically salient

8. 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

9. other salient suprasegmentals are volume and speed, they signal speaker attitudes and emotional states.

10. 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

11. 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.

12. 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

13. 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.

14. 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

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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:

19. 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

20. 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?

21. 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 distinctions and ignore others, in speaking and thinking, shouldn't that influence the way we think?

22. 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

23. 4. Words in the Mental Lexicon Mental Lexicon versus dictionary • words accessible via sound, meaning, related words Mental Lexicon versus encyclopedia • Encyclopedia contains all kinds of knowledge, usually unnecessary for normal word use, e.g. for dog:

24. perceptual: four-legged, furry, barking sound etc • functions: used as pet, for hunting, guarding etc • behaviors: chases cats, chews bones, is territorial etc • origins: animal, mammal, bears litters of puppies etc • history: domesticated early, developed into pet etc • facts: Suzy has a puppy, Bill's dog chases cars etc

25. Encyclopedia contains entries for concepts not represented by individual words in lexicon e.g. for "aquatic mammals" and "famous scientists" or "favorite bars in town" assume that lexical entries specify only: • sound • morphological irregularities • syntactic properties • core meaning for identification • relations to other words • perhaps spelling

26. 4.1 Word Association Tests (WATs) Experiments show: we recognize concrete words like table faster than abstract words like trouble table  chair faster, more consistent trouble  bad lower, less consistent

27. we also recognize familiar words and short words faster than unfamiliar and long words compare: A traveling salesman arrived in town An itinerate salesman arrived in town

28. WATs also show paradigmatic versus syntagmatic relations: • paradigmatic apple, pear, banana, plum • syntagmatic apple, red, juicy, eat in WATs: • adults respond paradigmatically: pillow  bed • children respond syntagmatically: pillow  soft

29. semantic features (orcomponents) are also psychologically real for speakers Woman human, adult, female . . . Man human, adult, male . . . again kids don't analyze, responding syntagmatically: Man  work instead of woman  adult or female

30. based on response times to questions like: Can a canary sing? Can a canary fly? Does a canary have skin? Collins & Quillan (1989) postulate memory structures

32. But other tests show pure frequency of occurrence in discourse counts for more than response times in WATs: A canary sings/is yellow more frequent versus A canary flies/eats less frequent

33. WATs show faster recognition after associated words: we recognize roof faster after house than after some unrelated word like apple so Lindsay & Norman (1972) postulate lexical networks

35. WATs are a questionable method: • WATs elicit unnatural verbal behavior • WATs develop quantitative results, but they're • always fuzzy • WATs are usually limited to nouns, usually • concrete but consider, e.g. colors,fruits, games etc • WATs are unnecessary, given discourse analysis, • especially now with computers available

36. 4.2 Tip-of-the-Tongue Phenomena Thinking on Tip-of-the-Tongue (TOT) phenomena begins with James (1890) James speaks of “a gap that is intensively active” in consciousness when we try to recall a forgotten name. Meringer and Mayer (1895), Fromkin (1973) kept personal catalogues of error types to gather natural data.

37. Brown and McNeill (1966) collected intuitions on remembering in diary studies, e.g. unable to recall the name of the street on which a relative lives, one of us thought of Congress and Corinth and Concord and then looked up the address and learned that it was Cornish.

38. Brown and McNeill also induce TOT states, by reading definitions of uncommon words to subjects, who then answer questions about their search for the missing word, e.g. subjects asked to identify the target word sextant based on a dictionary definition “A navigational instrument used in measuring angular distances, especially the altitude of sun, moon and stars at sea.”

39. Burke et al. (1991) write, “When a TOT occurs, a lexical node in a semantic system becomes activated, giving access to semantic information about the target word, but at least some phonological information remains inaccessible.” Subjects in the TOT state often report that a word related to the target comes repeatedly and involuntarily to mind, yielding ‘blockers’,‘interlopers’ or ‘persistent alternates’, e.g. sexton or sextet for sextant

40. Burke et al. (1991) developed an experimental task, using prompts like those in a trivia game presented on a computer, where subjects typed responses, e.g. What is the old name of Taiwan? target: Formosa foils: Taipei, Canton, Ceylon The foils often acted as blockers for the target word

41. They then asked questions like: “How familiar do you think the word is?” “How certain are you that you can recall the word?“ “What is the first letter or group of letters in the word?” Burke et al. (1991) identify a semantic system or network of nodes connecting concepts • the concept chastity is connected with “is a virtue,” “take a vow of” etc • the concept baker with “bake bread” “get up early” “sell cakes” “knead dough” etc

42. Compare scripts of Schank and Abelson (1977), cognitive models of Lakoff (1987): Cognitive model for chastity would identify prototypes for the virtue like saints, and distinguish characteristics like “is a virtue” from linguistic constructions in which the word chastity occurs such as “take a vow of chastity.” Cognitive model for baker would identify prototypes for profession like the owner of the bakery at the foot of the hill.

43. Burke et al. (1991) say one word may prime, i.e. facilitate recognition of, another word, the activation of nurse facilitates activation of doctor because priming spreads and summates via these many shared connections. Cognitive processes recoded in diary studies and lab experiments differ from TOT searches in real conversation, e.g.

44. 1 Helen: in Hammond, north Hammond. Junior Toy Company. 2 they used to make toys, little tricycles and scooters and everything. 3 David: and where was it? 4 Helen: I don't remember the street. 5 Hoffman? 6 No. 7 it was a little beyond right here, you know, 8 it wasn't right in north Hammond. 9 t was around that street that turns into Illinois, 10 there when you go to the cemetery. 11 here's a tavern on one side and a VFW on one side. 12 forget the street. 13 David: Gosselin? 14 Helen: Could be, I don't know. 15 I don't know, 16 but that's where Junior Toy was in the low corner there.

45. Helen expresses her forgetfulness at line 4 with “I don’t remember the street.” • She takes a guess at the name in line 5, but immediately rejects the guess in line 6. • She begins an extended description of the area in terms of landmarks in lines 7-11. • She concludes, “I forget the street” at line 12, but David offers a guess of his own, since he’s familiar with the local neighborhood. • Helen expects help with name or at least assurance that David can identify the place.

46. Storytellers often name landmarks and major streets, not phonetically similar words. Note references to cemetery (l. 10), tavern and VFW (l.. 11) Description “in the low corner” implies that the teller can visualize the scene. So why not search corpora for natural instances of TOT?