Psycholinguistics Lecture

Front 1

Features of Human Language

Back 1

Human Language is biologically based
Human Language is universally used by humans
Language competence is innate

Front 2

Thoughts Vs. Language

Back 2

Thoughts and language are often connected, but can separate:
Thoughts can occur w/out language
Nonlinguistic mediums can relay thoughts
Multilingual speakers can think in one language and speak another

Front 3

Language Universals

Back 3

Language is governed by principles
There are features that all languages have
There is info about language that all humans know

Front 4

Theory of Mind

Back 4

Perception of oneself as separate from others
Distinguishing b/w thoughts, beliefs, desires, and perceptions of oneself and others
Understanding that one does not have access to another's mind

Front 5

Linguistic Performance

Back 5

Stringing sounds together (phono)
Forming words (morpho)
Generating sentences (syntax)
Usage in context (semantics)
Production (speaker) --> encoding
Preception (hearer) --> decoding

Front 6

Linguistic Comeptence

Back 6

Parameters, Constraints, Rules
Lexicon
Information stored in your brain which allows speakers to link sound w/ meaning
Related to organization of linguistic knowledge

Front 7

Linguistic Performance Vs. Linguistic Competence

Back 7

Performance --> How one uses linguistic knowledge
Competence --> What you know about your language

Front 8

Frontal Lobe

Back 8

Attention span
Short-term memory
Planning
Reward/drive

Front 9

Parietal Lobe

Back 9

Spatial ability
Visuospatial processing
Number knowledge
Object manipulation
Sensory info

Front 10

Occipital Lobe

Back 10

Visual info/capacity
Dreams

Front 11

Temporal Lobe

Back 11

Long-term memory
Hearing
Word meaning processing

Front 12

Levelt's Model

Back 12

3 subdivisions
-conceptualizer
+perverbal message: the intention to communicate an idea or thought
-Formulator
+Phonetic plan
-Articulator
+Gesture(s)

Front 13

Garrett's Model

Back 13

Step 1:
Concept of thought to be communicated
Step 2:
Semantic content mapped to syntactic functions
Function words are accessed
Content words are accessed
Words are mapped onto syntactic structure
Step 3:
Sounds are represented phonologically
Production

Front 14

TOT

Back 14

Brown & McNeil
Speaker cannot retrieve a word
Reveals aspects of production process
The meaning is present but the phonological rep is not
Speakers have access first to lexical info before phono reps

Front 15

Semantic Errors

Back 15

Substituting the right word for:
Same part of speech
Shared semantic features
synonyms/antonyms

Front 16

Bottom up Vs. Top Down

Back 16

Bottom up: We preceive phonemes and then the word
Top Down: We use content clues to determine the word. When bottom up works, this is unnecessary.

Front 17

Invariance Problem

Back 17

Speech varies depending on context and speech rate

Front 18

Segmentation Problem

Back 18

Challenge to segment real-time speech into individual phonemes

Front 19

Fuzzy Logical (Model)

Back 19

Dominic Massaro proposed that we recognize speech sounds not according to binary features(+/-), but according to prototypes. These are perceptual units of language, which are in the mind of the speaker.
There is a fuzzy value corresponding to how likely it is that a sound belongs to a particular speech category. Thus we base our decision on multiple features and/or sources of information even visual information.

Front 20

Slips of the Ear

Back 20

Resemble phoneme restoration
The incorrect phoneme is restored

Front 21

The Cohort Model

Back 21

Lexical retrieval begins as the initial consonant cluster plus and vowel are preceived by the hearer
Activates all possible candidates
The more sounds added the more 'cometitors' deactivated
Called "activation and selection" or "recognition and competition"

Front 22

Isolation Point

Back 22

The moment that 50% of the subjects correctly identify the word

Front 23

Anomalous Word

Back 23

A word that can have more than one meaning
If the word constructed is anomalous the brain activity used to identify the word continues.

Front 24

Weakness with the Model

Back 24

Input cannot be contaminated. It must be accurate and undistorted so that the phonemes in a word are recognizable up to the isolation point
Words with uncommon initial sounds "dwibble" or replaced by noise
In natural speech the hearer cannot always distinguish the end of one word until enough of the next word is heard to rule out the possible continuations of the first word

Front 25

Headedness

Back 25

The head of a compound determines its part of speech

Front 26

Endocentric

Back 26

The compound is a type of its head

Front 27

Exocentric

Back 27

The compound is not a type of its head

Front 28

Copulative

Back 28

Denote the total of the meaning of both lexemes

Front 29

Appositional

Back 29

Each lexeme provides a variant description of the whole

Front 30

Principle of Compositionality

Back 30

The meaning of a simple or complex expression is fully determined by the meaning of its constituents and its structure

Front 31

Productivity

Back 31

The notion that a given morpheme has a high frequency of usage
This supports the principle of compositionality. The possiblity of our understanding forms which we have never heard before ("ness", "th")

Front 32

The Morpheme-Based Model

Back 32

The surface form of any word is parsed into a sequence which 'could be' a morpheme
Morphological info is represented as distinct and independent morphemes that allow lexical access

Front 33

The Lexeme Model

Back 33

Semantic level - concept
Morphological level - lexemes
Word level - words
Lexical units are directly activated
Morphologically complex words as well as root words are constructed w/ their constituent morohemes, and perceived as lexemes (inflections)

Front 34

Semantic Transparency

Back 34

"punish/punishment"
can prime for meaning
clearly semantically connected

Front 35

Semantic Opacity

Back 35

"casualty/casual"
cannot prime for meaning
not clearly connected

Front 36

Priming Effects

Back 36

Morpheme-based model predicts that pseudo-derived words should produce morphological priming effects in the same way as derived words.
Experiments show that in some circumstances pseudo-derived words induce particular orthographic processes that only a supra-lexical framework can explain