Elements in Psycholinguistics – serie

Ironic language is a salient reminder that speakers of all languages do not always mean what they say. While ironic language has captured the attention of theorists and scholars for centuries, it is only since the 1980s that psycholinguistic methods have been employed to investigate how readers and hearers detect, process, and comprehend ironic language. This Element reviews the foundational definitions, theories, and psycholinguistic models of ironic language, covering key questions such as the distinction between literal and ironic meaning, the role of contextual information during irony processing, and the cognitive mechanisms involved. These key questions continue to motivate new studies and methodological innovations, providing ample opportunity for future researchers who wish to continue exploring how ironic language is processed and understood.

This Element provides an overview of structural priming research across the three main populations on which experimental priming studies have concentrated: adult monolingual speakers, first language learners, second language learners, and bilinguals. Priming studies with monolingual adults were originally designed to inform psycholinguistic models of grammatical encoding in language production. Thanks to the the implicit nature of the task, priming has turned out to be suitable for experimentally addressing questions about linguistic representation and use at the sentence level in speakers of any age. The view that priming is a form of implicit learning has sparked an interest in exploring continuity and life-long learning in language, opening up rich research areas in second language acquisition and bilingualism. Priming rightly deserves to be a part of every language scientist's tool kit.

Natural language occurs in time. Events happen earlier, later, or simultaneously with other events; however, this temporal dimension is often downplayed or overlooked. This Element introduces readers with a background in structural linguistics to dynamic approaches to phonological processing. It covers models of serial order, speech production and speech perception, with special attention to how they can enhance one another. The work then asks whether dynamic approaches have the potential to change how we think of phonological structure. Key ideas discussed include phonemes and auditory targets, control mechanisms creating structure, and the shape of phonological representations in a dynamic context. The work should function as a bridge for those with linguistic questions who want to learn answers derived from the study of speech as a dynamic system.

During the production of spoken sentences, the linearisation of a 'thought' is accomplished via the process of grammatical encoding, i.e., the building of a hierarchical syntactic frame that fixes the linear order of lexical concepts. While much research has demonstrated the independence of lexical and syntactic representations, exactly what is represented remains a matter of dispute. Moreover, theories differ in terms of whether words or syntax drive grammatical encoding. This debate is also central to theories of the time-course of grammatical encoding. Speaking is usually a rapid process in which articulation begins before an utterance has been entirely planned. Current theories of grammatical encoding make different claims about the scope of grammatical encoding prior to utterance onset, and the degree to which planning scope is determined by linguistic structure or by cognitive factors. The authors review current theories of grammatical encoding and evaluate them in light of relevant empirical evidence. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.

This Element provides an overview of structural priming research across the three main populations on which experimental priming studies have concentrated: adult monolingual speakers, first language learners, second language learners, and bilinguals. Priming studies with monolingual adults were originally designed to inform psycholinguistic models of grammatical encoding in language production. Thanks to the the implicit nature of the task, priming has turned out to be suitable for experimentally addressing questions about linguistic representation and use at the sentence level in speakers of any age. The view that priming is a form of implicit learning has sparked an interest in exploring continuity and life-long learning in language, opening up rich research areas in second language acquisition and bilingualism. Priming rightly deserves to be a part of every language scientist's tool kit.

This Elements presents a series of studies investigating the relationship between language, Theory of Mind, and other cognitive skills, across different languages and cultures. The first set of studies focuses on longitudinal relationships between English-speaking children's understanding of complement-clause constructions (e.g., The cow knows the sticker is in the red box), mental verbs (e.g., know vs. think), modal verbs (e.g., must vs. might), and Theory of Mind. The second set of studies investigates links between complement-clause constructions, mental verbs, and Theory of Mind in Mandarin Chinese and English. The last study looks at English- and Turkish-speaking children's knowledge of evidentiality, source monitoring, and Theory of Mind. Together, these studies suggest that there are different linguistic tools that enable children to represent and acquire Theory of Mind, and that the availability and choice of these linguistic tools differ across languages and cultures.