DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 1 1951

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 1 1951 Chapter 1 1951 It is a widely shared opinion that the new discipline of psycholinguistics emerged during the 1950s. Nothing could be further from the truth. The purpose of this book is to sketch a history of psycholinguistics, the psychology of language, going back to the end of the eight- eenth century, when empirical research began in earnest. Still, it makes sense to begin where psycholinguistics is generally believed to have started, in the early 1950s and more precisely in 1951. That is, to some extent, familiar ground. We will then time travel, over almost two centuries, from the early Romantic period back to this era. In the book’s last chapter, we will return safely to the 1950s, but now recognizing that those years formed no less, but also no more, than a hinge in an old, well-established, and respectable science. The year 1951 will indeed stand out as a hinge in the history of psycholinguistics, although not by design. It was sheer coincidence that three landmark events were packed in that one year halfway through the twentieth century. The first event was the Interdisciplinary Summer Seminar in Psychology and Linguistics, which was held at Cornell University from June 18 to August 10. It set out to “explore the relationships which might exist between the fields of psychology and linguistics” and to make recommendations for the development of a field of overlap coined “psycholinguis- tics.” It is widely considered to be the birth of modern psycholinguistics. The second event was the publication of George Miller’s Language and communication. This textbook reviewed the state of the art in the psychology of language and communica- tion. Its systematic treatment of the empirical literature covered more than five decades of research, occasionally reaching back into the nineteenth-century French and German roots of the field. The new discipline of psycholinguistics that was about to be launched would actually continue a century-old research tradition in the psychology of language. The third landmark was Karl Lashley’s paper “The problem of serial order in behavior.” This was the first frontal attack on the traditional behaviorist associative-chain theories of serial behavior, such as speech and language. In that paper, Lashley pleaded for a new syntactic approach to the treatment of all skilled hierarchical behavior. This was to become a core issue in the imminent “cognitive revolution.” The Interdisciplinary Summer Seminar in Psychology and Linguistics and its follow-up Cornell 1951 The Summer Seminar would not have happened without John Bissell Carroll (1916–2003) (Fig. 1.1 ). John (or Jack) Carroll grew up in Hartford, Connecticut. When he was 14, he 001-Levelt-Ch1-Levelt-Ch 001.indd1.indd 3 99/24/2012/24/2012 22:05:13:05:13 PPMM 4 1951 (a) (b) Fig. 1.1 (a) John Bissell Carroll. © SLTI. Reproduced here with permission. (b) The cover title of his 1951 report. happened to attend a talk at the local children’s museum by a certain Mr. Benjamin Whorf, on Aztec and Maya Indians. At the time, Whorf, a fire insurance agent, was also a graduate student of the great linguist Edward Sapir at Yale, and was spending much time on translating an old Nahuatl text. After the talk, John became Whorf ’s youthful assistant, helping him looking up words in a Spanish Nahuatl dictionary. Whorf greatly inspired the young Carroll over the three years of their cooperation and they continued to keep in touch until Whorf ’s death in 1941. Whorf also introduced Jack to Edward Sapir, who, mostly through his writings, had aroused Carroll’s interest in linguistic typology. But, Sapir convinced Carroll that linguistics would not provide him with a viable career. Something like the psychology of language would offer better opportunities. After his undergraduate studies at Wesleyan University, where he was introduced to Weiss’s behavioristic psychology of language, Carroll became B.F. Skinner’s very first graduate student at the University of Minnesota. It was not a perfect match. Skinner, whose work we will discuss in Chapter 8, taught a course in the psychology of language, but Carroll could not recognize or discuss the linguistics he had become well acquainted with through his early training. Skinner, however, was kind enough to introduce him to George Zipf at Harvard University, who, in turn, kindled Jack’s interest in the study of word frequencies. Skinner also had him work with Louis Thurstone at Chicago on a factor analytic approach to the testing of verbal abilities. At the age of 25 Carroll spent a year at Indiana with J.R. Kantor, the most behaviorist of all psychologists of language (see Chapter 8). There Carroll published a lucid Psychological Review paper which laid out a strictly Skinnerian program for the study of verbal behavior. Only a few years later, then a Harvard professor in the department of education, he accepted an invitation from the Carnegie Corporation to review the state of the art in linguistics and its possible appli- cations. During 1950 he traveled all over the country to interview the leading American linguists. The report he submitted was very well received. 1 It recommended the 1 Carroll ( 1953 ) is an extended, revised version of the report. 001-Levelt-Ch1-Levelt-Ch 001.indd1.indd 4 99/24/2012/24/2012 22:05:13:05:13 PPMM THE INTERDISCIPLINARY SUMMER SEMINAR IN PSYCHOLOGY AND LINGUISTICS 5 development of “language psychology” as an interdisciplinary field. As a man of action, Carroll’s next step was to apply to the Social Science Research Council (SSRC) for the funding of a workshop on that topic. It was to become the Summer Seminar in Psychology and Linguistics at Cornell University. Carroll continued to play a central role on the psy- cholinguistic scene, as will be apparent from Chapters 10–13 and 15. In 1974 he moved to the University of North Carolina, where he became emeritus in 1982. The Cornell seminar was both a mutual teaching and a joint planning exercise among three senior psychologists and three senior linguists. Aside from Carroll himself, the psychologists were Charles Osgood of the University of Illinois and Richard Solomon of Harvard University. Osgood had made a name in the psychology of language with his work on the semantic differential (see Chapters 8 and 15). Solomon had worked on tachistoscopic word recognition.2 The linguists were Fred Agard, a specialist in second- language acquisition at Cornell University; Stanley Newman, a former Sapir student and linguistic anthropologist from the University of New Mexico; and Thomas Sebeok, linguist and a leading scholar in semiotics (the study of signs and symbols) from Indiana University. 3 At the end of eight intensive weeks they had produced a 57-page report clarifying the roles of psychology, linguistics, psycholinguistics, and information theory in analyzing the process of communication. It also discussed some of the core research issues for psy- cholinguistics, including potential applications, and it concluded with a list of practical recommendations. Figure 1.2 represents the report’s diagram of the communication process. We are as much speakers as we are hearers; we are both transmitters and receivers of messages, and we normally alternate in reciprocity between these roles. The diagram depicts five com- ponents in the process and indicates the disciplines that (should) deal with them. Psychology deals with the intentional speaker and the interpretative hearer. This is the domain of perceptions, needs, attitudes, intents, meanings, overt acts, etc. Descriptive linguistics is primarily concerned with the structure and content of messages, irrespective of their antecedents or subsequent effects. And then there is psycholinguistics, neatly assigned with the two tasks of studying the speaker’s encoding and the listener’s decoding behavior. When we speak, how do events at the semantic level, the level of ideas, deter- mine our “selection of articulatory motor skill sequences”? And how, when we listen, do “auditory or visual receptor skill sequences” determine our selection of semantic events? The report appeared two years after Shannon and Weaver’s The mathematical theory of communication , which had deeply impressed students of communication. It had suddenly become possible to quantify the amount of information transmitted between sender and receiver, its redundancy, transmission rate and noise in the channel, and so on. George Miller was quick to thoroughly integrate information theory in his textbook. The report dutifully stressed the importance of information theory, but did not do 2 Together with David Howes, he had just discovered the word frequency effect in visual word recogni- tion, see Chapter 12. 3 There were also two graduate students involved, Don Dulany and Leonard Newmark. 001-Levelt-Ch1-Levelt-Ch 001.indd1.indd 5 99/24/2012/24/2012 22:05:13:05:13 PPMM 6 1951 INTENTIVE BEHAVIOR INTERPRETIVE OF SPEAKER MESSAGE BEHAVIOR OF HEARER (psychology) (linguistics) (psychology) ENCODING BEHAVIOR DECODING BEHAVIOR (psycholinguistics) (psycholinguistics) EFFICIENCY OF COMMUNICATION PROCESS (information theory) Fig. 1.2 The communicative process. Data from Report and recommendations of the Interdisciplinary Summer Seminar in Psychology and Linguistics . Cornell University, June 18–August 10. much more. Diagram and text assigned to information theory the task of studying the “efficiency” of the communicative process as a whole and of the encoding and decoding processes in particular, but without specifying much further detail. Although the assignments of linguistics versus psychology/psycholinguistics in Figure 1.2 seem natural enough, the text signals deeper issues. After remarking that “psychological theory has little relevance for descriptive linguistics,” the report adds that “when interest shifts to the explanation of linguistic structure it is necessary to appeal to psycholinguistics and perhaps to general psychological theory” (p. 31). Here the authors are (unknowingly) in the good company of Heymann Steinthal, from a century earlier, who we will soon meet in Chapter 2.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 'Introspectionism' and the Mythical Origins of Scientific Psychology
    Consciousness and Cognition Consciousness and Cognition 15 (2006) 634–654 www.elsevier.com/locate/concog ‘Introspectionism’ and the mythical origins of scientific psychology Alan Costall Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO1 2DY, UK Received 1 May 2006 Abstract According to the majority of the textbooks, the history of modern, scientific psychology can be tidily encapsulated in the following three stages. Scientific psychology began with a commitment to the study of mind, but based on the method of introspection. Watson rejected introspectionism as both unreliable and effete, and redefined psychology, instead, as the science of behaviour. The cognitive revolution, in turn, replaced the mind as the subject of study, and rejected both behaviourism and a reliance on introspection. This paper argues that all three stages of this history are largely mythical. Introspectionism was never a dominant movement within modern psychology, and the method of introspection never went away. Furthermore, this version of psychology’s history obscures some deep conceptual problems, not least surrounding the modern conception of ‘‘behaviour,’’ that continues to make the scientific study of consciousness seem so weird. Ó 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Introspection; Introspectionism; Behaviourism; Dualism; Watson; Wundt 1. Introduction Probably the most immediate result of the acceptance of the behaviorist’s view will be the elimination of self-observation and of the introspective reports resulting from such a method. (Watson, 1913b, p. 428). The problem of consciousness occupies an analogous position for cognitive psychology as the prob- lem of language behavior does for behaviorism, namely, an unsolved anomaly within the domain of an approach.
    [Show full text]
  • All in the Mind Psychology for the Curious
    All in the Mind Psychology for the Curious Third Edition Adrian Furnham and Dimitrios Tsivrikos www.ebook3000.com This third edition first published 2017 © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd Edition history: Whurr Publishers Ltd (1e, 1996); Whurr Publishers Ltd (2e, 2001) Registered Office John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK Editorial Offices 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148‐5020, USA 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services, and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley‐blackwell. The right of Adrian Furnham and Dimitrios Tsivrikos to be identified as the authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners.
    [Show full text]
  • Literature and the Cognitive Revolution: an Introduction
    Literature and the Cognitive Revolution: An Introduction Alan Richardson English, Boston College Francis F. Steen Communication Studies, UCLA Literary studies and the cognitive sciences, pursuing common interests in language, mental acts, and linguistic artifacts, have developed markedly different approaches to similar phenomena of reading, imaginative involve- ment, and textual patterning. Until quite recently, the distance between them has drawn more attention than their possible convergence (Franchi and Güzeldere ). A number of literary theorists and critics, however, have steadily been producing work that finds its inspiration, its method- ology, and its guiding paradigms through a dialogue with one or more fields within cognitive science: artificial intelligence, cognitive psychology, post- Chomskian linguistics, philosophy of mind, neuroscience, and evolution- ary biology. Reuven Tsur () has been developing his ‘‘cognitive poet- ics’’ since the s; the prominent psychoanalytic critic Norman Holland (: ) demonstrated the advantages of attending to the ‘‘more powerful psychology’’ emerging from cognitive neuroscience in ; Mark Turner (: viii) advanced his far-reaching project of a ‘‘cognitive rhetoric’’ in ; and Ellen Spolsky (: ) trenchantly brought a theory of ‘‘cogni- tive instability’’ to bear on literary interpretation in . These and like- minded critics respond to the limitations (or, in Spolsky’s case, missed op- portunities) of poststructuralist conceptions of meaning and interpretation by questioning the reigning models in the field, whether in the interest of Poetics Today : (Spring ). Copyright © by the Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics. Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/poetics-today/article-pdf/23/1/1/458295/01.pdf by guest on 25 September 2021 2 Poetics Today 23:1 displacing, reworking, supplementing, or fundamentally regrounding them (Hart ).
    [Show full text]
  • Concepts As Correlates of Lexical Labels. a Cognitivist Perspective
    This is a submitted manuscript version. The publisher should be contacted for permission to re-use or reprint the material in any form. Final published version, copyright Peter Lang: https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-05287-9 Sławomir Wacewicz Concepts as Correlates of Lexical Labels. A Cognitivist Perspective. This is a submitted manuscript version. The publisher should be contacted for permission to re-use or reprint the material in any form. Final published version, copyright Peter Lang: https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-05287-9 CONTENTS Introduction………………………………………………………………... 6 PART I INTERNALISTIC PERSPECTIVE ON LANGUAGE IN COGNITIVE SCIENCE Preliminary remarks………………………………………………………… 17 1. History and profile of Cognitive Science……………………………….. 18 1.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………. 18 1.2. Cognitive Science: definitions and basic assumptions ……………. 19 1.3. Basic tenets of Cognitive 22 Science…………………………………… 1.3.1. Cognition……………………………………………………... 23 1.3.2. Representationism and presentationism…………………….... 25 1.3.3. Naturalism and physical character of mind…………………... 28 1.3.4. Levels of description…………………………………………. 30 1.3.5. Internalism (Individualism) ………………………………….. 31 1.4. History……………………………………………………………... 34 1.4.1. Prehistory…………………………………………………….. 35 1.4.2. Germination…………………………………………………... 36 1.4.3. Beginnings……………………………………………………. 37 1.4.4. Early and classical Cognitive Science………………………… 40 1.4.5. Contemporary Cognitive Science……………………………... 42 1.4.6. Methodological notes on interdisciplinarity………………….. 52 1.5. Summary…………………………………………………………. 59 2. Intrasystemic and extrasystemic principles of concept individuation 60 2.1. Existential status of concepts ……………………………………… 60 2 This is a submitted manuscript version. The publisher should be contacted for permission to re-use or reprint the material in any form. Final published version, copyright Peter Lang: https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-05287-9 2.1.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a Mechanistic Psychology of Dialogue
    Edinburgh Research Explorer Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue Citation for published version: Pickering, MJ & Garrod, S 2004, 'Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue', Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 27, no. 02, pp. 169-225. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X04000056 Digital Object Identifier (DOI): 10.1017/S0140525X04000056 Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Published In: Behavioral and Brain Sciences Publisher Rights Statement: ©Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(02), 169-225doi: 10.1017/S0140525X04000056 General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 28. Sep. 2021 BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2004) 27, 169–226 Printed in the United States of America Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue Martin J. Pickering Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9JZ, United Kingdom [email protected] http://www.psy.ed.ac.uk/Staff/academics.html#PickeringMartin Simon Garrod Department of Psychology, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QT, United Kingdom [email protected] http://staff.psy.gla.ac.uk/~simon/ Abstract: Traditional mechanistic accounts of language processing derive almost entirely from the study of monologue.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael Espindola Araki Polymathic Leadership
    Michael Espindola Araki Polymathic Leadership: Theoretical Foundation and Construct Development Dissertação de Mestrado Dissertation presented to the Programa de Pós- graduação em Administração de Empresas of the Departamento de Administração, PUC-Rio as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Mestre em Administração de Empresas. Advisor: Prof. Flávia de Souza Costa Neves Cavazotte Rio de Janeiro April 2015 Michael Espindola Araki Polymathic Leadership: Theoretical Foundation and Construct Development Dissertation presented to the Programa de Pós- graduação em Administração de Empresas of the Departamento de Administração, PUC-Rio as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Mestre em Administração de Empresas. Prof. Flávia de Souza Costa Neves Cavazotte Advisor Departamento de Administração – PUC-Rio Prof. Ana Heloísa da Costa Lemos Departamento de Administração - PUC-Rio Prof. Lúcia Barbosa de Oliveira Faculdades IBMEC-RJ Profª. Mônica Herz Vice-Dean of Pós-Graduação of the CCS – PUC-Rio Rio de Janeiro, April 15th, 2015 All rights reserved. Michael Espindola Araki The author is graduated in Business Management from Universidade Veiga de Almeida in 2012. He has experience as a teacher, business manager, business consultant and as an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) analyst and pre-sales consultant. Bibliographic data Araki, Michael Espindola Polymathic leadership: theoretical foundation and construct development / Michael Espindola Araki; advisor: Flávia de Souza Costa Neves Cavazotte. – 2015. 203 f. : il. (color.) ; 30 cm Dissertação (mestrado) – Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, Departamento de Administração, 2015. Inclui bibliografia 1. Administração – Teses. 2. Polimatia. 3. Liderança. 4. Liderança polímata. 5. Grupos. 6. Equipes. 7. Teoria. 8. Quadro teórico.
    [Show full text]
  • ICS18 - Study Questions
    ICS18 - study questions January 23, 2019 1. What is the broad and what is the narrow notion of cognition? 2. What is representation? Enumenrate examples of representations considerd within different disciplines (cog. psy- chology, neuroscience, AI) and show that they fulfill the definitional requirements 3. Enumerate and characterize briefly key cognitive disciplines 4. Key theses and principles of associationism 5. How to explain a mind: pure vs mixed associationism 6. A mind according to behaviorists 7. Why is behaviorism considered “the scientific psychology”? 8. Why behaviorism (as a theory of mind) was rejected? 9. Find the elements of behaviorism within contemporary cognitive theory of mind (either symbolic or connectionist) 10. Describe Turing Machine as a computational device 11. What is computation? (remember the roll of toilet paper...) 12. The idea of a mind as a “logic machine” (McCulloch, Pitts) 13. What features does a McCulloch-Pitts neuron have? 14. What is the main difference between a McC-P neuron and a perceptron? 15. What is a model? (cf. Kenneth Craik&Minsky) 16. What are the assumptions of phrenology? 17. Localizationist view on a brain (Gall, Spurzheim) 18. Holistic approaches to human brain 19. What does it mean that some part of our body has a “topographic representation” in the brain? 20. The consequences of Broca’s and Wernicke’s discoveries for a cognitive view on a brain 21. What is Brodmann famous for? 22. What did Golgi invent? What consequences had his discovery? 23. Describe Cajal’s discoveries and their influence on neuroscience 24. The key aassumptions of the “neuron doctrine” (Cajal) 25.
    [Show full text]
  • Anthropology's Disenchantment with the Cognitive Revolution
    Topics in Cognitive Science 4 (2012) 354–361 Copyright Ó 2012 Cognitive Science Society, Inc. All rights reserved. ISSN: 1756-8757 print / 1756-8765 online DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01199.x Anthropology’s Disenchantment With the Cognitive Revolution1 Richard A. Shweder Department of Comparative Human Development, University of Chicago Received 25 June 2011; received in revised form 3 November 2011; accepted 28 November 2011 Abstract Beller, Bender, and Medin should be congratulated for their generous attempt at expressive aca- demic therapy for troubled interdisciplinary relationships. In this essay, I suggest that a negative answer to the central question (‘‘Should anthropology be part of cognitive science?’’) is not necessar- ily distressing, that in retrospect the breakup seems fairly predictable, and that disenchantment with the cognitive revolution is nothing new. Keywords: Cognitive revolution; Behaviorism; Anthropology; Jerome Bruner; Roy D’Andrade; Clifford Geertz; Roger Shepard Some of the leaders of the cognitive revolution of the late 1950s and 1960s began parting from the cause almost as soon as it triumphed. Jerome Bruner, for example, who always enjoyed writing essays for both the left hand and the right hand, turned to hermeneutics, the study of law, and the interpretation of narratives (see Bruner, 1979, 1990). Even in the early days of the rebellion Bruner was attentive to language pragmatics, which may be one reason he named his 1960s big tent interdisciplinary center at Harvard University the ‘‘Center for Cognitive Studies’’ and not the ‘‘Center for Cognitive Science.’’ Bruner had just as much interest in the humanistic writings of E. H. Gombrich, Nelson Goodman, and Clifford Ge- ertz as in the latest claims about basic ⁄fundamental⁄universal cognitive processes coming out of experimental labs situated in Cambridge, London, or Geneva.
    [Show full text]
  • John Bissell Carroll (1916–2003)
    John Bissell Carroll (1916–2003) John Bissell (Jack) Carroll was an early leader in the develop- the best graduate student in the country. However, Skinner’s ment of psycholinguistics and a dominant contributor to psycho- experimental work with single subjects (rats and pigeons) did not metrics and the study of individual differences in cognitive abil- fit well with Jack’s interests. Following a colloquium by Thurst- ities. His seminal work in evaluating foreign language one, Jack thought working in psychometrics with a large number proficiencies across multiple cultures combined his expertise in of tests and human participants would be much more appealing. psycholinguistics with that in psychometrics and defined funda- Thus, Skinner arranged for Jack to work with Thurstone and mental issues in the study of language acquisition. It also pro- others at the University of Chicago (summer 1940). His disser- vided a rich empirical knowledge base for teaching foreign lan- tation was completed soon after he assumed his first academic guages. The intellectual depth of his scholarly products is position, at Mount Holyoke College, and was subsequently pub- matched only by the overwhelming amount of data collection lished in Psychometrika (“A Factor Analysis of Verbal Abilities,” and analysis in which he engaged before venturing empirical 1941). It remains a cogent treatment of the structure of verbal generalizations and theoretical speculations. His career brings to abilities. mind E. O. Wilson’s idea about the creation of important scien- At Mount Holyoke, Jack met Mary Elizabeth Searle; she tific products—brains for analysis, energy for synthesis—be- was a senior when Jack arrived there.
    [Show full text]
  • Psycholinguistic Research Methods 251
    Psycholinguistic Research Methods 251 See also: Deixis and Anaphora: Pragmatic Approaches; Freud S (1915). ‘Die Verdra¨ngung.’ In Gesammelte Werke Jakobson, Roman (1896–1982); Lacan, Jacques (1901– X. Frankfurt am Main: Imago. 1940–1952. 1981); Metaphor: Psychological Aspects; Metonymy; Lacan J (1955–1956). Les Psychoses. Paris: Seuil, 1981. Rhetoric, Classical. Lacan J (1957). ‘L’instance de la lettre dans l’inconscient ou la raison depuis Freud.’ In E´ crits. Paris: Seuil, 1966. Lacan J (1957–1958). Les formations de l’inconscient. Bibliography Paris: Seuil, 1998. Lacan J (1959). ‘D’une question pre´liminaire a` tout traite- Freud S (1900). ‘Die Traumdeutung.’ In Gesammelte werke ment possible de la psychose.’ In E´ crits. Paris: Seuil, II-III. Frankfurt am Main: Imago. 1940–1952. 1966. Freud S (1901). ‘Zur Psychopathologie des Alltagslebens.’ Lacan J (1964). Les quatre concepts fondamentaux de la In Gesammelte werke IV. Frankfurt am Main: Imago. psychanalyse. Paris: Seuil, 1973. 1940–1952. Lacan J (1969–1970). L’envers de la psychanalyse. Paris: Freud S (1905). ‘Der Witz und seine Beziehung zum Unbe- Seuil, 1991. wussten.’ In Gesammelte Werke, VI. Frankfurt am Main: Imago. 1940–1952. Psycholinguistic Research Methods S Garrod, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK This usually involves taking the average of the values ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. of the dependent variable (response latencies) for each value of the independent variable (each list of words acquired at different ages) and establishing Psycholinguistics aims to uncover the mental repre- whether the differences associated with the different sentations and processes through which people pro- values of the independent variable are statistically duce and understand language, and it uses a wide reliable.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cognitive Revolution: a Historical Perspective
    Review TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.7 No.3 March 2003 141 The cognitive revolution: a historical perspective George A. Miller Department of Psychology, Princeton University, 1-S-5 Green Hall, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA Cognitive science is a child of the 1950s, the product of the time I went to graduate school at Harvard in the early a time when psychology, anthropology and linguistics 1940s the transformation was complete. I was educated to were redefining themselves and computer science and study behavior and I learned to translate my ideas into the neuroscience as disciplines were coming into existence. new jargon of behaviorism. As I was most interested in Psychology could not participate in the cognitive speech and hearing, the translation sometimes became revolution until it had freed itself from behaviorism, tricky. But one’s reputation as a scientist could depend on thus restoring cognition to scientific respectability. By how well the trick was played. then, it was becoming clear in several disciplines that In 1951, I published Language and Communication [1], the solution to some of their problems depended cru- a book that grew out of four years of teaching a course at cially on solving problems traditionally allocated to Harvard entitled ‘The Psychology of Language’. In the other disciplines. Collaboration was called for: this is a preface, I wrote: ‘The bias is behavioristic – not fanatically personal account of how it came about. behavioristic, but certainly tainted by a preference. There does not seem to be a more scientific kind of bias, or, if there is, it turns out to be behaviorism after all.’ As I read that Anybody can make history.
    [Show full text]
  • Varieties of Fame in Psychology Research-Article6624572016
    PPSXXX10.1177/1745691616662457RoedigerVarieties of Fame in Psychology 662457research-article2016 Perspectives on Psychological Science 2016, Vol. 11(6) 882 –887 Varieties of Fame in Psychology © The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1745691616662457 pps.sagepub.com Henry L. Roediger, III Washington University in St. Louis Abstract Fame in psychology, as in all arenas, is a local phenomenon. Psychologists (and probably academics in all fields) often first become well known for studying a subfield of an area (say, the study of attention in cognitive psychology, or even certain tasks used to study attention). Later, the researcher may become famous within cognitive psychology. In a few cases, researchers break out of a discipline to become famous across psychology and (more rarely still) even outside the confines of academe. The progression is slow and uneven. Fame is also temporally constricted. The most famous psychologists today will be forgotten in less than a century, just as the greats from the era of World War I are rarely read or remembered today. Freud and a few others represent exceptions to the rule, but generally fame is fleeting and each generation seems to dispense with the lessons learned by previous ones to claim their place in the sun. Keywords fame in psychology, scientific eminence, history of psychology, forgetting First, please take a quiz. Below is a list of eight names. done. (Hilgard’s, 1987, history text was better known Please look at each name and answer the following three than his scientific work that propelled him to eminence.) questions: (a) Do you recognize this name as belonging Perhaps some of you recognized another name or two to a famous psychologist? (b) If so, what area of study without much knowing why or what they did.
    [Show full text]