Communication

The Psychology of LanguageAuthor(s): S. Jay SamuelsSource: Review of Educational Research, Vol. 37, No. 2, Language Arts and Fine Arts (Apr.,1967), pp. 109-119Published by: American Educational Research AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1169380 .

Accessed: 24/10/2013 12:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Review of Educational Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 199.219.150.85 on Thu, 24 Oct 2013 12:01:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aera

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1169380?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


CHAPTER I

The Psychology of Language S. JAY SAMUELS*

In the three years since the previous REVIEW, we have witnessed continued efforts by linguists to describe the knowledge which a native speaker has about the structure of his language and by psychologists to describe how that knowledge described by linguists is acquired and utilized. This period has also been one of continued evaluation of theories of language acquisition, controversy regarding the relative contribution of heredity and learning to language acquisition, added understanding of developmental se- quences in language learning, and application of findings from the psychology of language to problems of school learning. An old survey of theory and research literature has been reprinted (Osgood and Sebeock, 1965), two reviews of recent research literature have been prepared (Diebold, 1964; Ervin-Tripp and Slobin, 1966), and a characterization of the new field has been given in nontechnical language by one of its founders (Miller, 1964).

Learning and Nativistic Theories of Language Acquisition

New theories concerning the nature of language and the modes of their

analysis (see especially Chomsky, 1965) have raised strong doubts whether traditional associationistic, learning theoretic accounts of language are tenable. Since these accounts are essentially all that psychologists have offered in the past, many theorists have been under attack. Mowrer (1960), for example, gave a typical analysis and suggested that the child receives

secondary reinforcement upon hearing himself make sounds which are similar to the ones the rewarding parent makes. This accounts for the child's progress from babbling to adult forms of communication. Lenne-

berg (1964b), however, demonstrated that infant vocalizations through the first year of life are very different from adult speech sounds. Com- parisons of sound spectographs of intants and mothers indicated that even with training mothers seem incapable of imitating the sounds their children make. From these observations, Lenneberg questioned the assumption that motivation for learning to speak originates through reinforcement

provided by the similarity of infant and adult speech sounds. * The author has profited greatly from the comments of John Flavell, Terry Halwes, James

Jenkins, and Robert Shaw of the Center for Research in Human Learning at the University of Minnesota.

109



REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Voiwne xxx vii, No. 2

Another associationistic model was offered by Staats and Staats (1963). They used a Markovian word-to-word response probability model to explain the learning of syntax. Through operant conditioning the child learns associations between grammatical classes so that words in a particular class tend to elicit words in the next grammatical class. For example, words like give, throw, and push tend to elicit words like him, her and it.

Jenkins and Palermo (1964) attempted to explain syntax acquisition by means of phrase structure and mediational processes. However, a com- parison of Jenkins' position in 1964 with his 1966 position (Jenkins, 1966) indicated a shift from a learning theory explanation to one in which recognition is given to innate as well as learned factors in language acquisition.

Braine (1963a,b) suggested that in learning English a child first learns the temporal location of words in a sentence and associations between pairs of morphemes. Bever, Fodor, and Weksel (1965) took issue with this and other theoretic explanations of syntax acquisition. They claimed that S-R learning theory cannot adequately explain how transformations are learned, nor can it explain how syntax is learned in languages such as Russian where word order has greater flexibility than in English. Miller and Chomsky (1963) criticized Markovian models as being too simple to explain complexities of adult speech and thus added a further difficulty for Markovian models of language acquisition.

Liberman and others (1964) proposed a theory of speech perception which states that neural surrogates of articulation mediate between the acoustic stimulus and speech perception. In support of this theory, Prins (1963) found that children who confused place of articulation during speech production also had difficulty hearing differences between pairs of words which differed in the place of articulation (e.g., pan, tan). The theory was criticized by Lane (1965) and Lenneberg (1964b). Lenneberg cited anecdotal evidence regarding a child who had never been able to speak but who was able to understand spoken language perfectly.

Jakobson and Halle's (1956) influential hypothesis on how linguistic sound systems develop in the child was modified by Miller and Ervin (1964) to explain how children might acquire certain aspects of English grammar. Jakobson postulated that the child acquires his sound system by noting contrasts between acoustical features that are maximally different. Therefore, the earliest distinction is between a vowel and consonant. The next contrast might be between a stop and nonstop (/p/ and /f/). Miller and Ervin said that at various points in the grammatical system a distinctive feature analysis might be used to mark contrasts between plural and singular nouns, possessive and nonpossessive nouns, proper, mass, count nouns and noun determiners, as well as other features of the system.

Chomsky (1965), Fodor (1966), Fodor and Katz (1964), Greenberg (1963), and McNeill (1965) rejected purely associationistic accounts of language acquisition. They advanced, instead, the argument that the child's

110

REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Volume XXXVII, No. 2



April 1967

learning of language involves innate mechanisms operating on information about the structure of language which the child gets from listening to the speech of adults. Lenneberg (1964a, 1966) detailed the reasons for con- sidering language development as an innately determined program of behavior. First, linguistic universals such as phonetic systems and syntax are common to all languages. Second, historical investigations of languages reveal that although spoken languages change, at no time does one find evidence of human speech which can be described as aphonemic or un- grammatical. Third, specific language disability-characterized by de- layed speech onset, poor articulation, and marked reading and second language learning disability-in which general intelligence remains un- affected appears to be inherited. Fourth, the developmental schedule of language acquisition follows a fixed sequence so that even if the entire schedule is retarded, the order of attainment of linguistic skills remains fixed. Finally, comparisons of children learning non-Indo-European languages with children learning English indicate a high degree of concord- ance between milestones of speech and motor development.

Empirical Findings in Developmental Psycholinguistics

Brown (1966) and Brown and Bellugi (1964) described three processes in the acquisition of syntax. In imitation and reduction, the child imitates what the parent says but systematically reduces the length of the utterance. The constraint on length seems to be related to the child's limited memory span. Adults stress high-information-carrying words in speaking, such as nouns, verbs, and adjectives, and these are retained in imitation. Words which communicate little information, such as inflections, auxiliary verbs, articles, prepositions, and conjunctions, are not stressed and are not retained in imitation. Thus, the child is helped in focusing his efforts on learning the essential features of the utterance.

A second process is imitation and expansion. Here the mother imitates the child's utterance but expands and corrects it. For example, the child says, "There go one"; the mother says, "There goes one." The child may then imitate the mother's corrected version of his sentence. Although the adult often speaks ungrammatically, in expanding, the parent uses simple, short, grammatical sentences, the kind the child will use in a year.

Although McNeill (1966) suggested that the slower rate of linguistic development of lower class children may result from the fact that lower class parents expand their child's speech less often than do middle class parents, there is no evidence that expansions are necessary for learning grammar. Cazden (1965) did not find expansion training superior to other forms of verbal feedback in improving the language of culturally deprived children.

The third process involves the induction of the underlying structure of the language. Certain errors (foots, digged) reflect the child's attempt

111

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF LANGUAGE



REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Volitrne XXXVII, No. 2

to induce regularities from the speech of adults. Menyuk (1964) emphasized that novel sentences which children generate indicate their use of rules.

According to Bellugi (1965) the best (and classic) indicator of linguistic development is sentence length. Bellugi divided early language acquisition into three stages. In Stage One, sentences averaged two morphemes in length by approximately the second birthday. Braine (1963b) and Miller and Ervin (1964) described the child's first grammatical two- word sentences. The initial word is called a pivot and consists of a small class of frequently used words (e.g., see, that) whose position has been learned. The class of words immediately following (e.g., pretty, baby, arm) is called an open class and consists of the child's entire vocabulary minus some pivots. This same construction predominates in early speech of Russian, German, Japanese, and Polish children (Slobin, 1967). Weir (1962) and Slobin (1965) noted that English- and Russian-speaking children "practice" speaking by holding the pivot constant and substituting words from the open class. Development of syntax, in part, consists of setting up new classes of pivots using words which previously were in the open class. Bellugi (1965) found that during the first stage of linguistic development the child asks questions by means of rising intonation (see hole?) and the use of wh-words (who that? why? why not?). At this stage the child can neither produce nor respond appropriately to questions which refer to the object of the verb (e.g., what did you hit?).

Bellugi (1965) found that children at Stage Two had a mean age of 29 months and produced sentences of an average length of 2.6 morphemes. Pronouns, articles, modifiers, as well as some inflections were present. Questions were introduced by wh-words (why not? who is it? what me fold?) with pronouns present. With regard to comprehension, children answered appropriately to most questions, including wh-object questions (what do you hear? hear a duck.). Miller and Ervin (1964) noted that mistakes during this period could be attributed to omissions (I'll turn ----- water off), overgeneralizations (foots, digged), and use of doubly marked forms (mine's).

At Stage Three, children had a mean age of 31 months and an average utterance length of 3.6 morphemes (Bellugi, 1965). They were using auxiliaries, noun and verb inflections, the regular past, and were not limited to simple sentences. In constructing yes/no interrogatives, ques- tion intonations with inverted auxiliaries operate (I am silly. Am I silly?). In asking wh-questions, the inverted auxiliary was not used (what the words are doing?). The child was able to comprehend more complex questions than in Stage Two. By age three, Russian- (Slobin, 1965) and English-speaking children (Menyuk, 1963, 1964; McNeill, 1965) were using all of the basic syntactic structures used by adults.

Conflicting reports of children's ability to comprehend, spontaneously produce, and imitate sentences stem from differences in age of subjects and length of sentences used. Fraser, Bellugi, and Brown (1963) used

112




April 1967 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF LANGUAGE

three-year-old children and sentences which had an average length of 4.0 morphemes. They found that the ability of the children to imitate was superior to their ability to comprehend, and their ability to comprehend was superior to their ability to spontaneously produce sentences. Ervin (1964) used two-year-old children and sentences which were, on the average, longer than those used by Fraser, Bellugi, and Brown. Ervin found that imitation, production, and comprehension were equivalent. Menyuk (1963) found that sentence length was not a potent variable when meaningful sentences were used, i.e., when the material to be remembered engaged the child's language processing apparatus. But there was a significant correlation between the length of a string of nonsense words and the ability to imitate it.

Language Theory and Language Behavior

To determine whether learning a miniature language might be described by a finite state Markov process, Braine (1965) presented a set of struc- tured pseudo-sentences to subjects and measured retention of these sentences. In support of his explanation of how languages are initially acquired, Braine (1963a,b) found that positions of items within the sentences were learned. He concluded, however, that what is learned cannot be represented by a finite state grammar because it requires the assumption that the subject invents some of its rules. Gough and Segal (1965) agreed that a finite state grammar cannot describe what is learned. They claimed it is inadequate, not because it requires the assumption of rule invention (since any grammatical description of what is learned must make this assumption), but because the finite state model poorly represents what the subject does, in fact, invent.

Interest in Markov models of language has led to work on orders of approximation to English. Coleman (1965) had subjects rank sentences as to degree of grammaticalness and then memorize the sentences. Level one sentences were generated by randomly selecting words. Each succeeding level had words with increasing degrees of grammatical constraints. He found that not only sentences could be appropriately ranked, but there was a significant correlation between degree of grammaticalness and ease of serial learning.

Testing the psychological reality of linguistic formulations of language structure has constituted one important aspect of psychological research. Several investigators tested the reality of phrase structure either by re- quiring subjects to locate the position where clicks are heard in a sentence or by noting where errors occur in sentence recall. Fodor and Bever (1965) found that although a click was located within a phrase, subjects reported hearing it at the nearest phrase boundary. Johnson (1965a,b; 1966) observed that the probability of an error in sentence recall was higher between phrases than within a phrase.

113




REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Clifton, Kurcz, and Jenkins (1965) used generalization of a motor response as an indicator of sentence similarity. They found that response generalization occurred more frequently for sentences analyzed as being closely related grammatically than for sentences not so closely related. This work was elaborated for eight sentence types by Clifton and Odom (1966), who showed that syntactic variables had similar systematic effects in generalization, recall, and judged similarity.

The relationship between the syntactical form of a sentence and speed of comprehension was investigated by Gough (1965) and Slobin (1966). Both found that comprehension latency ran from shorter to greater in the order: simple declarative, passive, negative, negative-passive. However, by making sentences nonreversible (i.e., "Bill hit the door," as opposed to "Bill hit Mary") so that it was clear which noun was subject and which was object, Slobin found that reaction time was about as fast for passive as for simple declarative and for negative-passive as for negative. The interaction, in the Gough and Slobin studies, between a semantic component (true-false) and a syntactic component (affirmative-negative) emphasized the importance of both factors in comprehension.

Other investigations focused on the role of syntactic variables on sentence recall. Mehler (1963) demonstrated that when subjects were asked to recall sentences upon which grammatical transformations had been performed, they recalled simple declarative sentences best. Savin and Perchonock (1965) investigated the amount of memory storage capacity used in memorizing sentences of different syntactical form and found that the least amount was used by simple declarative sentences while negatives and passives required larger amounts. In both papers the authors suggested that in learning a sentence for recall, the semantic content of the sentence is encoded in the simple declarative form plus a tag, the tag indicating the original syntactical structure of the sentence.

Marks and Miller (1964) and Miller (1964) found that subjects could recall meaningful sentences better than anomalous but syntactically correct sentences, and syntactically correct sentences better than scrambled forms of these sentences. They concluded that semantic and syntactic factors are separate variables in verbal recall. Mehler and Miller (1964) studied transfer effects in the learning of lists of sentences. They used a design in which the subject learned list A, then list B, and was tested on list A. If the interpolated list (B) was semantically similar to list A, the recall of the semantic content of list A was facilitated. If list B was syntactically dissimilar, it interfered with the recall of the syntactic structure of A. They proposed a two-stage hypothesis for sentence learning. In Stage One the semantic component is learned and in Stage Two the syntactical form is acquired.

A series of studies by Rosenberg (1965) focused on the effect of grammatical and associative habits on incidental recall. When subjects were required to recall adjective-noun, noun-adjective, adjective-adjective, and

114

Volume XXXVII, No. 2




noun-noun word pairs, recall was superior for adjective-noun and noun- adjective pairs. In a second study where adjective-noun pairs which varied in word-association strength had to be recalled, he found that word pairs which had stronger associations were recalled better. Rosenberg concluded that associative habits contributed to the greater ease of recall of meaningful adjective-noun pairs.

Psychology of Language and School Learning

Coleman (1964) demonstrated that comprehension of prose is improved when nominalizations, passives, and adjectivalizations are changed to their active-verb counterparts. Ruddell (1963) found that comprehension was significantly greater for passages utilizing high-frequency patterns of oral language structure than for passages utilizing low-frequency patterns. Variables such as sentence length, sentence complexity, and the ratio between number of pronouns and conjunctions in a passage were found by Bormuth (1966) to have a high correlation with difficulty of comprehension. Samuels (1966) had elementary school children and college students read paragraphs equated for semantic content, word length, word frequency and syntax, but differing in that words in one paragraph had high associative relationships (green-grass) while words in the other paragraph had low associative relationship (green-house). He found that reading speed and recall were significantly better for the high associative paragraphs.

Gibson, Osser, and Pick (1963) found that as children gained in reading skill, they perceived letter-sound correspondences in units larger than the individual letter. Gibson (1965) modified Jakobson and Halle's (1956) method for determining phonemic contrasts and did a distinctive feature analysis of English upper-case letters. She found that children tended to confuse letters having similar distinctive features. Pick (1965) found the most relevant discrimination training to be practice which provided ex- perience with the distinctive differences which distinguished letter-like forms.

Scherer and Wertheimer (1964) compared college students who were taught German by a method which early emphasized listening comprehension and speaking with students who were taught by a method which early emphasized writing and translating. They found that students who had been taught by the method which emphasized listening and speaking excelled in speaking but did not do as well in writing or translating from German to English. Mace (1966) found that speaking training should precede listening training for the most effective acquisition by elementary school children of listening comprehension in French.

Gaarder's (1965) recent review of bilingualism questioned the com- monly held belief that bilingualism per se has a harmful effect on verbal

115




REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Voiwne XXXVII, No. 2

intelligence. Carroll (1965) claimed that when an individual has approximately equal proficiency in two languages, there is no good evidence that such bilingualism retards intellectual development. Furthermore, according to Carroll, reports of scholastic retardation associated with bilingualism may usually be explained by the fact that the bilingual had been instructed in a language he had not adequately mastered.

A Few Concluding Comments

Although findings from psycholinguistic investigations, in general, lend support to theoretical formulations of linguistic structure, the controversy continues over the specific contributions of innate factors to the acquisition of language. Finally, although studies in psycholinguistics have poten- tially important implications for education, they have had little impact so far.

Bibliography

BELLUGI, URSULA. "The Development of Interrogative Structure in Children's Speech." The Development of Language Functions. (Edited by Klaus F. Riegel.) Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Human Growth and Development, 1965. Report No. 8, pp. 103-38.

BEVER, T. G.; FODOR, J. A.; and WEKSEL, W. "Theoretical Notes on the Acquisition of Syntax: A Critique of 'Contextual Generalization.'" Psychological Review 72: 467- 82; November 1965.

BORMUTH, JOHN R. "Readability: A New Approach." Reading Research Quarterly 1: 79-132; Spring 1966.

BRAINE, MARTIN D. S. "On Learning the Grammatical Order of Words." Psychological Review 70: 323-48; July 1963. (a)

BRAINE, MARTIN D. S. "The Ontogeny of English Phrase Structure: The First Phase." Language 39: 1-13; January-March 1963. (b)

BRAINE, MARTIN D. S. "The Insufficiency of a Finite State Model for Verbal Recon- structive Memory." Psychonomic Science 2: 291-92; May 1965.

BROWN, ROGER. "Language: The System and Its Acquisition." Social Psychology. (Edited by Roger Brown.) New York: Free Press, 1966. Chapter 6, pp. 246-305.

BROWN, ROGER, and BELLUGI, URSULA. "Three Processes in the Child's Acquisition of Syntax." Harvard Educational Review 34: 133-52; Spring 1964.

CARROLL, JOHN B. Language and Thought. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1965. 118 pp.

CAZDEN, COURTNEY B. Environmental Assistance to the Child's Acquisition of Gram- mar. Doctor's thesis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1965.

CHOMSKY, NOAM. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1965. 251 pp.

CLIFTON, CHARLES, JR., and ODOM, PENELOPE. Similarity Relations Among Certain English Sentence Constructions. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, Vol. 80, No. 5 (Whole No. 613). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Associa- tion, 1966. 35 pp.

CLIFTON, CIIARLES, JR.; KURCZ, IDA; and JENKINS, JAMES J. "Grammatical Relations as Determinants of Sentence Similarity." Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Be- havior 4: 112-17; April 1965.

COLEMAN, E B. "The Comprehensibility of Several Grammatical Transformations." Journal of Applied Psychology 48: 186-90; June 1964.

116

REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Volume XXXVll, No. 2




COLEMAN, E. B. "Responses to a Scale of Grammaticalness." Journal of Verbal Learn- ing and Verbal Behavior 4: 521-27; December 1965.

DIEBOLD, A. RICHARD, JR. "Review of Psycholinguistics: A Book of Readings (Edited by Sol Saporta. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961. 551 pp.)." Language 40: 197-260; April-June 1964.

ERVIN, SUSAN M. "Imitation and Structural Change in Children's Language." New Directions in the Study of Language. (Edited by Eric H. Lenneberg.) Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1964. pp. 163-89.

ERVIN-TRIPP, SUSAN M., and SLOBIN, DAN I. "Psycholinguistics." Annual Review of Psychology 17: 435-74; 1966.

FODOR, JERRY A. "How To Learn To Talk: Some Simple Ways." The Genesis of Lan- guage: A Psycholinguistic Approach. (Edited by Frank Smith and George A. Miller.) Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1966. pp. 105-22.

FODOR, JERRY A., and BEVER, T. G. "The Psychological Reality of Linguistic Segments." Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 4: 414-20; October 1965.

FODOR, JERRY A., and KATZ, JERROLD J., editors. The Structure of Language: Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964. 612 pp.

FRASER, COLIN; BELLUGI, URSULA; and BROWN, ROGER. "Control of Grammar in Imita- tion, Comprehension, and Production." Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Be- havior 2: 121-35; September 1963.

GAARDER, A. BRUCE, and OTHERS. "The Challenge of Bilingualism." Foreign Language Teaching: Challenge to the Profession. (Edited by G. Reginald Bishop, Jr.) Prince- ton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1965. pp. 54-101.

GIBSON, ELEANOR J. "Learning To Read." Science 148: 1066-72; May 21, 1965. GIBSON, ELEANOR J.; OSSER, HARRY; and PICK, ANNE D. "A Study of the Development

of Grapheme-Phoneme Correspondences." Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 2: 142-46; August 1963.

GOUGH, PHILIP B. "Grammatical Transformations and Speed of Understanding." Jour- nal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 4: 107-11; April 1965.

GOUGH, PHILIP B., and SEGAL, ERWIN M. "Comment on the Insufficiency of a Finite State Model for Verbal Reconstructive Memory." Psychonomic Science 3: 155-56; August 1965.

GREENBERG, JOSEPH H. "Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements." Universals of Language. (Edited by Joseph H. Greenberg.) Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1963. Chapter 5, pp. 58-90.

JAKOBSON, ROMAN, and HALLE, MORRIS. Fundamentals of Language. Gravenhage, Holland: Mouton and Co., 1956. 87 pp.

JENKINS, JAMES J. "Reflections on the Conference." The Genesis of Language: A Psycholinguistic Approach. (Edited by Frank Smith and George A. Miller.) Cam- bridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1966. pp. 347-61.

JENKINS, JAMES J., and PALERMO, DAVID S. "Mediation Processes and the Acquisition of Linguistic Structure." Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Develop- ment 29: 141-68; Serial No. 92, 1964.

JOHNSON, NEAL F. "Linguistic Models and Functional Units of Language Behavior." Directions in Psycholinguistics. (Edited by Sheldon Rosenberg.) New York: Mac- millan Co., 1965. Chapter 2, pp. 29-65. (a)

JOHNSON, NEAL F. "The Psychological Reality of Phrase-Structure Rules." Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 4: 469-75; December 1965. (b)

JOHNSON, NEAL F. "On the Relationship Between Sentence Structure and the Latency in Generating the Sentence." Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 5: 375-80; August 1966.

LANE, HARLAN. "The Motor Theory of Speech Perception: A Critical Review." Psycho- logical Review 72: 275-309; July 1965.

LENNEBERG, ERIC H. "A Biological Perspective of Language." New Directions in the Study of Language. (Edited by Eric H. Lenneberg.) Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1964. pp. 65-88. (a)

LENNEBERG, ERIC H. "Speech as a Motor Skill with Special Reference to Nonaphasic Disorders." Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 29: 115- 27; Serial No. 92, 1964. (b)

117





LENNEBERG, ERIC H. "The Natural History of Language." The Genesis of Language: A Psycholinguistic Approach. (Edited by Frank Smith and George A. Miller.) Cam- bridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1966. pp. 219-52.

LIBERMAN, ALVIN M., and OTHERS. Some Observations on a Model for Speech Percep- tion. New York: Haskins Laboratory (305 East 43d St.), 1964. 27 pp.

MACE, LAWRENCE. "Sequence of Vocal Response-Differentiation Training and Auditory Stimulus-Discrimination Training in Beginning French." Journal of Educational Psychology 57: 102-108; April 1966.

MCNEILL, DAVID. "Discussion and Comments: Verbal Structures." The Development of Language Functions. (Edited by Klaus F. Riegel.) Ann Arbor: University of Michi- gan, Center for Human Growth and Development, 1965. Report No. 8, pp. 139-44.

MCNEILL, DAVID. "Developmental Psycholinguistics." The Genesis of Language: A Psycholinguistic Approach. (Edited by Frank Smith and George A. Miller.) Cam- bridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1966. pp. 15-84.

MARKS, LAWRENCE E., and MILLER, GEORGE A. "The Role of Semantic and Syntactic Constraints in the Memorization of English Sentences." Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 3: 1-5; February 1964.

MEHLER, JACQUES. "Some Effects of Grammatical Transformations on the Recall of English Sentences." Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 2: 346-51; November 1963.

MEHLER, JACQUES, and MILLER, GEORGE A. "Retroactive Interference in the Recall of Simple Sentences." British Journal of Psychology 55: 295-301; August 1964.

MENYUK, PAULA. "A Preliminary Evaluation of Grammatical Capacity in Children." Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 2: 429-39; December 1963.

MENYUK, PAULA. "Syntactic Rules Used by Children from Preschool Through First Grade." Child Development 35: 533-46; June 1964.

MILLER, GEORGE A. "Language and Psychology." New Directions in the Study of Lan- guage. (Edited by Eric H. Lenneberg.) Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1964. pp. 89-107.

MILLER, GEORGE A., and CHOMSKY, NOAM. "Finitary Models of Language Users." Handbook of Mathematical Psychology. (Edited by R. Duncan Luce, Robert R. Bush, and Eugene Galanter.) New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1963. pp. 419-92.

MILLER, WICK, and ERVIN, SUSAN M. "The Development of Grammar in Child Lan- guage." Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 29: 9-34; Serial No. 92, 1964.

MOWRER, ORVAL H. Learning Theory and the Symbolic Process. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1960. 473 pp.

OSGOOD, CHARLES E., and SEBEOCK, THOMAS A., editors. Psycholinguistics: A Survey of Theory and Research Problems. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1965. 307 pp.

PICK, ANNE D. "Improvement of Visual and Tactual Form Discrimination." Journal of Experimental Psychology 69: 331-39; April 1965.

PRINS, DAVID. "Relations Among Specific Articulatory Deviations and Responses to a Clinical Measure of Sound Discrimination Ability." Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 28: 382-88; November 1963.

ROSENBERG, SIIELDON. "The Influence of Grammatical and Associative Habits on Verbal Learning." Directions in Psycholinguistics. (Edited by Sheldon Rosenberg.) New York: Macmillan Co., 1965. Chapter 8, pp. 121-47.

RUDDELL, ROBERT BYRON. An Investigation of the Efect of the Similarity of Oral and Written Patterns of Language Structure on Reading Comprehension. Doctor's thesis. Bloomington: Indiana University, 1963. 207 pp. (Abstract: Dissertation Abstracts 24: 5207-5208; No. 12, 1964.)

SAMUELS, S. JAY. "Effect of Word Associations on Reading Speed and Recall." Pro- ceedings of the Seventy-Fourth Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1966. pp. 309-10.

SAVIN, HARRIS B., and PERCHONOCK, ELLEN. "Grammatical Structure and the Immedi- ate Recall of English Sentences." Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 4: 348-53; October 1965.

SCHERER, GEORGE A., and WERTHEIMER, MICHAEL. A Psycholinguistic Experiment in Foreign-Language Teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1964. 256 pp.

118




SLOBIN, DAN I. "Grammatical Development in Russian Speaking Children." The Devel- opment of Language Functions. (Edited by Klaus F. Riegel.) Ann Arbor: Univer- sity of Michigan, Center for Human Growth and Development, 1965. Report No. 8, pp. 93-102.

SLOBIN, DAN I. "Grammatical Transformations and Sentence Comprehension in Child- hood and Adulthood." Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 5: 219-27; June 1966.

SLOBIN, DAN I. "Early Grammatical Development in Several Languages, with Special Attention to Soviet Research." The Structure and Psychology of Language. (Edited by W. Weksel and T. G. Bever.) New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. (In press)

STAATS, ARTHUR W., and STAATS, CAROLYN K. Complex Human Behavior: A Systematic Extension of Learning Principles. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963. 546 pp.

WEIR, RUTHI. Language in the Crib. New York: Humanities Press, 1962. 216 pp.

119




Documents

Communication