The Journal of Psycholinguistic Research covers a broad range of approaches to the study of the communicative process, including: the social and anthropological bases of communication; development of speech and language; semantics (problems in linguistic meaning); and biological foundations. It also examines the psychopathology of language and cognition as well as the neuropsychology of language and cognition. The journal publishes carefully selected papers from the several disciplines engaged in psycholinguistic research, providing a single, recognized medium for communications among linguists, psychologists, biologists, sociologists, and others.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
Description
Identifiers
ISSN | 0090-6905 |
e-ISSN | 1573-6555 |
DOI | 10.1007/10936.1573-6555 |
Publisher
Springer US
Additional information
Data set: Springer
Articles
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research > 2019 > 48 > 6 > 1319-1338
Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) learners are known to have vocabulary knowledge and language outcomes more heterogeneous than their hearing peers, with a greater incidence of difficulties presumably related (both as cause and effect) to documented challenges in academic domains. In particular, there is increasing evidence that differences may exist in the ways that semantic networks are structured...
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research > 2019 > 48 > 6 > 1441-1448
Previous studies have found that bilinguals differ in their response times on the bilingual version of Stroop Task. Automaticity and control and Language proficiency have emerged as important factors that lead to differences in the response time. This study aimed to understand Stroop Effect in Hindi-English bilinguals on the computerized version of Hindi and English language Stroop task. The study...
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research > 2019 > 48 > 6 > 1285-1310
It is widely acknowledged that fixed expressions such as idioms have a processing advantage over non-idiomatic language. While many idioms are metaphoric, metonymic, or even literal, the effect of varying nonliteralness in their processing has not been much researched yet. Theoretical and empirical findings suggest that metonymies are easier to process than metaphors but it is unclear whether this...