Soviet Psycholinguistics 9783110815412, 9789027923172

Citation preview

JANUA LINGUARUM STUDIA MEMORIAE N I C O L A I VAN WIJK D E D I C A T A edenda curat C. H. V A N S C H O O N E V E L D Indiana University

Series

Minor,

143

SOVIET PSYCHOLINGUISTICS by

JAN PRÛCHA Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences Prague

1972 MOUTON THE HAGUE • PARIS

© Copyright 1972 in The Netherlands. Mouton & Co. N.V., Publishers, The Hague. No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers.

Printed in The Netherlands by Z.N.D., Den Bosch

PREFACE

Over the past several years there has been considerable progress in the study of language behaviour. The present work deals with Soviet psycholinguistics, largely unknown to the rest of the world. The main purpose of the work is to present a systematic survey and evaluation of the most significant results achieved in various branches of Soviet investigations into language behaviour. The emphasis is on the evaluation of only the most recent results (1964-1970), although some information on important findings from the 1950's or even the 1930's is also presented. As in other countries, psycholinguistics in the Soviet Union is based predominantly on the achievements of two sciences, linguistics and psychology. For that reason the first chapter surveys the studies on language behaviour carried out in Soviet psychology, while the second chapter is devoted to new trends in present-day Soviet linguistics, such as functional stylistics and sociolinguistics, which facilitate the development of psycholinguistics. Chapter Three discusses, among other things, the structure and organization of research in Soviet psycholinguistics, its main research centers, and the major directions of its research. Chapter Four, the longest, outlines original theoretical conceptions, hypotheses, and concrete findings gained through experimental as well as theoretical research in Soviet psycholinguistics. This chapter is divided into three sections, corresponding to the basic directions of present-day Soviet psycholinguistics: 1-psychophonetic models; 2-neurolinguistic models; and 3-grammatical and semantic models of the speaker's and hearer's activity. It must be mentioned that there is a difference between what is understood as psycholinguistics (both in the behavioristic and

6

PREFACE

in the transformational approach) in the West, and the Soviet conception of psycholinguistics or - as it is often called - 'the theory of speech activity' (teorija recevoj dejatel'nosti). According to A. A. Leont'ev, a leading theorist of Soviet psycholinguistics, the term 'psycholinguistics' refers to the science of language behaviour in a strict sense (as it is commonly understood in Western scholarly literature) as investigating "the relation between the language system (language as object) and linguistic competence". The main task of this science is to elaborate and verify the models of the generation and perception of utterances, and this is also what Leont'ev has concentrated upon in his own model (see Chapter Four). However, this concept of psycholinguistics is too narrow and does not include such aspects of language behaviour as paralinguistic phenomena, or social and cultural variables influencing the speaker's or hearer's activity. Therefore, Leont'ev (1965) postulates a general theory of speech activity which should include "all manifestations of language behaviour of the language user both immediately communicative ones and immediately noncommunicative ones". Soviet research in the field of speech activity shows that close cooperation of various scientific experts (particularly linguists, phoneticians, psychologists and social psychologists, and neurophysiologists) is necessary for an adequate explication of human verbal processes. Theory of speech activity represents a progressive trend in contemporary psycholinguistics, as it is not based on speculations concerning 'an ideal speakerlistener', but aims at creation of a multi-disciplinary theory of human communicative behaviour in which both psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic aspects will be integrated (cf. Prucha, 1972). Many hypotheses, theories, and concrete findings of Soviet explorations into speech activity deserve wide attention, especially those concerning the so called inner speech and its functioning in the processes of thinking and producing speech. As a whole, Soviet psycholinguistics offers still another item of evidence, that scientific knowledge may pervade, affect, and enrich various social systems and cultures. It also strengthens our firm

PREFACE

7

hope - recently expressed by the American scholar D. I. Slobin in his excellent review of Soviet psycholinguistics (1966 a) - that "fruitful contacts between the Eastern and Western components of the scientific study of the nature of man will continue to flourish". J.P.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface

5

List of abbreviations

10

1. Studies of language behaviour in Soviet psychology. .

11

2. Facilities for psycholinguistics in Soviet l i n g u i s t i c s . . .

28

3. The development of Soviet psycholinguistics, its presentday stage and structure

45

4. Models of speech activity A. Psychophonetic models of speech activity B. Neurolinguistic models of speech activity C. Grammatical and semantic models of speech activity

53 53 66 79

Bibliography A. Soviet authors B. Soviet Collective Volumes C. Other authors D. Other Collective Volumes

100 100 109 110 113

Index

114

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

MRVSZ PJ PMOJJ PMOVJ PPPVOJ PsG PSICPS II simp. III simp. TPSJ TPSSJ TRD VJa VPROJ VPs ZPhon

Mexanizmy reieobrazovanija i vosprijatija sloznyx zvukov (1966) Problemy jazykoznanija (1967) Psixologija i metodika obuienija inostrannym jazykam (1968) Psixologija i metodika obucenija vtoromu jazyku (1969) Psixologiceskije i psixolingvistiieskije problemy vladenija i ovladenija jazykom (1969) Psixologija grammatiki (1968) Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (1970) Materialy vtorogo simpoziuma po psixolingvistike (1968) Materialy tret'jego Vsesojuznogo simpoziuma po psixolingvistike (1970) Teoreticeskije problemy sovetskogo jazykoznanija (1968) Teoretiieskije problemy sovremennogo sovetskogo jazykoznanija (1964) Teorija recevoj dejatel'nosti (1968) Voprosy jazykoznanija Voprosy porozdenija reii i obucenija jazyku (1967) Voprosy psixologii Zeitschrift für Phonetik und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft

I STUDIES OF LANGUAGE BEHAVIOR IN SOVIET PSYCHOLOGY

Psychology of language and speech occupies a significant position in Soviet psychological science. In order to understand the fundamental theoretical orientation of this scientific discipline it is necessary to characterize the general conditions of contemporary psychology in the Soviet Union. Above all, the features of current Soviet psychology fall in two principal areas: (1) A gradual transition from onesided psychology, with a tendency to philosophy and physiology, to theoretically disclosed psychology,1 developing most of the disciplines of basic and applied research, and (2) a dominant position of child and educational psychology on one hand and underdevelopment of social psychology, psychology of personality, and other disciplines.2 This state is a consequence of the particular historical development of Soviet psychology and its entire philosophical basis.3 The twenties' and the first half of the thirties' are characterized by a remarkable interest of Soviet psychologists both in theories based on behaviourism, freudianism, and psychoanalysis, and in 1 According to O'Connor's truthful remark (1966: VIII): "Soviet psychological publications were sometimes more philosophical than psychological and the charge could have been made against them that they understood dialectics better than psychology." 2 E.g., out of the total amount of works on Soviet psychology published in 1964, 42,5% fall in the field of child and educational psychology, but only 2,8% in the field of social psychology. See Brozek and Hoskovec (1966 a). Cf. also footnote 12 of this chapter. 3 A recent monograph by Payne (1968) includes a well informed and objective interpretation of philosophical theory of Soviet psychology (Marxist and Leninist Philosophy, dialectics, theory of cognition and others) and its historical development.

12

STUDIES OF LANGUAGE BEHAVIOR

experimental and quantitative methods, psychology of personality, measurement of human abilities, and testing. Considerable progress was noticed in the development of 'pedology', 4 a discipline aiming at an objective and comparative evaluation of some physical and social psychological characteristics of children, including characteristics of their language behaviour and speech development (cf. e.g., Lurija, 1930; Dobromyslov, 1932). A direct result of this theoretical orientation was the existence of numerous psychotechnical laboratories, research institutes, and journals, e.g., in the years 1924-1934 the journal Sovetskaja psixotexnika (Soviet psychotechnics) was being published. By the end of the twenties, however, "when the war against psycho-analytical learning became a topical task of the party" (Petrovskij, 1967, p. 90), all the theories based on behaviourism and freudianism had been dismissed from Soviet psychology. The progress of pedology was also abruptly stopped and interrupted by sharp criticism and numerous obstacles on the part of state and party authorities. In 1936 a resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party "Upon the Pedological Deviation in the System of General Education" was published. Following this resolution, not only pedological movement, psychotechnics, and testing methods, but also works of some eminent psychologists were proscribed, e.g., those of Vygotskij. Soviet psychology was then forced - until the late fifties' to stay within the limits of particular fields of investigation in developmental and educational psychology, but first of all had to apply Pavlov's theory of 'higher nervous activity' to all possible fields studied. It went so far that psychological investigation was to a great extent identified with neurophysiology. Psychical phenomena were expounded, merely on the basis of physiology of nervous processes, as a function of the brain reflecting an objective 4

Pedology should have become a complex, systematic science of the child, with psychological, sociological and anatomical - physiological aspects. Comp. Lurija's definition of pedology of that time: "The science of the growing organism and its symptomatic complexes (including the somatic, psychological, and social peculiarities of the child)" - (Luria, 1928: 347-348).

STUDIES OF LANGUAGE BEHAVIOR

13

reality. All the complicated forms of individual human behaviour, including even speech, were explained by the Pavlovian term 'second signal system'.5 Only in the late fifties', but mainly in 1962 at the Soviet AllUnion Conference on the Theory of Higher Nervous Activity, did more favourable conditions exist to do away with the artificial cult of Pavlovian doctrine and to develop all the psychological disciplines. This progress went hand in hand with the general advancement of the Soviet social and political system. A new way opened for fresh theoretical concepts to be formed, for some ideas of the older Russian psychologists to be followed, and for the knowledge of foreign scientists to be more fully utilized. Though research into higher nervous activity is proceeding, Pavlov's traditional theory became obsolete some time ago on the basis of new knowledge coming, e.g., from cybernetics, and studied mainly by Anoxin, Bernstejn, Lurija, and other Soviet psychologists.6 Consequently, Soviet psychological science began to explore the ideas of some of those long disregarded, mainly Vygotskij. Lev Semjonovii Vygotskij (1896-1934) is not an unknown name to the world of psychologists and linguists. His book Myslenie i rec' (1934, 1956) contained much original knowledge concerning the most fundamental problems of language behaviour, especially those of children, with inter-science criteria applied. After nearly twenty years of official disregard and disinterest this work was republished in Russian in 1956, and since then has been published several times in English (Vygotsky, 1962). The main problems the book concentrates are in the field of developmental psycholinguistics, mainly those phases of child-development in which thought and speech are independent. Vygotskij recognized the basic difference between the initial phase of children's speech with complex meanings and the later phase with conceptual meanings. 5 Second signal system is a specific human system of cognitioned responses to verbal stimuli (no appearance with animals). Cf. also Dance (1967) on relations between speech communication theory and Pavlov's second signal system. 8 See esp. O'Connor (1966) and Brozek (1964, 1966).

14

STUDIES OF LANGUAGE BEHAVIOR

He pointed out that the process of formation of conceptual thought usually begins at the time when the child acquires another sign system (prints, arithmetic, and others like that). As the fundamental problem (mutual relation between thought and speech), Vygotskij considered the mutual conditional nature of the two phenomena for a connection sui generis, which he defined as 'recevoje myslenie' (verbal thinking). This term is even in agreement with the opinion of contemporary Soviet psychologists. At the same time Vygotskij demonstrated that thought and speech had different genetic roots: 1. In their ontogenetic development, thought and speech have different roots. 2. In the speech development of the child, we can with certainty establish a preintellectual stage, and in his thought development, a prelinguistic stage. 3. Up to a certain point in time, the two follow different lines, independently of each other. 4. At a certain point these lines meet, whereupon thought becomes verbal and speech rational. (Vygotsky, 1967: 44.) This concept of different genetic roots of thought and speech has been rejected in Soviet psychology, and the existence of prelinguistic thought and preintellectual speech has not been recognized, as it is generally believed that thought may have its origin only in speech.7 One of the main principles pursued in Vygotskij's concept is his idea of the social character of the human mind, meaning the idea of the human mind as conditioned by social and historical factors. This idea is also connected with another - Vygotskij's idea of mediation of the psychical functions of man. Mediation arises whenever man in his working activity and communication 7 Raevskij (1958: 15) expressed most clearly the opposite idea: "Standing in contradiction to L. S. Vygotskij's opinion on the existence of prelinguistic thought (intellect) and preintellectual speech, Soviet psychologists assume that there is nowhere a specific human thought except for inside the speech, it originates in the lingual form and also its further development is realized by the means of speech." - Cf. new Soviet theories of language-thought relation in Chapter Two.

STUDIES OF LANGUAGE BEHAVIOR

15

uses various means of a cultural nature (e.g., language, numerical symbols, and others) to master his own mental processes. This concept was pursued and studied by Vygotskij mainly in the course of the formation of concepts with the child. The main factor in concept-formation is functional use of the word as a means of voluntary control of behaviour, abstraction of particular semantic markers, and their synthesis and symbolization. Vygotskij's many conclusions were formulated on the basis of a polemic against J. Piaget, an outstanding French psychologist, whose experiments Vygotskij knew in great detail. He submitted Piaget's concept of 'egocentric speech' to thorough theoretical and experimental criticism.8 Piaget concluded, on the basis of his observation, that since the child up to the age of seven or eight thinks and speaks to a great extent egocentrically, it means his speech has no communicative function. The child speaks just for himself, does not refer to anybody, acts a loud monologue, even if other persons are present. Vygotskij succeeded in controverting Piaget's interpretation of children's monologues: child monological speech is not a consequence of egocentric thought, as Piaget stated, but is possesed of a specific function at this stage, that of 'inner speech',9 which appears later with adults. Children's egocentric speech acts thus as a transitive link between inner speech and external speech. Vygotskij's ideas in this field were later recognized as correct by a number of Soviet scientists, e.g., Elkonin (1958). The most convincing support was the extensive experimental research carried out by the Rumanian psycholinguist, Slama-Cazacu (1961), proving that children's monologues have not only an egocentric character, but possess above all an ordinary communicative function. 8

The commentary to this criticism, appended by Piaget (1962) to the first English edition of Vygotskij's work, clearly demonstrates more points of fundamental agreement than basic difference between the two authors. The fact that Piaget's theories were later reformulated will have contributed a great deal to it. 9 We shall deal with Vygotskij's concept of inner speech in greater detail in connection with the psycholinguistic models of speech activity in Chapter Four.

16

STUDIES OF LANGUAGE BEHAVIOR

Another significant work by Vygotskij, published as late as forty years after it had been written, is the book Psixologija iskusstva (1965, Psychology of Art). In this book, published with an introductory study by the psychologist A. N. Leont'ev and detailed commentary by the linguist V. V. Ivanov, Vygotskij's ideas proved topical and most modern again. His importance to the field of psycholinguistics is greater the more he concentrates on individual verbal creativity - the subject of analysis being e.g., Shakespeare's Hamlet - and refuses to see the nature of art just in its cognitive function (art as figurative cognition) or to endorse the opinion of the theoreticians of Russian formalism. Vygotskij holds the metamorphosis of emotions essential for the sense of art, and considers it to be a sui generis communicative process in which individual emotions are becoming general. Vygotskij's ideas expounded in these books, and in many other works as yet unpublished, contain original theoretical concepts that represent the main contribution of Vygotskij to Soviet psychology and psycholinguistics. Vygotskij's principle, claiming that human consciousness is being formed during the process of historical and social development, remained one of the fundamental principles of the Soviet psychological theory, as did his principle of mediation of higher psychical functions. It can be seen today that even though these concepts had not been classified in a complex psychological system, Vygotskij analysed-in his terms-human behaviour and its sign regulation. The method of analysis is close to contemporary semiotics and - as far as language behaviour is concerned - it opens the way to the psychosocial approach to the study of language and speech. Vygotskij's ideas were and have been followed up by his former fellow-workers, mainly A. N. Leont'ev and A. R. Lurija. The two represent today the most progressive line in Soviet psychology, and also in the psychology of language and thought. The term "Vygotskij's school" was made up and has been used since. This line is characteristic of the historical approach to the human mind. In A. N. Leont'ev's (1965) opinion, the human mind differs from the animal one above all through social and historical experience,

STUDIES OF LANGUAGE BEHAVIOR

17

as well as the inherited and individually acquired one. The sociohistorical experience cannot be acquired by heritage, but is set as a task: man acquires it in the process of formation of consciousness and in the process of individual activity. The study of the genesis of psychical phenomena by this approach has proved to be prior to other tasks. The main goal is not to analyze some ready-made results of the psychical processes (e.g., aptitudes, abilities, features of character, etc.), but to analyze their origin and formation in activity.10 According to this psychological school, the heart of the research does not consist of measurement of parameters of stimuli and responses elicited, but in the study of conditions of the origin of psychical processes and in the study of laws of the active formation of human mind. Brunner (1962) has found a suitable name for Vygotskij's theory-'Act Psychology'. This denomination might serve as a characterization of the whole psychological school. The psychology oriented upon this study is based on the theory of activity ('teorija dejateVnostV), while lately, even cybernetics and the theory of algorithms have been intensively used. The main positive quality of this tendency lies in the fact that the obsolete concept of learning as a mechanical process of retention of knowledge in the mind has been abandoned in favour of active acquisition of algorithms of human activity and its optimal regulation. At present, Vygotskij's school is represented by a number of outstanding works by A. N. Leont'ev, Lurija, Sokolov, 2inkin, Galperin, Elkonin, Smirnov, Anan'jev, Landa, and others, mainly in the research of thought, memory, and learning processes, and in the field of developmental and educational psychology, including also the study of natural processes of learning, e.g., during the course of instruction in schools. Many of these works are of basic importance for psycholinguistics, as mentioned below. 10

Cf. Gray's (1966) appraisal: "To sum up those features of Soviet psychology which distinguish it most from its Anglo-Saxon counterpart, the former emphasizes the active part played by the subject (and especially the conscious human subject) in structuring his own environment and his own experience, in contrast to the traditional (though perhaps weakening) Anglo-Saxon insistence on a passive organism..." (1-2).

18

STUDIES OF LANGUAGE BEHAVIOR

In close relation to the theoretical principles of Vygotskij's school there stands a theory of two Soviet neurophysiologists, P. K. Anoxin and A. N. Bernstejn. The two scientists have dealt in their numerous works of the past ten years with an original conception of the' physiology of activity'. It is based on the principle of goal-directed behaviour (any act of behaviour is directed so that a particular aim may be achieved). In processes of goal-directed activity, mechanisms of control and comparability are employed, which organize the activity so that the aim may be achieved by optimal means (cf. Gray, 1966). This concept, taking into account a cybernetical approach and overcoming the limits of the classic reflex theory, is of special importance both for the understanding of complicated forms of behaviour and for the study of language behaviour. As early as 1964, A. N. Leont'ev and Lurija pointed to the fact that there are a number of remarkably corresponding features between this concept and the theory of 'plans of behaviour' (including the 'grammatical plan') by the American psychologists Miller, Galanter and Pribram (1960, 1964). A. A. Leont'ev (1969 a) expounds this correspondence in greater detail in relation to the study of language behaviour and, simultaneously, points out some fundamental differences: the two theories are based on a common principle, namely the conception of behaviour (language behaviour included) as a system of elementary operations set up hierarchically, according to different levels of complication. While Bernstejn-Anoxin's scheme considers probability forecasting in behaviour, the model of the above mentioned American psychologists does not include the probability principle, and is based just on the operations of algorithmical and deterministic character. Experimental, neuropsychological, and neurocybernetical tendencies have been predominating in Soviet psychology for a longer time, and the philosophical trend represented by L. S. Rubinstejn 11 11 A detailed analysis of Rubinstejn's works is given by Payne (1968). Though Rubinstejn dealt in some of his works with problems of language, his quite general philosophical formulations of language-thought relations have brought only a few stimulating ideas. Practically, his contribution to contemporary Soviet psycholinguistics equals zero.

STUDIES OF LANGUAGE BEHAVIOR

19

in the fifties' has receded. Despite this recession, Soviet psychology differs from its Western counterpart by its homogeneous theoretical basis. The core of research is not found just in the evaluation of experimental results, but through the scientific attempt to expound the laws of the origin and course of psychical phenomena. The main theoretical principles held by the representatives of Soviet psychological science (and Vygotskij's school in the first place) can be briefly characterized as follows: (1) Human mind is a special attribute of highly organized matter (of the brain and central nervous system) consisting of the reflection of objective reality in the form of sensations, ideas, feelings, etc. (2) Social and historical conditional quality of human mind. (3) Consistency and a mutual relation between psychical functions. (4) Activity of human organism in relation to its surroundings. (5) Unity of psychical and physiological functions in the course of behaviour of the human organism. To complete the picture of contemporary Soviet psychology one must realize that alongside advanced research in the fields of child and educational psychology, neuropsychology, psychology of learning, and others, there are some rather underdeveloped, or only very slightly advanced, disciplines. Among these one can list mainly social psychology (including a complex of problems of social communication and mass communication), psychology of personality, and psychology of business work and occupation. One has approached the social psychological study of human behaviour only in the last few years. 12 One of the results of this new tendency is Institut kompleksnyx

social'nyx

issledovanij (The Insti-

tute for Complex Social Studies) built in the Soviet Academy of Sciences a few years ago, where various forms of social behaviour 12 Cf. the criticism expressed by Smirnov (1968: 8): "... After the first wave of attempts to build up a Marxist social psychology - in the early years of Soviet psychological science - a drawn out period of abrupt stop in carrying out research in this field was enthroned. Neither the thesis of the social basis of a personality was studied, consequently, in the plan of general psychology. It was getting poorer by the lack of concrete data and laws and it changed into quite an abstract formula."

20

STUDIES OF LANGUAGE BEHAVIOR

(including communicative behaviour) are investigated from an interdisciplinary point of view.13 On the whole, Soviet psychology reaches a high theoretical level, has rid itself of some dogmatic ballast of the past, and has been following the line of its valuable tradition of the latest periods. Today it has already drawn some attention from scientists in the West. A number of Soviet psychological works have been published in English translations, 14 as well as the specially translated periodicals Soviet Psychology, Soviet Neurology and Psychiatry, Soviet Education, etc., (published by IASP in New York). Another remarkable achievement was the Eighteenth International Psychological Congress that took place in Moscow in 1966. The importance of and interest in psychology, as we can see today, resulted in the establishment of separate faculties of psychology at the universities of Moscow and Leningrad in 1965. It is understood that the facts mentioned in this chapter cannot give a full and true picture, but just a simplified one, of the range of psychological science in the Soviet Union. 15 It shall act as one of the starting points to begin the evaluation of the results of Soviet psycholinguistics. In order to achieve this aim a brief summary of Soviet research in psychology of speech must also be given. Psychology of speech belongs to the branches of science studied intensively in contemporary Soviet psychological science. As seen above, in the case of Vygotskij's works, great attention was given to the study of language acquisition by children, to the study of the thought-language relation, and other problems, as early as the twenties' and the beginning of the thirties'. The study of language, 13 See also Krylov et al. (1970) on new interesting research projects and results in Soviet social psychology. 14 See the survey of English translations of the works by Soviet psychologists compiled by Brozek and Hoskovec (1966 b). 15 A detailed description of the whole state as well as particular fields of Soviet psychology is published both in Soviet sources, mainly Psixologiieskaja nauka v SSSR (1959, 1960), in the English translation Psychological Science in the USSR (1961), and in original foreign studies, mainly Brozek (1964,1966), Brozek and Hoskovec (1966 a), O'Connor (1966), and, most recently, Cole and Maltzman (1969).

STUDIES OF LANGUAGE BEHAVIOR

21

though hindered and slowed down by a number of limits in the era of dogmatism, went on and has been developing since. As an example shows, there are 555 titles of articles and books published in the years 1917-1957, mentioned in the bibliographical survey of Soviet publications on the psychology of language (Raevskij, 1958). On the whole, four fields can be selected in Soviet psychology of speech in which both theoretical and experimental research are concentrated: (1) The study of speech-thought relation, processes of 'inner speech'. (2) Research of neurophysiological, neuropsychological, and pathopsychological mechanisms of speech activity. (3) The study of child language acquisition. (4) The study of psychological aspects of first and second language learning and teaching. In the first field, including problems of speech-thought relation (see Myslenie i rec', 1963, and Issledovanija myslenija v sovetskoj psixologii, 1966), valuable results have been gained by the research into 'inner speech'. This research, initiated in fact by Vygotskij (1934), points out inner speech as a phase of the formation of a verbal message preceding external speech and acting as a stage between the communicative intention of the speaker and its realization in a message. Inner speech, primarily its kinesthetical manifestations, is studied objectively by means of electroencephalograph. As the organs of speech are set into motion by nervous stimuli emitted by the brain and other organs of the central nervous system, these stimuli can be recorded upon so called electromyograms taken from the larynx, the tongue, lips, etc. Changes in the electromyographic curves can be observed not only when the speech is realized in sound, but also in the case of silent reading and similar acts. It has been proved by a number of experiments (especially Sokolov, 1963, 1968) that the time and structural development of inner speech brings about fundamental changes with respect to what type of activity has just been recorded and how complicated the solution to the problem. Some of these are

22

STUDIES OF LANGUAGE BEHAVIOR

e.g., coding or decoding spoken or written speech, in one's mother tongue or a foreign language, with subjects discussed present or absent, in the visual field of the speaker and the listener, and others. 16 The research of inner speech, its working and properties, is closely connected to research in the field of neuropsychology and pathopsychology of speech activity. Numerous works by Lurija in this field are of considerable scientific value. There is no need to introduce this author to the reader, since nowadays he is probably the most well-known Soviet psychologist in Western scientific circles. Most of his remarkable works have been published in English (among others Luria, 1961, 1970; Luriya, 1966; Luria and Cvetkova, 1968; Luria and Vinogradova, 1959). Lurija and his co-workers' research advanced to its greatest extent during the period of World War II and was stimulated by the ambition to re-establish the higher psychical functions (speech included), out of order because of local injuries of the brain. Lurija's research is based on the fundamental theoretical presumption that psychical processes formed in the course of mental development of the child are complicated functional systems realized in cooperation with the whole complex of cortex. 17 Each cortex zone ensures the work of certain aspects of these processes, so that a local brain injury may lead to a disturbance in the course of various forms of psychical activity including language behaviour.

18

In Chapter Four (part B) the function of inner speech in the processes of speech encoding and decoding is clearly explained according to some Soviet psycholinguistic models. 17 "Which mechanisms of the brain are responsible for voluntary movement, speech, human reasoning?... The new conception of the brain as a complex, self-regulating system allows a direct approach to the solution of these problems. N o w it is quite evident that there are no special 'centers' in the cerebral cortex that could be considered as the material substratum of complicated mental 'abilities'. The complex processes that form the basis of mental activity always rest on a whole 'functional system' of cerebral zones working in cooperation, and each zone has its own specific role in this working partnership of 'centers'." (Luriya, 1966: 68.)

23

STUDIES OF LANGUAGE BEHAVIOR

E.g., in case of injury to the left temporal part of the brain it may result in the defect of phonematic hearing, i.e. to the inability of man to analyze the sounds of speech and to articulate various phonemes. In handwriting there can also appear phonematic mistakes. In recent years, Lurija's theoretical and experimental research has concentrated on the study of aphasias, especially of so called dynamic aphasia, and restoration of normal speech activity. It leads to the knowledge that research provides psycholinguistics with material and theoretical knowledge for neurolinguistic models of language behaviour processes (esp. Luria, 1967; Lurija, 1968; Lurija, Cvetkova, 1968). Psychophysiological research into the elementary mechanisms of language behaviour on a phonetical basis - the study of articulator, acoustical, and perceptive features of spoken speechhas also reached a remarkably high level recently. This psychophonetical area of problems is represented mainly by the works of 2inkin (1958, 1964, 1967), Artemov (1962, 1964, 1970), and Cistovic (1961, 1962, 1970) and her work team (CistoviC et al., 1960,

1965,

1966;

Mexanizmy

receobrazovanija

i

vosprijatija

sloznyx zvukov, 1966). This investigation leads to the solution of the problem of perception of complicated acoustical signals (accent, intonation, segmentation of words and other units in continuous spoken speech, etc.) by the auditory system of man. The value consists in the exact expounding of the correlation between the articulatory and acoustical aspects of speech, between the audial and motor mechanisms of speech activity. Considering only theory, the experimental evidence of Cistovic and her working team supports the motor theory of speech perception studied mainly by Liberman, Stevens, and other research workers in the West. The problems of language acquisition by the child and ontogenetic development of speech belong to the third most widely studied field in Soviet psychology of language. In this field, as well as in the others, contemporary Soviet research struck roots as far back as the thirties' with Vygotskij (1934), Lurija (1930), and others. It is connected to extensive research in educational psychology. The study of acquiring one's mother tongue is concentrated above

24

STUDIES OF LANGUAGE BEHAVIOR

all upon the development of the child's speech in the years preceding compulsory education. The research is preconditioned by particular practical needs, as most Soviet children under the age of seven are educated in state nursery schools. Both phonological, grammatical, and lexical competence of the children and the processes of understanding and perception of speech are studied. The most recent works on this subject are written by Markova (1969), Popova (1968), Usakova (1969, 1970), Ter-Minasova (1969), TonkovaJampol'skaja (1968), and others. Earlier works are those of Elkonin (1958), Ljamina and Gagua (1963), Rozengart-Pupko (1963), and mainly of Gvozdev (1949,1961). Slobin, an American psycholinguist, characterizes Gvozdev's work as "probably the most careful and intensive of such studies ever published anywhere..." (Slobin, 1966 a: 134). A special problem in the study of children's speech has been raised during research into the directive function of speech, meaning the development of the function of speech as a means of direction of behavioural (motoric) acts with the child. Both regulation of children's behaviour by adults' speech and the influence of children's speech on their own behaviour are studied (e.g., Luria, 1961). It is necessary to state that Soviet studies on the psychology of child language acquisition especially draw the attention of foreign scientists. Slobin not only worked out a detailed analysis of the Soviet research studies of children's speech (Slobin, 1966 a, b, c), but also uses some of their knowledge of acquiring Russian to compare it with the knowledge of acquiring English and carry out certain theoretical conclusions on common laws in the case of children's acquisition of various types of languages (Slobin, 1969, 1970). This research of child language acquisition is closely connected to the study of development of speech in children at the age of compulsory education, i.e. both at the primary level (Grades 1-8) and secondary middle or grammar school (Grades 9-10). All aspects of the origin and development of fundamental communicative abilities are studied (reading, writing, production of a spoken

STUDIES OF LANGUAGE BEHAVIOR

25

text and its perception, reproduction of the text, etc.). The same careful attention is given to the development of mastering various levels of language, mainly orthography, vocabulary, grammar (Zujkov, 1964), formation of fundamental linguistic concepts (Ajdarova, 1964), and others. Numerous research projects are also carried out as to the psychological aspects of acquiring a foreign language - in Soviet schools, either Russian (because there are many non-Russian nations within the Soviet Union and foreigners studying at Soviet universities) or, most frequently, English. That is also a reason why attention is paid to psychological and psycholinguistic research into foreign language learning and teaching (see esp. Artemov, 1969; Beljaev, 1964; A. A. Leont'ev, 1970 a; Psixologiceskie i psixolingvisticeskie problemy vladenija i ovladenija jazykom, 1969). Also, new, more intensive methods are tested by experiments, e.g., sleeplearning of English (Bliznidenko, 1966). The psychological and psycholinguistic research of bilingualism is also connected to these investigations (Verescagin, 1969). Until lately, a weak point of this field of Soviet psychology was the ignorance of various language diagnostic tests. That is the reason why measuring of foreign-language aptitude and verbal ability has not been applied in the Soviet Union. The fact that full use of the tests is not made, and experimental evidence is often inadequately statistically evaluated, is a frequent common drawback of contemporary Soviet psychology. In recent years Soviet scientists began to acquaint themselves with psychological diagnostic tests and psychometric methods used by psychologists and pedagogues abroad. At the same time an attempt was made to construct language aptitude and verbal ability tests suitable for Russian and specific Soviet conditions (see Psixologija i metodika obucenija vtoromu jazyku, 1969, presenting materials from the 1969 Moscow conference on language testing). Except for the above mentioned fields, considerably developed in Soviet psychology of speech, there remain other fields weakly touched. Considering the traditional disciplines of psychology of language, we can place here mainly the study of word associa-

26

STUDIES OF LANGUAGE BEHAVIOR

tions, semantic conditioning ('semantic differential'), 18 phonetic symbolism, animal communication and its psycholinguistic aspects; also psycholinguistic problems of interaction analysis, theory of mass communication, content analysis, publicity, advertising, and propaganda have not been studied yet to a greater extent. A more detailed survey of the latest Soviet research carried out in the years 1964-1970 in various fields of psychology of speech and psycholinguistics is given in Chapter Four. A research worker wanting to be well supplied with full information of the investigations in the foregoing period would profit most from the following bibliographical surveys: (1) Selective bibliographical list, Bibliografija sovetskix issledovanij po psixologii reci i psixologii obucenija jazyku, I-II (Bibliography of Soviet research in the psychology of speech and psychology of language learning), for the years 1918-1966. 1 9 (2) Bibliographical survey with a fully detailed description (often handicapped by obsolete theories) of the development of Soviet psychology of speech in the years 1917-1957, published by the Ukrainian psychologist Raevskij (1958). (3) Concise but systematic characterization of the research per18 Some interesting results in the psychological study of language semantics have been gained during the experimental research carried out by Luria and Vinogradova (1959) and also in the works of the Georgian psychological school (Natadze, 1966). Recently, Klimenko (1968, 1970) attempted to apply semantic differential to measurement of the meaning of nouns giving time and Orlov and Zuravlev (1967) constructed an original method of psycho-metric evaluation of sense-distances between transforms. - See Chapter Four (part C) for a more detailed survey of recent Soviet works on semantics (in its psycholinguistic aspect). 19 Part I (published in Psixologija grammatiki, 1968: 197-232) contains the following sections: Fundamental literature on general psychology. General problems of psychology of learning. Psychology of learning to read, to write and to master the grammar of one's mother tongue at school. Psychological peculiarities of the process of acquiring a second language. Part II (published in Psixologiceskije i psixolingvisticeskie problemy vladenija i ovladenija jazykom, 1969: 156-168) contains the two following sections: The speech development of the child. Pathology of speech. These bibliographical lists may measure up to a good standard, but there is a common disadvantage: they include the works of Soviet authors published only in Russian and not in any other language.

STUDIES OF LANGUAGE BEHAVIOR

27

formed in the Soviet psychology of speech is included in a book by A. A. Leont'ev (1967 a: 75-106). (4) Bibliography included both in Slobin's survey of Soviet psycholinguistics (Slobin, 1966 a), for the period approximately 1955-1964, and in his analyses of Soviet investigations of child language acquisition (Slobin, 1966 b, c). (5) Numerous data concerning psychological research of language and speech are included in total surveys of Soviet psychology (cf. footnote 15 of this chapter).

II FACILITIES FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS IN SOVIET LINGUISTICS

This chapter is meant to give a brief overall evaluation of the state of present-day Soviet linguistics, with special regard, however, to those of its branches which are directly related to the general theory of language behaviour, i.e. structural grammar and semantics, functional stylistics and poetics, sociolinguistics, etc. We do not attempt evaluation of all fields of Soviet linguistic research, which is wide and many-sided, and in addition has been well described in several Soviet and foreign surveys published recently.1 Our purpose is first to find out what facilities for the origin,

1 The most thorough surveys of individual fields of Soviet linguistic research (historical and comparative linguistics, typology and etymology, structural linguistics, phonology and phonetics, lexicology and lexicography, speech culture, poetics, etc.) can be found in the collective work Teoreticeskie problemy sovetskogo jazykoznanija (1968). Another similar publication, Sovetskoe jazykoznanie za 50 let (1967), provides a survey of Soviet linguistic research, not with a view to its individual branches, but according to individual languages and language groups. Both these works, although containing the historical aspect, place their main emphasis on research carried out in the present period. With regard to Soviet bibliographies of linguistics, the two most important are Obscee jazykoznanie. Bibliograficeskij ukazateV literatury izdannoj v SSSR s 1918 po 1962 g. (1965), and Strukturnoe iprikladnoe jazykoznanie. Bibliograficeskij ukazateV literatury izdannoj v SSSR s 1918 po 1962 g. (1965), both covering Soviet linguistic production over the 1918-1962 period.

Concerning foreign publications, a detailed evaluation of main parts of Soviet linguistics is included in Sebeok (1968). Papp's (1966) work, while focusing on Soviet mathematical linguistics, and Milivojevic's (1970) work dealing with Russian phonemic theory also supply information on the development of structural linguistics. The most up-to-date review of current Soviet linguistics is L'Hermitte's (1969) study, accompanied by French translations of some works of leading Soviet linguists (Apresjan, Revzin, Saumjan, and others).

FACILITIES FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

29

development, and specific theoretical orientation of Soviet psycholinguistics have been established, by certain traditions as well as contemporary research activities in Soviet linguistics, and by given conditions for scientific organization, publication activity, etc. Over the more than fifty years of its existence, Soviet linguistics has experienced a complicated development, by far differing from the development of linguistics in other countries. This development has been affected particularly by the decisive influence of the following specific factors: (1) the outstanding traditions of Russian linguistics dating as far back as the pre-Soviet period, (2) specific assignments of Soviet linguistics after the emergence and consolidation of the Soviet state, as well as at the present time, and (3) consequences of the 'cult of personality' for Soviet linguistics and Soviet science in general. Let us briefly consider these factors from the viewpoint of their effect on the existing state. It is known that as early as pre-World War I an outstanding linguistic school was established in Russian science, represented by such scholars as Baudouin de Courtenay (1845-1929), F. F. Fortunatov (1848-1914), E. D. Polivanov (1890-1937), L. V. Sderba (1880-1944), G. O. Vinokur (1896-1947), and others. This Russian linguistic school - comprising in fact several directions, among them particularly the Moscow, Kazan, and Petersburg schools, which, however, all had certain common features - had of course its continuations in the twenties' and even later. Apart from historical comparative linguistics, it focused its interest on phonology and grammar on the one hand, and on the theory of poetic language and style and problems of social linguistics on the other. In the works of Baudouin de Courtenay, Fortunatov, §£erba, and other linguists, who undertook to discover new theoretical conceptions based on the framework of the then prevailing neogrammatical linguistics, we find one of the roots of later linguistic structuralism. This very background then gave rise to a generation of structuralists such as R. O. Jakobson, N. S. Trubetzkoy, S. I. Karcevskij, V. V. Vinogradov,

30

FACILITIES FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

and others, some of whom became co-authors of the linguistic theory of the Prague school in the twenties' and thirties'. 2 The theoretical maturity of the Russian linguistic school can be demonstrated by a number of data: it is indeed remarkable that as early as 1902 the Russian edition of the Enciklopediceskij slovar' (Encyclopedic Dictionary), vol. 71, included an extensive article by S. Buliô explaining the theory of phoneme. The Baudouin concept constituted a basis for the development of Russian phonological theory, particularly in the twenties'. At a time when in the West phonology was making its first steps, at a number of Soviet universities... every first-grade student of philology had a notion about the existence of specific linguistic units - phonemes, which were not identical with the physical sounds. The term phoneme could be found even in secondary-school textbooks... (Zinder, 1968:194). Apart from purely linguistic research, an interdisciplinary theory of Russian formalism developed in Russia during czarism and later in the Soviet period. 3 Russian formalists, represented by linguists (particularly G. O. Vinokur, R. O. Jakobson, L. P. Jakubinskij, et al.), literary theorists (V. V. Sklovskij, Ju. Tynjanov, and others), and poet-symbolists created theories about language and style of literary works, and poetry in particular (cf., e.g., Tynjanov, 1963, and Poètika, 1966). Russian formalists tried to proceed in the interpretation of poetic language from its specific qualities and function. Thus they arrived at certain significant conclusions (e.g., with regard to the functions of language, differences between poetic and 'practical' language, utilization of sound material in poetry, perception of literary text, etc.), which later came to be generally recognized as the theoretical principles of modern poetics and stylistics, bringing an important contribution also to the formulation of structural linguistic theories.4 8

For the origin of the Prague school, and the share of Russian linguists in the creation of its theory, see esp. Vachek (1966). 3 On Russian formalism see Erlich (1965) and, most recently, A. A. Leont'ev (1968 a). 4 The principles of Russian theories are clearly reflected e.g., in programmatic theses of the then emerging Prague school - see Thèses du Cercle linguistique de Prague, first published in Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prague / , Prague

FACILITIES FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

31

The theory of Russian formalism anticipated in some of its principles the theory of psycholinguistics, which developed much later. This applies, for instance, to an interdisciplinary approach to the study of language and speech, to the emphasis laid upon the differences of the functions of verbal means in dependence on the aims of communication, to the elaboration of problems of perceiving texts, etc. At the beginning of the thirties', this brilliant tradition of Russian formalism and linguistic structuralism was checked, partly as a consequence of administrative and political measures, partly under the impact of new topical assignments set for Soviet linguistics at that time. Russian formalism and theories corresponding to it were for a long period - until the middle fifties' - submitted to sharp criticism, and works on the study of poetic language were coming out but rarely.5 Only as late as post-1956, was Russian formalism fully rehabilitated in the Soviet Union, and its traditions again being made use of, now of course multiplied by new findings and approaches, e.g., mathematical and structural, semiotic, etc. (see e.g., Lotman, 1964). This revived interest, not only in Russian formalism and its range of problems, but in older linguistic theories on the whole, became also one of the factors determining the specific character of contemporary Soviet stylistics, poetics, and other branches related to the study of speech processes, text, its creation and perception, etc. And this influence in considerable degree also moulds present-day psycholinguistics in the Soviet Union. Another factor regulating the development of Soviet linguistics was the attempted solution of extensive practical problems which 1929 (reprinted in Vachek, 1964: 33-58). Cf. also Dolezel (1968) on the contribution to poetics and stylistics of the Russian and Prague schools. 5 The administrative check on the development of Russian formalism did not of course mean a factual liquidation of its ideas, as Dolezel (1968: 158) points out: "In Western scholarship, the demise of the Russian formalism in the early 30's is commonly interpreted as the end of its stimulating ideas in the Soviet Union. This conception, however, is much too simple... The tradition of Russian stylistics was not interrupted and can be traced in contemporary Russian scholarship in various progressive trends." Cf. also Vinogradov (1963).

32

FACILITIES FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

emerged in the thirties', and have remained to be coped with until the present time. They covered two fields: linguistic planning and linguistic policy on the one hand, and cultivation of language on the other. There exist about 140 national languages on the territory of the Soviet Union (according to Editorial, Voprosy jazykoznanija, 1967, No. 5: 4). Soviet linguists were confronted with the necessity of scientifically describing and analyzing a number of typologically different languages, which had not hitherto been attempted to such an extent during the whole history of linguistics. As many as fifty languages had no written form or even alphabet, lacked technical and scientific terminology, etc. All this had to be created. Various assignments emerged in the sphere of cultivation of language 6 and in various fields of applied linguistics, concerning mainly the Russian language (e.g., the elaboration of Russian textbooks and dictionaries for numerous non-Russian nationalities on the Soviet territory, care for Russian terminology from various branches, creation of normative descriptions of grammar, and explanatory dictionaries of Russian, etc.). This interest in applied linguistics' close relevance to the needs of linguistic practice is characteristic not merely of Soviet linguistics, but is reflected also in a specific facet of present-day Soviet psycholinguistics. Another of its specific qualities lies in the close relation of theory to the solution of practical assignments, which is most clearly manifested, for instance, in the sphere of research on speech pathology or theory of language teaching (cf. Ornstein, 1968). Last but not least there was another factor which had a negative impact on the development of Soviet linguistics and Soviet science in general - namely the cult of personality. Stalin's personal 6 The Russian term 'kul'tura re£i' (speech culture) covers a corpus of practical measures and theoretical conceptions connected with problems of orthographic and orthoepic, grammatical and stylistic correctness and effectiveness of the use of language, namely from the viewpoint of the functions of verbal means. In Soviet linguistics - and not only there, but also e.g., in the Prague school this branch occupies a significant position, linking various practical questions of the 'linguistics of language problems' (e.g., in the sphere of language teaching, linguistic criticism, etc.) with the linguistic and sociolinguistic theory of the functions, norm, and differentiation of standard language (cf. Netistupnft 1968; Kostomarov and Leont'ev, 1966; Kostomarov, 1968).

FACILITIES FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

33

contribution to linguistic discussion in 1950, widely published and presented even to an unscientific and non-linguistic public, did contain certain erroneous or disputable theses.7 However, it represented merely a continuation of various official measures which had been retarding the development of Soviet linguistic theory since the thirties'. Among others, it was primarily the activity of linguist N. J. Marr, who had a monopoly in Soviet linguistics until 1950 and was responsible for its devious trends. Following a long period of official support for Marr's 'new learning' about language, and then its sudden withdrawal in 1950, the situation changes but little: ...instead of Marr's fantasies, Stalin's ideas about the problems of linguistics became the dogma. Major deviations from them, or even their independent elaboration, were not much recommended. It was possible only to 'comment' on them, and continue supplying new and new material for their verification. In this way nearly all dissertations of that time were worked out. (Vinogradov, 1964: 9.) One of the consequences of the cult of personality in linguistics was that the range of linguistic problems permitted for investigation became considerably narrower. "The struggle against peculiarly conceived 'cosmopolitanism' and 'obsequious admiration of the West', waged in literature and art in the second half of the forties', provided a basis for a demagogical elimination of the significance of the whole contemporary foreign linguistic science." (Vinogradov, 1964: 10.) Until the middle fifties', Soviet linguistics was isolated from the development of linguistics abroad, and thus, impulses coming in the post-war period from cybernetics, information theory, psychology, sociology, etc., did not at first have any impact on Soviet linguistics. Structural and mathematical methods in linguistics were either unknown or undesirable, interest in phonolo7 E.g., many of Stalin's theses were connected with problems of sociolinguistics, particularly his thesis about the differentiation of a national language in a class society into class dialects, or class languages. Even though this view - according to certain contemporary Soviet works (see e.g., ¿irmunskij, 1969) represents vulgarization of the Marxist conception of language, language apparently does reflect the social (class) structure of society, as is proved e.g., by Lawton (1968) and other non-Marxist researchers.

34

FACILITIES FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

gy and typology ceased completely, etc. With regard to the facilities for the advance of psycholinguistics, one of the negative consequences of this situation was the fact that more detailed information about foreign psycholinguistics did not find its way to Soviet scientists before the late fifties' (Axmanova, 1957), and as late as the sixties, theoretical and experimental problems of psycholinguistics started to be systematically analyzed. A change came in the middle fifties'8 "when eventually the longlasting isolation of Soviet linguistics from the development of the world linguistic thinking was overcome" (Arutjunova and Klimov, 1968: 155). The period following this turning point was marked by extraordinary progress in Soviet linguistics, which became acquainted, quickly and thoroughly, with all theoretical trends, hypotheses, and findings of various branches of world linguistics, both contemporary and older. This was accomplished by means of translating into Russian original foreign works (e.g., many of Chomsky's works, etc.), as well as through informative collective reviews and articles. This period was also characterized by an activation of linguistic research not only in traditional centres of science and culture, but also in a number of new scientific establishments, for instance in Siberia. New linguistic departments and research teams were being set up at universities and at institutes of the Academy of Sciences in the Russian republic as well as in other Soviet republics. Tens of conferences and symposia were held, the most significant of them in 1958 in Moscow on machine translation, in 1959 in Leningrad on mathematical linguistics, in 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 in Moscow again on transformational analysis, on phonology, on the structural study of sign systems, and on the formalization of semantics, respectively. Many of these events, particularly those taking place in the late fifties', were designed above all to provide information about 8

Critical analysis of the consequences of the cult of personality in Soviet linguistics, and revision of a number of erroneous measures and subsequent concepts, were carried out at the 1963 Moscow linguistic conference organized by the Soviet Academy of Sciences. Its proceedings, whose most significant point was the contribution of academician Vinogradov (1964), were published in Teoreticeskie problemy sovremennogo sovetskogo jazykoznanija (1964).

FACILITIES FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

35

world linguistic development and raise the interest of Soviet linguists in hitherto unexplored problems, while later they started presenting results of original research. At the same time, Soviet linguistics acquired a wider personnel basis on the one hand, and wider publication possibilities on the other. Apart from numerous non-periodical collective works edited by various institutions, the main Soviet journal for theoretical linguistics Voprosy jazykoznanija (Problems of Linguistics) (edited since 1952) was supplemented by new ones, among them particularly Russkij jazyk za rubezom (Russian Language Abroad) (since 1967, devoted to the general theory of linguistics and psycholinguistics, but primarily to theoretical and practical problems of teaching Russian as a foreign language), Russkaja rec' (Russian Speech) (since 1967, centered mainly on questions of widely conceived 'cultivation of language', cf. footnote 6), and in the Ukraine, Movoznavstvo (Linguistics) ('also since 1967, dealing with general linguistics and slavistics). Another undertaking characteristic of the past decade in Soviet linguistics was the elaboration of a number of original concepts, particularly in the field of mathematical and structural models of language and also in the analysis of the sound aspect of speech. Soviet mathematical and applied linguistics9 in its rapid development passed through several stages. At the end of the fifties' and beginning of the sixties' interest in this sphere focused on problems of machine translation (construction of algorithms of text analysis and synthesis, automatic dictionaries, etc. - cf. Rozencvejg, 1968). After a period of enthusiasm it became clear - in much the same way as in most other contries - that the hopes placed in research on machine translation were groundless, and interest shifted towards the formalization of linguistic models, not only grammatical, but also semantic (see esp. Problemy strukturnoj lingvistiki, 9 In the Soviet Union, mathematical linguistics (i.e. both algebraic and statistical linguistics) is viewed as closely linked with applied linguistics, which - in the Soviet conception - comprises such branches as machine translation, automation of linguistic work, artificial languages, transcription, terminology, linguistic questions of translation, pathology of speech, teaching foreign languages, teaching the deaf-and-dumb, and application of linguistics in technology, medicine, and the theory of singing.

36

FACILITIES FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

1962, 1963; Apresjan, 1966; Revzin, 1962, 1966; Saumjan, 1965, 1968; Mel'Cuk, Zolkovskij, 1970) and typological (see esp. Strukturno-tipologiceskie issledovanija, 1962; Issledovanija po strukturnoj tipologii, 1963; Uspenskij, 1965). These works testify to the high standard of structural and mathematical linguistics in the Soviet Union and the remarkable methodological endowment of its representatives (apart from typical interest in the semiotic approach, use is now being made above all of mathematical and logical methods, theories of algorithms and graphs, methods of the theory of probability, and information theory, etc.). Undoubtedly, there is also the stimulating effect of the traditionally high standard of Russian and Soviet mathematical science, whose leading representatives (e.g., A. N. Kolmogorov) have consistently contributed to the progress of mathematical linguistics by their works. Mention should be made that Soviet linguistics pays considerable attention also to the analysis of speech. These works pursue in particular a study of the statistical, combinatorial, and information theory characteristics of texts in one language, mostly Russian and Ukrainian (Frumkina, 1964; Stejnfeldt, 1966; Piotrovskij, 1968; Statisticniparametri stiliv, 1967). A number of works inquire into these characteristics for purposes of quantitative typology of texts of different languages (see esp. Statistika reci, 1968). The relevance of these investigations to psycholinguistics is evident (cf. Chapter Four, part C). At the present time, the structural-system concept of language thus constitutes a methodological basis for Soviet linguists, not, however, the only one expected to provide solution for all issues. From the philosophical point of view, the system-structural approach to phenomena under investigation represents merely a specific instance of the general principle of Marxist dialectic method... However, the Marxist conception of language as a system does not by far mean that it is possible to reduce all linguistic research to the construction of abstract models of the structure of language... The general scientific notion of the character and essence of language, based on data obtained through concrete (i.e. not strictly structural) investigation, is now with regard to its content immensely richer in comparison not only with any kind of abstract concept of the structure of language developed by

FACILITIES FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

37

contemporary structural methodology, but also with all such abstract concepts which have been so far created. The inexhaustibility of genuine symptoms of language means that never in the future, even with whatever progress there might be in the elaboration of structural methods and in the degree of their effectiveness, will it become feasible to build up such an abstract, mathematically perfect language structure which would fully reflect all objective features of language. Further use and perfection of various methods of concrete (i.e. not strictly structural) investigation, together with the extension and deepening of the methodology of structural analysis, therefore, will evidently become one of the objective laws of the development of science in general, and linguistics in particular. (Melniduk, 1970: 19, 32.) It is of course necessary to note that structuralism gained ground in Soviet linguistics only against the opposition of certain people, some of whom continue emphatically to reject the ideas and methods of structuralism. Discussion on structuralism took place as early as the end of the fifties' (see in more detail Papp, 1966), and recently a sharp polemic was launched on the pages of the Voprosy jazykoznanija, 1965, No. 3-6; 1966, No. 1-4. The leading critic of structuralism is V. I. Abaev, whose article "LingvistiCeskij modernizm kak degumanizacija nauki o jazyke" (Linguistic Modernism as Dehumanization of Linguistic Science, 1965) incited this polemic. The essence of Abaev's criticism lies in his rejection of 'modernist' structural linguistics as 'linguistics in vacuum', and of mathematical linguistics as a 'source of great delusion', which both, in his opinion, extract linguistics from the context of humaritarian sciences. Language thus ceases to be a source of knowledge about man, society and its history, human mind, etc. Modernist linguistics represents not a new step in the development of linguistics, but its liquidation as a social science, in the same manner as modernist art means not a new stage in the advance of art, but its liquidation as a social value... The future of Soviet linguistics lies not in its formalization, but in its humanization. (Abaev, 1965: 39, 42.) In an extensive polemic (see its summary in Voprosy jazykoznanija, 1966, No. 4), numerous arguments were compiled against the critics of structuralism and mathematical and formal linguistic methods. Statements disfavoring structuralism and modern lin-

38

FACILITIES FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

guistic methods, however, continue appearing from time to time (see particularly Losev's sharp criticism of works by Soviet structuralists Saumjan, Ivanov and Toporov, published in Voprosy jazykoznanija,

1968, N o . 1).

In connection with the structural and particularly logical-grammatical models, Soviet linguistics now experiences a revival of interest in traditional problems of the language (speech) - thought relation. This is accompanied by a revaluation of the old concept of these problems: Soviet linguistics and philosophy of language were for a number of years governed by an opinion in which language and thought constituted a close unity, and their link was interpreted as essentially a combination of form (language as the form of thought) and content (thought as the content of linguistic expressions). This conception resulted in identifying language and thought, and thus 'solving' the whole problem. Nowadays this concept can but rarely be found in Soviet linguistics. New views are finding application (esp. Panfilov, 1968) denying a* direct dependence between language and thought, and the interpretation of speech content as a mere sum of the meanings of individual linguistic units. On the whole it can be stated, however, that Soviet linguistic theory has not as yet systematically made use of the findings supplied by Soviet psychology of speech and thought and Soviet psycholinguistics, neglecting particularly works by Vygotskij (1934, 1956) and others dealing with 'inner speech' (see in more detail in Chapter Four). An attempt at creating a new concept of the language-thought relationship was made recently by K. G. Krusel'nickaja (1970), based among other things on the synthesis of certain psychological findings. Krusel'nickaja proceeds from a criticism of the simplified concept of language-thought relation, which follows from identifying two different aspects: the role of language as a basis for thought and the verbal expression of the components of thought in utterance. The real validity of the former leads to incorrect conclusions maintaining that all components of thought become explicitly expressed in verbal form in concrete utterances. Krusel'nickaja distinguishes two types of thought: (a)

FACILITIES FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

39

recognoscative thought, i.e. awareness and recognition of things and phenomena, and (b) communicative thought, i.e. transformation of states of consciousness into information. Language takes part in both these types of thought in a different manner and through different means. Communicative thought reflects different aspects of language: its means of organizing, expressing, and transmitting thought. The essential point of this process is the selection of a certain alternative from a number of others existing in language, which depends on extralinguistic conditions of communication. In the case of thought, therefore, it is expedient to distinguish its recognoscative and communicative aspects and in the case of language - its recognoscative and communicative functions... Naturally, there does not exist any division line neither between the types of thought nor between the functions of language. They are closely interconnected, and influence each other within the coherent general picture of the functioning of language and thought. The coherence of the recognoscative and communicative aspects reflects the coherence of the biological and social components of language and thought. (Krusel'nickaja, 1970: 386-387.)

New trends are developing also in other branches of Soviet linguistics, above all in stylistics and sociolinguistics. Apart from stylistic studies in the traditional sense, intensive progress is taking place also in 'functional stylistics' (see esp. Kozina, 1968). Functional stylistics is a linguistic science inquiring into the peculiarities and laws of the functioning of language in various forms of speech, corresponding to certain spheres of human activities and contacts, and also of the speech structure of concurrently formed functional styles, and norms of the selection and combination of its verbal means. (Kozina, 1968: 69.)

The contemporary theory of functional stylistics proceeds from earlier Russian theories of text and linguistic functions (particularly Vinokur, Vinogradov, and others) and from foreign stylistic theories (esp. those of the Prague s c h o o l - c f . Dolezel, 1968), as well as from sociolinguistic and other theories. These theoretical studies can already draw from a number of text analyses which

40

FACILITIES FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

make use particularly of statistical and probability methods (esp. Statisticni parametri stiliv, 1967). It is characteristic of Soviet functional stylistics that it is not confined merely to styles in literature, but investigates also other functional styles, mainly technical, journalistic, colloquial, and others. Hence also its interest in such fields as the theory of 'colloquial speech' (razgovornaja rec' - cf. Russkaja razgovornaja rec' (1970). Functional stylistics examines texts from the viewpoint of the relationship between their properties - 'style characteristics' - and their communicative functions. 10 It is therefore directly related to psycholinguistics,11 inasmuch as it is conceived as a general theory of speech activity (cf. in Chapter Four) and not merely as a narrowly limited theory of the generation and perception of isolated sentences, leaving out of account both the function of linguistic discourse and all other factors of actual communication. This 'communicative conception' of Soviet functional stylistics corresponds to the general approach maintained by a number of Soviet linguists (cf., e.g., Axmanova, 1964; O principax i metodax lingvisticeskogo issledovanija, 1966). They point out that linguistics cannot be confined merely to the study of the system of language, but must cover also the functioning of this system, language in action. "The communicative function of language is far too obvious to be entirely ignored." (Jarceva, 1968: 39.) The following conception of language is quite common in Soviet functional linguistics: Language (in the sense of national language) is a socially and historically determined system of signs. Such language exists exclusively as a set of 'sub-languages' (pod'jazyk), i.e. as a standard (literary) language with its various forms, dialects, slangs, etc. The study of the nature of language and its 10 In Soviet functional stylistics and functional linguistics - in accordance with the theory of the Prague school - the concept of function (funkcija) is interpreted in terms of the 'role', 'purpose', or 'goal' of verbal means and messages in the process of the use of language. Cf. the explanation in the dictionary of linguistic terminology published by Axmanova (1966: 506 if.). 11 On substantial interconnections between psycholinguistics and functional stylistics se« Priicha (1972).

FACILITIES FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

41

'sub-languages' requires a socio-functional approach, i.e. explanation of concrete manifestations of linguistic performance taking place within various social groups and social formations, and pursuing various functions. This socio-functional approach is necessary because of the fact that language (unlike sub-languages, e.g. dialects) incorporates both aspects: social (language serves the whole ethnic collective, while sub-language only its certain part) and functional (language fulfils a variety of many-sided communicative functions, while the communicative function of a sub-language is limited) - cf. Barannikova (1968), Kozina (1968), A. A. Leont'ev (1968 b). This functional concept in Soviet linguistics doubtlessly rests on older as well as present-day sociolinguistic theories, and enriches them at the same time. As for Soviet sociolinguistics, it very quickly acquired foreign findings (topmost attention being paid to American sociolinguistics, or, to be more precise, ethnolinguistics, and to the Japanese theory of 'language life' - gengo seikatsu), and is now developing independently. In the Soviet Union, however, sociolinguistics is often regarded merely as a theory of a socially determined relationship between the norm and differentiation of standard (literary) language, or as a theory of social and territorial dialects12 (see Norma i social'naja differencija jazyka, 1969; Voprosy sociaVnoj lingvistiki, 1969). At the same time, however, a broader concept of sociolinguistics is being intensively worked out within the framework of the traditional study of the relationship between language and society, which, in the Soviet conception, includes problems of social influences on the development of language, interaction between languages and enrichment of one by another, problems of bilingualism and polylingualism, international languages, etc. (see Jazyk i 12 Linguistic geography and territorial dialectology has of course extraordinary significance for Soviet linguistics, with respects both to the considerable number (about 140) of typologically very different languages existing on the territory of the Soviet Union, and to a specific kind of bilingualism arising from the fact that Russian is a common language of communication for all users of these numerous languages. This bilingualism constitutes an important issue in sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic studies-cf. Verescagin (1969).

42

FACILITIES FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

obscestvo, 1968). Within this wide range of problems, what attracts particular interest is the theory of 'national language', conceived not merely as a standard language, but as a new stage in the historical development of language (cf. Neustupny, 1968, on the Soviet contribution to the creation of the 'linguistics of language problems")- In view of these sociolinguistic problems, hardly any work produced elsewhere in the world can compete with the large four-volume compendium Russkijjazyk i sovetskoe obscestvo (1968) published by the Moscow Institute of Russian language at the Soviet Academy of Sciences. The complex problem of language-society relationship was first subjected to very active investigation by Soviet researches as early as the twenties' and beginning of the thirties', 13 but was later neglected - not to be revived before the sixties'. Present-day Soviet sociolinguistics naturally rejects views of vulgar materialism which gained ground in the forties' and fifties' - explaining the causes of language changes exclusively against the background of social and economic factors. On the other hand, it also does not overestimate the role of immanent, internal laws in the functioning and development of language. Apart from the recognition of incidental effects of social factors, stress is laid on the role of conscious social regulation of the development of language. Many indications in hitherto published literature give ground to the anticipation of a number of authentic interesting results in Soviet sociolinguistics. The overall state of present-day Soviet linguistic theory is marked by greatly intensified progress of the study of language and its functions divorced from theoretical apriorism, which in the past forcedly curbed the research interest of Soviet linguistics by means 13

An appraisal of these earlier Soviet works (particularly Volosinov, 1929; Polivanov, 1931; Zirmunskij, 1936) might prove greatly useful, even nowadays. E.g., Volosinov's arguments in support of linguistic research oriented on (1) the forms and types of speech interaction (recevoje vzaimodejstvije) in the context of specific conditions in which it takes place, and (2) the forms of individual utterances and individual acts of speech (see Volosinov, 1929: 114), represent a modern research program of a kind the now emerging 'socio-psycholinguistics' is only striving to set up (cf. Slama-Cazacu, 1970).

FACILITIES FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

43

of setting out non-discursive conceptions. The current state, on the contrary, is characterized by considerable theoretical differentiation of individual approaches, schools, and trends, as is manifestly reflected e.g., in the contributions of Soviet linguists at the Tenth International Congress of Linguists in Bucharest, 1967 (see Problemy jazykoznanija, 1967). The methodological copiousness of Soviet linguistics is accompanied by another positive feature, namely its sense of the complexity of linguistic problems, comprehensive study of all essential aspects of language, and its functioning in the actual process of communication. The high degree of formalization and mathematization of linguistic description, for instance, has never been conductive to confining such description to mere formal analysis, leaving out of account semantic phenomena. In view of problems of meaning, it is on the contrary necessary to point out that the incorporation of semantics in modern linguistic theory - which is often ascribed to one school of American linguistics (viz. Fodor, Katz and others) - has in Soviet linguistics been a matter of fact since its very inception. 14 Last but not least, credit should also be given to the authenticity of Soviet linguistic works. Drawing from a deep knowledge of contemporary as well as earlier world literature, Soviet linguistics tackles theoretical issues originally, without merely following certain examples. It is all the more deplorable that the direct participation of Soviet linguists in international conferences, meetings, discussions, and scientific contacts is not nearly adequate

14

Cf. the following appreciation of the American linguist Weinreich (1968: 60-61): "It is instructive to consider some of the reasons for this discrepancy between the scope of Soviet and American linguistics. The most obvious explanation is that Soviet linguistics was never infected with the paralysis of semantic interest which caused most scholars during the Bloomfieldian period of linguistics in the United States to abdicate all semantic investigation to other (ineffectual) sciences. Perhaps Pavlovian psychology did not hold out to linguists the seductive promises which Bloomfield and his disciples discerned in rigorous American behaviorism; at any rate, Soviet linguists as a group do not seem ever to have fallen prey to the hope that psychology (or neurology, or sociology, as the case may be) would resolve for them the difficult theoretical and methodological problems of semantic analysis."

44

FACILITIES FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

to the significance of their works, and thus greatly weakens the collaborative contribution of Soviet linguistics to the progress of world linguistic thinking.

Ill THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOVIET PSYCHOLINGUISTICS, ITS PRESENT-DAY STAGE AND STRUCTURE

As is obvious from the foregoing chapters, a good basis for the development of psycholinguistics is being established by both the great traditions and extensive contemporary research in the Soviet psychology of speech and by functional and other approaches in Soviet linguistics as well. Soviet scholars had their first opportunity of meeting with foreign psycholinguistic theory in 1957. It was brought about by a well-known Russian linguist, O. S. Axmanova, who published the abridged Russian version of the American collective volume Psycholinguistics (Osgood and Sebeok, 1954) under the title O psixolingvistike (Axmanova, 1957). But no great interest of either linguists or other Soviet specialists was aroused at that time. A deeper interest in psycholinguistic problems was later caused by works of Chomsky (many of which appeared in Russian translation), especially his theories on linguistic competence and linguistic performance. Since the second half of the sixties', new works started to appear, that were influenced by foreign psycholinguistics, and also original theoretical and experimental results were obtained that may bring very important findings and evidence in some cases. Now the term 'psixolingvistika' is used commonly in Soviet science, although its meaning is not absolutely identical with that of its English equivalent, psycholinguistics.1 Soviet works on psycholinguistics are published in the journals Voprosy psixologii and (regarding psycholinguistic problems of foreign language teaching) in Inostrannye jazyki v skole and Russkij jazyk za rubezom. Numerous psycholinguistic studies have 1 See Preface and Chapter Four on some differences between psycholinguistics and a theory of speech activity according to the concept of A. A. Leont'ev.

46

THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOVIET PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

been published in collective volumes edited by the Soviet Academy of Sciences, etc. (see below for the most important volumes). The research projects and the results of Soviet psycholinguists were first presented at an interdisciplinary seminar organized by the Institute of Linguistics (Soviet Academy of Sciences) in Moscow in 1966.2 About thirty papers presented at this meeting reflect the initial state of Soviet psycholinguistics: they deal mostly with general theoretical problems (especially with basic principles of theory of speech activity), and original experimental findings are few. Also the XVIIIth International Congress of Psychology, Moscow 1966, serving as a framework for the symposia Models of Speech Perception, Speech and Mental Development, and others, became an important impulse for Soviet psycholinguists. They presented a number of interesting papers 3 and - on the other hand - became acquainted with psycholinguistic investigations carried out abroad. Two years after the first meeting of Soviet psycholinguists, the Institute of Linguistics organized the Second Conference on Psycholinguistics (Moscow 1968).4 Two subjects were given priority: (1) Function and place of generative grammar in psycholinguistic models and (2) Experimental research in semantics. At the conference about forty papers and communications from various institutes of the entire Soviet Union were read. The program was prepared and directed by an organization committee led by some well-known linguists and psychologists (Filin, Jarceva, Frumkina, A. A. Leont'ev, Zinkin, and others). Also, a suggestion of publishing an extensive monograph in several parts, Osnovy teorii recevoj dejateVnosti, was discussed. The monograph should have been an product of the whole working team and, at present, it has been in 2 See Seminar po psixolingvistike. Tezisy dokladov i vystuplenij (1966). The most important papers of this seminar have been published in the collective volume Teorija reievoj dejatel'nosti (1968). 3 See XVIIIth International Congress of Psychology (Abstracts of Communications), Moscow, 1966. 4 See Materialy vtorogo simpoziuma po psixolingvistike (1968) which contains abstracts of papers and an outline of the collective monograph Osnovy teorii recevoj dejatel'nosti (Bases of the Theory of Speech Activity).

THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOVIET PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

47

press for some time. Some forms of coordination of psycholinguistic research in the USSR were discussed as well, mainly reciprocal exchange of information and instruction of new specialists in psycholinguistics. In 1970 the Third Ail-Union Symposium on Psycholinguistics was held in Moscow,5 the aim of which was to discuss problems of applied psycholinguistics. The papers were presented in six special sections devoted to: psycholinguistic problems of communication effects (first of all in the process of mass communication); judical psychology; language teaching and learning; engineering psychology; child language acquisition; psychiatry, neuropsychology, and pathopsychology. In the framework of this conference a special symposium called Plany i modeli buduscego v reci6 (Plans and Models of the Future in Speech) was held in Tbilisi, Georgia. It was prepared by Georgian psychologists and linguists and devoted to problems of anticipation, plans, probabilistic prognostication, etc., in speech activity. The participants have shown that the named problems are closely related to the theory of set ('ustanovka' ) which has been studied for many years in the Georgian psychological school of Uznadze.7 Apart from periodically organized symposia on psycholinguistics, Soviet psycholinguists have actively participated in a number of international scientific meetings which have recently been held both in the Soviet Union (e.g., Second International Conference on Social Psychology, Tbilisi, 1970) and abroad (e.g., Sixth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 1967 in Prague; Tenth International Congress of Linguists, 1967 in Bucharest; Nineteenth International Congress of Psychologists, 1969 in London, etc.).8 The interdisciplinary character of psycholinguistics makes it impossible for this scientific discipline to have a strictly organized 5

See Materialy tret'ego Vsesojuznogo simpoziuma po psixolingvistike (1970). See Plany i modeli buduscego v reci (1970). 7 See Chapter Four (part C) on set-theory in more detail. 8 Cf. the respective materials: II. Mezdunarodnyj kollokvium po social'noj psixologii (1970), Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (1970), Actes du Xe Congrès International des Linguistes (1970). 6

48

THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOVIET PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

structure. This happens even in the Soviet Union where all scientific development is centrally regulated and directed. Psycholinguistic research is being carried out on various psychological, neuropsychological, linguistic, pedagogic, and other working places, mostly isolated from each other, without mutual contacts and fundamental coordination. However, certain forms of central control and coordination are taking place in Soviet psycholinguistics at the present time by such institutions as Komissija po psixolingvistike pri CS Obscestva psixologov SSSR (The Committee for Psycholinguistics at the Soviet Psychological Association), with A. A. Brudnyj as chairman (in 1971). In the field of psychophonetic investigations of speech and its applications, the coordination is carried out by Naucnyj sovet po akustike pri otdelenii obscej i prikladnojfyziki AN SSSR (The Scientific Committee for Acoustics, Section of General and Applied Physics of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, according to Artemov, 1969: 45 ff.). In what follows we present a survey of the most important centers engaged in psycholinguistic research (exclusively, or as a part of their more extensive investigations). These centers are members of Soviet universities or one of the three Soviet academies: Academy of Sciences of the USSR (further: AS), Academy of Pedagogic Sciences of the USSR (further: APS), and Academy of Medical Sciences (further: AMS). This survey is, of course, not absolutely exhausting - in the first place it is based on achievements of particular centers published up to the end of 1970. The most important centers of Soviet psycholinguistic research are in Moscow and Leningrad. However, research has been carried out in many other departments of universities and scientific institutes not only in the Russian Soviet Federative Republic, but also in many others, e.g., in Armenia, Georgia, and the Ukraine. In Moscow, research is concentrated in the Institute of General and Educational Psychology (APS), with A. N. Sokolov, N. I. 2inkin, D. B. Elkonin, T. N. Usakova, E. I. Isenina, A. K. Markova, and others. At the Faculty of Psychology of Moscow State University the work is headed by A. N. Leont'ev, P. J. Galperin, and in its Laboratory for Neuropsychology by A. R. Lurija,

THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOVIET PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

49

L. S. Cvetkova, and others. The research emphasizes various problems of thinking and verbal behaviour, neurolinguistics, developmental psycholinguistics, etc. Most active of these, is a group of psycholinguists in the Naucnometodiceskij centr russkogo jazyka (Scientific-Methodological Center for Russian Studies, Moscow State University). Its members, A. A. Leont'ev, T. V. Rjabova, N. D. Zarubina, et al., took part in editing several important collections on psycholinguistics: Voprosy porozdenija reci i obucenija jazyku (1967),9 Psixologija grammatiki (1968),10 Psixologiceskie i psixolingisticeskie problemy vladenija i ovladenija jazykom (1969), etc. Besides their own research concentrated on the psycholinguistic problems of foreign language teaching and learning, this group pursues an important activity in the dissemination of scientific information in Soviet psycholinguistics (bibliographies, abstracts from foreign psycholinguistic works, etc.). Some other members of the Center not belonging to this group are studying various problems connected with psycholinguistics (VeresSagin on bilingualism, Kostomarov on 'speech culture', and others). A. A. Leont'ev is both the spirit of this group and the head of a Group of Psycholinguistics and Communication Theory in the Institute of Linguistics (AS) in Moscow. The work of Leont'ev, at present the principal theoretician and organizer of Soviet psycholinguistics, is directed at analyzing theoretical problems involved in psycholinguistic models of speech production and perception from the point of view of Vygotskij's psychological school. (On Leont'ev's conception see Chapter Four.) This group works in cooperation with some other workers of the Institute of Linguistics (R. M. Frumkina, A. P. Vasilevic, G. S. Scur, A. R. Balajan, et al.) and of the Russian Language Institute (AS). Another working place dealing with psycholinguistic investigations is the Laboratory of Experimental Phonetics and Psychology of Speech (First Moscow State Pedagogic Institute of Foreign Languages). The research team (A. M. Antipova, L. P. Bloxina, 9

See our review of this work in Linguistics 50: 123-128. See our review of this work in Linguistics 77: 108-112.

50

THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOVIET PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

M. G. Kasparova, I. G. Torsueva, and others) headed by V. A. Artemov investigates psycholinguistic aspects of foreign language learning and teaching on the one hand and problems of psychophonetics (mainly intonation structures and their role in language behaviour) on the other hand. Important research in psycholinguistics is being performed in some other places of this Institute, mainly in the department of psychology (I. A. Zimnjaja, et al.), and in the department of methodology of foreign language teaching (N. I. Gez, et al.). Among other Moscow institutes dealing with psycholinguistics, one must mention: Institute of Pre-school Education, APS (E. M. Izotova, F. A. Soxin, A. P. Maslova, et al.); Institute of Defectology, APS (V. I. Bel'tjukov); Institute of Neurology, AMS (E. S. Bejn, I. T. Vlasenko, et al.); Institute of Neurosurgery, AMS (E. N. Yinarskaja); Institute of Psychiatry of the RSFSR (O. P. Vertogradova); Institute of Concrete Social Studies, AS (M. S. Mackovskij, (A. U. Xaras, T. M. Dridze); Moscow State Pedagogic Institute V. G. Gak); and Faculty of Philology of Moscow State University (A. S. Stern, A. E. Kibrik, N. V. Ufimceva, A. A. Lo2kina). In Leningrad there are two important psycholinguistic centers. One, at the Faculty of Psychology (Leningrad State University), where I. M. Luscixina investigates the influence of sentence depth and grammatical structure upon decoding of a message, the other at I. P. Pavlov Institute of Physiology where the team of L. A. Cistovic works (J. A. Klaas, A. M. Vencov, V. V. Ljubinskaja, and others). They concentrate their work on the recognition of spoken speech by man, on articular and acoustical aspects of this process, on synthetic speech, and others. All these works were published in two important collective volumes, Cistovic et al. (1965) and Mexanizmy receobrazovanija i vosprijatijasloznyx zvukov (1966). In the Leningrad section of the Linguistic Institute (AS), V. M. Pavlov and others deal with general problems of psycholinguistics and R. G. Piotrovskij is engaged in experimental investigation of text-prediction, contextual constraints, etc. In addition to the above, there are a considerable number of research centers devoted to psycholinguistics in other places of

THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOVIET PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

51

the Soviet Union: Institute of Linguistics, Kiev (L. A. BlizniSenko); Minsk State Pedagogic Institute of Foreign Languages, Minsk (A. P. Klimenko, L. D. Revtova); Xarkov State University, Xarkov (M. M. Goxlerner, Y. L. Flan5ik, P. B. Nevel'skij); University of N. G. Cernysevskij, Saratov (L. P. Doblja'ev); Perm State University, Perm (L. V. Saxarnyj); Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi (A. G. Baindurasvili, G. N. KeSxuasvili); Institute of Psychology of the Georgian Academy of Sciences (A. A. Alxazisvili, N. V. Imedadze); Institute of Linguistics of the Georgian Academy of Sciences (Z. N. Dzaparidze); Erevan Pedagogic Institute, Erevan (I. M. Geodakjan, G. R. Kanecjan); Alma-Ata Pedagogic Institute of Foreign Languages, Alma-Ata (A. A. Zalevskaja, M. M. Kopylenko); Pedagogic Institute, Vilnius (S. Elijosjute); Institute of Philosophy, Frunze (A. A. Brudnyj), etc. On the whole, it can be said that after its short but rapid development Soviet psycholinguistics has reached a high scientific level and is now intensively developing in both its theoretical and applied branches. Nevertheless, Soviet psycholinguistics also reveals serious shortcomings, namely, relatively insufficient experimental research (often suffering from inadequate statistical evaluation of its findings), a small degree of communication and co-operation between researchers, the making of ad-hoc hypotheses, in some cases without all the necessary theoretical background, etc. As for future prospects, the main research tasks of Soviet psycholinguistics were suggested by A. A. Leont'ev (1969 a: 270): It is thus essential to investigate a number of problems which have not been clarified yet or have been relegated to a subordinate place in Soviet psychology and psycholinguistics: a) the structure, functions and variability of the programme of an utterance... and also the mechanisms of simultaneous translation and of speech in a foreign language which has not been fully mastered; b) the character of probability prognostication in speech; c) the types and mechanisms of speech memory; d) the character and existing types of the semantic character of a word which are used (conjecturally) when it is being searched for... in the course of speech generation; e) the heuristics employed in the grammatical generation of an utterance,

52

THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOVIET PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

and in particular, the way in which a change in the experimental situation is reflected in the mechanisms of generation. In the next chapter we shall deal in detail with concrete findings, hypotheses, and theories of Soviet psycholinguistics ('theory of speech activity') in such fields as (1) psychophonetic models, (2) neurolinguistic models, and (3) grammatical and semantic models of individual language behaviour.

IV MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

Psycholinguistic models of speech activity can be defined as theories generalizing the linguistic characteristics of speech (text) and relating them to psychophysiological characteristics of the speech production and perception process. Soviet psycholinguists have worked out many of these models or - as the case may be - some of their components. Based on the degree of significance of the components of the speech production and perception processes investigated, the grouping of the models of speech activity is as follows: 1. Psychophonetic models accounting for the speech production and perception mechanisms on an articulatory and acoustical level. 2. Neurolinguistic models concentrated on internal neuropsychological mechanisms of the speaker's and hearer's activity and on relations between language (speech) and thought. 3. Grammatical and semantic models of text encoding and decoding. Needless to say, the division is rather schematic and should serve only as a basic classification for the survey of Soviet psycholinguistic research in this field. As a matter of fact, the above mentioned models of language users coincide to some extent with each other and no strict dividing line exists among them.

A. PSYCHOPHONETIC MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

Contemporary scientific interpretation of the processes occurring at the moment one produces and perceives speech is still incomplete

54

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

and contains many confused and contradictory problems. In the speech perception process, the primary function is doubtless that of the auditory analyzer, by means of which the acoustic speech signals are processed. This process may be explained by two psychophonetic theories. According to the 'acoustical theory' the basis of speech perception is a comparison between the received signals and the memory image in the auditory analyzer. On the other hand, the most widely used theory of the present time, namely the 'motor theory' of speech perception, holds that a comparison should be drawn between the speech signals and their motor articulatory correlates. In the field of Soviet psychophonetic research much data has been assembled - not only on Russian material but also on other languages-to support and enlarge the motor theory of speech perception. The major part of this investigation was carried out by the working team of Professor L. A. CistoviC from the Leningrad I. P. Pavlov Institute of Physiology. The results of their long experimental work were published in the two collective monographs, Rec\ artikuljacija i vosprijatie (CistoviS et al., 1965) and Mechanizmy receobrazovanija i vosprijatija sloznych zvukov (1966). Cistovi5's model of speech identification (1961, 1962, 1970) stresses the significant and decisive part of motor articulatory speech components in perception. Defining speech as a simple succession of elementary acoustic signals, each of them having its own characteristics independent of those of the adjoining elements, is being rejected. It follows from some studies of CistoviS et al. (1965) that, for instance, in articulation of vowels in fluent speech, changes in articulatory organs occur at the very beginning of the last consonant's articulation. There seems to be no adequate reason for explaining speech identification on the basis of particular phonemes. It is more convenient to consider a bigger element than a phoneme as the unit of speech identification. In CistoviS's conception the unit of this process is a syllable (slog) and syntagma (sintagma), comprehended not in a strictly syntactic sense, but as the shortest rhythmical-intonation section of a phrase. £istoviS's model distinguishes two stages in the acoustic-percep-

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

55

tion mechanism's activity. (1) At the first stage elementary decisions concerning the features of received speech signals are reached. The recognition mechanism works here as a system with constant characteristics (i.e. the mode of parameter measurement as well as decision rules are fixed).1 (2) At the second stage the final decision is reached, after considering the primary decisions gathered and comparing them with certain thresholds. According to Cistovic, this model is sufficiently real in its physiological basis as it can be reasonably simply carried into effect by the nervous system. It appears that the fundamental part in the speech perception model is represented by a quickly working immediate memory span: Continuous transfer of sound string on to a sequence of elementary decisions enables the nervous system to store and process... not acoustic images of long speech elements (words and phrases), but solely successions of decision results (e.g. reactions) that apparently do not include any rendundant information found in spoken language. In this manner, on the basis of preliminary decision mechanism, filtration is achieved... and the system carrying out final identification may manage with a smaller memory span... (Cistovic et al., 1960: 119; cf. also Cistovic, 1970.)2 As pointed out by Galunov and Cistovifi (1965), speech perception is a multi-stage process, and at its primary stage a shortened symbolic description of speech signals is accomplished by means of a limited number of distinctive features. This reduced record is used for establishing an articulatory program (for more detail see below). The main problem here is throwing light upon the structure of distinctive features. These subjective features are inaccessible 1 Research in syllable and syntagma identification (Cistovic et al., 1965) proves that in these decision processes man uses his knowledge of the stressintonational structure of speech units. The rhythmic structure as a feature of syntagma is shared by a number of syntagmas (irrespective of the particular phonetic structure of their components) and on the syllable level is invariable, i.e. independent of the speech rate. 2 This hypothesis concerning preliminary elementary decisions and information filtration was also worked on by some foreign researchers, e.g. by Miller (1962 a), Halle, Stevens (1962), and others.

56

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

to direct observation, and for this reason they are investigated by means of indirect methods. As a result of CistoviS and team's experiment (1965), the method of verbal and quasi-verbal signal imitation was worked out. "It is natural that man cannot reproduce the heard sound quite exactly. The imitated sound can contain solely some features of the original signal; logically enough, it can be expected that just the features essential for the speech acquisition process will be reproduced" (p. 129). Such a substantial feature is e.g., the length of vowels. The experiments of Cistovic and her co-workers collected numerous data relating to the fact that in speech identification the main role is played by articulatory features and not by acoustic distinctive features. In other words, in speech signals perception the identification system of man must reconstruct the instructions, by means of which these signals are called forth. We can accept the definition of the sound (or rather: an element of speech) being the simplest instruction concerning the speech organs. This instruction must include an enumeration of speech organs (muscular groups), which are to be used, and the order of their employment. Accordingly, the sound identification is but the identification of this instruction, i.e. the determination which organs should be used (mostly they actually were used by the speaker) and the order of their employment (Cistovic 1962: 39.) This concept resulted in speech perception research being concentrated not on findings of stationary speech segments corresponding to phonemes, but on the features characterizing certain changes in sound articulation. In the later variants of Cistovifi's model (e.g., Cistovic, 1970) the research of speech segmentation of speech sequence in higher units, syllables and words, has been investigated. In general, these works confirm the motor theory of speech perception built up by A. M. Liberman and others. The motor theory of speech perception is supported also by further evidence in Soviet psycholinguistics. In this area Bondarko and Zinder (1968) and Zinder (1970) presented a sharp criticism of Jakobson and Halle's well-known theory. It was stated that binary distinctive features of phonemes had no 'psycholinguistic

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

57

reality'. This criticism is supported mainly by research into the discrimination of non-distinctive and non-binary sound variants, the number of which to a great extent exceed the repertory of phonemes (in Russian). 3 From the point of view of the perception of the meaning units of the language the physiological contents of the phoneme cannot be exhausted by distinctive elements, but indistinctive features enter into it as well... At this stage doubt can be thrown even upon the primary importance assigned to the distinctive function in the definition of the phoneme. (Zinder, 1970: 1072, 1073.)

A very interesting hypothesis of psycholinguistic reality of phoneme distinctive features was advanced by V. I. Bel'tjukov (1967). From his experimental research into the cooperation of auditory and articulatory analyzers, in speech perception, the following conclusions were drawn: (1) Acoustic and articulatory qualities of vowels are quite identical. (2) In consonants, significant differences exist between the acoustic and articulatory qualities, i.e. acoustically close consonants are often distant with respect to their place of articulation, and vice versa. Hence a single general system of distinctive features can be established for vowels, whereas for consonants "there cannot exist any single system of distinctive features similar to the one established by R. Jakobson et al. Two separate systems of phoneme distinctive features must be established: one based on acoustic qualities and the other based on their articulatory qualities..." (p. 20). 4 Bel'tjukov bases his investigation on the research of speech acquisition in children, in which the acoustic analyzer works in dependence on the articulatory analyzer: acoustically, children can better identify sounds which are contrastively differentiated in pronunciation - however acoustically close they may be - than those articulatorily indifferentiated (for greater detail compare Bel'tjukov, 1964). With respect to the actual 'rivalry' of the motor and acoustic 3

Cf. the investigation of Verbickaja (1970) and Bondarko, Verbickaja, Zinder, and Pavlova (1966). 4 Cf. Revzin (1970), who tries to suggest a new approach to the problem of dichotomy of distinctive features.

58

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

theories of speech perception, A. A. Leont'ev (1970 b) suggests that the difference in physiological speech functions is not sufficiently taken into account in either of these theories. At the same time, "handling the speech as a first signal stimulus occurs much more often in the practical language communication, in speech perception in particular, than it may seem first sight" (p. 358). As early as 1962 V. V. Ivanov pointed out certain contradictions between the motor and acoustic theories. Both the investigation of aphasias and experiments with perception of the so-called synthetic speech by normal subjects clearly show that there exist complicated relations between articulatory and acoustic features, precluding them from unconditional acceptance of the hypothesis of their equivalence. According to the rules qualified by the auditory system, the set of acoustic signals is figured in a set of acoustic instructions, but it cannot be supposed at this stage, that explicit relations exist between signals and instructions, (pp. 165-166.) From the point of view of setting up an adequate model of speech perception, we find extremely significant the findings on identification of Russian sound variants in the work by Bondarko, Verbickaja, Zinder, Pavlova (1966) and Verbickaja (1970). These investigations correct substantially the traditional conception, according to which man identifies sounds (often modified, in actual communication) on the basis of phoneme features stored in his memory, in which operation the phoneme variants cannot be confused as they do not have a distinctive function and cannot be in opposition in the same phonetic position. In an extensive experiment (a total of 240,000 answers received from fifty subjects), the above mentioned authors proved that man identifies sound variants and that the number of identified sound units exceeds remarkably the number of phonemes. E.g., in Russian, eighteen sound etalons are differentiated instead of six vowel phonemes, depending on the hardness or softness of neighbouring consonants. In perceiving continuous speech the most significant fact for the hearer is not solely the physical characters of sound changes, but also their functional validity. In addition, it was verified that the biggest changes in mutual action of vowels and consonants occur in the CV

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

59

syllable, the finding being in agreement with Cistovic's et al. (1965) model. In dependence on the progress of the motor theory, a model of speech production was established by Cistovic. Speech production is also supposed to be a multi-level system. In the speech production process, three basic stages can be delimitated. The first of them may be the actual synthesis of a sentence; it is bound to result in establishing the programme of articulatory motions in the human brain, corresponding to the sentence in question. The next stage is the realization of this programme, i.e. its transformation in a certain sequence of articulatory motions complex. Now the third stage - temporally coinciding with the articulatory motions - is the production of the acoustic signal. (Cistovic et al., 1965: 6-7.) As far as the unit of speech production is concerned, the model of CistoviS supposes the syntagma to be composed of syllables. Evidence supplied by means of the experimental method of 'delayed auditory feedback' (cf., e.g., Fairbanks, Guttman, 1958) confirmed the presumption that "the simplest and the basic articulatory complex is a CV syllable. A more compound CCV syllable presents a system of these simplest complexes formed in such a way that the second of these complexes can be realized in part parallelly with the realization of the first one" (Cistovic et al., 1965: 156). For the explication of the speech production process, importance is assigned to investigation of the 'articulatory program structure'. The articulatory program structure cannot be investigated without knowing which element of speech string the articulatory program corresponds to. Cistovifi et al. (1965) made an attempt to clarify the question, whether a sentence consisting of two syntagmas is formed on the basis of one articulatory program or whether two of them are employed when it is uttered. This problem was studied on the basis of time intervals measured between syntagmas of separate sentences uttered by subjects. The result exhibits a a remarkable variability of pause lengths between the end of the first syntagma and the beginning of the other with a constant rate of speech, while the syntagma lengths only varied negligibly. These results can be interpreted to the effect that they confirm the

60

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

hypothesis, according to which in the mechanism of speech production, changes in articulatory programs occur in the transition from one syntagma to another, i.e. that syntagma can be considered a unit of the articulatory program. Even if in these experiments the grammatical (syntactic) level of encoding is not considered, it might prove useful to relate the results gained to the findings on the 'hesitation phenomena' - see e.g., Boomer (1965) and Goldman-Eisler (1968). It is well-known that the hesitation phenomena - according to certain hypotheses have a direct relation to internal programming of the utterance production and there is also a connection of hesitation phenomena and syntactic and semantic relations in external speech. Concerning the Russian language there have existed only sporadic data in this field so far. V. I. Ilina (1965) supported experimental evidence to prove the dependence of hesitation phenomena (pauses) upon three variables: (1) interindividual differences shown in speech rate (the largest variability being found in number and length of pauses), (2) the type of speech activity (e.g., reading, narrating, and the like), and (3) the character of language material (texts in different styles). This investigation is making certain corrections in the hypotheses of hesitation phenomena, which have so far been studied solely on the material of spontaneous speech. On the other hand, Sejkin (1966) proved that the pause in spoken Russian does not correspond to the boundaries of grammatical or semantic sections of encoding, as is often supposed on the basis of the hesitation phenomena analysis in spoken English. Sejkin's investigation resulted in stating that the occurrence of pauses greatly depends on the length of utterance and "the fact of absence of pauses inside a particular section of text does not necessarily mean that this section consists of grammatically or semantically dependent elements" (p. 43). Important findings regarding a physiological and neurophysiological component of psychophonetic models of speech activity were collected also in a number of other Soviet studies on experimental phonetics (for survey see Zinder, 1968, and Artemov, 1970). From these, both an older work by Zinkin, Mexanizmy reci (1958,

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

61

English edition 1968), and his later studies (2inkin, 1961, 1964, 1967, 1970) still deserve our attention. Here attention should be drawn to certain topical theoretical suggestions found in Zinkin's conception. In his model of speech production, Zinkin distinguishes two basic components of speech mechanism - a static component and a dynamic component. The static component is an articulatory (phoneme) mechanism, the dynamic component is a mechanism of syllable and word formation. The static component determines the position of the articulatory-motor speech system solely, and it must be assumed there is a superior mechanism regulating syllable formation. Zinkin's experimental research is concentrated mainly on the dynamic component of speech mechanism. Regulation of the phonation process proceeds in two levels - first as a sub-cortical, unconscious automatic regulation, second as a cortical conscious regulation. Syllable formation is, in Zinkin's conception, regulated by the automatic unconscious system. As far as the speech perception model is concerned, in 2inkin's model a word is considered the fundamental unit of encoding: The word is identified according to its syllabic composition that has a great redundancy. In this fashion, however, only categorical identification can be realized, as the whole particular set of words has the same syllabic structure. That is why transition to the determination of phoneme composition must be made. The most convenient starting point is a root morpheme as it is most stabile by its composition. As a consequence of redundancy, it is sufficient to identify one or two phonemes. Then a transition to the identification of another word is feasible. It is carried out in the same manner and data of mutual dependence of these words are provided... An unknown word must be decoded according to its elements, i.e. in the phase of identification. Words occurring most frequently have the greatest redundancy and are identified immediately. (Zinkin, 1967: 2371-2372.)

Further Soviet investigations in the field of psychophonetic models of speech activity proceed mainly in two directions. One part is concentrated on the study of function of segmentation in speech perception, while the other part of the investigation deals with the function of rhythmic and intonational structures in speech production and the perception process.

62

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

As to research in the first line, in agreement with Cistovifi's model of two-level identification of speech, D. M. Lisenko (1966) verified the hypothesis of'preliminary segmentation'. In accordance with the hypothesis the listener first segments the utterance into words before speech is being identified. It is assumed that "there is a certain transition procedure of processing the initial information resulting in the determination of features exhibiting the boundaries between words. Vocabulary can be employed only after the boundaries have been determined" (p. 181). However, experiments carried out by Lisenko did not confirm this hypothesis. Particularly, it was not proved that in segmentation of continuous speech into words man employs the information of accent patterns and of pertinance of consonants to syllable types.5 Following up Lisenko's experiments, J. A. Klaas (1966) studied segmentation into words in pseudo-sentences, i.e. in sentences consisting of words without any lexical meaning but retaining the main morphological features of genuine Russian words. A prototype of formation of such experimental pseudosentences was the well-known example of §£erba: "Glokaja kuzdra stenno budganula bokra i kudljavit bokrjonka." Experiments made with pseudosentences of various lengths (varying from two to twenty syllables) pointed out that man is able to segment into words a countinuous text without any meaning, but partially grammatically structured. The main criterion of this segmentation is the rhythmic structure of the text, i.e. the presence or absence of accent on each vowel of a particular phoneme group and confrontation of this group with phonetic words stored in the long-term memory. Parallel with these investigations, intonation structures are studied in Soviet experimental phonetics.6 The most remarkable 5

Cf. also Bondarko, Zinder, Svetozarova (1968), who confirmed that the phonemes in Russian have no delimitative functions, i.e. they cannot distinguish word boundaries in spoken language. 6 There is no general doubt about the importance of intonation structures research for the explication of speech production and perception processes on one hand, and for the study of the verbal component of interpersonal communication on the other hand. It is a paradoxical phenomenon that most - not only Soviet - investigations have been hitherto carried out on the material

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

63

studies in this field are those by V. A. Artemov's team (see Artemov, 1962, 1970), to which A. A. Leont'ev (1967 a: 97) does not do justice when he says that "with some exceptions... they do not come up to the contemporary standard of science." The complex analysis carried out for a number of years in the Laboratory of Experimental Phonetics and Speech Psychology (First Moscow Pedagogic Institute of Foreign Languages), with Professor Artemov at the head, has concentrated on the study of utterance intonation structures related to semantic and syntactic structures, the relation being studied on the material of Russian, English, and other languages. In the analysis in question, intonation is denoted as a complex of several sound components of speech (melody, accent, speech rate, and timbre), always related to the grammatical-lexical sentence structure and to the communicative context. Structural analysis of sentence intonation was performed in detail by Artemov (1962). The research pointed out that intonation is to be studied as a complex sound structure (1) having a certain communicative function (question, appeal, demand, and the like), (2) closely related to the phonetic, grammatical, lexical-semantic, and stylistic structures of the utterance, and (3) expressing emotional and other psychic states of the speaker. Speech intonation contains a huge amount of information concerning communication, syntactic, logical, and modal levels. Besides, it provides information on the speaker: whether his speech is literary, what are its particularities, to which type of higher nervous activity7 he belongs, and what are his individual characteristics... (Artemov, 1969: 110.) Mutual relation of intonation structures and grammatical-semantic structures was expounded by A. M. Antipova (1970). In her study of exclamation clauses in Russian and English, Antipova proved that this type of utterance has identical intonation and grammaticalof standard (literary) language (frequently on examples extracted from fiction). Only recently, in dependence on the increasing interest in research into spoken speech, systematic analyses of intonation in 'live' spoken language have been made (cf. e.g., Vannikov, Abdaljan, 1970). 7 See Malanova (1960) on the relation between types of higher nervous activity and speech intonation.

64

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

lexical characteristics in the two languages and it forms a special communicative type. At the same time, the coherence of structures is expressed as follows: "If the grammatical structure or lexical composition or both carry upon themselves a part of emotional weight, the part of intonation in exclamation clauses production is reduced and there is no rare occurrence of one or two features disappearing simultaneously from an intoneme" (Antipova, 1970: 118). Intonation structure can reveal even latent meaning (sense) segmentation of utterance. In her study of intonation patterns in several Romance languages, Torsueva (1970) revealed the structure of'meaning relevance' (smyslovaja vaznosf). The meaning relevance is not distributed evenly throughout the sentence and its elements do not correspond to words, syntactic sentence elements, rhythmic sections, etc. Torsueva considers meaning relevance a particular phenomenon of the supra-syntactic level of the language system. Though complete explication of the relationship of the distribution of meaning relevance to the structure of functional sentence perspective8 is lacking, similar investigations are beyond doubt of considerable importance both for the problem of measuring the information content in messages and for psycholinguistic models of speaker and hearer. Communicative conception is characteristic for these works, i.e. the phonetic and other characteristics of speech production and perception are evaluated in dependence on particular extralinguistic conditions of communication. Speech signal perception is qualified by the situation and communication aim. Also concentration on perception, experience with perception, ability of combining analytic and synthetic ways of perception, knowledge of language sign, degree of its practical acquisition, ability in finding necessary ways of auxiliary identification are of primary importance. Speech signal perception considerably depends on the individual qualities of the type of the receiver... (Artemov, 1970: 133.) 8

In fact there exists a close relation between the patterns of functional sentence perspective (or 'information-bearing structure of the sentence') and intonation structures in utterances. See Garvin's (1968: esp. 502-508) survey of Czech studies on functional sentence perspective.

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

65

In Artemov's communication theory of speech (Artemov, 1962, 1964, 1969, 1970), six general factors of verbal communication are distinguished. They can be only schematically expressed as follows: (1) Who communicates, (2) with whom, (3) about what, (4) why, (5) in what relation to the receiver, and (6) in what situation. In connection with this theory, in many studies by Artemov's co-workers and other Soviet researchers, there appeared analyses of certain problems of intonation-meaning relations, particularly of emotional structures (Rozkova, 1968), speech acts of order (Elijosjute, 1968), and also communicative properties of written speech (Kly5nikova, 1968), and other problems. Generally, it can be stated that Artemov's concept presents a more complex approach in the field of psychophonetic models of speech activity than the narrow physiological approach of CistoviS and others. Artemov's concept, outlined in a number of both theoretical and experimental studies of the author and his co-workers, provides a good basis not only for working out intonation-semantic and other aspects of psychophonetic models of speech production and perception,9 but also for application of social and communicative approach in the study of language behaviour. 10 Soviet research in the field of psychophonetic models of language users shows on one hand that close cooperation of various scientific experts (particularly linguists, phoneticians, psychologists, neurophysiologists, and others) is inevitable, while on the other hand it demonstrates that results gained from that particular research do not contribute solely to increase the knowledge of that particular theoretical discipline, but can be also applied when a number of practical problems are being solved, e.g., in theory of language 9

Cf., e.g., interesting findings on intonation structures in English achieved by Bliznicenko (1966) in hypnopedic experiments carried out in the Laboratory of Experimental Phonetics of the Linguistic Institute in Kiev. It is evident from this work how special intonation research contributes to the explication of problems of a more general character, speech perception in particular. 10 Cf., e.g., a stimulating study by Revtova (1970) from the Minsk State Pedagogical Institute of Foreign Languages. Revtova suggested the intonation and semantic typology of types of address (obrasienie) in English dialogues, dependent on the types of communicative situations.

66

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

learning and teaching, psychotherapy, automatic speech identification, speech input in computers, various problems of telecommunications, etc.

B. NEUROLINGUISTIC MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

The term 'nejrolingvistika' (neurolinguistics) has been applied to Soviet science by Lurija (1968). In his conception neurolinguistics presents a complex research of speech activity combining the knowledge of neurology, psychophysiology, and linguistics. Neurolinguistic models expound on the one hand the process of utterance production, from the intention or idea of the speaker as a starting point through utterance formation at the stage of inner speech to the realization in sound (written) form of utterance, and on the other hand the process of utterance perception and its interpretation on the part of the hearer. Neurolinguistic models are concentrated on latent internal mechanisms of speech activity that are not subjected to direct analysis, of course. The only sufficiently adequate way of investigation of these mechanisms is provided by the study of pathological expressions of speech activity, from which a certain knowledge of normal language behaviour can be deduced. By its complex approach and concentration on substantial internal mechanisms of language encoding and decoding, the field of neurolinguistics raises the greatest hopes for recognition of processes of speech activity, relation of speech and thought, production of mental operations, and others. And particularly in this field, some most original knowledge of primary importance, in our opinion, is being gained, namely the knowledge obtained from research into 'inner speech'. In this part a summary is given of the main Soviet achievements in the study of the substance and working of inner speech and the role of inner speech in the processes of encoding and decoding of verbal messages in the individual language user.

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

67

11

Research into inner speech has its place in world science history. The American investigator H. S. Curtis (1900) was one of the first to prove the larynx motions in subjects reading for themselves a text or repeating mentally some poetry learned by heart. In Soviet science the largest number of suggestions for research into inner speech were supplied by the works of Vygotskij and Blonskij in the thirties'. Vygotskij (1934, 1956, 1962) studied inner speech in connection with the relation of speech and thought and acquisition of speech by children. He qualified the fundamental differences of inner and external speech, supposing inner speech to develop from the 'egocentric speech' of the child (for detail see Chapter One). From the structural point of view, Vygotskij characterized inner speech as syntactically simple, fragmentary, and condensed in comparison with external speech, and moreover absolutely predicative. Semantic specification of inner speech consists in being strongly contextual, i.e. its semantic components involve not only denotative but also connotative meanings in a wide sense. It is necessary to state that Vygotskij's concept of inner speech as a specific formation is on the one hand accepted and developed by some Soviet psychologists and psycholinguists (Lurija, A. N. Sokolov, A. A. Leont'ev et al.), but on the other hand is rejected by others as wrong. Blonskij (1935, 1964) polemicized against Vygotskij's assumption concerning the development from egocentric speech of the child and provided evidence of inner speech developing simultaneously with external speech from the same source, namely from interpersonal communication. In young children this process is accompanied first by sound, then by soundless inner repetition of heard speech, designated by Blonskij

11 The term inner speech (vnutrennaja red') signifies a soundless verbalization process proceeding with various intensity and in dependence on many extraindividual conditions, when man is thinking about something, solving a problem, recalling memories, writing, reading for himself, etc. and also producing external speech. Inner speech is not solely subvocal soundless external speech as is sometimes assumed, but is a specific formation with entirely different properties and with a different function - cf. the following interpretation.

68

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

as 'simultaneous reproduction'. 12 Inner speech in Blonskij's conception develops from this inner repetition. An entirely contradictory approach denying Vygotskij's conception of inner speech was maintained by Raevskij (1958), according to which inner speech differs from external speech not by its substance, but only by certain external structural features: It is only necessary to reject attempts to see in it speech with its specific syntactic rules, different from usual speech, and particularly the attempt to consider it a process in which a word as a form of expression of an idea and a form of its existence disappears and only its semantic part is retained... Therefore, it must be stated that inner speech is the very speech by means of which communication and exchange of ideas is realized; it has been formed in the process of man's social development, of his communication with other people... In fact, the phenomenon of the dwindling of speech organs motions does not bear evidence of word disappearance in inner speech nor of the hypothesis implying that inner speech is thinking in 'pure meanings'. (Raevskij, 1958: 46.) Vygotskij's and Blonskij's hypotheses concerning inner speech were not supported by exact experimental analyses of speech activity. Only the development of experimental research into this field in the fifties' and sixties' brought objective data on inner speech, gained by means of the method of 'mechanical detention of articulation' and particularly by means of electrophysiological registration of soundless articulation (Nazarova, 1952; Kadockin, 1955; Baev, 1966; Sokolov, 1963, 1968). Significant findings on inner speech were supplied particularly by the clinical research of various types of aphasia (Lurija, 1963; Luria, 1970; Luria, Cvetkova, 1968; Cvetkova, 1968, 1969; Rjabova, 1967). Complex research into inner speech has been carried out for a number of years by a Moscow psychologist, A. N. Sokolov. He published his findings on inner speech research and the relation of inner speech to thinking in his book Vnutrennaja rec' i myslenie (Inner Speech and Thinking, 1968). 12

Cf. this chapter, part A, on some experimental investigations to support the so-called motor theory of speech perception, assuming also 'inner repetition' of speech by the hearer.

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

69

Sokolov describes inner speech as a non-self contained phenomenon derived from external speech, being its inner projection. Originally, inner speech is produced in man as a repetition of both heard speech of other speakers and one's own speech, and in further development it becomes ever more condensed and transformed into certain complexes and schemes. Between inner and external speech there is not only evolutionary continuity but also functional dependence - in the course of message generation there must exist a preliminary scheme of utterance fixed by means of inner speech. Consequently, inner speech has two main functions: (1) function of a means of thinking and (2) function of a preparatory stage in external speech production. Sokolov's investigation deals predominantly with the first function of inner speech. On the basis of his experimental research Sokolov proves that inner speech works to a various degree not only in 'verbal-conceptual thinking' (slovesno-ponjatijnoe myslenie), but also in 'visual thinking' (nagljadnoe myslenie) , 1 3 i.e. in reception, processing, and recalling both verbal and non-verbal information. In this respect thinking cannot exist without speech: Acquisition of verbal system of concepts results in the fact that in the language user also all the other forms of thinking (visual-figurative and visual-objective thinking) are realized on the language basis, i.e. on the basis of preliminarily acquired concepts, which are stored in memory and gradually realized in the form of soundless inner speech. (Sokolov, 1968: 4.)

However, speech character of thinking does not imply identification of thinking and speech, as in the thinking processes there also exist non-speech phases, e.g., in processing of information received from the sense receptors, and on the other hand there is considerable variability in denoting the elements of thinking in question language means, etc. The thinking-speech system is a system of dynamic continuous interaction qualified by Pavlov as interaction 13

The Russian term 'nagljadnoe myslenie' is understood very widely in this particular context, as it covers not only processing of information through the visual channel, but also all the non-verbal recognition - cf. Chapter Two on Kruselnickaja's (1970) differentiation of types of thinking.

70

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

of the first (subject-matter) and second (speech) signal systems. From among various methods of inner speech research the most fruitful is the electromyographic method. It is based on the measurement of bioelectric potentials arising in the course of inner speech in some parts of articulatory organs. Sokolov performed electromyographic registration of muscle tension of the tongue and lips in certain situations when inner speech appears. On the basis of this analysis he proved that inner speech is in fact a discrete and impulsive process, i.e. the speechmoving impulse characterizing inner speech proceeds discontinously, separate peaks each having a different intensity and separated from one another by rather large intervals. Sokolov discovered two fundamental types of impulses in motor speech reactions accompanying the process of thinking: (1) tonical (generalized) type, characteristic of slow and low-amplitude potentials of organs of speech; this impulse is evidently related to general activation of speech device from the brain, and (2) phasic (local) type, characteristic of fast and high-amplitude differences of potentials. The phasic component is evidently the expression of inner speech proper and is regarded as quanta of thinking (kvanty myslenija). The specific speech character of this impulse is revealed particularly by the fact that it does not correspond to skin galvanic and other reactions. It has also been proved that the tonical type of speech reaction prevails in the processes of perception and visual thinking, while during the processes of active mental reasoning the phasic type prevails.14 The problem of the other main function of inner speech, namely programming function in the process of utterance production, is 14

In this connection Sokolov has drawn some conclusions on the localization of cerebral mechanism of speech and thinking. In Soviet psychology the generally accepted concept avers that complicated psychic functions do not correspond to static cerebral centra, but to the system organization of various cerebral structures that are connected in various ways in the realization of a particular function. According to this concept there do not exist static and independent centra of speech in the brain (cf. Lurija's concept, Chapter One, footnote 17). Sokolov follows Penfield and Roberts' theory (1964), but criticizes Penfield's 'vulgar materialistic' approach, in which concepts have their own neuron substratum.

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

71

of great importance for the theory of psycholinguistics. This function of inner speech is also unavailable to direct observation and can only be observed indirectly. The most adequate neurolinguistic models of utterance production worked out so far including the stage of inner speech, are based on analyses of speech defects, aphasia in particular. A. R. Lurija, who - among other Soviet authors - dealt with the functioning of inner speech, investigated with his fellow-workers 'dynamic aphasia', which is an expression of damaged predicative (syntactic) structure of the utterance (see Luria, 1970; Luria, Cvetkova, 1968; Lurija, Cvetkova, 1968). Dynamic aphasia becomes evident by the state of mind when the patient has retained all the sensoric and motoric components of speech. He can easily give names of things, repeat words or sentences, but he is not capable of forming continous utterances on his own, not even when presented with a picture, a subject, theme, etc. Lurija and Cvetkova (1968) presume that the body of this disorder is the function defect of inner speech: "The patient with dynamic aphasia cannot find the scheme of the sentence..., which potentially includes in itself information of the number and succession of language elements which should be incorporated in a sentence" (225). The authors confirm this hypothesis by an interesting experimental method: as it was discovered the man with dynamic aphasia is not capable of forming a continuous utterance, even on being presented concrete separate words for its formation, it was deduced that this is not a case of defect of the nominative function of inner speech, but a case of quite a different defect. It has also been proved by current experimental evidence (Cvetkova, 1968, 1969). Subjects were to name arbitrary subjects (nouns) and arbitrary activities (verbs) in a short time interval (one minute). While in subjects with normal language behaviour the number of words in both groups was well-balanced, subjects with dynamic aphasia were able to recall four or five times fewer words denoting activities. Also, in spontaneous speech of persons suffering from aphasia a certain phenomenon is often found: according to Cvetkova it is 'reduction of verbality' (e.g., frequent pauses before the verb occurs, shift

72

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

of verb to the terminal position of the phrase, sometimes even the omission of the verb, etc.). In the course of the following experiment of Lurija and Cvetkova, aphasiacs were not presented particular words, but a series of guiding points, e.g., a few buttons arranged in the linear way corresponding to the number of phrase elements. If the patient kept touching them successively with his finger he was able to form a continuous utterance on the presented subject. As soon as the concrete representation of the linear scheme of the phrase was removed, inability of speaking on one's own reappeared. Simultaneously, electromyographic registration of the lower lip was recorded in which it became evident that in the case of no utterance formed, no changes of electromyographs were recorded, whereas with the outer linear prop, changes appeared as a reflection of the preparation phase of forming an utterance, as a reflection of inner speech. Experiments of Lurija and Cvetkova and of other research workers investigating speech disorders, mainly with aphasiacs (Lepskaja and Vinarskaja, 1967, Rjabova, 1967, Rjabova and Stern, 1968), offer clear evidence that the study of pathological language behaviour may bring some important findings for an adequate explanation of processes of normal language behaviour. Based on a complex approach to the study of these processes, on the knowledge of neurology, psychophysiology, and linguistics, a new scientific discipline, 'neurolinguistics' comes into existence. Its basic problems are expounded by Luria (1967) and Lurija (1968). In this connection a question arises, whether and in what way inner speech functions in the case of language decoding, and its meaning in processes of perception and understanding of a message by the listener. In study of this difficult problem little experimental work has been done so far. Certain suggestions are made in the work of Ginzburg, Pestova and Stepanov (1968). One experiment consisted in short duration (three seconds) presentation of sentences on a screen. The sentences were either complete or compressed (that is some semantically minor elements were left out to various extents-the compression coefficient oscillated between 4% and 50%). The task of the subjects was to repeat immediately and as

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

73

exactly as possible the presented sentences. The main achievement of the experiment was the statement that identification time is shorter with compressed sentences than complete ones. 15 Theoretical significance of the experiment consists in the presumption that compression of the text can be considered a procedure analogical to the mechanisms of inner speech in the process of understanding a text; it is supposed that in the case of a man working up a piece of information, selective filters start to function on the basis of certain algorithms. The filters let through only elements of information which are most important for its working up (coding, retention, etc.), and do not let through minor and facultative elements. Ginsburg's views originate in the ideas of S. K. Saumjan (1965), who in his theory of 'applicational generative grammar' sets up a hypothesis of the existence of a universal semantic code, 'genotypical language'. Genotypical language, unavailable for direct observation, serves for coding of ideas in elementary units-semions. According to Saumjan's two-level theory, the formation of a message by the speaker can be imagined as a translation from the genotypical language into the natural phenotypical one. On the part of the listener it can be considered a reverse translation. In Vygotskij's and Lurija's concepts inner speech is assumed to be an inter-stage in the process of external speech production. 16 Another concept of inner speech function is expressed in the model of A. A. Leont'ev (1967 b) formulating twelve hypotheses of the working of inner speech in relation to the psycholinguistic models of encoding and decoding utterances. The following hypotheses are the most relevant: (1) In the model, emphasis is placed upon the distinction of 15 In a number of Soviet as well as foreign experiments of this kind it has been proved, however, that identification time is strongly dependent on numerous variables as e.g., grammatical complexity of sentences, frequencies of their elements, etc. - see e.g., Frumkina (1967, 1970). 16 Cf. Lurija (1968: 198): "The utterance is produced in a complex process starting with a general intention (or the idea of utterance), proceeding through the stage of inner speech (or folded scheme of utterance) and is then coded in the unfolded developed external speech."

74

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

inner speech from the so-called inner articulation and from the so-called internal programming. Inner articulation (mutrennee progovarivanie) is a latent soundless physiological activity of articulatory organs arising in particular situations and imitating the processes of virtual 'external' communication. A situation typical of the rise of inner articulation is speech perception (according to the motor theory - cf. the current chapter, part A) in which "inner articulation is realized outside the proper inner speech and entirely outside the 'depth' psychic processes" (A. A. Leont'ev, 1967 b: 6-7). Internal programming (mutrenneeprogrammirovanie) is uncounscious construction of a certain scheme on the basis of which utterance is then produced. In Leont'ev's conception internal programming is typical of a special order of the syntactic elements of utterance, namely S - (At) - O - (At) - V - Ad. This order prevails in various 'non-grammatical languages' (e.g., in the gesture language of the deaf-and-dumb, in the early stages of child speech, and others), but it is subjected to changes depending on the grammatical rules of the particular natural involved. Internal programming can then evolve either into external speech or inner speech as suggested in Figure 1: Internal programming

Grammatical and semantic rules of generation

Specific rules of semantic generation

T

External speech

Inner speech Fig. 1

In this model, inner speech is not thus an inter-stage in external speech generation while in Leont'ev's concept it is only a consequence of the functional distinction between inner speech and external speech. The main function of inner speech is to be a means of programming a non-speech act (a typical example is the

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

75

occurence of inner speech in problem solving) or - expressed by means of simple terms - speech 'for oneself is inner speech, speech 'for others' is external speech. Anyway, in more complicated types of problem situations inner speech can be accompanied by inner articulation (as objectively proved by Sokolov, cf. above), while in other situations inner speech can be reduced to maximum extent without expressions of inner articulation, i.e. it can approach a simple reflex act. As to the structure of inner speech, according to Leont'ev's hypothesis it is typical of its briefness and specific semantic organization. Inner speech is elliptic speech par excellence, formed as a special stochastic linear chain of semantic 'senses'17 unwrapped in a concrete word form so far... To be able to operate in the language thinking, the 'senses' must have some material basis; however this basis can be reduced to minimum, e.g. to the image of word initials. (A. A. Leont'ev, 1969 a: 111.) It will be very difficult, of course, to prove Leont'ev's hypothesis implying that 'senses' (i.e. connotative meanings of the language expressions) are units of inner speech. Also, his interpretation of these semantic units as stored in verbal memory, e.g., in a letter code, is highly improbable - there would then arise the problem of persons who have acquired the language only in its spoken (not written) form, etc. (2) Of primary importance is the hypothesis implying a linguistically identical utterance can be generated in various ways. Leont'ev admits the possibility that elementary utterances can be generated stochastically, i.e. not on the basis of the 'grammatical plan', but only on the basis of the 'motor plan'. 18 17

'Sense' as a semantic unit of inner speech is considered in this respect to be "the analogue of meaning in a system of activity". The term of 'sense', applied in psychology particularly by Paulhan and then by Vygotskij, corresponds to the generally accepted linguistic term 'connotative meaning' (in contradistinction to 'denotative meaning'). For psycholinguistic interpretation of the term 'sense' see A. A. Leont'ev (1969 c). 18 In accordance with the 'plans of behaviour' of Miller, Galanter, and Pribram (1964).

76

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

With respect to the paradoxical fact that the validity of both the phrasestructure model and the transformational model have been confirmed by experimental evidence, it is possible to set up a hypothesis implying that when generating linguistically identicial utterances the same language use can employ different models of generating, dependence on particular conditions. (A. A. Leont'ev, 1967 b: 11.) (3) Another hypothesis is of the same fundamental importance for the theory of psycholinguistics. It suggests that speech generating proceeds in various ways in various communicative types of speech (e.g. spoken and written speech, monologue, dialogue, etc.). The two latter hypotheses incorporate into psycholinguistic models of language encoding and decoding the factor of context (extralinguistic conditions of communication), not generally considered in these models (see Soviet investigations, in this chapter, part C). On the other hand, it must be taken into account that Leont'ev's model is directed solely towards the production of a single particular utterance, not towards the whole message (text). The character of programming on the whole message has been, however, rather vague so far, and there are only fragmentary data concerning it, gained by the research into pathological language behaviour (see in particular Cvetkova, 1966). A different concept of inner speech and its semantic structure in the process of utterance generation is held by Zinkin (1964, 1967). In his conception the language of inner speech is the 'objectrepresenting code' (predmetno-izobraziternyj kod) of these general properties: (1) The code is unspoken, thus it is devoid of any material features of the natural language (cf. the above mentioned contradictory hypothesis of A. A. Leont'ev). Its elements do not form any sequence, but only diverse configurations. These are object-images independent of any form of the 'external' language units. (2) The code is representative (schematic), i.e. consisting of images connected by object coherence. These images in themselves cannot uttered, but using them as a base words of any natural language can be constructed. In this respect, the language of inner speech is universal.

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

77

2inkin's hypothesis, however, concerning absolute material independence of the inner speech code on a particular natural language is contradictory to his concept of inner speech origin. "No natural language would be feasible if it were not for the representative language of inner speech, but even without the natural language inner speech has no justification. The natural language supplies means of working out this subjective code for the communicating persons..." (¿inkin, 1964: 36). In recognizing this genetic dependence of inner speech upon external speech, which seems very probable, difficulties arise concerning the explanation of the transition to the object-representing code, entirely independent of any elements of external speech. With respect to a later concept of 2inkin (1967), inner speech code consists of 'intentions' (zamysl), i.e. invariant semiotic elements retained in the process of conversion of a particular expression into another equivalent expression of the natural language. On the level of 'intentions', differences between the meaning and 'sense' (according to Frege) of the expression, proper to external speech, disappear. 19 The main theoretical significance of Zinkin's concept can be seen in the anxiety to prove the errors of the proposition often proclaimed in earlier Soviet psychology (cf. particularly Raevskij, 1958), namely that natural language is not only an instrument of communication, but also that of thinking. In Zinkin's concept natural language is not a code of thinking. It has been so maintained by some Soviet and other foreign scientists, but the raison d'être of it, and particularly of his hypothesis concerning the object-representing code of inner speech, can be proved by experimental 19

"It is well-known that every language is at least in 75 percent redundant... However, retention of information in this redundancy is disadvantageous, thus in decoding it is compressed by a particular device of inner speech into compact semiotic formation, in which the difference between meaning and significance disappears. These formations are those denoted as intentions. Inner communication can be qualified as accumulation of intentions... Inner language of the intention production can be assumed to be an accumulating semiotic system connecting a stream of immediate sensoric information gained by the sense organs, with information obtained by means of language symbols."

(Zinkin, 1967: 2375.)

78

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

evidence only with difficulties. Simple experiments carried out by 2inkin (1964) - subjects involved in the solution of a particular problem, e.g., to remember the content of a presented picture, were to tick out the ordered rhythm - carry only faint explicative weight. Stronger evidence is supplied by the data gained from the analysis of pathological language behaviour expressions. Zinkin (1970) analysed the case of 'semantic aphasia' 20 in the child. He drew the following conclusions with respect to the relation of the grammatical and semantic mechanism in language behaviour: the more disturbed the semantic connection (semantic admissibility) of two words, the more disturbed their formal (grammatical) connection, and vice versa. It can be supposed there is a critical limit of the disturbance of two word connections, and the limit being exceeded, semantic aphasia appears. Rjabova (1967) and Rjabova, Stern (1968), having analysed the utterances of persons suffering from diverse types of aphasia, achieved some findings supporting the hypothesis of inner speech as an inter-stage in utterance production, e.g., some differences in the frequency distribution of particular word categories, noun cases, etc. in aphasic speech and in the speech of normal persons signify some syntactic under-development of aphasic speech, i.e. disturbance of the transition from the utterance plan (expressed by structurally under-developed inner speech) to grammatical (syntactic) structurability in utterance realization. Besides, Rjabova and Stern proved that in the speech of persons suffering from dynamic aphasia, non-sentence utterances predominate over complete sentences. This phenomenon can be explained by differences in the manner of encoding both types of utterances: the production of complete sentence utterances passes through all stages of grammatical and semantic generation of utterance (including the transition stage of inner speech), whereas the pro20

In the case of semantic aphasia all the articulatory, perceptive, and grammatical mechanisms of speech activity work normally, only semantic combining of the words is disturbed, i.e. the patient produces word strings without any sense. E.g., in 2inkin's experiment the subject completed the following unfinished sentences as follows: "Masa zabolela, nadopozvat' ...bolnicu." ("MaSa fell ill, it is necessary to send for... hospital".)

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

79

duction of non-sentence utterances does not pass through these stages, but proceeds only according to the scheme 'stimulus - motor reaction', i.e. not according to grammatical plan, but motor plan only (cf. the abovementioned hypothesis of A. A. Leont'ev being in accordance with this one). For persons suffering from aphasia the grammatical encoding of utterance is made difficult or even impossible, which necessitates non-sententional utterances in their speech. To conclude this part it can be stated: the models of A. A. Leont'ev, N. I. Zinkin, and other neurolinguistic models of inner speech provide fruitful concepts as starting points for experimental verification of the inner latent mechanisms of speech activity. However, at present there is no direct objective evidence of the structure of inner speech, its function in speech activity, etc. The complexity of the phenomenon under considerations explains why the achievements gained so far are not always mutually consistent, and on the whole represent only a complex of hypotheses, the majority not yet supported by experimental evidence.

C. GRAMMATICAL AND SEMANTIC MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

Referring to Chapter Three, at the beginning of the sixties', attention of Soviet scientists was drawn to the theories of Chomsky and their psycholinguistic implications. Once acquainted with these concepts, Soviet psycholinguists began to verify the validity of the models of 'transformational psycholinguistics', both by means of theoretical analysis and experimentation. In our opinion the most significant data have been collected by Soviet scientists in two complexes of problems, at present belonging on a world-wide scale to the most topical and widely discussed fields in the theory of psycholinguistics: (1) Problems of the 'psychological reality' of the generative transformational model. (2) Problems of the probabilistic processes in speech production and perception.

80

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

Within the framework of problems (1), research carried out by the Moscow psychologist Il'jasov (1968) is of considerable value. Il'jasov tried to verify, using material of the Russian language, Miller's (1962 b) hypothesis of transformational decoding. The Russian psycholinguist carried out research which with the greatest possible precision repeated Miller's basic experiment in all its variations (as far as the experimental procedure, the presentation of the material, the number and structure of sentences, etc. are concerned). The only actual difference was that Il'jasov used Russian sentences. In the experiment, quite insignificant differences for sentencens of various syntactic types were found, all this implying that Miller's hypothesis was not confirmed. Il'jasov interprets his findings as another item of evidence added to a number of facts throwing doubt upon the psychological reality of transformational grammar. The significance of Il'jasov's investigation consists in having brought a new variable into the experimental verification of transformational process, the newly introduced variable being a type of language which has never been considered in the experimentation of American transformational psycholinguistics carried out solely on the material of the English language. In addition to Il'jasov's investigation there are also other Soviet attempts to interpret psychologically the generative transformational model, e.g., in relation to the theory of learning foreign languages (see Voronin, 1968). Parallel with the study of Chomskian transformational models some entirely original grammatical and semantic models have been devised, among which the theory of 'applicational generative grammar' by Saumjan (1965) is the most detailed. Though its author indicated repeatedly that (e.g., Saumjan, 1970, cf. also this chapter, part B), his two-level theory of applicational generative grammar also enables speech production to be explained, the experimental verification of this possibility has not been carried out so far. However, in Saumjan's applicational model there are a number of reasons taken into account by A. A. Leont'ev (1969 a) who points out that "it would be utterly impossible to admit its psychological reality, be it for a moment". In relation to the experimental verification of the psychological

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

81

reality of transformational grammar, A. A. Leont'ev's (1967 a, 1968 e, 1969 a, b) analysis is of great importance. Leont'ev's criticism is primarily concerned with the incorrectness of the experimental verification of the generative model and of the intrinsic shortcomings within the Chomsky-Miller conception. The main points of his criticism are (in brief) as follows: (1) In transformational psycholinguistics linguistic competence and performance models are constantly mixed; models produced by linguists and a linguistic way of thinking, directed towards the description of units and their properties and not towards the process involved, are transferred into psycholinguistics. (2) The greatest shortcoming of the Chomsky-Miller model is that motivation and any "pre-grammar" stage in speech encoding are completely ignored. (3) The classic experiment of Miller (1962 b) and further experimental verifications of the generative model prove only the possibility of transforming sentences, but not the actual way of generating them. (4) The generative model is a theory of an exclusively unconscious use of language and does not include a description of various forms of conscious processes in speech activity. (5) The conclusions of the experimental verifications of the generative model cannot be generalized since they relate to one form of speech alone (monological, written form, isolated sentences with no context), whereas the psychological conditionality of the production of other forms of speech (especially the spoken form) is apparently very different. A detailed analysis of both Chomsky's theory (particularly of linguistic competence) and ways and achievements of its experimental verification in American psycholinguistics makes their author A. A. Leont'ev draw conclusions about the impossibility of interpreting Chomsky's theory of transformational grammar as a model of linguistic competence or even linguistic performance. Leont'ev's views in this respect are in accordance with the conclusions of E. M. Uhlenbeck, R. Rommetveit, C. E. Osgood, J. W. Oiler, T. Slama-Cazacu, et al., who have lately indicated new perspectives

82

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

in the study of language behaviour, 21 different from the narrow and sterile conception of transformational psycholinguistics. These perspectives aim at establishing a new theory denominated rightly as "psycho-socio-linguistics" by Slama-Cazacu (1970). After performing a critical analysis and generalization of numerous experimental works, A. A. Leont'ev (esp. 1969 a) succeeded in formulating the basic presuppositions for the model of speech production and perception based on the theories of Vygotskij and his psychological school (cf. Chapter One). The main features of this model (theory) are the following: (1) For the model of utterance formation, a principle of 'activity' is relevant, i.e. the fundamental unit considered in the analysis of language behaviour is not even a certain segment of speech (text), but elementary 'speech action' (recevoje dejstvije). This action, as well as activity, consists of three phases, i.e. programming phase, execution phase, and comparing phase. Activity is determined by the aim and motivation, and it is set up hierarchically. Speech activity is a system of speech actions (cf. A. A. Leont'ev, 1969 b). (2) A model of language behaviour must contain a probability forecasting principle, entirely neglected in psycholinguistics, veryfying psychological reality of the generative transformational model. It is useful to base this probability principle on the concept of probability forecasting or 'the models of the future' by N. A. Bernstejn and others (see below). At the same time, Leont'ev emphasizes a basic difference between mechanisms generating syntactic constructions on the one hand and mechanisms of their lexical 'infilling' on the other: "If the first of these mechanisms is of a constructive nature (the model of the grammatical engendering of an utterance is emphatically not the Markov one), then the second is apparently probability-based and works on the principle of a certain kind of linear 'cumulation'" (A. A. Leont'ev, 1969 a, p. 276). (3) An active character of the process of speech perception is supposed, in the sense that in the basis of speech perception there 21

For a detailed survey see Prucha (1970, 1972).

83

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

lie processes which might hypothetically give rise to an utterance, too. That means as a rule that it is possible to make use of experiments investigating language decoding to interpret the laws of encoding an utterance. Even though Leont'ev's model is to some extent just a generalization of numerous Soviet and foreign works in experimental psycholinguistics, it leads to homogeneous theoretical conclusions. Its main value consists in the constitution of a clear and coherent basis for further research.22 In correlation with A. A. Leont'ev's conception, Rjabova (1967) presented a model of the speaker. It is based on findings of the studies on aphasia as well as of other psycholinguistic investigations. The components of Rjabova's model can be diagrammatically shown (see Figure 2):

+

Hearing control

Fig. 2

According to this model, two sorts of operations exist in the process of generation of an utterance: (1) operations of combining 22

See Chapter Three for a survey of the main research tasks of Soviet psycholinguistics as formulated by A. A. Leont'ev.

84

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

elements forming the program of some successive activity (viz., operations nos. 1, 3, 5), and (2) operations of selecting elements by means of which the basic patterns are made concrete (viz., operations nos. 2, 4, 6). The operations of the first group are performed on the basis of successive synthesis and those of the second type by simultaneous synthesis. On the basis of this model it can be imagined that the speech production process begins with the arising utterance scheme expressed in the code of inner speech, continues with the choice of concrete words, i.e. with the transformation from the code ot inner speech into lexical-semantic units of a particular natural language. Further on, it is followed by 'grammaticalization', i.e. the generating of syntactic structure of utterance and selection of complete grammatical forms of words. The sound realization of utterance is based on the kinetic scheme of utterance having syllabcal character, and on the selection of articulatory units. All these operations are controlled by the auditory analyzer. Against this model as a whole, and also against its individual stages, numerous critical objections can be raised. E.g., the assumed stage of grammaticalisation can be evidently realized not only on the basis of a selection of a particular syntactic structure from among the set of grammatically equivalent syntactic structures. The selection from the set of equivalent units must be presupposed even in other stages of speech production, i.e. it is necessary to take into consideration the functioning of stylistic component in language encoding (cf. Dolezel, 1969) which forms various communicative types of utterance in dependence on extralinguistic conditions of communication. This limitation in Rjabova's model is connected with another limitation of most other models of speech encoding: the model of the speaker must expound not only the utterance production, but also the process of production of the whole message from utterances, and this more complicated process is not explained in Rjabova's model. In the later common work of A. A. Leont'ev and Rjabova (1970) concerning phasic structure of the speech act, the original model of Rjabova (1967) was enlarged and modified. With respect to

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

85

this newer theory the speech production process is explained as a sequence of the following phases: (1) phase of motivation (motivation is considered here not as an isolated factor, but as a set of extralinguistic factors conditioning the speech act - cf. the details in A. A. Leont'ev, 1969 a), (2) phase of speech intention (this phase is to a considerable extent in accordance with category of 'set' - cf. Prangisvili, 1968, Hertzog, 1970), (3) phase of inner program (this phase corresponds to the category of the 'grammatical plan' of Miller et al. (1964), only inner program, inner speech, and inner articulation are distinguished - cf. this chapter, part B), (4) phase of inner program realization consisting of two relatively independent processes - semantic realization and grammatical realization; selection of syntactic structure is followed by the accoustical-articulatory and morphemic realization immediately before the next phase, (5) phonetical phase, i.e. the sound realization of utterance. The role of anticipation is expressed by the three following types of processes in the course of these phases in question: (1) probabilistic prognostication in the selection of grammatical constructions and the semantic selection of words, (2) constructive prognostication (e.g., in selection of and at the beginning of the realization of a particular syntactic structure, a decision is simultaneously made on further development of this structure, on the selection of the next elements, etc.), and (3) programming (i.e. forming of a system that determines the selection of solutions in the following phases of speech production). Evidently, this model of Leont'ev and Rjabova is more complex than some current psycholinguistic models of speech production, for it covers - in addition to deterministic operations - probabilistic operations and pre-grammatical stages (phase of motivation and phase of speech intention). In the models of language behaviour based on transformational theory, the pre-grammatical phases are not considered. They are, however, incorporated into some models based on the psychological learning theories (see in particular

86

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

Osgood, 1970, who investigates the role of cognitive presuppositions in language behaviour). The probabilistic principle is generally applied in Soviet theories of speech activity (in contradistinction to American transformational psycholinguistics), particularly in connection with the concepts of anticipation and the 'models of the future'. E.g., in 1970 in Tbilisi a scientific conference on plans and 'models of the future' in speech activity was held (see Plany i modeli buduscego v reci, 1970), the agenda of which concentrated on the problems of the role of the plan, program, anticipation, models of the future, set, probabilistic prognostication, etc., in speech production and perceptions processes. Within the framework of this complex of problems the theory of set (ustanovka) has proved particularly productive, and has been studied for several decades by the Georgian psychological school (see Prangisvili, 1968), its foundations having been laid by D. N. Uznadze. According to this theory all the forms of human behaviour (including language behaviour) are realized on the basis of a set, the set being meant as "the psychological state of readiness of the individual for an immediate regulation of behaviour" (Kefixuasvili, 1970: 21). The role of set in language behaviour has been proved by experimentation in a number of studies of both Soviet and foreign scientists (see particularly Natadze, 1966; Hertzog, 1970).23 Probabilistic prognostication in speech activity (in speech perception) is in this connection interpreted as "a result of contextually conditioned readiness of the organism for the operation of a certain stimulus" (Zimnjaja, 1970:15), or as a function of "tactics of behaviour" selected in a particular situation under the influence of a particular set (Frumkina, DobroviC,1970; cf. also below the experimental research of Frumkina). In the sphere of probabilistic models, the work of A. B. Dolgopol'skij (1963) is remarkable. It shows that in speech production the selection of denotates describing extralinguistic phenomena is 23

See especially the experimental study of Hertzog (1970), at the University of Calgary, proving that "the set of the individual is the organismic determinant of the acquisition and use of language" (247).

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

87

realized on the basis of the operations having stochastic character. Dolgopol'skij suggested an experimental procedure which might be extended and applied in the study of the semantic aspects of speech production and perception process. The basis of this experiment is a presentation of a simple algorithm which shall after the presentation of particular information on the given signifie and its context - lead to the determination of a particular verbal form (significant). Very important findings on speech perception process were achieved by a series of experiments carried out by I. M. LusSixina in the Laboratory of Engineering Psychology (Leningrad State University). In her first experiments (LusSixina, 1965) she investigated the connection between the capacity of 'short-term memory' and the decoding of spoken speech. As is well-known, capacity of the short-term memory is treated in Yngve's depth hypothesis. It implies that in the natural languages there is an upper limit of sentence depth, being approximately equivalent to seven (proved at least for English, and in 1966 also for Armenian, by E. V. Mirakjan). This limit is concurrent with the number quoted as the range of immediate memory. LusSixina takes notice of several corrections carried out by K. M. Petrov from Rostov University. The hypothesis concerning the depth of sentences does not distinguish between the position of speaker and hearer. But this distinction is important, as so called progressive and regressive types of sentence structure establish different limitations for the speaker and the hearer. On the basis of this knowledge LusSixina carried out an experiment aiming at answers to the following questions: (1) Is there really an upper limit to the range of immediate memory (that is to say, a limit of sentence depth)? (2) If there is any, does the increase of sentence depth affect the decoding of a text by the hearer? (3) What is the affect of sentence length upon decoding? The experiment was carried out under laboratory conditions with several groups of persons who were given passages from radio reports through an acoustical channel with and without noise. The sentences represented five various groups as to the depth and length (in number of words) and the subjects were to repeat the

88

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

presented sentences. The results made it evident that the length of the sentence does not affect to a great extent the decoding (within the range of eleven words). If the length exceeds this limit, the quality of decoding deteriorates. As to the influence of sentence depth, a tendency to deteriorated decoding simultaneously with an increasing depth is apparent. There is an interesting finding - with the sentences of different length, but with the same depth, decoding is roughly constant (e.g., with the sentences of depth two, average length of 2.7 and 5.3 words, 55% and 56.6% of sentences were retained). Besides this laboratory experiment LusCixina analysed a factual language communication in airport transport. Out of the instructions of directing center to the air-pilots, 150 sentences were selected; sentences not exceeding nine words proved to be the most frequent. The most significant conclusions become evident when comparing the sentence depths for speakers and hearers: it may be supposed that the speaker intuitively selects only sentences with a depth not exceeding seven. This is also the main point of Yngve's hypothesis, that both speakers and hearers avoid in natural communication an excessive overload of the immediate memory. Certain corrections of LusCixina's achievements (1965) on the influence of sentence length and depth upon decoding are made by the experimental research of Kibrik and Lozkina (1968). In their experiment, an influence of several different factors externed upon the retention of text was investigated. It became apparent that both the increased length and changes of acoustical-perception characteristics (e.g. change of intonation, noise present) have no substantial influence on the reproduction of the text. The errors with retention result from the structure of sentences, which may be - according to the authors - expressed better by a measure of complexity than by a measure of depth. A drawback to this experiment of LusCixina was the lack of distinction between the influence of both the grammatical and semantic relations and the influence of probabilistic constraints upon the encoding and decoding process of utterance. In the further experiments of LusSixina (1966; 1968 a, b, c; 1970 a, b) a more

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

89

differentiated approach was applied, with concentration on the study of how the grammatical and semantic factors affect auditory perception and text perception. Even here, however the practical aim of the experiments was retained; the effectiveness of communication between airport operators and air crews was investigated. The speech material of this communication was analyzed in terms of the phrase-structure model, and the grammatical (syntactic) word relations were classified according to Uspenskij's typology (1965). The experiments resulted in these findings: (1) Grammatical word-combinations are reproduced significantly more easily and more exactly than lexical combinations. (2) Out of grammatical syntagmas the predicative, coordinative, and the completive type of syntactic relations are most easily reproduced. These data resulted from varying grammatical redundancies in individual types of syntagmas, e.g., the coordination type is the most redundant (in Russian and other inflective languages the syntactic coordination is expressed simultaneously by means of several grammatical categories in both parts of the syntagma), and the language behaviour of the hearer changes depending on the degree of redundancy. The main theoretical contribution of Lusfiixina's experimentation consists in the support of the hypothesis that in perception of spoken language the hearer does not concentrate on the elementary acoustic pecularities, but on the elements of the more complex levels of communication. In her further experiments LusCixina (1968 c) investigated the influence of grammatical transformations upon sentence encoding and decoding. The substance of her experimental procedure consisted in a particular task set to subjects. They were listening to sentences presented in rapid succession and were to transform sentences with indicative affirmative constructions (e.g., My namazyvaem maslonaxleb nozorri) into sentences with interrogative constructions (e.g. Cem my namazyvaem maslo na xleb? Cto vy namazyvaete nozom, and the like), and vice versa. The results exhibited the feature that the subjects much more easily transformed interrogative sentences into sentences with affirmative constructions (78 %) than vice versa (52 %). However, an analogous experiment carried

90

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

out under the conditions of virtual air-communication brought results contradictory to the achievements of the first experiment. For this reason LusCixina rejects the conclusions as to the universal role played by transformations in the process of speech activity; this role is limited by particular types of communicative situations. The study of the process of spoken language perception by the hearer, performed by Luscixina, is an example of an aforethought systematic investigation. She started with the research of general undifferentiated qualities of the message (sentence length and sentence depth, and the like) and proceeded as far as the determination of the influence of various grammatical-semantic variables. In this investigation one can not avoid fundamental problems of how the amount of information carried out by particular elements of message, and probabilistic dependencies between these elements, should be estimated. In experimental solution of these problems LusSixina (1968 b, 1970 a, b) achieved findings on both 'information weight' of some grammatical and lexical categories (however, only on the material of some special texts, so it cannot be explicated for Russian in general) and on a general grammatical model of the hearer. In this model LusSixina considers the activity of the hearer to be a probabilistic (stochastic) process: the more probable the occurrence of a particular grammatical category, the more correct is the reaction of the hearer. The model is derived from the found connections between probability of occurrence of different word classes and 'hesitation pauses'. Employing the analytic and experimental procedures of Stolz (1965), Boomer (1965), et al., Lu§£ixina verified, using the Russian language, the fact that the distribution of hesitation pauses corresponds to the degree of variability of word class selection in the linear course of the speech. Word classes with the least probable occurrence 'evoke' the largest amount of hesitation pauses, and the most probable word classes (according to LusCixina these are in Russian nouns and verbs, and in special texts of air communication, also numerals) form a sort of skeleton on which perception attention of the hearer is concentrated (in answers of subjects just these categories were reproduced best). On the more elementary level of probabilistic dependence affecting

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

91

language behaviour of the receiver, the research of the following scientists is concentrated: Frumkina (1966, 1967, 1970), and her co-workers (Frumkina, VasileviC, 1967; Frumkina, VasileviS, Mackovskij, 1968; Frumkina, Vasilevifi, Gerganov, 1970). The starting point of Frumkina's investigation is her preconception of the influence of anticipation, or probabilistic prognostication in speech activity. It is well known that human behaviour - language behaviour included is based to a considerable extent on probabilistic prognoses which originate in situations of life practice. In order that the behaviour is adequate also the prognosis must be adequate and its accuracy depends naturally on the degree of exactitude with which the probabilities of corresponding situations are distinguished. Within the framework of this general problem there can be found most interesting data on the probabilistic structure of speech and on the corresponding properties of language behaviour. (Frumkina, 1966: 90.) The research of probabilistic prognostication in language behaviour carried out by Frumkina took two directions. In one series of experiments the problem studied was the relation between the objective and subjective probabilities of language elements (Frumkina, 1966, 1970). Frumkina followed up with numerous foreign works investigating the dependence of word frequency and rapidity or quality of their identification in optical presentation on stachistoscope, in acoustical presentation with various parameters of noise, etc. The author laid special emphasis on the study of the relation between the estimates of word frequency by subjects (i.e. subjective values) and the data on word frequency obtained from frequency dictionaries (i.e. objective value). A strong correlation was proved to exist between the two kinds of data (the correlation coefficient varying in the range of 0.53-0.87); it can be assumed from this data that the linguistic experience of adults well reflects the average probabilities of word occurrences in contemporary literary Russian. In accordance with her own achievements and with the results of a number of other experimental investigations, Frumkina (1967, 1970) established a theory on the probabilistic organization of

92

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

linguistic experience, that is verbal memory of language users, particularly on the word level. It can be suggested that every word stored in the memory of an individual has an 'index of frequency' being in accordance with the index of occurrence of the word in question in the foregoing Linguistic experience of the individual... Evidently, the 'index of frequency' is in fact formed on the basis of general reflections of various types of speech activity in individual memory... (Frumkina, 1970: 78.)24 This theory is supported by Frumkina's experiments consisting of the presentation of one hundred words with different frequency (from the most frequent to the least frequent and also pseudowords in Russian) to subjects who were to classify them according to seven-degree-frequency scale. New experimentation confirmed the old finding of Frumkina (1966), implying that on the basis of their linguistic experience the language users are able to predict the probability of occurrence of a certain word. On the other hand, by her experimentation Frumkina opened up some new problems. To start with, it appeared that in some words there is a difference between the subjective and objective values of frequency. This fact refers mostly to the category of words denoting things of everyday use ('mots disponibles\ e.g., tufli, zontik, paket, etc.). Another disturbance appears when the probability of words is being estimated according to their meaning, emotional charge, and the like, as different subjective values of frequency are linked up to words with the same objective frequency, however with a different meaning. Some primary problems with respect to Frumkina's achievements arise as the investigations of Bloxina and Potapova (1970) are analyzed. These research workers studied the reliability of the identification of sounds, words, and phrases in their acoustical presentation in dependence on several variables, as e.g., on the frequency and 24

A cognate opinion, supported by the achievements from the research of probabilistic dependences in the speech of persons with certain types of pathological language behaviour, is maintained by Vinarskaja (1969: 93): "It can be assumed that the probabilistic prognostication in the acts of speech activity is based on the employment of subconscious data on the probabilistic structure of the language and the rules of the language communication."

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

93

length of an element of speech. The investigation resulted in the finding that identification is positively affected by the length of the speech element; however, in contradistinction to numerous other studies, the authors reached the conclusion implying that the frequency of word occurrence is quite irrelevant for word identification (the same amount of correct answers was gained both for words with high frequency and words with low frequency). The other series of Frumkina's experiments was concentrated in the identification of various letter combinations (trigrams) in their optical presentation (see Frumkina, VasileviC, Mackovskij, 1968; Frumkina, Vasilevic, Gerganov, 1970). The main purpose of this experimentation was to explain the problem of decision units in speech perception. On the whole, the experiments confirmed that the grapheme cannot be a decision unit in the visual speech perception; a "speech segment not smaller than a word" being the decision unit in question, in accordance with the theory of Cistovifi et al. (cf. this chapter, part A). There is another of Frumkina's preconceptions implying that "the basic scheme of the procedure of solution being accepted, it is identical both for the heard speech and for the written form of speech, as in both cases a transition is realized, from signals coming through various analyzers, to one vocabulary of speech images, retained in the memory of language user" (Frumkina et al., 1968: 86). However justified this preconception may seem, in the experimentation proper it has never been verified. It might prove useful to confront Frumkina's achievements with numerous information-theoretical data on Russian and other languages, gained by the research carried out by an extensive research team of Statistika reci (Statistics of Speech - cf. the volume Statistika reci, 1968). This research team headed by R. G. Piotrovskij at the Leningrad Institute of Linguistics discovered some important implications for psycholinguistic theory of speech activity, having both factual and methodological character. 25 They mainly 25

Piotrovskij (1965, 1967, 1968) suggested several new psycholinguistic experimental methods, particularly the method of collective prediction of the speech elements, the method of prediction with incomplete acquisition of the

94

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

concern accurate data of the basic information-theoretical characteristics of not only a number of typologically different languages as a whole (mainly Russian, English, Rumanian, Polish), but also of various functional styles of the languages in question and both their written and spoken forms. While the hitherto used information-theoretical measures of the language remained mostly on the level of the graphemes (phonemes), Piotrovskij (1965, 1967, 1968) and Petrova, Piotrovskij (1966) tried, in addition to this activity, to find out the information-theoretical values of the word, text, contextual constraints, and others. Their data provide and help to open new possibilities for the objective estimate of some parameters of speech activity processes such as production and perception of text, organization of verbal memory, etc., and on the other hand allow for the estimate of the degree of some speech acquisition ability and the like. From the concrete data on the probabilistic structure of text Piotrovskij (1968) drew some general conclusions of considerable importance for the explication of speech activity processes. (1) The linguistic text is characteristic of quantal distribution. This can be explained in terms of Piotrovskij's theory to the effect that written and spoken language is perceived by human analyzers and processed in the brain, not continually but as a non-periodical transmission of the quanta of information. (2) The word is a quantum of information in the text and this information is distributed unevenly throughout the word. E.g., in normal generation of a written text, i.e. by letters and words, the basic part of information is placed at the beginning of the word. It is probable that hearer or speaker reaching decisions on the boundaries between words does not base his decision on the combinations of letters of phonemes situated directly next to this boundary, but he determines hypothetical^ the localization of these boundaries, before, viz. on the basis of his own hypotheses on various possible continuations language code, etc. He also modified Kolmogorov's method of prediction. Moreover, Piotrovskij's prediction measures evaluate not only the statistical structure of the text, but also 'pragmatic information' connected with diverse perceptions of the text by individual subjects with different linguistic experience, etc.

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

95

of that particular word beginning. Once a decision is made on that particular word beginning has only one possible or very probable continuation, the boundary of the word is thus being determined. (Piotrovskij, 1968: 103.) Some accomplishments and conclusions of Piotrovskij can be critically objected to. In our opinion, Piotrovskij relies too much on the prediction experiment and overemphasizes its explicative possibilities. In Shannon's and Kolmogorov's investigations the prediction experiment was suggested to evaluate the average information of the printed language, while Piotrovskij employs the prediction experiment to find out the distribution of information throughout the word, both in and out of context. Evidently, the word beginning is predicted with most difficulty, as a rule, thus the experiment cannot yield any other result. Despite these reservations, Piotrovskij's experiments are of considerable value as bringing methodological suggestions for the objective research of 'pragmatic information'. When characterizing the models of speech activity designed in Soviet psycholinguistics, we find them to be mostly aimed at the grammatical aspects of production and perception of utterance, while relatively less attention in research is given to the semantic aspects. This exposure is surprising, both in view of the intensive research carried out in Soviet linguistic semantics and lexicology (cf. Weinreich, 1968) and in view of some valuable achievements from the psychophysiological experimental study of 'semantic conditioning' in the fifties' and earlier.26 At present, psycholinguistic research into the semantic aspects of speech activity is developing mainly in these two directions: (1) word association structures are studied, and (2) some experi26

See particularly Luria, Vinogradova (1959), Vinogradova, Ejsler (1959), et al., who designed the experimental research methodology of semantic relations between words and the determination of semantic fields based on some physiological reactions elicited from subjects by certain verbal stimuli. This study, and also others researching semantic conditioning, follow up on the theories of Pavlov and his successor Ivanov-Smolenskij (1956) on the mutual cooperation of the first and second signal systems. Cf. Razran's (1961) survey of the Soviet investigations of semantic conditioning.

96

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

mental methods are applied to measure word meaning and other language elements. In the first field, undoubtedly the associations between the elements of various levels of the language are an important factor in the process of production and perception of the message, especially word-associations. It has been adequately proved by a number of experimental studies (e.g., Deese, 1965), especially concerning syntagmatic associations. Association structures also reflect semantic relations of the word in the verbal memory of the language user. In view of this phenomenon the problem of objective determination of the degree of word 'incorporation' in individual semantic fields is of considerable significance. In Soviet psycholinguistics a formula was suggested by J. D. Apresjan (1963), in terms of which the degree of incorporation of a word-stimulus into the semantic field of word-reaction can be determined. The formula goes as follows:

when N is the number of subjects, n (i) is the number of answers containing a particular word w (i) , and MwoWi is the degree of incorporation of the stimulus word w 0 into the semantic field of the word w (i) . In this measurement it is assumed, however, that the stimulus word is being incorporated solely into the semantic fields of the words occurring in answers more than once, not of the words found only once (occurrence of these answers may be caused by incidental or individual associations). The values established according to Apresjan's index, together with other quantitative data, will be included in the association norms of Russian to be worked out in the Scientific-Methodological Center for Russian Studies in Moscow. According to the outline of the theoretical concept of the association norms published by A. A. Leont'ev (1969 d), the Slovak stereotipnyx associacij russkogo jazyka (Dictionary of the Stereotyped Associations of Russian Language) will be designed on the same principles as the well known association norms of Kent-Rosanoff, but it will provide much more information (the total extent of five hundred stimulus

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

97

words and one thousand subjects). The association norms of Russian will promote further experimental research of semantic processes in speech activity, restrained in Soviet psycholinguistics so far, though its theoretical and methodological conceptions have been already sufficiently suggested (particularly Brudnyj, 1968, A. A. Leont'ev, 1968 d, §£ur, 1968, et al.). Contemporary Soviet research into the employment of association methods is concentrated mainly on specific problems of teaching foreign languages (Zalevskaja, 1968; Korotkova, Kuzmenko, Kuznecov, 1968) and on their application to medicine and psychiatry (Rodideva, 1968; Korotkova, Kuznecov, Lebedev, Xlebnikov, 1968; Polonskaja, Rjabova, Ufimceva, 1970). In addition to association methods, scientists studying semantics in Soviet psycholinguistics also employed some other methods, e.g., that of Osgood's semantic differential. The most significant experimentation was carried out by Klimenko (1968),27 the study of semantic fields in particular, and Kopylenko (1965), who investigated the combination of particular types of lexemes in two-termword groups. The complex of problems concerning the meaning of sentences was studied by Orlov and Zuravlev (1967) who designed a psychometric method of evaluation of the so-called sense-distances between transforms of utterances. In Soviet psycholinguistics an interest is developing in another important aspect of language behaviour - social communication. T. M. Dridze (1969) tried to investigate 'informativity' of a journalistic text, using a certain quantitative coefficient expressing the representation of 'new' content elements. The character of the work is that of a preliminary experiment; there is evident e.g., a thorough lack of any connection with an extensively studied and elaborated foreign field of mass communication theory and its methods and measures, e.g., cloze procedure, measures of readability, and others. 27 After the manuscript of this work was finished a new book by Klimenko (1970) and a collective volume Semanticeskaja struktura slova (Moscow, 1971) appeared, dealing with psycholinguistic experimental research into the semantic aspects of word.

98

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

On the other hand, there is a work by V. D. Tunkel (1964), remarkable for its research of successive transfer of oral language communication chains consisting of ten people. The author studied the changes setting in in the content of messages, dependent on the style of the texts as well as on the way of the text presentation to the first person of the communication chain. There was now one more major theoretical problem to solve: how to establish objective criteria for measuring semantic information. Tunkel's hypotheses are the following: (1) A verbal message cannot be divided into homogeneous semantic units - as the elements of the contents of texts have a different degree of 'semantic weight', so they are accepted and transformed by the communicants in different ways. (2) The content of a message can be considered to be a certain structure of 'predicates', in which some predicates are major (first order predicates), some are minor (second and third order predicates). The first order predicates are considered bearers of the 'fundamental idea' (determined independently by the method of competent judges), second and third order predicates are considered bearers of the proper contents of the message. This hypothesis is based on 2inkin's (1955) classification of predicates. The following conclusions can be drawn from the results of Tunkel gained in several series of experiments: (1) Transfer of the 'fundamental idea' and the content of message depend on the style of the text. The fundamental idea of newspaper and scientifically styled texts was transferred more often than that of artistic texts. As to the transfer of content, its quality was best with texts written in artistic style and worst with journalistic and scientific texts. (2) Various elements of texts possess various degrees of resistance to communication distortion. Without regard to the style character of the text, communicants most often use verbs during transmission, less often nouns, and least often adjectives. This explains why the contents of texts with a low frequency of verbs and a high frequency of adjectives (e.g., artistic texts, poetry) are transferred with much difficulty.

MODELS OF SPEECH ACTIVITY

99

(3) The course of communication distortion includes various phases, the distinction being the length of the communication chain in which the message is being tranferred. According to Tunkel's results the average number of words in the first chainmember is reduced to 50% of the total number of words of the original text, whereas in the second to the seventh member the reduction amounts to 5-7% of words, and in the eighth member there is no further reduction. In our opinion, Tunkel's investigation represents a promising perspective in the study of speech activity, as it presents some analytical findings necessary for establishing a complex theory of the verbal communicative act in which models of speech production and perception processes will be incorporated in more general models of human communication. We hope the above survey brings some evidence of a great development in Soviet psycholinguistics. The quantitative indication of the increasing number of works published is not so important in itself - what matters most is the new knowledge gained from psycholinguistic research that makes a valid contribution to the study of man and the complicated forms of his behaviour. In order to increase this important role of psycholinguistics, it appears to be necessary to put into action certain requirements recently expressed by A. A. Leont'ev (1969 a: 4): ...It is high time that psycholinguistics should take up a serious theoretical re-assessment of the achieved results and proceed to a new, higher level on which psycholinguistics would cease to be an isolated area related to the mathematical theory of generative grammars rather than to psychology, and to structural linguistics more than to sociology, and wouldfindits place within the general synthesis of the studies of man.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. SOVIET AUTHORS Abaev, V. I. 1965 "Lingvisticeskij modernizm kak degumanizacija nauki o jazyke", Vja 3, 22-43. Ajdarova, 1.1. 1964 "Formirovanie lingvisticeskogo otnoSenija k slovu u mladsix Skolnikov", VPs 5, 62-69. Akhmanova, O. and G. Mikael'an 1969 The Theory of Syntax in Modern Linguistics (The Hague, Mouton). Antipova, A. M. 1970 "Intonacionnaja struktura vosklicatel'nyx predlozenij v ee vzaimodejstvii s ix leksiko-grammatiCeskoj strukturoj", PSICPS, 117-119. Apresjan, Ju. D. 1963 "Sovremennye metody izucenija znacenij i nekotorye problemy strukturnoj lingvistiki", Problemy strukturnoj lingvistiki (Moskva, Izd. AN SSSR), 102-150. 1966 Idei i metody sovremennoj strukturnoj lingvistiki (Moskva, ProsveSCenie.) Artemov, V. A. 1962 Metod strukturnogo analiza redevoj intonacii (Moskva). 1964 "Kommunikativnaja priroda ustnoj reci", ZPhon 17, 213-216. 1969 Psixologija obucenija inostrannym jazykam (Moskva, Prosvescenie). 1970 "Redevoj akusti5eskij signal i ego vosprijatie", PSICPS, 129-135. Arutjunova, N. D. and G. A. Klimov 1968 "Strukturnaja lingvistika", TPSJ, 154-170. Axmanova, O. S. 1957 O Psixolingvistike (Moskva, Izd. MGU). 1964 "'Ekstralingvisticeskie i vnutrilingvisticeskie faktory v funkcionirovanii i razvitii jazyka", TPSSJ, 79-75. 1966 Slovak lingvisticeskix terminov (Moksva, Izd. Sov. enciklopedija). Baev, B. F. 1966 Psixologija vnutrisnogo movlennja (Kiev, Naukova dumka). Barannikova, L. I. 1968 "O rozgraniienii jazyka i dialekta", Jazyk i obscestvo (Moskva, Nauka), 170-179.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

101

Beljaev, B. V. 1964 Psixologiieskie osnovy usvoenija leksiki inostrannogo jazyka (Moskva, ProsveScenie). Bel'tjukov, V. I. 1964 Ob usvoenii det'mi zvukov reii (Moskva, Prosvesienie). 1967 "Vzaimodejstvie analizatorov v processe vosprijatija ustnoj reCi", VPs 13, 19-28. Blizniienko, L. A. 1966 Vvod i zakreplenie informacii v pamjat' (eloveka vo vremja estestvennogo sna (Kiev, Naukova dumka). Blonskij, P. P. 1935 Pamjat'' i myslenie (Moskva-Leningrad). Reprinted in Izbrannye psixologiieskie issledovanija (Moskva, 1964). Bloxina, L. P. and R. K. Potapova 1970 "Identifikacija recevogo signala v zavisimosti ot ego zvukovoj struktury", PSICPS, 185-188. Bondarko, L. V., L. A. Verbickaja, L. R. Zinder and L. P. Pavlova 1966 "Razlicaemye zvukovye edinicy russkoj reci", MRVSZ, 165-179. Bondarko, L. V. and L. R. Zinder 1968 "Distinctive Features of Phonemes and their Physical Characteristics", ZPhon 21, 74-76. Bondarko, L. V., L. R. Zinder and N. P. Svetozarova 1968 "Razgraniienie slov v potoke reci", VJa 2, 68-61. Brudnyj, A. A. 1968 "Puti i metody eksperimental'nyx semanticeskix issledovanij", TRD, 153-163. Cvetkova, L. S. 1966 "Narusenija analiza literaturnogo teksta u bol'nyx s porazenijem lobnyx dolej mozga", Lobnye doli i reguljacija psixiieskix processov (Moskva). 1968 "K nejropsixologiceskomu analizu tak nazyvaemoj dinamiieskoj afazii", Soobscenie /, Psixologiieskie issledovanija (Moskva). 1969 "O naruSenii aktivnyx form ustnoj reci pri dinamiceskoj afazii", VPs 15, 102-113. Cistovic, L. A. 1961 "Tekuscee raspoznavanie re£i Celovekom", Masinnyj perevod i prikladnaja lingvistika, 6, 39-79; 7, 3-44 (1962). 1970 "Metod issledovanija resajuscix pravil, primenjaemyx pri vosprijatii reci", PSICPS, 23-33. Cistovic, L. A., et al. 1960 "Vremennye zaderzki pri povtorenii slysimoj reii", VPs 6, 117-120. 1965 Rei\ artikuljacija i vosprijatie (Moskva-Leningrad, Nauka). 1966 "Imitacija i vosprijatie dlitel'nosti izolirovannyx glasnyx", MRVSZ, 128-157. Dobromyslov, V. A. 1932 K voprosu o jazyke raboiego podrostka (Moskva). Dolgopol'skij, A. B. 1963 "Kategorija vida v russkom jazyke i verojatnostnyj xarakter svjazi

102

BIBLIOGRAPHY

oznaiajemogo s ozna£aju$6im", Problemy strukturnoj Itngvistiki, (Moskva, Izd. AN SSSR) 266-281. Dridze, T. M. 1969 "'Eksperimental'noe izuCenie problemy informativnosti publicistiCeskogo teksta", PPPVOJ, 116-122. ElijoSjute, S. P. 1968 "Ob uslovijax, v kotoryx proxodit re&voe pobuditel'noe dejstvie", PMOIJ, 122-135. Elkonin, D. B. 1958 Razvitie reci v do&koVnom vozraste (Moskva). Frumkina, R. M. 1964 Statistiieskie metody izuienija leksiki (Moskva). "Ob'ektivnyje i sub'ektivnye ocenki verojatnostej slov", VJa 2, 90-96. 1967 "Problemy vosprijatija slov v zavisimosti ot ix verojatnostej", PJ, 92-95. 1970 "Sub'ektivnye ocenki iastot elementov teksta i verojatnostnoe prognozirovanie reievogo povedenija", VPs 3, 76-85. Frumkina, R. M. and A. B. Dobrovii 1970 "O vlijanii ustanovki na mexanizmy verojatnostnogo prognozirovanija pri vosprijatii re£i", Plarty i modeli budusiego v reii (Tbilisi), 35-40. Frumkina, R. M. and A. P. Vasilevii 1967 "Verojatnost' slova i vosprijatie re5i", VPROJ, 17-38. Frumkina, R. M., A. P. Vasilevi6 and M. S. Mackovskij 1968 "O jedinicax prinjatija reSenij pri zriteFnom raspoznavanii Elementov teksta", II simp., 85-87. Frumkina, R. M., A. P. VasileviS and E. N. Gerganov 1970 "Sub'ektivnye ocenki verojatnostej bukvosoSetanij kak faktor, prognozirujuScij rezul'taty pererabotki reSevoj informacii", III simp., 109-112. Galunov, V. I. and L. A. CistoviC 1965 "O svjazi motornoj teorii s ob§£ej problemoj raspoznavanija reii", Akustiieskij zurnal 11, 417-426. Ginzburg, E. L., V. A. Pestova and V. G. Stepanov 1968 "Operacii szatija kak sredstva forsirovannoj rekonstrukcii teksta", TRD, 101-104. Gvozdev, A. N. 1949 Formirovanie u rebenka grammatiieskogo slroja russkogo jazyka, 1-11 (Moskva, Izd. APN RSFSR). Gvozdev, A. N. 1961 Voprosy izuienija detskoj reii (Moskva, Izd. APN RSFSR). Dina, V. I. 1965 "K voprosu ob izu£enii variantov re5i", VPs 11, 100-109. Il'jasov, 1.1. 1968 "Eksperiment Dz. Millera po proverke psixologiieskoj real'nosti transformacionnoj modeli", PSG, 50-66.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

103

Ivanov, V. V. 1962 "Teorija fonologiöeskix razliiitel'nyx priznakov", Novoe v lingvistike II, 139-172 (Moskva). Ivanov-Smolenskij, A. G. 1956 "Puti razvitija eksperimental'nogo issledovanija raboty vzaimodejstvija pervoj i vtoroj signal'nyx sistem", Trudy Insituta vysSej nerv. dejat., Ser. patofiziologiieskaja, II (Moskva). Jarceva, V. N. 1968 "Problema svjazi jazyka i obäöestva v sovremennom zarubeinom jazykoznanii", Jazyk i obüestvo (Moskva, Nauka), 39-54. Kadoikin, L. N. 1955 "Rol' reöevyx kinestezij v formirovanii nekotoryx orfograflöeskix navykov", VPs 3, 54-58. Ke£xuaSvili, G. N. 1970 "Ob odnoj ob'jasnitel'noj modeli vosprijatija reöi", Plany i modeli budusiego v reci (Tbilisi), 21-23. Kibrik, A. E. and A. A. Lozkina. 1968 "Vlijanie sintaksiöeskoj struktury predloienija na process ego raspoznavanüa", II simp., 15-18. Klaas, J. A. 1966 "O ölenenii na slova predlozenij, liäennyx leksiöeskoj infonnacii", MRVSZ, 198-205. Klimenko, A. P. 1968 "Voprosy ¿ksperimental'nogo izuienija znaöeoij slov", TRD, 164-171. 1970 Voprosy psixolingvistiöeskogo izuienija semantiki (Minsk, Izd. Vy§. Skola). Klyönikova, A. I. 1968 "Kommunikativnaja priroda pis'mennoj reci", PMOIJ, 77-91. Kopylenko, M. M. 1965 'Eksperimental'noe inzuöenie soietaemosti leksem", VJa 2, 85-91. Korotkova, E. V., I. N. Kuzmenko, and O. N. Kuznecov. 1968 ' 'Sravnitel'naja xarakteristika associativnogo processa na inostrannom irodnomjazykekak psixolingvistiieskij pokazatel' usvoenija jazyka", II simp., 71-73. Korotkova, E. V., O. N. Kuznecov, V. I. Lebedev and G. F. Xlebnikov. 1968 "Psixolingvistiöeskie pokazateli kak indikatory nervno-psixi£eskogo sostojanija öeloveka v eksperimental'nom dlitel'nom odinoiestve", II. simp., 69-71. Kostomarov, V. G., 1968 "Problemy kul'tury reCi", TPSJ, 126-142. Kostomarov, V. G. and A. A. Leont'ev 1966 "Nekotorye teoretiöeskie voprosy kul'tury reöi", VJa 5, 3-15. Kozina, M. N. 1968 K osnovanijam funkcional'noj stilistiki (Perm). KruSelnickaja, K. G. 1970 "Problemy vzaimosvjazi jazyka i myälenija", ObSieje jazykoznanije (Moskva, Nauka), 371-416.

104

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Krylov, N. I., et al. 1970 "Vsesojuznoe soveScanie po social'noj psixologii", VPs 3, 173-177. Leont'ev, A. A. 1965 Slovo v recevoj dejatel'nosti (Moskva, Nauka). 1967a Psixolingvistika (Leningrad, Nauka). 1967b "Vnutrennaja ree' i processy grammaticeskogo porozdenija vyskazyvanija", VPROJ, 6-16. 1968a "Issledovanie poèticeskoj redi", TPSJ, 143-153. 1968b "ObSóestvennye funkeii jazyka i ego funkctional'nye èkvivalenty", Jazyk i obscestvo (Moskva), 99-110. 1968c "Ob'ekt i predmet psixolingvistiki i ego otnoSenie k drugim naukam o recevoj dejatel'nosti", TRD, 14-15. 1968d "Mesto semanticeskìx problem v sovremennyx psixolingvisticeskix issledovanijax", TRD, 120-130. 1968e "PsixolingvistiSeskaja znacimost' transformacionnoj porozdajuSiej modeli", PsG, 5-49. 1969a Psixolingvisticeskie edinicy i porozdenie recevogo vyskazyvanija (Moskva, Nauka). 1969b Jazyk, ree', recevaja dejatel'nost' (Moskva, ProsveScenie). 1969c "Smysl kak psixologiceskoe ponjatie", PPPVOJ, 56-66. 1969d " 'Slovar' stereotipnyx associaci) russkogo jazyka, ego teoreticeskie osnovy, zadaci i znacenie dlja obucenija russkomu jazyku inostrancev", Voprosv ucebnoj leksikografii (Moskva, Izd. MGU), 114-127. 1970a Nekotorye problemy obuéenija russkomu jazyku kak inostrannomu (Moskva, Izd, MGU). 1970b "Psixofiziologiceskie mexanizmy redi", Obscee jazykoznanie (Moskva, Nauka), 314-375. Leont'ev A. A. and T. V. Rjabova 1970 "Fazovaja struktura recevogo akta i priroda planov", Plany i modeli budusiego v redi (Tbilisi), 27-32. Leont'ev, A. N., 1959 Problemy razvitija psixiki (Moskva, Izd. APN, 2nd ed. 1965). Leont'ev A. N. and A. R. Lurija 1964 "Predislovie", Miller, D., Galatiter, J., Pribram, K., Plany i struktura povedenija (Moskva, Progress), 5-10. Lepskaja, N. I. and E. N. Vinarskaja 1967 "K lingvistiéeskomu analizu kliniceskogo sindroma motornoj afazii", PJ, 239-242. Lisenko, D. M., 1966 "O ilenenii èelovekom nepreryvnogo potoka reci na slova", MRVSZ, 180-192. Ljamina, G. M. and N. I. Gagua 1963 "O formirovanii pravil'nogo proiznosenija u detej ot polutory do trex let", VPs 6, 93-105. Lotman, Ju. M., 1964 Lekcii po strukturnoj poètike, Trudy po znakovym sistemam, I (Tartu). Luna, A. R. 1928 "Psychology in Russia", Journ. of Genetic Psychology 35, 347-349.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

105

1961 The Role of Speech in the Regulation of Normal and Abnormal Behavior (Oxford, Pergamon). 1967 "Problèmes et faits de la neurolinguistique", Rev. int. Sc. soc. XIX, 39-55. 1970 Traumatic Aphasia (The Hague, Mouton). Luria, A. R. and L. S. Cvetkova 1968 "The Mechanism of 'Dynamic Aphasia'", Foundations of Language 4, 296-307. Luria, A. R. and O. S. Vinogradova 1959 "An objective investigation of the dynamics of semantic systems", Brit. Journ. of Psychology 50, 89-105. Lurija, A. R. 1930 "Reéevyereakciirebenka i social'naja sreda", Rec\ i intelekt derevenskogo, gorodskogo i besprizornogo rebenka (Moskva, Gos. izd. RSFSR). 1963 Mozg ¿eloveka ipsixiâeskie processy (Moskva). 1968 "Problemy i fakty nejrolingvistiki", TRD, 198-218. Lurija, A. R. and L. S. Cvetkova 1968 "NejropsixologiCeskij analiz predikativnoj struktury vyskazyvanija", TRD, 219-233. Luriya, A. R. 1966 "Brain and Mind", Soviet Psychology and Psychiatry 4, 62-69. LuSëixina, I. M. 1965 "Ispol'zovanije gipotezi Ingve o strukture frazy pri izuienii vosprijatija reôi", VPs 2, 56-66. 1966 "O sootnoSenii ustojôivosti i pomexoustojiivosti slovosoCetanij", Problemy obSiej psixologii (Leningrad), 104-106. 1968a "'Eksperimental'noe issledovanie psixolingvistiôeskoj znaôimosti grammatiôeskoj struktury vyskazyvanija", TRD, 90-100. 1968b "SootnoSenie grammatiSeskoj i semantiôeskoj informativnosti teksta", PsG, 67-77. 1968c "O roli nekotoryx grammatiôeskix transformacij pri razliCnyx uslovijax reôevogo obScenija", II simp., 9-13. 1970a "Audirovanie refievyx soobScenij s tocki zrenija ix struktury i relevantnosti dlja operatora", PSICPS, 585-588. 1970b "Effektivnost' selektivnogo audirovanija v reéevoj kommunikacii", VPs 4, 56-64. Malanova, L. F. 1960 "Intonacija reôi i nekotorye tipologiôeskie osobennosti vysSej nervnoj dejatel'nosti", Uienye zapiski I. MGPIIJ, 20. Markova, A. K. 1969 "Ovladenie slogovym sostavom slova v rannem vozraste", VPs 5, 118-125. Mel'ôuk, I. A. and A. K. ¿olkovskij 1970 'Towards a Functioning 'Meaning-Text' Model of Language", Linguistics 57, 10-47. Mel'niiuk, A. S. 1970 "Ponjatija sistemy i struktury jazyka v svete dialektiCeskogo materializma" VJa 1,19-32.

106

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mirakjan, E. V. 1966 "Ispytanie gipotezy Ingve na materiale armjanskogo jazyka", Lingvis ticeskie issledovanija po obscej i slavjanskoj tipologii (Moskva), 204-213. Natadze, R. 1966 "Problèmes de la psychologie du langage dans les travaux des psychologues de Géorgie", Bulletin de psychologie X I X , 8-12. Nazarova, L. K . 1952 " O roli recevyx kinestezij v pis'me", Sovetskajapedagogika 6,113-117. Orlov, J. M . and A . P. 2uravlev 1967 "Opyt psixometrièeskoj ocenki smyslovyx rasstojanij mezdu transformami", VJa 5, 93-103. Panfilov, V. Z. 1968 Grammar and Logic (The Hague, Mouton). Petrova, N . V. and R. G. Piotrovskij 1966 "Slovo, kontekst, morfologija", VJa 2, 27-34. Petrovskij, A . V. 1967 Istorija sovetskoj psixologii (Moskva, Prosvescenie). Piotrovskij, R. G. 1965 "Teoretiko-infomacionnaja struktura russkogo slova", ZPhon 18, 115-120. 1967 "Informacionno-statiticeskie parametry jazyka", PJ, 89-92. 1968 Informacionnye izmerenija jazyka (Leningrad, Nauka). Polivanov, J. D. 1931 "Istoriôeskoe jazykoznanie i jazykovaja politika", Za marksistskoe jazykoznanie (Moskva). Polonskaja, N . N., T. V. Rjabova and N.V. Ufimceva 1970 "Osobennosti associativnyx reakcij u bol'nyx s afaziej", III simp., 143-144. Popova, M. I. 1968 "Osobennosti recevyx projavlenij detej pervogo polugodija vtorogo goda zizni", VPs 4, 116-122. PrangiSvili, A . S. 1968 "The Concept of set in Soviet psychology in the light of research by the Georgian psychological school", Soviet Psychology VII, 21-32. Raevskij, A . N . 1958 Psixologija reii v sovetskoj psixologiceskoj nauke za 40 let (Kiev, Izd. Kievskogo gos. univ.). Revzin, 1.1. 1962 Modeli jazyka (Moskva, Izd. A N SSSR). In English translation Models of Language (London, Methuen Co., 1966). 1970 "Nektorye zameôanija v svjazi s dixotomiceskoj teoriej v fonologii", VJa 3, 58-70. Revtova, L . D . 1970 "Intonacija obrasCenija", PSCIPS, 755-758. Rjabova, T. V. 1967 "Mexanizm porozdenija reôi po dannym afaziologii", VPROJ, 76-94.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

107

Rjabova, T. V. and A. S. Stern 1968 "K xarakteristike grammaticeskogo strukturirovanija", PsG, 78-105. Rodi&va, E. I. 1968 "Semanticeskij aspekt antonimii", Issledovanija po reievoj informacii (Moskva, Izd. MGU) 66-78. Rozencvejg, V. J. 1968 "MaSinnyj perevod", TPSJ, 171-192. Rozengart-Pupko, G. L. 1963 Formirovanie reii u detej rannego vozrasta (Moskva, Izd. APN RSFSR). Rozkova, G. 1968 "Situacija kak obuiajuScij priem razvitija reii", Russkij jazyk v nacional'noj skole, 5, 29-36. Smirnov, A. A. 1968 "O nekotoryx aktual'nyx zadacax sovetskoj psixologii", VPs 6, 3-20. Sokolov, A. N. 1963 " 'Elektromiograflceskij analiz vnutrennej reii i problema nejrodinamiki mySlenija", Myslenie i red' (Moskva), 173-218. 1968 Vnutrermaja ref i mySlenie (Moskva, ProsveSCenie). Saumjan, S. K. 1965 Osnovy strukturnoj lingvistiki (Moskva, Nauka). 1968 Problems of Theoretical Phonology (The Hague, Mouton). 1970 "Problema smyslovogo varianta konkretno-jazykovyx vyskazyvanij i applikativnaja grammatika", III simp., 168-170. §£ur, G. S. 1968 "Ob associativnyx gruppax v jazyke", II simp., 64-67. Sejkin, R. L. 1966 "K analizu mexanizmov vozniknovenija pauz v reCi", MRVSZ, 31-44. Stejnfeldt, E. 1966 Castotnyj slovar' sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo jazyka (Moskva, Progress). Ter-Minasova, S. G. 1969 "K probleme detskoj reii", VJa 4, 107-112. Tonkova-Jampol'skaja, R. V. 1968 "Razvitie recevoj intonacii u detej pervyx dvux let iizini", VPs 3, 94-101. Torsueva, I. G. 1970 "Akustifieskie xarakteristiki smyslovogo ilenenija predlozenija", PSICPS, 917-919. Tunkel, V. D. 1964 "Priem i posledujuSiaja peredaia reCevogo soobSCenija", VPs 4, 106-114. Tynjanov, Ju. 1924 Problema stixotvornogo jazyka (Leningrad), 2nd ed. (The Hague, Mouton, 1963). Uspenskij, B. A. 1965 Strukturnaja tipologija jazykov (Moskva, Nauka).

108

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Usakova, T. N . 1969 " O mexanizmax detskogo slovotvorcestva", VPs 2, 62-74. 1970 " O pricinax detskogo slovotvoriestva", VPs 6, 114-127. Vannikov, J. and I. Abdaljan 1970 "Eksperimental'noe issledovanie clenenija razgovornoj reci", Russkaja razgovornaja red'' (Saratov), 40-46. Verbickaja, L. A . 1970 "Akustiieskajaxarakteristika vosprinimaemyx zvukovyx edinic russkoj reCi", PSICPS, 989-992. VereSfiagin, E. M. 1969 Psixologiieskaja i metodiceskaja xarakteristika dvujazycija (Moskva, Izd. M G U ) . Vinarskaja, E. N . 1969 " K izuceniju verojatnostnyx otnoSenij v re£evoj dejatel'nosti", VJa 1, 93-97. Vinogradov, V. V. 1963 Stilistika, teorija potiticeskoj reci, podtika (Moskva, Nauka). 1964 " O preodolenii posledstvij kul'ta li£nosti v sovestkom jazykoznanii", TPSSJ, 9-30. Vinogradova, O. S. and N . A . Ejsler 1959 "Vyjavlenie slovesnyx svjazej pri registracii sosudistyx reakcij", VPs 2, 13-18. VoloSinov, V. N . 1929 Marksizm ifilosofija jazyka (Leningrad). Voronin, B. F. 1968 "Ispol'zovanie transformacionnoj niodeli pri analize grammatiCeskix o§ibok", II simp., 34-36. Vygotskij, L . S. 1934 Myslenie i rec' (Moskva). Reprinted in Izbrannye psixologiieskie issledovanija (Moskva, 1956). 1965 Psixologija iskusstva (Moskva, Prosvesienie). Vygotsky, L. S. 1962 Thought and Language (Cambridge, The M.I.T. Press), 3rd ed. (1967). Zalevskaja, A . A . 1968 "Associativnyj eksperiment v uslovijax bilingvizma i trilingvizma", II simp., 73-74. Zimnjaja, I. A . 1970 "Verojatnostnoe prognozirovanie v smyslovom vosprijatii re6i", Plany i modeli buduscego v reci (Tbilisi), 15-18. Zinder, R. L. 1968 "Fonologija i fonetika", TPS J, 193-231. 1970 "Fonema i vosprijatie", PSICPS, 1071-1073. 2inkin, N . I. 1955 "Vopros i voprositel'noe predlozenie", VJa 3, 22-34. 1958 Mexanizmy re6i (Moskva, Nauka). In English translation Mechanisms of Speech (The Hague, Mouton, 1968). 1961 "Mexanizm regulirovanija segmentarnyx i prosodiieskix komponentov jazyka i re£i", Poetics-Poetyka-Poitika 75-85, (Warszawa), 75-85.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

109

1964 "O kodovyx perexodax vo vnutrennej reci", VJa 6, 26-38. 1967 "Vnutrennie kody jazyka i vneSnie kody reci", To Honor Roman Jakobson (The Hague, Mouton), 2335-2375. 1970 "Grammatika i smysl", Jazyk i ielovek (Moskva, Izd. MGU), 63-85. ¿irmunskij, V. M. 1936 NacionaTnyj jazyk i social'nye dialekty (Leningrad). 1969 "Marksizm i social'naja lingvistika", Voprosy social'noj lingvistiki (Leningrad, Nauka), 5-25. Zujkov, S. F. 1964 Psixologija usvoenija grammatiki v naial'nyx klassax (Moskva, ProsveSienie). B. SOVIET COLLECTIVE VOLUMES Issledovanija myslenija v sovetskoj psixologii (Moskva, Nauka, 1966). Issledovanija po strukturnoj tipologii (Moskva, Izd. AN SSSR, 1963). Jazyk i obsiestvo (Moskva, Nauka, 1968). Materialy vtorogo simpoziuma po psixolingvistike (Moskva, Nauka, 1968). Materialy tret'ego Vsesojuznogo simpoziuma po psixolingvistike (Moskva, AN SSSR, 1970). Mexanizmy reéeobrazovanija i vosprijatija sloznyx zvukov (Moskva—Leningrad, 1966). II Mezdunarodnyj kollokvium po social'noj psixologii. Tezisy. (Tbilisi, 1970). Myslenie i re£' (Moskva, Izd. APN RSFSR, 1963). Norma i social'naja differenciacija jazyka (Moskva, Nauka, 1969). Obscee jazykoznanie. Bibliografiöeskij ukazatel' literatury izdannoj v SSSR s 1918 po 1962 g. (Moskva, Nauka, 1965). Obsêee jazykoznanie (Moskva, Nauka, 1970). O principax i metodax lingvostilisticeskogo issledovanija (Moskva, Izd. MGU, 1966). "Osnovy teorii relevoj dejatel'nosti. Prospekt kollektivnoj monografii", II simp., 90-103. Plany i modeli budusëego v reii (Tbilisi, Institut psixologii im. D. N. Uznadze, 1970). Poètika: Sbornik statej (Leningrad, 1926; repr., The Hague, Mouton, 1966). Problemy jazykoznanija (Moskva, Nauka, 1967). Problemy strukturnoj lingvistiki (Moskva, Izd. AN SSSR, 1962, 1963). Psixologiceskaja nauka v SSSR, /-//(Moskva, Izd. APN, 1959, 1960). Psixologiieskie i psixolingvisticeskie problemy vladenija i ovladenija jazykom (Moskva, Izd. MGU, 1969). Psixologija grammatiki (Moskva, Izd. MGU, 1968). Psixologija i metodika obuienija vtoromu jazyku. Tezisy. (Moskva, Izd. MGU, 1969). Psixologija i metodika obucenija inostrannym jazykam. Ucenye zapiski I. MGPIIJ 44 (1968). Psychological Science in the USSR, I (Washington, U.S. Joint Publications Res. Serv. No. 11466, 1961).

110

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Razvitie funktional'nyx stilej sovremennogo russkogo jazyka. (Moskva, Nauka, 1968). Russkij jazyk i sovetskoe obsëestvo, I-IV (Moskva, Nauka, 1968). Russkaja razgovornaja rei' (Saratov, Izd. Saratovskogo univ., 1970). Seminar po psixolingvistike. Tezisy (Moskva, Institut jazykoznanija AN SSSR, 1966). Sovetskoe jazykoznanie za 50 let (Moskva, Nauka, 1967). Statistiéni parametri stiliv (Kiïv, Naukova dumka, 1967). Statistika reci (Leningrad, Nauka, 1968). Strukturnoe i prikladnoe jazykoznanie. Bibliograficeskij ukazatel' literatury izdannoj v SSSR s 1918 po 1962 g. (Moskva, Nauka, 1965). Strukturno-tipologiceskie issledovanija (Moskva, Izd. AN SSSR, 1962). Teoretiëeskie problemy sovremermogo sovetskogo jazykoznanija (Moskva, Progress, 1966). Teoretiëeskie problemy sovetskogo jazykoznanija (Moskva, Nauka, 1968). Teorija reëevoj dejatel'nosti (Moskva, Nauka, 1968). Voprosy porozdenija reci i obucenija jazyku (Moskva, Izd. MGU, 1967). Voprosy social'noj lingvistiki (Leningrad, Nauka, 1969). C. OTHER AUTHORS Boomer, D. S. 1965 "Hesitation and Grammatical Decoding", Language and Speech 8, 148-158. BroZek, J. 1964 "Recent Developments in Soviet Psychology", Annual Review of Psychology 15, 493-594. 1966 "Contemporary Soviet Psychology", in N. O'Connor (ed.), Presentday Russian Psychology, 178-198. Brozek, J. and J. Hoskovec 1966a "Current Soviet Psychology: A Systematic Review", Soviet Psychology and Psychiatry 4, 16-44. 1966b "Soviet Psychology in English: Translations of Books", Soviet Psychology and Psychiatry 4, 100-104. Bruner, J. S. 1962 "Introduction", in L.S. Vygotsky, Thought and Language (Cambridge, The M.I.T. Press; 3rd ed. 1967). Cole, M. and I. Maltzman, (eds.) 1969 A Handbook of Contemporary Soviet Psychology (New York, Basic Books). Curtis, H. S. 1900 "Automatic Movements of the Larynx", American Journ. of Psychology 11. Dance, F. E. X. 1967 "Speech Communication Theory and Pavlov's Second Signal System", Journ. of Communication XVII, 13-24.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

111

Deese, J. 1965 The Structure of Associations in Language and Thought (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press). Diebold, A. R. 1964 "A Survey of Psycholinguistic Research, 1954-1964", in C. E. Osgood and T. A. Sebeok (eds.), Psycholinguistics, 205-291. Dolezel, L., 1968 "Russian and Prague School Functional Stylistics", Style 1, 143-158. 1969 "A Framework for the Statistical Analysis of Style", in L. Dolezel and R. W. Bailey (eds.), Statistics and Style (New York, Elsevier), 10-25. Erlich, V., 1965 Russian Formalism: History-Doctrine (The Hague, Mouton), 2nd ed. Fairbanks, R. and N. Guttman 1958 "Effects of Delayed Auditory Feedback upon Articulation", Journ. of Speech and Hearing Research 1, 12-22. Garvin, P. L. 1968 "Czechoslovakia", in T. A. Sebeok (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics, I, 499-522. Goldman-Eisler, F. 1968 Psycholinguistic Experiments in Spontaneous Speech (New York, Academic Press). Gray, J. A. 1966 "Attention, Consciousness and Voluntary Control of Behavior in Soviet Psychology", in N. O'Connor (ed.), Present-day Russian Psychology, 1-38. Halle, M. and K. N. Stevens 1962 "Speech Recognition: A Model and a Program for Research", I.R.E. Trans, on Information Theory IT-8, 155-159. Hertzog R. L. 1970 "Xarakteristika ustanovki lingvisticeskogo koda", Eksperimental'nye issledovanija po psixologii ustanovki, IV (Tbilisi, Izd. Mecniereba), 208-267. Lawton, D. 1968 Social Class, Language and Education (London, Routledge-Kegan). L'Hermitte, R. 1969 "La linguistique soviétique", La linguistique en U.R.S.S., Langages 15, 3-13. Milivojevic, D. D. 1970 Current Russian Phonemic Theory, 1952-1962 (The Hague, Mouton). Miller, G. A. 1962a "Decision Units in the Perception of Speech", I.R.E. Trans, on Information Theory IT-8, 81-83. 1962b "Some Psychological Studies of Grammar", American Psychologist 17, 748-762. Miller, G. A., E. Galanter and K. H. Pribram 1960 Plans and the Structure of Behavior (New York, Henry Holt). Russian trans. Plany i struktura povedenija (Moskva, Progress, 1964).

112

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Neiistupny, J. V. 1968 "Language Problems of National Development", Proc. of the Vlllth Intern. Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (Tokyo and Kyoto). O'Connor, N. (ed.) 1966 Present-day Russian Psychology (Oxford, Pergamon Press). Ornstein, J. 1968 "Foreign Language Teaching", in T. A. Sebeok (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics, I, 143-191. Osgood, C. E. 1970 "Where do sentences come from?", mimeo., Univ. of Illinois. Osgood, C. E. and T. A. Sebeok, (eds.) 1954 Psycholinguistics (Baltimore; 2nd ed., Indiana Univ. Press, Bloomington, 1965). Papp, F. 1966 Mathematical Linguistics in the Soviet Union (The Hague, Mouton). Payne, T. R. 1968 S.L. Rubinstejn and the Philosophical Foundations of Soviet Psychology (Dordrecht, D. Reidel). Penfield, U. and L. Roberts 1964 Re6' i mozgovye mexanizmy (Leningrad, Medicina). Piaget, J. 1962 "Comments on Vygotsky's critical remarks concerning The Language and Thought of the Child and Judgement and Reasoning in the Child", in L.S. Vygotsky, Thought and Language. Prficha, J. 1970 "Problems of a Generative Model in Psycholinguistics", Proceedings of the International Symposium on Algebraic Linguistics (Smolenice, in press). 1972 "Psycholinguistics and Sociolinguistics - Separate or Integrated?" International Journal of Psycholinguistics 1. Razran, G., 1961 "The observable uncounscious and the inferable conscious in current Soviet psychophysiology: Interoceptive conditioning, semantic conditioning, and the orienting reflex", Psychological Review 68, 81-147 Sebeok, T. A. (ed.) 1968 Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. I. Soviet and East European Linguistics (The Hague, Mouton, 2nd ed.). Slama-Cazacu, T. 1961 Dialogul la copii (Bucurejti, Editura $ciintific&). 1970 "Code Levels, Interdisciplinary Approach, and the Object of Psycholinguistics", Revue roum. sci. sociales - psychol. 14, 87-96. Slobin, D. I. 1966a "Soviet Psycholinguistics", in N. O'Connor (ed.), Present-day Russian Psychology, 109-151. 1966b "The Acquisition of Russian as a Native Language", in F. Smith and G. A. Miller (eds.), The Genesis of Language (Cambridge), 129-148.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

113

1966c "Soviet Methods of Investigating Child Language", in F. Smith and G. A. Miller (eds.), The Genesis of Language, 361-386. 1969 "Universals of Grammatical Development in Children", Working Paper No. 22, LBRL, Univ. of California (Berkeley). 1970 "Suggested Universals in the Onthogenesis of Grammar", Working Paper No. 32, LBRL, Univ. of California (Berkeley). Stolz, W. 1965 "A probabilistic procedure for grouping words into phrases", Language and Speech 8, 219-235. Vachek, J., 1966 The Linguistic School of Prague (Bloomington, Indiana Univ. Press). Vachek, J. (ed.) 1964 A Prague School Reader in Linguistics (Bloomington, Indiana Univ. Press). Weinreich, U., 1968 "Lexicology", in T. A. Sebeok (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics, I, 60-93. D. OTHER COLLECTIVE VOLUMES Actes du Xe Congrès International des Linguistes, Bucarest 28 août - 2 septembre 1967 (Bucarest, Editions de l'Académie de la République Socialiste de Roumanie, 1969, 1970). XVIIIth International Congress of Psychology (Abstracts of Communications) (Moscow, 1966). Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (Prague, Academia, 1970).

INDEX Abaev, V. I., 37, 100 Abdaljan, I., 63, 108 Ajdarova, I. I., 25, 100 Alxazisvili, A. A., 51 Anoxin, P. K., 13, 18 Antipova, A. M„ 49, 63, 64, 100 Aphasia, 23 dynamic a., 71-72 semantic a., 78 Applicational generative grammar, 80 Apresjan, Ju. D., 28, 36, 96, 100 Artemov, V. A., 23, 25, 48, 50, 60, 63, 65, 100 Arutjunova, N. D., 34, 100 Association norms of Russian, 96-97 Axmanova (Akhmanova), O. S., 34, 40, 45, 100 Baev, B. F., 68, 100 Baindurasvili, A. G., 51 Balajan, A. R„ 49 Barannikova, L. I., 41, 100 Bejn, E. S., 50 Beljaev, B. V., 25, 101 Bel'tjukov, V. I., 50, 57, 101 Bernstejn, A. N., 13, 18, 82 Bliznicenko, L. A., 25, 51, 65, 101 Bloxina, L. P., 49, 92, 101 Blonskij, P. P., 67, 101 Bondarko, L. V., 56-58, 62, 101 Boomer, D. S., 60, 90, 110 Brozek, J., 11, 13, 20, 110 Brudnyj, A. A., 48, 51, 97, 101 Brunner, J. S., 17, 110 Child speech, 13-14, 23-25 Chomsky, N„ 34, 45, 79, 81 Cole, M„ 20, 110 Cultivation of language, 32 Curtis, H. S„ 67, 110 Cvetkova, L. S., 22, 23, 49, 68, 71, 76, 101, 105 Cistovic, L. A., 23, 50, 54, 59, 65, 93,

101, 102 Dance, F. E. X., 13, 110 Deese, J., 96, 111 Distinctive features of phonemes, 56-58 Dobromyslov, V. A., 12, 101 Dobrovic, A. B., 86, 102 Dolezel, L„ 31, 39, 84, 111 Dolgopol'skij, A. B., 86, 101 Dridze, T. M., 50, 97, 102 Dzaparidze, Z. N., 51 Egocentric speech, 15 Ejsler, N. A., 95, 108 Elijosjute, S. P., 51, 65, 102 Elkonin, D. B., 15, 17, 24, 48 Erlich, V., 30, 111 Fairbanks, R., 59, 111 Filin, F. P., 46 Frumkina, R. M„ 36, 46, 49, 73, 86, 91-93, 102 Gagua, N. I., 24, 104 Gak, V. G., 50 Galanter, E., 18, 75, 111 Galperin, P. J., 17, 48 Galunov, V. I., 55, 102 Garvin, P. L., 64, 111 Geodakjan, I. M., 51 Gerganov, E. N., 91, 93, 102 Gez, N. I., 50 Ginzburg, E. L., 72, 102 Goldman-Eisler, F., 60, 111 Gray, J. A., 17, 18, 111 Gvozdev, A. N., 24, 102 Guttman, N., 59, 111 Halle, M„ 55, 111 Hertzog, R. L„ 85, 86, 111 Hesitation phenomena, 60, 90 Hoskovec, J., 11, 20, 110

116

INDEX

Ilina, V. I., 60, 102 Il'jasov, 1.1., 80, 103 Imedadze, N. V., 51 Information of speech elements, 90, 93-95 of text, 97 Inner articulation, 74 Inner speech, 21-22, 67-71, 73-76 Intonation structures, 62-64 Ivanov, V. V., 16, 58, 103 Ivanov-Smolenskij, A. G., 95, 103 Izotova, E. M., 50 Jakobson, R. O., 29, 30, 57 Jakubinskij, L. P., 30 Jarceva, V. N., 40, 46, 103 Kadoükin, L. N„ 68, 103 Kanecjan, G. R., 51 Keöxuaävili, G. N„ 51, 86, 103 Kibrik, A. E„ 50, 88, 103 Klaas, J. A., 50, 62, 103 Klimenko, A. P., 20, 51, 97, 103 Klimov, G. A., 34, 100 Klyönikova, A. I., 65, 103 Kolmogorov, A. N., 36 Kopylenko, M. M., 51, 97, 103 Korotkova, E. V., 97, 103 Kostomarov, V. G„ 32, 49, 103 Kozina, M. N„ 39, 41, 103 KruSelnickaja, K. G„ 38, 39, 69, 103 Krylov, N. I., 20, 104 Kuzmenko, I. N„ 97, 103 Language and thought, 14-15, 21-23, 38-39, 69-71 in functional view, 40-41 Marxist conception of, 33, 36-37 Lawton, D., 33, 111 Lebedev, V. I., 97, 103 Leont'ev, A. A., 6, 18, 25, 27, 30, 32, 41, 45, 46, 49, 51, 58, 67, 73-76, 79-85, 96, 97, 99, 104 Leont'ev, A. N„ 16-18, 48, 67 Lepskaja, N. I., 72, 104 L'Hermitte, R., 28, 111 Linguistic competence, 81-82

Linguistic performance, 81-82 Lisenko, D. M., 62, 104 Ljamina, G. M., 24, 104 Lotman, Ju. M., 31, 104 Lozkina, A. A., 50, 88, 103 Lurija (Luria, Luriya), A. R., 12, 13, 16-18, 22-24, 26, 48, 66-68, 71-73, 95 LuSiixina, I. M., 50, 87-90, 105 Mackovskij, M. S., 50, 91, 93, 102 Malanova, L. F., 63, 105 Maltzman, I., 20, 110 Markova, A. K., 24, 48, 105 Mel'5uk, I. A., 36, 105 Mel'niCuk, A. S., 37, 105 Milivojevic, D. D., 28, 111 Miller, G. A., 18, 55, 75, 80, 85 Mirakjan, E. V., 87, 106 Natadze, R., 26, 86, 106 Nazarova, L. K., 68, 106 Netistupny, J., 32, 42, 112 O'Connor, N„ 11, 13, 20, 112 Oiler, J. W., 81 Orlov, J. M„ 26, 97, 106 Ornstein, J., 32, 112 Osgood, C. E„ 45, 81, 97, 112 Panfilov, V. Z., 38, 106 Papp, F„ 28, 37, 112 Pavlova, L. P., 57, 58, 101 Payne, T. R„ 11, 18, 112 Pedology, 12 Penfield, U„ 70, 112 Petrova, N. V., 94, 106 Petrovskij, A. V., 12, 106 Piaget, J., 15, 112 Piotrovskij, R. G., 36, 50, 93-95, 106 Polivanov, J. D„ 42, 106 Polonskaja, N. N., 97, 106 Popova, M. I., 24, 106 PrangiSvili, A. S., 85, 86, 106 Prediction of speech, 93-94 Pribram, K. H., 18, 75, 111 Prucha, J., 6, 40, 82, 112

INDEX

Raevskij, A. N„ 14, 21, 26, 68, 77 Razran, G., 95, 112 Revzin, I. I., 28, 36, 57, 106 Revtova, L. D., 51, 65, 106 Rjabova, T. V., 49, 68, 72, 78, 83, 84, 97, 104, 106 Roberts, L„ 70, 112 Rodiceva, E. I., 97, 107 Rommetveit, R., 81 Rozencvejg, V. J., 35, 107 Rozengart-Pupko, G. L„ 24, 107 Rozkova, G., 65, 107 RubinStejn, L. S., 18 Russian formalism, 30-31 Sebeok, T. A., 28, 45, 112 Segmentation of speech, 62 Semantic conditioning, 95 Semantic differential, 97 Semantic fields, 96 Semantic information, 98 Slama-Cazacu, T„ 15, 42, 81, 82, 112 Slobin, D. I., 7, 24, 27, 112 Smirnov, A. A., 17, 19, 107 Sokolov, A. N., 17, 21, 48, 67-70 Soviet functional stylistics, 39-40 Soviet psychology, 11-13, 16-20 Georgian school, 86 Pavlov's theory, 12-13, 69-70 Vygotskij's school, 16-18 Soviet sociolinguistics, 33, 41-43 Speech perception, 54-58, 64, 72-73, 82-83, 87-90, 93 Speech production, 59-61, 71-78, 8285 Probabilistic models of, 18, 85-87, 90-92 Stevens, K. N„ 55, 111 Stolz, W., 90, 113 Saumjan, S. K., 28, 36, 73, 80, 107 §5ur, G. S., 49, 97, 107 Sejkin, R. L., 60, 107 Stejnfeldt, E., 36, 107 Ter-Minasova, S. G., 24, 107 Theory of set, 47, 86 Theory of speech activity, 6 Tonkova-Jampol'skaja, R. V., 24,107

117

Torsueva, I. G., 50, 64, 107 Transformational model, 80-82, 8990 Tunkel, V. D., 98-99, 107 Tynjanov, Ju., 30, 107 Ufimceva, N. V., 50, 97, 106 Uhlenbeck, E. M„ 81 Uspenskij, B. A., 36, 89, 107 USakova, T. N., 24, 48, 108 Uznadze, D. N., 86 Vachek, J., 30, 31, 113 Vannikov, J., 63, 108 Vasilevic, A. P., 49, 91, 93, 102 Vencov, A. M., 50 Verbickaja, L. A., 57, 58, 101, 108 Vere§6agin, E. M„ 25, 41, 49, 108 Vertogradova, O. P., 50 Vinarskaja, E. N., 50, 72, 92,104,108 Vinogradov, V. V., 29, 31, 33, 34, 39 Vinogradova, O. S., 22, 26, 95, 108 Vinokur, G. O., 30, 39 VoloSinov, V. N., 42, 108 Voronin, B. F„ 80, 108 Vygotskij (Vygotsky), L. S., 12-16, 21, 23, 28, 67 Weinreich, U., 43, 95, 113 Word associations, 96-97 Word frequency, 91-93 XaraS, A. U., 50 Xlebnikov, G. F„ 97, 103 Yngve's hypothesis, 87-88 Zalevskaja, A. A., 51, 97, 108 Zarubina, N. D., 49 Zimnjaja, I. A., 50, 86, 108 Zinder, R. L„ 30, 56-58, 60, 62, 101 2inkin, N. I., 17, 23, 46, 48, 60, 61, 76-79, 98 ¿irmunskij, V. M„ 33, 42, 109 2olkovskij, A. K„ 36, 105 2ujkov, S. F., 25 Zuravlev, A. P., 26, 97, 106

JANUA L I N G U A R U M STUDIA MEMORIAE NICOLAI VAN WIJK DEDICATA Edited by C. H. van Schooneveld SERIES MINOR 1.

Fundamentals of Language. Gld. 8.— 3. EMIL PETROvici: Kann das Phonemsystem einer Sprache durch fremden Einfluss umgestaltet werden? Zum slavischen Einfluss auf das rumänische Lautsystem. 1957. 44 pp. Gld. 10.— 4. NOAM CHOMSKY: Syntactic Structures. Tenth printing. 1972. 118 pp. Gld. 9.— 5. N. VAN WIJK: Die baltischen und slavischen Akzent- und Intonationssysteme: Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der baltisch-slavischen Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse. 2nd ed. 1958.160 pp. Gld. 24.— 8. AERT H. KUIPERS: Phoneme and Morpheme in Kabardian (Eastern Adyghe). 1960. 124 pp. Gld. 25.— 9. A. ROSETTI: Sur la théorie de la syllabe. Deuxième édition, refondue Gld. 10.— et augmentée. 1963. 43 pp. 20. FINNGEIR HIORTH: Zur formalen Charakterisierung des Satzes. 1962. 152 pp. Gld. 24.— 22. E. F. HADEN, M. s. HAN, and Y. w. HAN: A Resonance Theory for Linguistics. 1962. 51 pp. Gld. 10.— 23. SAMUEL R. LEVIN: Linguistic Structures in Poetry. Second printing. 1964.64 pp. Gld. 11.— 25. IVAN FONÄGY: Die Metaphern in der Phonetik: Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des wissenschaftlichen Denkens. 1963. 132 pp., 5'figs. Gld. 22.— 26. H. MOL: Fundamentals of Phonetics, I: The Organ of Hearing. 1963. 70 pp., 28 figs. Gld. 12.— 32. GEORGES MOUNIN: La machine à traduire: Histoire des problèmes linguistiques. 1964. 209 pp. Gld. 30.— 36. SEYMOUR CHATMAN: A Theory of Meter. 1965.229 pp., many graphs, 2 plates. Gld. 30.— 37. WAYNE TOSH: Syntactic Translation. 1965.162 pp., 58figs.Gld. 25.— 38. NOAM CHOMSKY: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. 1964. 119 pp. Gld. 12.— 39. D. CRYSTAL and R. QUIRK: Systems of Prosodie and Paralinguistic Features in English. 1964. 94 pp., 16 plates. Gld. 16.— 40. FERENC PAPP: Mathematical Linguistics in the Soviet Union. 1966. 165 pp. Gld. 27.— 41. s. K. SAUMJAN: Problems of Theoretical Phonology. 1968. 224 pp. some figs. Gld. 30.— ROMAN JAKOBSON

1956. 97 pp.

and

MORKIS HALLE:

42. 44. 45. 47. 49. 50. 51. 52. 54. 55. 56. 58. 59.

60. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 69. 70.

ivid: Trends in Linguistics. Translated by Muriel Heppell, 1965.260 pp. Gld. 28.— THEODORE M. DRANGE: Type Crossings: Sentential Meaninglessness in the Border Area of Linguistics and Philosophy. 1966. 218 pp. Gld. 29.— WARREN H. FAY: Temporal Sequence in the Perception of Speech. 1966. 126 pp., 29 figs. Gld. 23:— BOWMAN CLARKE: Language and Natural Theology. 1966. 181 pp. Gld. 30.— SAMUEL ABRAHAM and FERENC KIEFER: A Theory of Structural Semantics. 1966. 98 pp., 20 figs. Gld. 16.— ROBERT J. SCHOLES: Phonotactic Grammatically. 1966. 117 pp., many figs. Gld. 20.— HOWARD R. POLLIO: The Structural Basis of Word Association Behavior. 1966. 96 pp., 4 folding tables, 8 pp. graphs, figs. Gld. 18.— JEFFREY ELLIS : Towards and General Comparative Linguistics. 1966. 170 pp. Gld. 26.— RANDOLPH QUIRK and JAN SVARTVIK: Investigating Linguistic Acceptability. 1966. 118 pp., 14 figs., 4 tables. Gld. 20.— THOMAS A. SEBEOK (ED.): Selected Writings of Gyula Laziczius. 1966. 226 pp. Gld. 33.— NOAM CHOMSKY: Topics in the Theory of Generative Grammar. 1966. 96 pp. Gld. 12.— LOUIS o. HELLER and JAMES MACRIS : Parametric Linguistics. 1967. 80 pp., 23 tables. Gld. 14.— JOSEPH H. GREENBERG: Language Universals: With Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies. 1966. 89 pp. Gld. 14.— CHARLES F. HOCKETT: Language, Mathematics, and Linguistics. 1967. 244 pp., some figs. Gld. 28.— B. USPENSKY: Principles of Structural Typology. 1968. 80 pp. Gld. 16.— v. z. PANFILOV: Grammar and Logic. 1968.160 pp. Gld. 18.— JAMES c. MORRISON: Meaning and Truth in Wittgenstein's Tractatus. 1968.148 pp. Gld. 20.— ROGER L. BROWN: Wilhelm von Humboldt's Conception of Linguistic Relativity. 1967. 132 pp. Gld. 20.— EUGENE j. BRIERE: A Psycholinguistic Study of Phonological Interference. 1968. 84 pp. Gld. 14.— ROBERT L. MILLER: The Linguistic Relativity Principle and New Humboldtian Ethnolinguistics: A History and Appraisal. 1968. 127 pp. Gld. 20.— i. M. SCHLESINGER: Sentence Structure and the Reading Process. 1968.172 pp. Gld. 22.— A. ORTIZ and E. ZIERER: Set Theory and Linguistics. 1968. 64 pp. Gld. 12.— MILKA

71. 72. 73. 74. 76. 77. 106. 107. 110. 113. 114. 117. 119. 123. 134.

Communication Complexes and Their Stages. Gld. 20.— ROMAN JAKOBSON: Child Language, Aphasia and Phonological Universals. 1968.104 pp. Gld. 12.— CHARLES F. HOCKETT: Hie State of the Art. 1968.124 pp. Gld. 18.— A. JUILLAND andHANS-HEINRICH LIEB: "Klasse" und "Klassifikation" in der Sprachwissenschaft. 1968. 75 pp. Gld. 14.— URSULA OOMEN: Automatische Syntaktische Analyse. 1968. 84 pp. Gld. 16.— ALDO D. SCAGLIONE: Ars Grammatica. 1970.151 pp. Gld. 18.— HENRIK BIRNBAUM: Problems of Typological and Genetic Linguistics Viewed in a Generative Framework. 1971.132 pp. Gld. 16.— NOAM CHOMSKY: Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar. 1972. 207 pp. Gld. 24.— MANFRED BIERWISCH: Modern Linguistics. Its Development, Methods and Problems. 1971.105 pp. Gld. 12.— ERHARD AORICOLA: Semantische Relationen im Text und im System. 1972. 127 pp. Gld. 26.— ROMAN JAKOBSON: Studies on Child Language and Aphasia. 1971. Gld. 16.— 132 pp. D. L. OLMSTED: Out of the Mouth of Babes. 1971.260 pp. Gld. 36.— HERMAN PARKET: Language and Discourse. 1971.292 pp. Gld. 32.— JOHN w. OLLBR: Coding Information in Natural Languages. 1971. 120 pp. Gld. 20.— ROMAN JAKOBSON : A Bibliography of His Writings. With a Foreword by C. H. Van Schooneveld. 1971. 60 pp. Gld. 10.— HANS-HEINRICH LIEB:

1968. 140 pp.

MOUTON • PUBLISHERS • THE HAGUE