NOTES

1. This survey is based on an earlier study, my review of Sol Saporta, ed., 1961, Psycholinguistics: A Book of Readings, New York (see Diebold, 1964b). While many passages remain unchanged, the original study has been considerably revised and expanded, and contains a separate and enlarged bibliography. My earlier survey of psycholinguistics contained fairly extensive bibliographic coverage and a discursive (and, at times, too personal) commentary on developmental trends. A preprint version of that review was widely circulated, and I was gratified by the many critical responses elicited from the recipients. Many of their suggested changes have been incorporated into the present survey, including bibliographic addenda and corrigenda, and for these I wish to express my appreciation.

With no offense to many others too numerous to mention, I want to acknowledge particular indebtedness to Robert B. Lees, Eric H. Lenneberg, and Thomas A. Sebeok for their comments and help; to Lois A. Levin for her research activities on my behalf; and to Bernard B. Perry, Director of the Indiana University Press, for his enthusiastic encouragement. Special thanks are hereby extended Glenn H. Matthews, of Prentice- Hall Inc., and John W. Parker, of Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., for generous purveyance of their firms’ produce.

Some of the research undertaken in connection with this paper was supported in part by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (MH 07124-01), and by funds from the William F. Milton Fund, both at Harvard University where the author is Assistant Professor of Social Anthropology and Linguistics, in the Department of Social Relations.

2. In its earlier volumes, The Psychological Bulletin contains a number of surveys which are now mainly of historical interest. These include Mead (1904), Esper (1921), Adams and Powers (1929), and McGranahan (1936). The only other American journal which regularly surveys psycholinguistic activity is the International Journal of American Linguistics, which in its recently instituted Abstracts section, has printed collections of abstracts prepared by Susan M. Ervin. See I.J.A.L. 28. 205-9 (1962) and 30. 184-93 (1964).

3. In the pages that follow, this monograph appears cited in various ways. Sometimes the usual form for bibliographic citations is followed, viz., “Osgood and Sebeok, 1954.” Often, however, this work is referred to simply as “the 1954 survey” or “the 1954 monograph.” Reference to the “1953 conference” will be taken to mean the (1953) Summer Seminar on Psycholinguistics, sponsored by the Social Science Research Council. “SSRC,” according to prevalent convention, will be used as an abbreviation for the latter organization. Another departure from standard bibliographic citation occurs in the case of Sol Saporta, ed., 1961, Psycholinguistics: A Book of Readings, New York, which is usually referred to as “Saporta’s reader.”

4. In preparing this review, the following sources (alphabetically arranged) were found to be particularly useful for their own coverage of psycholinguistic publications and research, or for their insightful commentaries on psycholinguistics and its various subfields: Berko and Brown (1960); Bright (1963); Brown (1958); Carroll (1955, 1958c); Cherry (1957); Chomsky (1959); Cofer (1961); Cofer and Musgrave (1963); Delacroix (1933); Greenberg (1963); Hall (1951,1952); Henle (1958); Hamp (1961); Hymes (1961a, 1962); Irwin (1960); Kainz (1946, 1956-62); Lambert (1962); Lounsbury (1959,1962,1963); Miller (1951a, 1951b, 1954,1962a, 1964); Miller and Chomsky (1963); Mowrer (1954, 1960); Olmsted (1955); Olmsted and Moore (1952); Osgood (1963a, 1963b, 1963c); Osgood and Sebeok (1954); Pronko (1946); Rubenstein and Aborn (1960); Saporta (1961); and Sebeok (1962). The reviewer was privileged to peruse preliminary chapters of Lenneberg’s forthcoming book, The Biological Foundation of Language, and found it to be extremely useful.

Some earlier European research (which we would now call “psycholinguistic”) is cited in Carroll, 1955, Delacroix, 1933, and Kainz, 1946. The present survey, however, concentrates on North American research activities. With certain noteworthy exceptions, this is the region where the most intensive psycholinguistic research has evolved and is being currently pursued. European efforts have been most outstanding in the domains of concept formation, physiological psycholinguistics, and general semantics. Relevant European contributions are mentioned in this survey at appropriate points.

5. Discussion of this anthropologically-based research is available in Brown (1958), Carroll (1955), Conklin (1962), Frake (1962), French (1963), Hymes (1961a, 1961c), Lounsbury (1959,1962,1963), and Sturtevant (1963). Exemplary applications include Frake (1961) and Wallace and Atkins (1960).