2nd Group

Abdul Jose Cussauca

Carolina Masanvu
Dercio Guilherme Ubisse
Esvalda Jose Mofate
Grace Collins Thauze
Mingue Pita
Pedro Francisco Mucheca

The mental lexicon

Licenciatura em ensino de Ingles

Universidade Púnguè
Chimoio
2022
 2nd Group
Abdul Jose Cussauca
Carolina Masanvu
Dercio Guilherme Ubisse
Esvalda Jose Mofate
Grace Collins Thauze
Mingue Pita
Pedro Francisco Mucheca

The mental lexicon

Licenciatura em ensino de Ingles

Research work, to be presented in the Department of Linguistics

and Translation as a partial requirement of Psycholinguistics
under the guidance of:
MSc: Milton Conqui

Universidade Púnguè
Chimoio
2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 5

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Objectives ........................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1.1 General ......................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1.2 Specifics: ............................................................................................................................... 5

1.2 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER II. REVIW OF LITERATURE .................................................................................................. 6

2.0 Mental lexicon .................................................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Theories about the issue of how mental lexicon occurs ...................................................................... 6

2.1.1 Nativist Theory ............................................................................................................................ 6

2.1.2 Dual – Coding theory ................................................................................................................... 7

2.1.3 Semantic Network theory............................................................................................................. 7

2.2 Types of Words Association ............................................................................................................... 8

2.2.1 The Syntagmatic Association....................................................................................................... 8

2.2.2 The paradigmatic association ....................................................................................................... 9

2.3 Mental lexicon vs. Physical dictionaries ............................................................................................. 9

2.4 Towards an integrated model of the lexicon ..................................................................................... 10

2.5. Organization of the Mental Lexicon ................................................................................................ 11

2.5.1 The Hierarchical Network Model .............................................................................................. 11

2.5.2 Spreading Activation Models..................................................................................................... 11

2.5.3 Prototype Model......................................................................................................................... 12

2.6 Access to the Mental Lexicon (Lexical Access) ............................................................................... 13

2.6.1 Definition of Lexical Access...................................................................................................... 13

2.6.2 Lexical Access Models .............................................................................................................. 13

 2.6.2.1 The Autonomous Search Model ............................................................................................. 13

2.6.2.2 The Logogen Model ................................................................................................................ 13

2.6.2.3 The Cohort Model ................................................................................................................... 13

2.7 Variables That Influence Lexical Access.......................................................................................... 14

2.8 Language acquisition and language learning .................................................................................... 14

2.9 The language and memory ................................................................................................................ 15

CHAPTER III: CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................. 16

3. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 16

4. References ........................................................................................................................................... 17
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
1. Introduction
Language is tool that human use in order to interact with each other whereby written, spoken or
using the body language to share ideas thoughts and emotions. It is believed that vocabulary is a
crucial component of language, an idea eloquently expressed by Wilkins (1972, p. 111) who stated,
“Without grammar little can be conveyed, without words nothing can be conveyed.” Learning
English vocabulary is a tedious task for most foreign learners, who must master an unfamiliar
phonetic system in addition to new lexical and morphosyntactic notions such as articles, phrasal
verbs, and case endings. These individuals may often feel that English words are “difficult to learn
and easy to forget”. This paper aims to talk about mental lexicon, its processes, and models and
how it can be differentiated to the written dictionaries.
1.1 Objectives
1.1.1 General
 To explore more about mental lexicon.
1.1.2 Specifics:
 To define mental lexicon;
 To mention the mental lexicon theories and processes;
 To differentiate mental lexicon with physical dictionaries;
 To describe the mental lexicon organization.
1.2 Methodology
This research was based on qualitative bibliographical method that was undertaken through the
reading of physical and electronic sources about the target topic (mental lexicon).

“Hating people is like swallowing poison and expect them to die!” MAPONGA (2022)
CHAPTER II. REVIW OF LITERATURE
2.0 Mental lexicon
The field of psycholinguistics concerns the mental processes involved in language use, such as
language acquisition, perception, comprehension, and production. The study of the mental lexicon
(or the internal lexicon) is a subfield of psycholinguistics that focuses on the organization of word
knowledge in one’s permanent memory (Carroll, 2000). Gui (2000) expands on Carroll’s
characterization of the mental lexicon by noting that it encompasses not only how words are stored
in one’s memory but also how they are retrieved during the act of speaking or writing.

In the early Generative Grammar (Chomsky, 1965) the idea about the lexicon was just that that it
is a list of words on which syntax, the central module, operated. But recently, the study of the
lexicon has been given more importance and it has received a reinforcement from the researches
of cognitive psycholinguists (e.g. Taft and Foster, 1975; Henderson, 1985), neuropsychologists
(e.g. Caramazza , 1997) , specialists of reading such as (Rumelhart ,1977 ; Besner , Waller and
Mackinnon ,1985) , and cognitive scientists ( e.g. Mc Clelland and Rumelhart , 1981 ; Marcus ,
2001 ) , it’s to mention the central disciplines .

The mental lexicon has become a common aspect and has attracted a large number of researchers
to investigate. The mental lexicon is known as a mental dictionary which contains information
about a word’s pronunciation, meaning, syntactic attributes, and so on, (Jackendoff, R.S, 2002).
In linguistics and psycholinguistics Mental Lexicon is used to refer to individual speaker’s lexical
or word, representations.

The mental lexicon is not a collection of words, it also deals with how those words are stored,
activated, processed and retrieved by a speaker whenever he/she wants. An individual’s mental
lexicon is not perpetual; it is always developing and growing as new words are learned.

2.1 Theories about the issue of how mental lexicon occurs

2.1.1 Nativist Theory
A theory hypothesized by Noam Chomsky who used the idea that language is an innate , it’s to
say that human beings are born with a set of rules in their heads about language which termed as
UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR. According to Chomsky the ability to learn grammar is hard-wired
into the brain .In this theory he proposed that if we are brought up under normal conditions, then

“Hating people is like swallowing poison and expect them to die!” MAPONGA (2022)
we will always able to develop language with a certain property X (e.g. differentiating function
words from lexical words or differentiating nouns from verbs) in this case property X is considered
as a property of universal grammar.

2.1.2 Dual – Coding theory

A theory of cognition by Allan Pavio , his idea is about the role of the formation which is presented
by mental images in learning , Pavio proposed that the formation of mental images helps in
learning (Reed , 2010) , according to Pavio there are two ways a subject could expand on learned
material which are : visual imagery and verbal associations .

Dual-Coding theory assumes that verbal and visual information is used to represent information
(Sternbuerg, 2003).

2.1.3 Semantic Network theory

A theory proposed by by Charles S. Pierce (1909), the theory of semantic network proposes a
graphical nodes and edges that he called ‘the logic of future’ (Russell, Stuart J.; Norvig, Peter,
2010). A semantic network is a frame network that represents semantic relations between concepts.
It is used as a kind of knowledge representation and it is a directed or undirected nodes consisting
of vertices that represent concepts and edges (John F.Sowa, 1987) this network can be used when
a person knowledge that is best understood as a set of concepts which are related to each other.
Mostly semantic networks are cognitively based.

The theory of semantic network is a hypothetical mental process which works when one of nodes
in the network is triggered, and suggests three methods namely: frequency effects, priming effects
and neighborhood effects.

• Frequency effects, propose that words which are frequent in a one’s language can be recognized
faster than those that are infrequent (Foster, K. l, 1976).

• Priming that is termed to use in lexical decision tasks; it is to decrease reaction times of related
words, the ability to have interchangeable words aid in the reaction times of others (Traxler,
matthew ;2011).

“Hating people is like swallowing poison and expect them to die!” MAPONGA (2022)
• Neighborhood effects refer to the triggering or the activation process of similar neighbors of a
target word, those neighbors known as items which are confusable with the target word because
of their overlapping features (Andrew, Sally; 1989).

According to (Elman, J. L. 2004), a key part of knowing language is knowing the words of that
language. This knowledge is ordinarily thought to live in the mental lexicon, a sort of word
reference that contains data in regards to a word’s pronunciation, meaning, syntactic qualities, and
so on. In this perspective, words are seen as boosts that work specifically on mental states. The
phonological, syntactic also, semantic properties of a word are uncovered by the impacts it has on
those states. The perspective propelled here is comparative in a few regards to a few past
propositions. The thought of 'direct perception’ is itself not new. There is a nearby partiality with
MacDonald and Christiansen's proposition in regards to working memory. The essential
recommendation of his proposition is to regard words as stimuli, whose "signifying" lies in the
causal impacts they have on mental states. Then again, to summarize Dave Rumelhart – words do
not have meaning; they are signals or cues to meaning.

Some psycholinguists and linguists do not believe in the existence of the mental lexicon and it is
considered as a controversial concept. One theory about the mental lexicon suggests that it is “a
collection of highly complex neural circuits” (Foster, K. l, 1976), another proposes that mental
lexicon organize our knowledge about words “in some sort of dictionary” (Foster, K. l, 1976).

2.2 Types of Words Association

The connection among words can be analyzed by using two basic principles of word association,
namely syntagmatic and paradigmatic (Coulthard et al., 2006; Meara, 1982 in Menenti (2006)). In
many other literatures, a third principle is added, i.e. word associations based on phonological or
orthographic relations (Peppard, 2007). Wolter (2001) also makes the same classification as above,
but he refers to the term phonological relation as 'clang', i.e. words that have sound resemblances,
but have no semantic relation to each other.

2.2.1 The Syntagmatic Association

The Syntagmatic Association is a textual relation that can be analyzed by looking at words that
appear before or after the stimulus word. For example, when given a stimulus 'solar', respondents
provide syntagmatic associations, ‘sunrise’ 'morning', or 'sunset'. Syntagmatic relations can form
sequence relationships and construct a grammatical order. One of syntagmatic relations is

“Hating people is like swallowing poison and expect them to die!” MAPONGA (2022)
collocation (Peppard, 2007). Collocation is the commonly emerging words or called as word
network (Aitchison, 1994: 84). Collocation has a particular pattern based on grammatical and
lexical, for example the word 'beautiful' is collocated with 'female', 'woman' or 'girl', while the
word 'handsome' is collocated with 'male'.

McCarthy (1990) adds an encyclopedic classification of meaning relations; a knowledge of words

in relation to referents or specific contexts in the real world. This knowledge does not connect the
semantic relation or phonological relation between two words, but the relationship is subjective
based on specific experiences or cultural background, such as the word 'my husband' in response
to the word 'love'. This encyclopedic relation belongs to the syntagmatic association because it can
form a grammatical sequence construction as well as collocation.

2.2.2 The paradigmatic association

The paradigmatic association refers to words that belong to the same word class as the stimulus
and can substitute, for example, for the word 'eat', the paradigmatic relationships that may arise
are 'cooking' and 'buying'. The main criterion for the paradigmatic association category is the
response word should have a semantic relationship with the stimulus. Included in this category are
coordination, meronymy, taxonomy, and synonym relations (Cruse, 2004). Coordination relations
are word relations that belong to the same word class, for example the words 'cat' and 'dog' have
coordination relationships because they are both under the category of animals (Carroll, 2008:
106). Aitchison mentions “this relation is the most common relation produced by native speakers”
(2003: 80). Taxonomy is a super ordinate relation to its subordinate in a hierarchy, for example,
sparrows and pigeons are hyponym of birds. Meronymy is the relationship between the part of an
object and the whole object, for example the word 'machine' is a meronymy of 'car', or 'table leg'
as a meronymy of the word 'table'. A synonymy relationship is a word relation that has same
meaning. Although there are no absolute synonyms, in most cases, two synonymous words can be
substituted in some contexts (Cruse, 2004). The last, antonym relationship is relation that shows
contrasting relationships, such as young and old.

2.3 Mental lexicon vs. Physical dictionaries

As the Mental lexicon includes similar properties or information to those found in a dictionary, it
could even be contended whether they are very nearly the same. So as to demonstrate or refute this
proposal, it is important to quickly take a gander at their similarities and contrasts.

“Hating people is like swallowing poison and expect them to die!” MAPONGA (2022)
Truly, the implications of words are put away in both, as socio-cultural data about use, and so on.
Both the dictionary and the mental lexicon empower the speaker to recall information about the
use of a vocabulary item. Lexicons generally can contain the grammatical forms a unit can take.
That sort of data is furthermore kept in the mind, despite the fact that it may not be found as
obviously organized as in a physical lexicon. The item "scarf" is labeled in the Oxford advanced
Dictionary as noun and verb while a normal learner of the English language is most likely not
ready to utilize this item in both forms when it is at first learnt. The way that it can be utilized all
the more generally might be found later when the item is "re-learnt" in another setting. Information,
along these lines, can likewise be given on the diverse types of things yet they are more available
in a dictionary than they are in the mental lexicon.

Another highlight which the mental lexicon and dictionaries have in like manner is the register of
a vocabulary item. A dictionary is liable to list the word "stuff" as casual or colloquial. A speaker
of the English language, then again, would know when to utilize that item effectively on the
grounds that items in the mental lexicon dependably accompany their connoted meaning.
Connotations are, obviously, recorded in both the mental lexicon and a physical dictionary. Hence,
the mental lexicon can even be more exact than a dictionary on the grounds that dictionaries
generally don't list the greatest number of connotations as the Mental Dictionary can store. Other
than the similarities expressed above, there are likewise contrasts between the Mental Vocabulary
and lexicons (Aitchison, 2003).

2.4 Towards an integrated model of the lexicon

As it appears from the above discussion, the mental lexicon is complex and its components are
closely interrelated and interdependent. Experiments with patients who suffer brain injuries
(aphasics) seem to supply evidence for the claims of the above discussed theoretical models by
providing and justifying a basis of comparison between ‘normal’ and ‘impaired’ language
processing. Research into neurolinguistics and psycholinguistics is an especially complex
endeavor, thus, only some focal issues are sketched here. The majority of these studies appear to
discuss issues of the structure of the language system (Jackendoff 2000, Garrett 2000, Pinker 2007,
Turvey & Moreno 2006, Wray 2002), the interface of language comprehension and production
(Hickok 2000, Nicole & Love 2000), lexis and structure (Blumstein & Milberg 2000, Caramazza
2000, Feldman, Basnight-Brown & Pastizzo 2006, Stockall & Marantz 2006, Swinney, Prather &

“Hating people is like swallowing poison and expect them to die!” MAPONGA (2022)
Love 2000) and syntax and discourse (Avrutin 2000, Caplan 2000, Piñango 2000). In the next
section I am going to touch upon some major issues on how words are stored in the mental lexicon,
before moving on towards an integrated model developed by Wray (2002).

2.5. Organization of the Mental Lexicon

Distinct from the organization of the mental lexicon, or how the internal lexicon is structured, is
lexical access, which involves activating lexical items from the mental lexicon These two elements
are interdependent, since ease of retrieval of information is dependent on how humans store it.

Most contemporary scholars maintain that the mental lexicon is a network of interconnected
elements, which are concepts or nodes connected to one another by virtue of being semantically
related. In this configuration, word meanings are based on their relationship to other words in a
network of links.

2.5.1 The Hierarchical Network Model

Collins and Quillian’s (1969, 1970) hierarchical network model is among the most influential
semantic network models dealing with word–meaning relationships. The model hypothesizes that
words are stored in one’s memory in networks, wherein each word or concept represents a node
and the relationships between nodes constitute a hierarchy. Some nodes may coexist at the same
level as other nodes and be dominated by superordinate nodes; such nodes can also function as
superordinate nodes for other subordinate nodes. Every word is connected according to its
semantic features in this hierarchical network; an example of such a superordinate–subordinate
semantic relationship would be animal-bird-robin. Collins and Quillian (1969, 1970) maintain that
since the space available for storage of semantic information is limited, it is beneficial to store
information in only one network location. This is referred to as the principle of cognitive economy.
However, this model is limited, since hierarchies are not necessarily ordered clearly; for example,
it is not necessarily clear how to order virtue and goodness.

2.5.2 Spreading Activation Models

The spreading activation model (Collins & Loftus, 1975) also assumes that a network of word
relationships exists in the mental lexicon. However, in this model, these relationships are not
necessarily organized in a hierarchical fashion; instead, the organization is closer to a web of
interconnecting nodes, with the distance between the nodes determined by both structural
characteristics such as taxonomic relations and considerations such as typicality and degree of

“Hating people is like swallowing poison and expect them to die!” MAPONGA (2022)
association between related concepts; meanwhile, the retrieval of information is not a structural
process but one that involves the “spread” of lexical activation.

Although this original spreading activation model improves upon the hierarchical network model,
it is nonetheless still flawed because it does not adequately consider the phonological, syntactic,
or morphological aspects of words. In that respect, a more recent version of the spreading
activation model presented by Bock and Levelt (1994) is more reasonable, since it presupposes
the existence of word knowledge at three levels: conceptual, lemma, and lexeme. Distinguishing
between these levels is an important factor in understanding the role of lexical access in
comprehension and production. Moreover, it is implicit in Bock and Levelt’s model that
information in each of the aforementioned levels is stored in an isolated manner, (thus,
incidentally, explaining the tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon, that is, when a person knows a word
but is temporarily unable to retrieve it) (Carroll, 2000). In terms of the Bock and Levelt model, the
speaker knew the word’s meaning (the concept) and syntactic category (the lemma), but not its
phonological features (the lexeme), at least not in their entirety, The robustness of the spreading
activation models, indicated here, has contributed to their popularity in cognitive psychology and
psycholinguistics.

2.5.3 Prototype Model

The prototype model (Putnam, 1975; Lakoff, 1987; Rosch, 1975) does not assume that word
meaning is based on a cluster of features but instead that concepts are stored in the form of
“prototypes,” that is, representations of the most typical members of given conceptual categories.
For example, every member of the bird family possesses a quality of “bird-ness”, which
encompasses a series of features depicting the prototypical bird (e.g., a beak, feathers, two legs,
wings, oviparity). However, birds such as swallows, robins, larks, sparrows, and canaries more
closely resemble the prototypical bird than do chickens and turkeys, while birds such as penguins
do not resemble the prototype very much at all. The major implication of this for vocabulary
learning is that concepts in a class constitute a continuum (from the most typical members to the
most untypical members), and humans are better at learning typical words first and untypical words
later. Every model has its advantages and disadvantages and cannot capture all of lexicon
knowledge. Comparatively speaking, spreading activation model is superior, because it offers the
most realistic picture currently available of the internal lexicon (Carroll, 2000).

“Hating people is like swallowing poison and expect them to die!” MAPONGA (2022)
2.6 Access to the Mental Lexicon (Lexical Access)
2.6.1 Definition of Lexical Access
Lexical access is the process by which meanings are activated in the internal lexicon. This can
happen in several different ways. One way is through the sensory perception of the occurrence of
a word. For example, if one sees the word elephant on a printed page, one has the opportunity to
identify it as a familiar word and thus to retrieve appropriate knowledge concerning it to assist one
in the comprehension process (Carroll, 2000).

2.6.2 Lexical Access Models

2.6.2.1 The Autonomous Search Model
The autonomous search model (Forster, 1976, 1979) is one of the most influential lexical access
models. The model’s word recognition system is divided into two components. Among them, one
is devoted to the orthographic properties of words, while another focuses on their phonetic
properties. Since these properties involve processing words in terms of the relevant features (that
is, one accesses common words more quickly than similar rare words), the model is equipped to
account for word frequency effects. However, despite recent revisions, the autonomous search
model cannot account for priming and context effects (Carroll, 2000).

2.6.2.2 The Logogen Model

John Morton proposed the logogen model (1969). In this model, words (or morphemes) in a
lexicon are represented by “logogens,” which are units that indicate a word’s various semantic,
orthographic, and phonological attributes. A logogen can be activated through either sensory input
or contextual information, and these two means are assumed to work in parallel. Although this
model is not all-encompassing, it does account for word frequency, priming, and context effects
(Carroll, 2000).

2.6.2.3 The Cohort Model

The cohort model (Marslen-Wilson, 1987) was designed to account for auditory word recognition,
which it divides into three stages. First, based on an acoustic-phonetic analysis of the input, a set
of lexical candidates are activated; these are known as the “word-initial cohort.” Next, a member
of the cohort is selected for further analysis. Finally, the selected lexical item is integrated into the
ongoing semantic and syntactic context. This model in many ways adopts the best features of the
search and logogen models. For example, it assumes (like the logogen model) that multiple word

“Hating people is like swallowing poison and expect them to die!” MAPONGA (2022)
candidates are processed in parallel, and (as in the search model) that the initial process is strictly
bottom up (Carroll, 2000). Each model can describe some of the findings, but the cohort model is
best positioned to explain the entire array of results (Carroll, 2000).

2.7 Variables That Influence Lexical Access

Lexical access is influenced by a variety of factors, including the frequency of a word, its
phonological/morphological structure, its syntactic category, the presence of semantically related
words, and the existence of alternate meanings of the word (Carroll, 2000). Common words and
meanings seem to be in a state of greater readiness than less often used words and meanings.
Humans rely on morphological structure when encountering unfamiliar words (Carroll, 2000).

2.8 Language acquisition and language learning

According to Channel (Carter and Mc Carthy, 1988), second language is considered as acquired
by a learner when the meaning of a word can be understood rather than used, and it can be used
naturally in a proper situation. Learning as a process leads to the acquisition as a final result. It is
generally supposed that receptive words are a learner comes across in listening and reading, while
productive words those are used in speaking and writing. According to the previous assumption of
acquisition of vocabulary, productive acquisition is preceded by receptive acquisition. Researchers
are trying to find out how acquisition takes place from the stage of reception to the stage of
production, but several theorists proposed that words are not a part of productive capacity, but they
remain a part of receptive capacity. According to Fay and Carter (Carter, 1988) the direction of
mapping during comprehension is sound to meaning and meaning to sound during production, this
kind of mapping led to the perception that there could be two listing of words that are represented
and organized in a way enabling easy recall and retrieval.

Another important issue here is first language acquisition, vocabulary growth is one of the
concerns of research on the development of the mental lexicon. Researches assume that the words
acquired in the stage of language development are mostly nouns or noun-like, we can observe the
similarities in early words among children {e.g. Baba, Mama} (Contemporary linguistic analysis,
2008). Other researches assume that words need a type of acknowledgement before they are
effectively stored in the mental dictionary of children.

“Hating people is like swallowing poison and expect them to die!” MAPONGA (2022)
2.9 The language and memory
When a subject knows a word it means (x) that the word is retained in a particular way that enables
the subject to comprehend and recognize it during reading or listening and to use it while writing
or speaking (and this is the process of bringing it out of storage), when required. Processes,
production and understanding or comprehension of language are involving a person's memory that
contains lexicons (in case of the speaker knows two languages), that is known as the human word
store or human mental lexicon.

The distinction between long term memory (LTM) and short term memory (STM) is clear. The
long term memory LTM that contains the word store or the mental lexicon, An individual has an
account of words are ordered and represented in a manner enabling easy retrieval or recall, that
reveals a close connection between memory and language.

“Hating people is like swallowing poison and expect them to die!” MAPONGA (2022)
CHAPTER III: CONCLUSION
3. Conclusion
From the readings done it was concluded that a language depends on the mental process where the
mental lexicon is subordinated as it was said that “without a vocabulary nothing can be conveyed”
but this does not sincerely mean that having a list of vocabularies is a major tool to master a
language. The knowledge of vocabulary should be extended to its use in different circumstances
taking into consideration its relations with other vocabularies as a way to convey a coherent
meaning. We first need to master vocabularies and it will be by then the syntactic relation may
appear to make sure the semantics and pragmatics may also be reinforced in psycholinguistics.

“Hating people is like swallowing poison and expect them to die!” MAPONGA (2022)
4. References
Aitchison, J. (1994): Words in the Mind. An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon. Oxford:
Blackwell.

Andor, J. (2004): The master and his performance: An interview with Noam Chomsky.
Intercultural Pragmatics 1.1, 93–111.

Asher, N. & Pustejovsky, J. (2000): The Metaphysics of words in context. Retrieved on

11/01/2008. http://www.cs.brandeis.edu/~jamesp/articles/ metaphysics-words.pdf.

Avrutin, S. (2000): Comprehension of discourse-linked and non-discourse-linked questions by

children and Broca’s aphasics. In: Grodzinsky, Y., Saphiro, L. & Swinney, D. (eds.): Language
and the Brain. Representation and Processing. San Diego, California: Academic Press, 295–315.

Blumstein, S.E. & Milberg, W.P. (2000): Language deficits in Broca’s and Wernicke’s aphasia: A
singular impairment. In: Grodzinsky, Y., Saphiro, L. & Swinney, D. (eds.): Language and the
Brain. Representation and Processing. San Diego, California: Academic Press, 167–184.

Caplan, D. (2000): Positron emission tomographic studies of syntactic processing. In: Grodzinsky,
Y., Saphiro, L. & Swinney, D. (eds.): Language and the Brain. Representa-tion and Processing.
San Diego, California: Academic Press, 316–329.

Caramazza, A. (2000): Aspects of lexical access: Evidence from aphasia. In: Grodzinsky, Y.,
Saphiro, L. & Swinney, D. (eds.): Language and the Brain. Representation and Processing. San
Diego, California: Academic Press, 204–228.

Caron, J. (1992): An Introduction to Psycholinguistics. New York: Harvester and Wheatsheaf.

Carroll, D. W. (2000). Psychology of Language (3rd ed.). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching
and Research Press.

Carston, R. (1988): Language and cognition. In: Newmeyer, F.J. (ed.): Linguistics: The Cambridge
Survey, Vol. III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 38–69.

Chomsky, N. (1957): Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.

Chomsky, N. (1968): Language and Mind. New York: Brace & World, Inc.

“Hating people is like swallowing poison and expect them to die!” MAPONGA (2022)
Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing.
Psychological Review, 82, 407-428.

Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval times from semantic memory. Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 240-247.

Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1970). Facilitating retrieval from semantic memory: The effect
of repeating part of an inference. Acta Psychology, 33, 304-314

Collins, A.M. & Loftus, E.F. (1975): A Spreading activation theory of semantic processing.
Psychological Review 82, 407–428.

Colombo, L., Stoianov, I., Pasini, M. & Zorzi, M. (2006): The role of phonology in the inflection
of Italian verbs: A connectionist investigation. The Mental Lexicon 1.1, 147–181.

Ellis, R. (1994): The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellman, J.L. & McClelland, J.L. (1986): Interactive processes in speech perception: The TRACE
model. In: McClelland, J.L., Rummelhart, D. & the PDP Research Group (eds.): Parallel
Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, Vol. 2. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press, 58–121.

Emmorey, K. & Fromkin, V. (1988): The mental lexicon. In: Newmeyer, F.J. (ed.): Linguistics:
The Cambridge Survey, Vol. III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 124–149.

Gairns, R., & Redman, S. (1986). Working with words: A guide to teaching and learning
vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gui, S.-C. (2000). Psycholinguistics (New Edition). Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language
Education Press.

“Hating people is like swallowing poison and expect them to die!” MAPONGA (2022)