36.2480, Reviews: Psycholinguistics: Fernanda Ferreira (2025)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-36-2480. Sun Aug 24 2025. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 36.2480, Reviews: Psycholinguistics: Fernanda Ferreira (2025)

Moderator: Steven Moran (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Managing Editor: Valeriia Vyshnevetska
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Mara Baccaro, Daniel Swanson
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Editor for this issue: Helen Aristar-Dry <hdry at linguistlist.org>

================================================================


Date: 24-Aug-2025
From: Victoria Beatrix Fendel [vbmf2 at cantab.ac.uk]
Subject: Psycholinguistics: Fernanda Ferreira (2025)


Book announced at https://linguistlist.org/issues/36-1814

Title: Psycholinguistics
Subtitle: A Very Short Introduction
Series Title: Very Short Introductions
Publication Year: 2025

Publisher: Oxford University Press
           http://www.oup.com/us
Book URL:
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/psycholinguistics-9780192886774?utm_source=linguistlist&utm_medium=listserv&utm_campaign=linguistics

Author(s): Fernanda Ferreira

Reviewer: Victoria Beatrix Fendel

Fernanda Ferreira (2025). Psycholinguistics: A very short
introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780192886774. DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780192886774.001.0001.
SUMMARY
Ferreira’s Psycholinguistics: A very short introduction consists of
nine chapters, of which the final one is an outlook chapter, followed
by a subject index and a list of references and further reading. The
book is intended to be an accessible and short, yet insightful and
critical, introduction to psycholinguistics as a discipline. This goal
is well achieved.
Chapter 1 introduces the reader to psycholinguistics as the study of
“how humans process language and how they store and retrieve
linguistic information” (p. 1) and subsequently provides a brief
history of the subject and its influential theories and players. The
chapter starts from the famous sentence the horse raced past the barn
fell which will result in those unfamiliar with it getting
garden-pathed (pp. 11–12), i.e. needing to revisit raced after reading
the sentence and to reanalyse it as a participle. This shows how
psycholinguistics connects linguistic concepts (e.g. participle) with
psychological concepts (e.g. event) and cognitive processes (e.g.
memory and decision-making). The dominant paradigm in linguistics
prior to the 1950s was descriptivism and the dominant paradigm in
psychology (esp. in North America) behaviourism (e.g. Skinner (1957)).
Chomsky’s 1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax instead put forward a
mentalistic and computational approach to language, which involved
transformational rules applied to a base sentence such that the
Derivational Theory of Complexity (DTC) was born (and subsequently
disproved). Chomsky’s 1981 Lectures on Government and Binding “posited
that complex sentences were derived via movement of a constituent from
one location to another” (p. 9) and the moved constituent would leave
behind a gap (this was experimentally tested with so-called
Event-Related Potentials). Subsequently, lexicalist approaches to
syntax put more emphasis on rules stored with lexical items (esp.
verbs) as syntactic requirements vary by verb. In the 1970s, the
Garden-Path model of language processing considered how ambiguity is
processed, i.e. serial activation and subsequent repair if necessary
(previously preferred) or parallel activation and subsequent
discarding of the irrelevant meaning. The latter option was eventually
favoured. Parallel models were more lexicalist in that they assumed
that items were stored in the lexicon with their meaning and syntactic
preferences. For instance, the alternatives for believe “have
different strengths, proportional to their frequency of use” (p. 12).
In the 1990s, new approaches hit the ground. Goldberg’s Construction
Grammar appeared, Kirby’s work on artificial languages suggested that
“grammatical rules have an abstract form because this facilitates
communication” (p. 13), and computational linguists began work on
machines that understand and produce language based on statistical
patterns. Psycholinguistics moved away from the strict focus on syntax
and now engages e.g. with prosody and pragmatics.
Chapter 2 is about processing (understanding) language and the
mechanisms involved, when we speak and read about 240 words per
minute. The process of word recognition is incremental. The Cohort
Model (1980s) suggests that “the language system activates all words
compatible with the current input until the word’s uniqueness point is
reached” (p. 17). Context can shift this uniqueness point e.g. due to
co-articulation or differing pronunciations based on accent, etc. The
McGurk Effect refers to the fact that visual and acoustic cues are
combined in language processing. We draw on contextual cues in order
to deal with semantically ambiguous items. Multimorphemic items seem
to be decomposed (e.g. rehouse). The parser, “the part of the language
processing system that builds syntactic structure” (p. 20) is highly
efficient with regard to repairs of garden-path sentences. When
testing language processing experimentally, one may draw on the
offline measure of acceptability, i.e. the participant will comment on
the product of processing, or the online measure of tracking eye
movements as participants read, i.e. the participant is monitored
during processing. The language processing system draws on prediction,
i.e. using past events in order to anticipate what is coming. It
remains to be shown “how the processing of past versus upcoming
linguistic content is coordinated” (p. 24).  Early models of language
processing are the Garden-Path model of human parsing, assuming that
the processing module has no access to information other than
grammatical rules, and lexicalist models, which assume that
grammatical information is stored with word meaning. All these assume
a serial parser. By contrast, Parallel Constraint-Based models assume
that multiple interpretations are built in parallel and the strength
of each option depends on its frequency. The Good-Enough language
processing model considers, in addition to the compositional
interpretation of a sentence “comprehenders’ expectations as a source
of information that can generate interpretations” (p. 28). Noisy
Channel models of language processing assume that the “language
comprehension system has adapted to the reality that our cognitive and
linguistic systems are not perfect”, i.e. there is noise such as
distortions, deletions, or additions in the channel (p. 28).
Surprisal, i.e. the expectedness of a word, correlates with
“activation in cortical regions of the brain associated with language
processing” (p. 30); entropy refers to “the uncertainty of a
particular outcome given the current state” (p. 30). We can link both
measures to processing difficulty.
Chapter 3 is about producing language and the mechanisms involved,
including the retrieval of the word, choice of the grammatical
structure, and pronunciation. Speech errors reveal that we plan ahead,
hence why sentences like I got the park trucked appear at times.
According to the two-stage model of language production, a speaker
selects the concepts/lemmas and the syntactic skeleton and
subsequently generates the sound pattern (word forms). Furthermore, an
utterance may receive a specific prosody (e.g. the nuclear stress rule
tells us that the main stress falls onto the final constituent in an
English declarative). Thus, language production seems to be based on a
slots-and-fillers architecture (p. 35). Experiments include e.g. Bock
(1986), who showed participants an image, i.e. lightening striking a
church, and a printed word phonologically or semantically related to
church or lightening (a prime) in order to elicit active or passive
sentences. Only the semantic primes had an influence. (Yet, a later
experiment revealed that word beginnings were more influential than
word endings and that the thus phonologically primed item tended to
appear late in the sentence (p. 43).) The Bock experiment lends
support to the two-stage model but also to the Easy-First model, i.e.
“the production system is biased to begin a sentence with a word or
concept that is accessible or easy to encode and produce” (p. 38).
Easy-First allows the speaker to fluently go about their utterances
rather than insert pauses and fillers (to gain processing time).
Similarly, speakers insert that in complement clauses “when the next
word or phrase is difficult for them to retrieve (p. 39). Participants
can also be primed structurally whereby conceptual overlap enhances
the effect (p. 41). There is some evidence for an internal editor that
seems to verify whether what we are about to say is appropriate and
which makes edits if it is not. This is an area of debate, and some
have suggested that it is “the comprehension system applied to the
output of our own production systems” (p. 44).
Chapter 4 combines language processing and production in the context
of conversation and dialogue, our everyday real-life application of
language. Grice’s maxims of truthfulness, relevancy, briefness, and
clarity are comprehenders’ “starting point for their interpretations”
(p. 46) in order to e.g. ascertain whether something is sarcasm. The
maxims motivate the observation that “pragmatic inference is at the
centre of communication” (p. 47) which Levinson argued promotes
efficiency. Clark argued that a conversation is like “a duet” that
speakers play on e.g. a piano (p. 48), it requires constant
interaction and cooperation. Fillers for instance indicate planning
problems to the interlocutor which may be related to something that is
less familiar being about to be conveyed. Determining unfamiliarity
depends on common ground between interlocutors, something we actually
constantly need to test in teaching (p. 50). The common-ground theory
also motivates the given-new strategy of ordering pieces of
information. Audience design is the idea that language users “tailor
their language to be as understandable as possible” (p. 51). Yet
language users do not seem to do so as e.g. experiments relating to
that inclusion in English show. This seems to be dependent on
Proactive Interference (PI), “the negative effect of semantic
similarity on the likelihood of retrieving information” (p. 53), for
the speaker.  Thus, it seems that audience design is a skill that
needs to be acquired rather than being innate. Communication is
successful when interlocutors are aligned (interactive model), i.e.
have the same understanding of some topic of phenomenon (p. 54). This
ties in with “prediction during language comprehension and
self-monitoring of our own speech” (p. 55). It also ties in with
entrainment, i.e. the tendency to model our linguistic behaviour on
that of our interlocutor. This is largely automatic and unconscious.
The Production-Distribution-Comprehension (PDC) model suggests that
language users choose linguistic forms to maximise fluency. This ties
in with the Easy-First strategy. The model, unlike the interactive
model, also underlines that we learn based on frequency from input
throughout our lives.
Chapter 5 is about reading which involves the decoding of “otherwise
meaningless visual symbols” (p. 59) for sound and meaning. We learn
how to read through instruction. Neural plasticity allows our neural
systems to adapt. The Visual Word Form Area is situated in the left
occipito-temporal cortex of the brain. The movements of the eyes
during reading are called saccades (ca. 20 milliseconds). They happen
between the fixations when the eyes stop moving (ca. 250
milliseconds). Eye movement can be, and often is, regressive when
necessary. We can “extract information from approximately 3–4 letters
to the left of the saccade landing site and 12–16 characters to the
right” (p. 62) in English. This span can be divided into the foveal
area (6–8 characters) where we get good visual detail, the parafoveal
area (next 3–4 characters to the right) where we process characters
for general shape, and the periphery (the remainder) which helps us
find the point for the next fixation (p. 62). The perceptual span is
noticeably asymmetric (across writing systems) and “reflects a
combination of sensory, attentional, and processing factors” (p. 63).
While for English reading involves an orthography-phonology-meaning
route (except for common items), for a system like Chinese there seems
to be an orthography-meaning route and phonology is activated
optionally (p. 66). The perceptual span in English is larger than in
Chinese possibly due to the information density as conveyed by the
writing system (p. 67). The chapter closes with some comments on
speedreading techniques, focussing on items in the middle of a line
and Spritz, a technique that involves showing one item at a time. The
latter reduces eye movements but does not allow for regressive
movements or to build a non-flat prosody of the sentence. The former
does not allow us to read for detail but results in significant
guesswork along the way.
Chapter 6 is about individual differences in language processing. This
has implications for learning, instruction, and remediation, for
instance (p. 74). Abilities can be divided into those that are
domain-general, i.e. any cognitive system can use them (e.g. speed of
processing), and those that are domain-specific, i.e. only the
language system can use them (e.g. vocabulary database). The size of
the working memory (for many of us seven items (p. 71)) differs
between people and is a domain-general ability but there is also the
domain-specific verbal working memory (p. 76). One task to test
working memory is Daneman and Carpenter’s task that “required subjects
to hold and simultaneously process information” (reading span task)
(p. 77). There are some issues with how the reading span task was
administered because “working memory span is a continuous variable”
rather than a categorial one and needs to be treated as such (p. 79).
Furthermore, it is not clear whether the task measures working memory
capacity or language processing skill (p. 79). Two
electrophysiological events, so called event-related potentials
(ERPs), benefit from an individual differences approach – the N400 (a
negative deflection in the EEG signal, typically observed in relation
to incongruities) and the P600 (a positive deflection in the EEG
signal, typically observed in relation to repair events) are of
particular interest (p. 81). Kim et al. (2018)  “speculated that those
with higher verbal working memory spans would exhibit the P600
response and those with lower verbal working memory spans would show
the N400 response” (p. 82). Conversely, assuming that “the reading
span task is a language processing task”, the argument has been made
that “working memory is not real” but that it is all down to
experience, yet the issue of cognitive ageing complicates this picture
(pp. 83–84).
Chapter 7 is about the bilingual mind that deals with two language
systems. This is “not exotic or unusual” (p. 85). Bilinguals can have
a range of profiles with different levels of proficiency in each
language they regularly use, and languages can be assigned to specific
contexts of use. Based on experiments, it seems that word
representations in response to for instance an image get co-activated
in both languages (p. 87). There is the cognate advantage effect which
suggests that finding the item in language A is easier when the item
in language B is the same in sound, spelling, and meaning (p. 88).
Work using the Visual World Paradigm has shown that the “less dominant
language pokes through somewhat less” (p. 88). Code-switching refers
to the scenario when an item, phrase, or the rest of a sentence are
inserted in a language other than the sentence language preceding the
switch. Code switches seem to be “perceived neurally as less weird or
disruptive when the bilingual interacts with other bilingual speakers”
(p. 90). Blending in code-switching, i.e. for instance repeating what
was said already in the language switched into in order to make the
syntax work, is common (p. 91). A key debate revolves around whether
bilingualism has cognitive advantages, a position favoured in recent
discourse, or disadvantages, a position previously favoured and rooted
in nationalist, racist, and anti-immigrant discourses (p. 94).
Questions of whether code-switching is similar to task switching in
other cognitive domains have been asked along with questions about the
ability to monitor and manage information, and inhibition – all these
are subsumed under executive functions (p. 92). Bilinguals seem to
show smaller effects, as compared to monolinguals, when it comes to
dealing with incongruity – e.g. the Stroop effect (think of a printing
the word “green” in red ink and asking what colour the ink is) or the
Simon effect (think of a stimulus on the left-hand side of the screen
and requiring the right hand to indicate detection) – and
task-switching (e.g. a card-sorting task). Positive effects of
bilingualism on creativity and metalinguistic awareness have also been
reported (p. 93). However, the link between a cognitive reserve, a
term “coined in the 1980s to describe older adults who at the time of
their death showed few outwards signs of cognitive decline despite
neurological evidence of Alzheimer’s disease” (p. 93), and
bilingualism has received most attention. The idea is that challenging
the brain (and body) will aid the creation of cognitive reserve (p.
94). However, the question is whether cognitive mechanisms involved in
e.g. code-switching are domain-general and are thus also involved in
e.g. task-switching from driving to talking (p. 95). By now, many
studies report “no difference between monolinguals and bilinguals in
executive functioning tasks” (p. 96). The previous non-availability of
such results may have to do with the publishing industry’s aversion to
publishing null results (p. 96). Furthermore, participants for studies
“arrive at the lab already bilingual or not”, i.e. they are not
randomly assigned to those conditions (p. 97), and bilingualism and
immigration status are often confounded (p. 97). A general study
design issue is the focus on undergraduates, due to their availability
to the researcher (p. 98) – yet they are rather young and executive
control is thought to peak around age 25 – and the lack of
acknowledgement that there are many different kinds of bilinguals that
are not necessarily comparable with each other. Yet even if we cannot
prove a cognitive advantage, bilingualism certainly brings social and
societal advantages (p. 99).
Chapter 8 is about manual-visual modalities of language, including
sign languages and gestures. There are about 150 different sign
languages. In these, signs represent meaning by “using arbitrary
symbols” (p. 100) and possibly gestures alongside. Signs are defined
with regard to “the shape of the hand, the location of the sign
relative to the body, the movement of the hand through space, and hand
orientation” (p. 101). The language functions and memory encoding of
sign language seems to be the same as for spoken language (p. 101).
Yet, processing of a sign is “less sequential than is the processing
of spoken words” (p. 102). Unexpected signs, like unexpected words,
“trigger an N400 response” (p. 102). Pauses indicate sentence, phrase,
and word boundaries (p. 103). Semantically important distinctions,
such as that between reciprocal and symmetrical events (e.g. kiss),
can be encoded syntactically (p. 105). There seems to be no difference
between signed and spoken languages as regards working memory tasks,
once experimental set-up issues are resolved (p. 106). The ability to
perceive visual information in the periphery seems to be more
developed in deaf than in non-deaf individuals possibly due to “neural
reorganization” (p. 107). Bilingualism between spoken and sign
languages is bi-modal and code-blends, i.e. generating a spoken word
and a sign simultaneously, are common. This seems to be a case of
“co-activation without competition” (p. 109). We still know relatively
little about how (often iconic) gestures that accompany a sign are
produced and interpreted (p. 110). Özyürek’s Interface Hypothesis
“assumes that language users generate their intention to produce
speech and gesture at the same time” and gestures appear to mirror
language-specific event structure encoding (pp. 110–111). Gestures are
an integral part of (multi-modal) communication e.g. making the
interlocutor aware that it is time to listen or facilitating the
communication of complicated concepts (p. 112). Incongruent gestures
trigger an N400 response (p. 111).
Chapter 9 is an outlook chapter primarily concerned with Large
Language Models (LLMs) and Information theory. LLMs, e.g. ChatGPT,
“interpret and generate human-like text” (p. 113). These so-called
neural networks are trained on large amounts of data and “learn by
identifying patterns” (p. 114). They can generalize from the learning
context to other contexts. In the context of exposure to linguistic
material having an effect on our processing of information, it is
noticeable that LLMs function by “assigning probabilities to upcoming
input based on previous exposure” (p. 114), yet they are trained with
additional feedback techniques. LLMs do not have access to linguistic
rules or principles (p. 115). Noticeably, they struggle with
processing garden-path sentences, for instance (p. 115), and are
trained on more data than a human will ever encounter in a lifetime
(p. 114). LLMs produce at times “bizarre and even disturbing content”
(hallucinations) suggesting that there is quite some mismatch between
“how they work and how human process language” (p. 115). Finally,
there are significant ethical challenges to do e.g. with reinforcing
bias present in the training data (p. 115). Information theory emerged
in the context of developing telephone networks (1940s) which posed
the constraint of the physical structure to convey the message to be
communicated. The focus is on efficient communication, that is “the
message received corresponds closely to the message sent, and has been
derived with as little effort as possible” (p. 116). This brought into
focus the concept of the noisy channel too, i.e. interlocutors make
mistakes or environments are literally noisy. Faced with this noisy
channel the processing system will “use its expectations” (p. 117) to
arrive at a decoding of the message. As regards brain mechanisms and
language processing, we are nowadays interested in knowing where in
the brain language functions take place (and where it does not) (p.
118). An interesting finding by Fedorenko and Kanwisher (2009) in this
context is that “language and thinking are not the same thing, which
means that it is indeed possible to have complex thought without any
language abilities” (p. 119). Finally, psycholinguistics is moving
away from the focus on the WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialised,
Rich, Democratic) participant and embracing diversity (p. 119). The
logistics of non-WEIRD speaker communities however will require
adaptation of our established processes and techniques (p. 120).
Participants should never be just sources of data but partners in “a
respectful, mutually beneficial exchange” (p. 121).
EVALUATION
The book reads effortlessly, without any garden-path sentences,
throughout despite the density of information content, as becomes
especially evident when one summarises chapters after reading them. It
presents concepts, frameworks, and theories from multiple
perspectives, and explains how experimental designs and results, which
are vital in psycholinguistics, were and are translated into further
reaching generalisations. The book succeeds in introducing the reader
not only to theories, concepts, and frameworks, but also to the big
names in the field. The subject index makes it possible to use it as a
quick-reference guide in pocket format (the print version is
postcard-sized).
The book taps into several topics of psycholinguistics that have
filtered down into general public discourse. The first is speedreading
techniques. Ferreira debunks why these techniques will never result in
full understanding – due to guesswork, due to avoiding regressive eye
movements, and due to suppressing a non-flat prosody (see Chapter 5).
The second is the famous cognitive reserve, which is why people do
crosswords and learn languages on Duolingo for instance. Ferreira
highlights the social advantages of bilingualism and language learning
– including breaking down communication barriers and promoting social
harmony (p. 87) – over the cognitive ones and thus underscores the
importance of bilingualism as a societal tool (see Chapter 7). The
third is the emphasis on WEIRD subjects in participant-based studies.
These studies can be, and often are, perceived as test environments
(see e.g. Vieregge (2025: 238) for a participant’s comment to this
effect) which makes people weary of signing up, yet in all reality
researchers are fundamentally interested in diversity and
individuality, and changing the discourse surrounding such studies
could change the rate at which participants come forward to get
involved (see Chapter 9). Finally, a more research and publishing
industry inherent observation is made with regard to null results and
the likelihood, or lack thereof, of these getting published and
received. This observation is pertinent if we want to avoid bias in
the research record that the field is building on in future, and more
awareness of the issue may well move the goalposts.
I have three minor comments on content and form that I briefly set out
below. My first relates to Chapter 7 on bilingualism and bilinguality.
Ferreira (pp. 85–86) sets out clearly that bi- and multilingualism is
not exotic or rare and that bi- or multilinguals have a wide range of
proficiency profiles. Not all of them began learning two languages the
moment their lungs first filled with air nor do all of them have a
migration background, to name only two of the most common
misconceptions. One may add Grosjean’s language modes to these
characteristics of bi- and multilinguals, especially given the
observation that code switches seem to be “perceived neurally as less
weird or disruptive when the bilingual interacts with other bilingual
speakers” (p. 90). At the edges of the language mode continuum, there
are the monolingual and the bilingual modes. In the monolingual mode,
the language that is not used in active production is deactivated; in
the bilingual mode, both languages are activated (Grosjean 2024: 28).
A bilingual will shift easily towards the bilingual end of the mode
continuum when they know that e.g. the interviewer is bilingual or
when they notice the setting being favourable towards bilingualism. It
is thus a variable to control for in experimental studies (Grosjean
2024: 31 and 48). Thus, in addition to the varying proficiency
profiles, the surroundings of the experimental settings are likely to
have had an influence along this mode continuum in the past without
this being controlled for. This makes results at least difficult to
compare.
My second minor comment relates to Chapter 9 on computational
approaches to linguistics and specifically neural networks and Large
Language Models. Ferreira (pp. pp. 114–115) sets out clearly the
differences between a human processor and an LLM: LLMs see vastly more
data than a human being in a lifetime, LLMs cannot process garden-path
sentences for instance (perhaps due to the lack of access to rules?),
and LLMs hallucinate, i.e. create bizarre or disturbing content.
Especially the emphasis on the quantity of training data and the
resulting output is something that has not filtered down into general
discourse. One could add to this list also that LLMs cannot draw
inferences based on the social, political, cultural, or personal
surroundings or localise beyond something akin to autumn as opposed to
fall or behaviour as opposed to behavior. It almost seems like there
is a link between the linguistic sign and the thing it designates, but
there is no link between these and the user/interpreter (cf. Culpeper
2021: 17). This absent link with the user may also make it impossible
for an LLM to access the non-referential function of the linguistic
sign, so-called indexicalities referring to societal discourses (cf.
Eckert 2008). This is especially pertinent as the training data that
LLMs are drawing on contains significant biases that are reinforced
through training LLMs on this data (pp. 115–116). Policymakers are
still lagging behind the technological development in order to ensure
ethical usage (cf. e.g. Gajjar & Brione 2024; Kashefi, Kashefi &
Ghafouri Mirsaraei 2024).
Finally, the only sentence in the entire book that required a double
take is the following: (p. 120) “the work that scientists like Majid
is doing are a critical step in that direction.” The verbs “is”
(subject “the work”) and “are” (subject “scientists like Majid”) are
swapped incorrectly. Given the multiple production stages involved
beyond the writing and editing processes, thinking about long-distance
dependencies or planning ahead while producing language may not be at
play here, yet the reader actually thinks back to these concepts when
encountering this sentence. Thus, in the end, this may well be a
clever twist to make the reader think.
REFERENCES
Bock, Kathryn. 1986. Meaning, Sound, and Syntax: Lexical Priming in
Sentence Production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition 12(4). 575–586.
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2021. Sociopragmatics: Roots and Definition. In
Dániel Z. Kádár, Marina Terkourafi & Michael Haugh (eds.), The
Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, 15–29. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Eckert, Penelope. 2008. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of
Sociolinguistics 12(4). 453–476.
Fedorenko, Evelina & Nancy Kanwisher. 2009. Neuroimaging of Language:
Why Hasn’t a Clearer Picture Emerged? Language and Linguistics Compass
3(4). 839–865.
Gajjar, Devyani & Patrick Brione. 2024. Artificial intelligence:
ethics, governance and regulation. UK Parliament POST.
https://post.parliament.uk/artificial-intelligence-ethics-governance-and-regulation/.
Grosjean, François. 2024. On Bilinguals and Bilingualism. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kashefi, Pouya, Yasaman Kashefi & AmirHossein Ghafouri Mirsaraei.
2024. Shaping the future of AI: balancing innovation and ethics in
global regulation. Uniform Law Review 29(3). 524–548.
Kim, Albert, Leif Oines & Akira Miyake. 2018. Individual differences
in verbal working memory underlie a tradeoff between semantic and
structural processing difficulty during language comprehension: An ERP
investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition 44(3). 406–420.
Skinner, Burrhus. 1957. Verbal behavior. Illinois: Copley Publishing
Group.
Vieregge, Annika. 2025. Bewertung und Variation der Präpositionalkasus
im Deutschen. Berlin: Language Science Press.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Victoria B. Fendel (D.Phil. Oxford, 2018) is a research associate at
the University of Oxford, one of the editors of the Classics section
of the Literary Encyclopedia, and language leader for Ancient Greek in
the PARSEME/UniDive COST initiative. Her research focusses on
bilingualism and language contact (Oxford University Press, 2022),
multi-word expressions (De Gruyter Brill, 2025) in literary,
epigraphic, and papyrological sources, and on the development of
digital tools for large corpora (Language Science Press, 2024).



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

********************** LINGUIST List Support ***********************
Please consider donating to the Linguist List, a U.S. 501(c)(3) not for profit organization:

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=87C2AXTVC4PP8

LINGUIST List is supported by the following publishers:

Bloomsbury Publishing http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/

Cambridge University Press http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics

Cascadilla Press http://www.cascadilla.com/

Edinburgh University Press http://www.edinburghuniversitypress.com

John Benjamins http://www.benjamins.com/

Language Science Press http://langsci-press.org

MIT Press http://mitpress.mit.edu/

Multilingual Matters http://www.multilingual-matters.com/

Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG http://www.narr.de/

Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics / Landelijke (LOT) http://www.lotpublications.nl/

Peter Lang AG http://www.peterlang.com


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-36-2480
----------------------------------------------------------