Las tareas conductuales en la investigación sobre el procesamiento del lenguaje
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
En este artículo se exponen las principales tareas conductuales empleadas en la investigación sobre el procesamiento del lenguaje en las áreas de comprensión y producción. El artículo tiene dos objetivos principales. El primero de ellos es exponer las razones por las que la investigación psicolingüística puede aportar datos de interés para la Lingüística teórica, sin dejar de reconocer algunas dificultades que complican esta contribución. Se arguye que la metodología y, en particular, las tareas o los procedimientos de recogida de datos pueden ayudar a paliar estos problemas. El segundo objetivo del artículo es describir un conjunto de tareas caracterizadas como conductuales que se pueden agrupar bajo diversos criterios de clasificación. Se presentan de forma sucesiva las tareas conductuales utilizadas en la investigación sobre los procesos de comprensión y las empleadas en la investigación de los procesos de producción del lenguaje, examinando sus ventajas e inconvenientes. Un aspecto importante en esta exposición es la noción de ‘paradigma experimental’, de la que se muestran dos destacados ejemplos: los paradigmas de priming y de atención dividida (o tarea dual), el primero de los cuales se emplea tanto en tareas de comprensión como de producción del lenguaje. El artículo concluye con unas consideraciones sobre las deficiencias de las tareas conductuales, si bien se defiende la idea de que estas deficiencias no son exclusivas de esta clase de tareas y se reivindica tanto la utilidad como la necesidad de las mismas en la investigación empírica del lenguaje.
Article Details
during speech perception and recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology 21.3: 280-290. DOI: 10.1080/14640746908400223
Adelman, James S.; Brown, Gordon. D.; Quesada, José F. 2006. Contextual diversity,
not word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision times.
Psychological Science 17: 814-823.
Baars, Bernard J.; MacKay, Donald G. 1978. Experimentally eliciting phonetic and
sentential speech errors: Methods, implications, and work in progress. Language
in Society 7.1: 105-109. DOI: 10.1017/S0047404500005352
Ballot, Claire; Mathey, Stéphanie; Robert, Cristelle. 2021. Word imageability and
orthographic neighbourhood effects on memory: a study in free recall and
recognition, Memory 29.6: 829-834. DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2021.1921216
Balota, David A.; Chumbley, James I. 1984. Are lexical decisions a good measure of
lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 10:
340–357. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.10.3.340
Bermeitinger, Christina. 2014. Priming. En Z. Jin, ed. Exploring implicit cognition:
Learning, memory, and social cognitive processes. Hershey, PA: Information
Science Publishing, pp. 16-60.
Berwick, Robert; C., Friederici, Angela D.; Chomsky, Noam; Bolhuis, Johan J. 2012.
Evolution, brain, and the nature of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17.2:
89-98. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2012.12.002.
Bock, J. Kathryn. 1986a. Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive
Psychology 18: 355-387. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6
Bock J. Kathryn. 1986b. Meaning, sound, and syntax: Lexical priming in sentence
production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition 12.4: 575-586. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.12.4.575
Bock, J. Kathryn. 1996. Language production: Methods and methodologies.
Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 3.4: 395-421. DOI: 10.3758/BF03214545
Butterworth, Brian. 1980. Evidence from pauses in speech. En B. Butterworth, ed.
Speech Production, Vol. I. New York: Academic Press, pp. 154-176.
Carreiras, Manuel; Clifton, Charles. 1993. Relative clause interpretation preferences in
Spanish and English. Language and Speech 36.4: 353-372.
Christiansen, Morten H.; Chater, Nick. 2016. Creating language: Integrating evolution,
acquisition, and processing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Cuetos, Fernando; Mitchell, Don C. 1988. Crosslinguistic differences in parsing:
Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition 30: 73-
105. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(88)90004-2
Eguren, Luis; Fernández Soriano, Olga. 2004. Introducción a una sintaxis minimista.
Madrid: Gredos.
Ernestus, Mirjam; Cutler, Anne. 2015. BALDEY: A database of auditory lexical
decisions, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 68.8: 1469-1488.
DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2014.984730
Farrell, Meagan T.; Abrams, Lise; & White, Katherine K. 2012. The role of priming in lexical access and speech production. En N. Hsu y Z. Schütt, eds. Perspectives on cognitive psychology. Psychology of priming. Nova Science Publishers, pp. 205-244.
Felser, Claudia; Roberts, Leah. 2007. Processing wh-dependencies in a second
language: A cross-modal priming study. Second Language Research 23.1: 9-36.
Fernández, Eva. 2005. The prosody produced by Spanish-English bilinguals: A
preliminary investigation and implications for sentence processing. Revista da
Abralin 1.2: 109-141.
Ferrand, Ludovic; New, Boris. 2004. Semantic and associative priming in the mental
lexicon. In P. Bonin, ed. Mental lexicon: "Some words to talk about words". Nova
Science Publishers, pp. 25-43.
Ferreira, Fernanda; Patson, Nikole D. 2007. The ‘good enough’ approach to language
comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass 1.1-2: 71-83. DOI:
10.1111/j.1749-818x.2007.00007.x
Fodor, Janet D.; Inoue, Atsu. 1994. The diagnosis and cure of garden-paths. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research 23: 407-434. DOI: 10.1177/00238309000430030201
Fodor, Janet D.; Nickels, Stefanie; Schott, Esther. 2017. Center-embedded sentences:
What’s pronounceable is comprehensible. En R.G. de Almeida y L.R. Gleitman,
eds. On concepts, modules, and language: Cognitive science at its core. Oxford,
R.U.: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/OSO/9780190464783.001.0001
Forster, Kenneth I. 1998. The pros and cons of masked priming. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research 27.2: 203-233. DOI: 10.1023/a:1023202116609.
Forster, Kenneth I.; Davis, Chris. 1984. Repetition priming and frequency attenuation
in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition 10.4: 680-698. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.10.4.680
Friedmann, Naama; Biran, Michal; Dotan, Dror. 2013. Lexical retrieval and its
breakdown in aphasia and developmental language impairment. En C. Boeckx y
K. Grohmann, eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Biolinguistics. Cambridge, R.U.:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 350-374.
Garrett, Merrill F. 1975. The analysis of sentence production. En G. H. Bower, ed. The
psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 9. New York: Academic Press, pp.
133-177.
Garrod, Simon. 2006. Psycholinguistic Research Methods. En K. Brown, ed.
Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 251-257.
DOI: 10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/04155-9
Gilboy, Elizabeth; Sopena, Josep Maria. 1996. Segmentation effects in the processing
of complex NPs with relative clauses. En J. E. García-Albea, Language
processing in Spanish. Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 191-206.
Glaser, Wilhelm R. 1992. Picture naming. Cognition 42: 61-105. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(92)90040-O
González, Julio. 1996. El fenómeno de la "Punta de la Lengua" y la recuperación léxica:
estudio de sus propiedades en castellano y el efecto de la frecuencia del estímulo.
Estudios de Psicología 56: 71-96. DOI: 10.1174/02109399660559600
Grey, Sarah; Tagarelli, Kaitlyn M. 2018. Psycholinguistic methods. En A. Phakit, P. De
Costa, L. Plonsky y S. Starfield, eds. The palgrave handbook of Applied
Linguistics research methodology. Londres: Palgrave McMillan, pp. 287-312.
DOI: 10.1057/978-1-137-59900-1_14
Guba, Egon G.; Lincoln, Yvonna. S. 1994. Competing paradigms in qualitative
research. En N. K. Denzin y Y. S. Lincoln, eds. Handbook of qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 105-117.
Harley, Trevor. 2006. Speech errors: Psycholinguistic approach. En K. Brown, ed. The
Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics (2ª. Ed., Vol. 11), Oxford: Elsevier,
pp. 739-744.
Heitz, Richard P. 2014. The speed-accuracy tradeoff: History, physiology, methodology and behavior. Frontiers in neuroscience 8: Art. 150. DOI:10.3389/fnins.2014.00150
Hutchison, Keith A. 2003. Is semantic priming due to association strength or feature overlap? A microanalytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 10.4: 785-813. DOI: 10.3758/bf03196544
Igoa, José Manuel. 2009. El procesamiento del léxico. En E. de Miguel, ed. Panorama de la lexicología. Barcelona: Ariel, pp. 405-435.
Jegerski, Jill. 2014. Self-paced reading. En J. Jegerski y B. VanPatten, eds. Research
methods in second language psycholinguistics. New York: Routledge, pp. 20-49.
Jescheniak, Jörg D.; Wöhner, Stefan; Bethcke, Hanna, S.; Beaupain, Marie C. 2020. Semantic interference in the picture-word interference task: Is there a pre-lexical, conceptual contribution to the effect? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 27.4: 373-378.
Katz, Leonard; Brancazio, Larry; Irwin, Julia; Katz, Stephen; Magnuson, James;
Whalen, Douglas H. 2011. What lexical decision and naming tell us about reading.
Reading and Writing 25.6: 1259-1282. DOI: 10.1007/s11145-011-9316-9
Lázaro, Migual; Illera, Víctor; Sainz, Javier S. 2018. Priming effects in the recognition
of simple and complex words and pseudoword. Psicológica 39: 198-222. DOI:
10.2478/psicolj-2018-00
Levelt, Willem J. M.; Roelofs, Ardi; Meyer, Antje S. 1999. A theory of lexical access
in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22.1: 1-38. DOI:
10.1017/S0140525X99001776
Lewis, Shevaun; Phillips, Colin. 2015. Aligning grammatical theories and language
processing models. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 44: 27-46. DOI:
10.1007/s10936-014-9329-z
Macagno, Fabrizio; Bigi, Sarah. 2018. Types of dialogue and pragmatic ambiguity. En
S. Oswald et al., eds. Argumentation and language ̶ Linguistic, cognitive and
discursive explorations. Cham, Suiza: Springer, pp. 191-218.
Mahowald, Kyle; James, Ariel., Futrell, Richard; Gibson, Edward. 2016. A metaanalysis of syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language 91: 5-27. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2016.03.009
Mathey, Stéphanie; Doignon-Camus, Nadège; Chetail, Fabienne. 2013. Syllable
priming with pseudowords in the lexical decision task. Canadian Journal of
Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale 3:
205-214. DOI: 10.1037/a0032456
Meseguer, Enrique; Carreiras, Manuel. 1999. Procesamiento de ambigüedades
sintácticas. En F. Cuetos y M. de Vega, eds. Psicolingüística del español. Madrid:
Trotta, pp. 163-204.
Mitchell, Don C.; Green, David W. 1978. The effects of context and content on
immediate processing in reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
30.4: 609-636.
Mota, Sergio; Igoa, José Manuel. 2017. Parsing complex noun phrases: Effects of
hierarchical structure and sentence position on memory load. The Spanish Journal
of Psychology 20: Article E37. DOI: 10.1017/sjp.2017.32
Nicol, Janet; Swinney, David. 1989. The role of structure in coreference assignment
during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18: 5-20.
DOI: 10.1007/BF01069043
Nicol, Janet; Swinney, David; Love, Tracy; Hald, Lea. 2006. The on-line study of
sentence comprehension: An examination of dual task paradigms. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research 35: 215-231. DOI: 10.1007/s10936-006-9012-0
Perea, Manuel; Gotor, Arcadio. 1997. Associative and semantic priming effects occur
at very short stimulus-onset asynchronies in lexical decision and
naming. Cognition 62.2: 3-240. DOI: 10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00782-2
Roberts, Leah. 2014. Cross-modal priming with sentences. En J. Jegerski, y B.
VanPatten, eds. Research Methods in Second Language Psycholinguistics. New
York: Routledge, pp. 212-230.
Rodd, Jennifer; Gaskell, Gareth; Marslen-Wilson, William. 2002. Making sense of
semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory
and Language 46.2: 245-266. DOI: 10.1006/jmla.2001.2810
Sánchez-Casas, Rosa María; Igoa, José Manuel; García-Albea, José Eugenio. 2003. On
the representation of inflections and derivations: Data from Spanish. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research 32.6: 621-668. DOI: 10.1023/a:1026123315293
Shao, Zeshu; Meyer, Antje S. 2017. Word priming and interference paradigms. En
A.M.B. De Groot y P. Hagoort, eds. Research Methods in Psycholinguistics and
the Neurobiology of Language: A Practical Guide. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp.111-128.
Skidelsky, Liza. 2007. La naturaleza y el contenido de los estados subpersonales de la
competencia lingüística. Subjetividad y Procesos Cognitivos 10: 271-295.
Soames, Scott. 1984. Linguistics and psychology. Linguistics and Philosophy 7: 155-179.
Swinney, David A. 1979. Lexical access during sentence comprehension:
(Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal
Behavior 18.6: 645-659. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90355-4
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language
acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vigliocco, Gabriella; Butterworth, Brian; Semenza, Carlo. 1995. Constructing subject–
verb agreement in speech: The role of semantic and morphological factors.
Journal of Memory and Language 3: 186-215.
Viso, Susana del. 2002. Los lapsus linguae como fuente de datos en el estudio de la
producción del lenguaje: un corpus de errores en castellano. Anuario de
Psicología 33.3: 355-384.
Wasow, Thomas; Perfors, Amy; Beaver, David. 2005. The puzzle of ambiguity. En O.
Orgun y P. Sells, eds. Morphology and the web of grammar: Essays in memory of
Steven G. Lapointe. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 265-282.
Wickelgren, Wayne A. 1977. Speed-accuracy tradeoff and information processing
dynamics. Acta Psychologica 41: 67-85.
Wilson, Maximiliano A.; Cuetos, Fernando; Davies, Robert; Burani, Cristina. 2013. Revisiting Age-of-Acquisition effects in Spanish visual word recognition: The role of item imageability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition 39.6:1842-1859. DOI: 10.1037/a0033090