Slavic Psycholinguistics in the 21st Century

Abstract

This article provides an update on research in Slavic psycholinguistics since 2000 following my first review (Sekerina 2006), published as a position paper for the workshop The Future of Slavic Linguistics in America (SLING2K). The focus remains on formal experimental psycholinguistics understood in the narrow sense, i.e., experimental studies conducted with monolingual healthy adults. I review five dimensions characteristic of Slavic psycholinguistics-populations, methods, domains, theoretical approaches, and specific languages-and summarize the experimental data from Slavic languages published in general non-Slavic psycholinguistic journals and proceedings from the leading two conferences on Slavic linguistics, FASL and FDSL, since 2000. I argue that the current research trends in Slavic psycholinguistics are (1) a shift from adult monolingual participants to special population groups, such as children, people with aphasia, and bilingual learners, (2) a continuing move in the direction of cognitive neuroscience, with more emphasis on online experimental techniques, such as eye-tracking and neuroimaging, and (3) a focus on Slavic-specific phenomena that contribute to the ongoing debates in general psycholinguistics. The current infrastructural trends are (1) development of psycholinguistic databases and resources for Slavic languages and (2) a rise of psycholinguistic research conducted in Eastern European countries and disseminated in Slavic languages. * I wish to thank two anonymous reviewers and Catherine Rudin for their helpful comments and especially suggestions regarding additional sources. All the mistakes are, of course, mine.

Systemic Paradigmatic Relations Between Bulgarian and Russian Lexis

“…https://doi.org/10.15405/epes.22104.18 Corresponding Author: Nataliya A. Lavrova Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference eISSN: 2672-815X 155 that the word свет as a synonym of the word мир in Russian is stylistically marked: it is used either in colloquial or poetic speech.The paper bySekerina (2017) provides an update on research in Slavic psycholinguistics since 2000. The focus remains on formal experimental research.…”

Образование 2.0: Психолингвистический Анализ (Часть 2)

“…Леонтьев, 1983;А.А. Леонтьев, 2003;Ryabchenko et al, 2019;Sekerina, 2017). На наш взгляд, данное направление находится на перекрестке таких направлений в гуманитарном знании как коммуникация 2.0, лингвистика 2.0 и психолингвистика, являясь естественным продолжением их развития.…”