Reviewed by:

• Slavic languages in psycholinguistics: Chances and challenges for empirical and experimental research ed. by Tanja Anstatt et al.
• Olga Parshina

This book is a result of the workshop on empirical psycholinguistic methods, "Slavic languages in the black box", which aimed to create a space for discussion of methodological problems in the field of Slavic psycholinguistics. The current volume goes beyond simple discussion. In 12 different contributions, it 1) offers an overview of the existing experimental designs, online and offline methods of investigation as well as various tasks that are employed in modern Slavic psycholinguistics research, 2) presents the key issues associated with these designs and methods, and, crucially, 3) suggests possible solutions to overcome the challenges. Below I briefly outline the content, summarize the takeaway message and provide a short review for each contribution of the volume. I conclude with a general evaluation of the book.

In the first paper of the volume, Barbara Mertins discusses several online and offline methods used inside and outside psycholinguistic research. The chapter starts with a brief classification of experimental methods as online (e.g., eye-tracking, elicitation), offline (e.g., surveys), and true online methods (e.g., EEG, fMRI), along with an outline of the potential benefits and drawbacks of using one technique over another. Next, Mertins concentrates on the evaluation of several methods that she and her colleagues employed in her language-production research: 1) elicitation, 2) memory tasks, 3) eye-tracking, 4) speech onset times, and 5) preference/grammatical judgment tasks. Finally, Mertins presents three experimental studies (authored by Mertins and other colleagues) that implemented either one technique or a combination of these methods in language-production studies, enabling the reader to observe the application of the techniques in experimental contexts. In the overview of each study, Mertins provides detailed information as well as a critical evaluation of the design, materials, randomization procedures, and general protocol (e.g., sample size, language background of the participants, stimulus length, [End Page 183] amounts of fillers, coding procedure, etc.). Crucially, for each study, the contributor also points out benefits and issues that should be considered before planning to use one of the described methods in combination with a specific aspect of study design (e.g., elicitation method and intercultural suitability of the materials). The chapter also places an interesting focus (in study 2) on the importance of using a combination of linguistic and non-linguistic (e.g., memory) tasks to investigate the effects of language on cognition (i.e., language leads to differences in thinking). However, the link between these two types of tasks (especially the memory task) is not clear. It would be useful to provide researchers with more arguments for the necessity of adding non-linguistic tasks to the experiments. In general, the article, although likely not intended for this purpose, might serve as an excellent introduction for graduate students and early-career researchers to various psycholinguistic methods and advantages and caveats of the designs with the emphasis on language-production research.

Chapter 2 (by Roumyana Slabakova) shifts the focus of discussion from details of the experimental design to issues of the inconsistency of results caused by the variability in linguistic judgments of native Russian speakers. First, Slabakova introduces the results of her study (2004) that examines how native Russian speakers interpret telicity based on the perfectivity of the verb. Specifically, the goal of study 1 is to confirm that perfectivity of verbs in Russian (as an example of a Slavic language) dictates the (non-) quantization of the objects they refer to, an association known as Event-Object Homomorphism. Counter to expectations, the findings of the study indicated that Russian native speakers marked sentences with perfective verbs as having two possible interpretations (as opposed to one, as was expected) almost half of the time (49%). Slabakova argues that other factors than perfectivity of the verb come into play, e.g., free word order in Russian and Information Structure associated...

审核人：

• 心理语言学中的斯拉夫语言：经验和实验研究的机会和挑战ed。由Tanja Anstatt等人撰写。
• 奥尔加·帕希纳（Olga Parshina）

这本书是经验主义心理语言方法研讨会的成果，“黑匣子中的斯拉夫语言”，其目的是为讨论斯拉夫心理语言学领域的方法论问题创造空间。当前的内容超出了简单的讨论。在12种不同的贡献中，它1）概述了现有的实验设计，在线和离线研究方法以及现代斯拉夫心理语言学研究中采用的各种任务，2）提出了与这些设计和方法有关的关键问题，并且至关重要的是，3）提出了克服挑战的可能解决方案。在下文中，我简要概述了内容，总结了要点，并对每本书的贡献作了简短回顾。最后，我对这本书进行了总体评估。

在该卷的第一篇论文中，Barbara Mertins讨论了在心理语言学研究的内部和外部使用的几种在线和离线方法。本章从对实验方法的简要分类开始，包括在线（例如眼球追踪，启发），离线（例如调查）和真正的在线方法（例如EEG，fMRI），以及潜在益处和概述。使用一种技术而不是另一种技术的缺点。接下来，Mertins集中精力评估她和她的同事在她的语言产生研究中使用的几种方法：1）启发，2）记忆任务，3）眼动追踪，4）言语发作时间和5）偏好/语法判断任务。最后，Mertins提出了三项实验研究（由Mertins和其他同事合着），在语言产生研究中实施了一种技术或这些方法的组合，使读者能够观察到该技术在实验环境中的应用。在每项研究的概述中，Mertins提供详细信息以及对设计，材料，随机化程序和一般方案的严格评估（例如，样本量，参与者的语言背景，刺激长度，[结束第183页]填充物的数量，编码程序等）。至关重要的是，对于每项研究，贡献者还指出了在计划结合研究设计的特定方面（例如启发方法和材料的跨文化适用性）结合使用上述方法之一之前应考虑的收益和问题。本章也将有趣的焦点（在研究2中）集中在使用语言和非语言（例如记忆）任务的组合来调查语言对认知的影响（即语言导致思维差异）的重要性上。但是，这两种类型的任务（尤其是内存任务）之间的链接尚不清楚。为研究人员提供更多的论据，以证明有必要在实验中增加非语言任务，这将是有用的。一般来说，该文章

第2章（由Roumyana Slabakova撰写）将讨论的重点从实验设计的细节转移到由俄语母语人士的语言判断差异引起的结果不一致问题。首先，斯拉巴科娃介绍了她的研究结果（2004年），该研究考察了俄语母语者如何基于动词的完美性来解释口感。具体来说，研究1的目标是确认俄语中动词的完美性（作为斯拉夫语的一个例子）决定了它们所指对象的（非）量化，这种关联被称为事件-对象同态。与预期相反，该研究结果表明，俄语为母语的人用完美动词标记的句子几乎有一半（49％）具有两种可能的解释（与预期的相反）。