that kind of depends on how you would define psycholinguistics or which branch you would mean? I guess the cognitive approach in linguistic anthropology could be linked to this. Could you perhaps explain a bit more about what it is you're looking for?
Well still I am not clear on what it is you're looking for with psycholinguistics. If you would reason that psycholinguistics is cognitive linguistics I think then yes anthropological linguistics could offer an interesting tool to interpret cognitive data e.g. fMRI scans or brain activity scans. Since I am not clear whether you mean cognitive linguistics (closer to neuropsychology) or psycholinguistics in other matters (e.g. language competence, code switching or bilingualism and its influence on individual competences) I am not sure what it is you're looking for.
NIKOS GOUSGOUNIS said:
thanks for reply
I mean that psycholinguistics as a branch must be depended to anthro-linguistics or to be dominant on it as dealing with the cognitive side as u say ?
as jolanda notes, there are various topics within psycholinguistics which might intersect with linguistic anthropology in different ways.
in my view, linguistic anthropology is a holistic approach to language and excels in bringing together information from various social and natural sciences and placing that information within a cultural framework. this holism can sometimes provide balance to the inherently innatist approaches of many branches of psycholinguistics.
for example, the neurolinguistic branch explores the biological basis for understanding such issues as language recognition and production, while linguistic anthropology would examine the inter-relationship between biology, culture, and language.
similarly, in developmental psycholinguistics, the formal structuralist approach (i.e., the acquisition of form) can be informed by linguistic anthropological research on the role of enculturation in language acquisition.
in another example, the experimental basis of much psycholinguistic research is informative about linguistic phenomena (e.g. language processing) in isolation and within a specific population, but the same phenomena as it actually occurs in a social and cultural context of discourse also needs to be considered for a fuller understanding of the totality of language.
as a linguistic anthropologist, i would argue that the two subfields of linguistics contribute to the whole picture of 'language' in differing ways. neither should dominate or be considered superior to the other. my approach, however, would be to view whatever is done in psycholinguistics within the framework of culture and enculturation.