AV communication review

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 54–75 | Cite as

Toward a psycholinguistics of cinema

  • Calvin Pryluck
  • Richard E. Snow


Motion Picture Sound Effect Analogical Information Instructional Film Sound Track 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Allen, William H., and Cooney, Stuart M.A Study of the NonLinearity Variable in Filmic Presentation. U. S. Office of Education, Title VII Report No. 422. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 1963.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amory, Cleveland. “Review of ‘Mr. Broadway.’ ”TV Guide 12: 5; October 31, 1964.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carpenter, C. R.Logistics of Sound Motion Pictures for Military Training. Human Engineering Report, SDC 269-7-31. Port Washington, N.Y.: Navy Special Devices Center, 1952.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carroll, John B.Language and Thought. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deese, J. “On the Structure of Associative Meaning.”Psychological Review 69:161–75; 1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eisenstein, Sergei.Notes of a Film Director. Moscow, USSR: Foreign Language Publishing House, n.d.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Finch, Glen, editor.Educational and Training Media: A Symposium. National Research Council Publication 789. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1960.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gage, N. L., editor.Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1963.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gregory, John R.Some Psychological Aspects of Motion Picture Montage. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1961.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gropper, George.A Behavioral Analysis of the Role of Visuals in Instruction. Report No. I. Studies in Televised Instruction. Pittsburgh: Metropolitan Pittsburgh Educational Television Station and the American Institutes for Research, 1963.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    —.Controlling Student Responses During Visual Presentations. Report No. 2. Studies in Televised Instruction. Pittsburgh: Metropolitan Pittsburgh Educational Television Station and the American Institutes for Research, 1965.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guba, E., and Wolf, Willavene.Perception and Television: Physiological Factors of Television Viewing. Final Report, U. S. Office of Education Grant No. 7-45-0430-168.0. Columbus: The Ohio State University, 1964.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guilford, J. P.Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hall, Edward T.Silent Language. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1959.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hoban, Charles F. “The Usable Residue of Educational Film Research.”Teaching Aids for the American Classroom. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Institute for Communication Research, 1960. pp. 95–115.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    —. “Research in New Media in Education.”Three Conference Working Papers. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1961.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hoban, Charles F., and Van Ormer, Edward B.Instructional Film Research (Rapid Mass Learning) 1918–1950. Technical Report SDC 269-7-19. Port Washington, N.Y.: Navy Special Devices Center, 1959.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hovland, Carl I.; Lumsdaine, Arthur A.; and Sheffield, Fred D.Experiments in Mass Communication. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1949.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jacobs, Lewis.The Rise of the American Film. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1939.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kanner, Joseph H., and Rosenstein, Alvin J. “Television in Army Training: Color vs. Black and White.”Audio Visual Communication Review 8: 243–52; November-December 1960.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Knight, Arthur.The Liveliest Art. New York: Macmillan, 1957.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Knowlton, James Q. “On the Definition of ‘Picture.’”AV Communication Review 14: 157–83; Summer 1966.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Langer, Susanne K.New Keys to Philosophy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1942.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lashley, K. S., and Watson, J. B.A Psychological Study of Motion Pictures in Relation to Venereal Disease Campaigns. Washington, D.C: United States Interdepartmental Social Hygiene Board, 1922.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Levonian, Edward.Measurement and Analysis of Physiological Response to Film. Report No. 62-66. Los Angeles: University of California, 1962.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Leyda, Jay.Kino: A History of the Russian and Soviet Film. New York: Macmillan, 1960.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lindsay, Vachel.The Art of the Moving Picture. New York: Macmillan, 1915.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lumsdaine, A. A. “Instruments and Media of Instruction.”Handbook of Research on Teaching. (Edited by N. L. Gage.) Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1963. pp. 583–682.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Matthews, Brander. “Kinetoscope of Time.”Scribneŕs Magazine 18: 733–44; 1895.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    May, Mark A., and Lumsdaine, Arthur A.Learning from Films. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1958.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    McLuhan, Marshall. “The Effect of the Printed Book on Language in the 16th Century.”Explorations in Communication. (Edited by Edmund Carpenter and Marshall McLuhan.) Beacon Hill, Mass.: Beacon Press, 1960. pp. 125–35.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Melton, Arthur W. “Summing Up. Comments Toward the Future.”Educational and Training Media: A Symposium. (Edited by Glen Finch.) National Research Council Publication 789. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1960. pp. 196–206.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Miller, George A.Language and Communication. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1951.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    —. “Some Psychological Studies of Grammar.”American Psychologist 17: 748–62; 1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    —. “Some Preliminaries to Psycholinguistics.”American Psychologist 20: 15–20; January 1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Miller, Neal E.Graphic Communication and the Crisis in Education. Washington, D.C.: Department of Audiovisual Instruction, National Education Association, 1957.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Munsterberg, Hugo.The Photoplay, a Psychological Study. New York Workshop.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Myers, Jon B.The Identification and Effects of Frame and Frame Sequence Characteristics Related to Learning Retention from Programmed Instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, 1964.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nelson, Harold E.; Moll, Karl R.; and Jaspen, Nathan.Comparison of the Audio and Video Elements of Instructional Films. Technical Report SDC 269-7-18. Port Washington, N.Y.: Navy Special Devices Center, 1950.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    O’Connor, V. J. “An Examination of Instructional Films for Characteristics of an Effective Teaching Presentation.”Harvard Educational Review 20:271–84; 1950.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Osgood, C. E. “On Understanding and Creating Sentences.”American Psychologist 18: 735–51; 1963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Osgood, C. E.; Suci, G. J.; and Tannenbaum, P. H.The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1957.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Peters, J. M. L.Teaching About the Film. New York: International Document Service, Columbia University Press, 1961.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Reisz, Karel.The Techniques of Film Editing. New York: Visual Arts Books, 1953.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Roshal, Sol M. “The Instructional Film.”Educational and Training Media: A Symposium. (Edited by Glen Finch.) National Research Council Publication 789. Washington, D.C: National Academy of Sciences, 1960. pp. 114–21.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ruesch, Jurgen, and Kees, Weldon.Nonverbal Communication: Notes on the Visual Perception of Human Relations. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1956.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rulon, Phillip Justin.The Sound Motion Picture in Science Teaching. Harvard Studies in Education, Vol. 20. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1933.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Seibert, Warren F., and Snow, Richard E. “A Correlational Analysis of the Effects of Learner and Linear Program Characteristics on Learning from Programmed Instruction.” Mimeo proposal to U. S. Office of Education, 1964. (Project in progress)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    —. “Cine-Psychometry.”AV Communication Review 13: 140–58; Summer 1965.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Smith, Martin.Prediction of Learning Effects from Linear Program Characteristics. Unpublished master’s thesis, Purdue University, 1965.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Snow, Richard E.The Importance of Selected. Audience and Film Characteristics as Determiners of the Effectiveness of Instructional Films. Final Report, U. S. Office of Education Grant No. 712142. Lafayette, Ind.: Audio Visual Center, Purdue University, 1963.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Spottiswoode, Raymond.A Grammar of the Film. London, Eng.: Faber and Faber, 1935.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Taylor, W. L. “Cloze Procedure. A New Tool for Measuring Readability.”Journalism Quarterly 30: 415–33; Fall 1953.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Travers, Robert M. W., editor.Research and Theory Related to Audiovisual Information Transmission. Salt Lake City: University of Utah, Bureau of Educational Research, 1964.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    VanderMeer, A. W. “Systems Analysis and Media—A Perspective.”AV Communication Review 12: 292–301; Fall1964.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Whorf, Benjamin Lee.Language, Thought and Reality. (Edited by John B. Carroll.) Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 1956.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1967

Authors and Affiliations

  • Calvin Pryluck
    • 1
  • Richard E. Snow
    • 2
  1. 1.Instructional and Research Film Unit, Audio Visual CenterPurdue UniversityLafayette
  2. 2.Center for Research and Development in TeachingStanford UniversityPalo Alto

Personalised recommendations