Psychologic: A Technical Language for Psychology
Jan Smedslund · Psychological Inquiry · 1991
It has been an intensely stimulating experience to read the commentaries, and I am grateful for the opportunity to engage in dialogue. I have organized my reply as follows: I begin by giving a brief summary of how psychologic (PL) developed. Then, I expand on four themes that are directly or indirectly referred to in most of the commentaries. These themes are (a) the intended uses of PL, (b) its implications for empirical research, (c) its universality, and (d) the issue of classical versus prototype views on concepts. Finally, I respond to some of the individual comments not subsumable under the four general themes.