How do Hebrew speakers `trick or treat`?

download report

Transcript How do Hebrew speakers `trick or treat`?

How do Hebrew speakers ‘trick or treat’?
An experimental study of verb formation from Hebrew CCVC nouns
Roy Becker-Kristal, UCLA Linguistics
[email protected]
Introduction
• This experimental study tests how Hebrew speakers coin
novel denominative verbs from known CCVC nouns.
• Beyond a mere description of a language-specific state
of affairs, this study puts to test various morphophonological theories.
• Particular attention is given to the experimental
methodology, since comparable studies are rare in the
morpho-phonological literature.
Background
Hebrew verb conjugations (binyanim)
• A small close set of CV template paradigms. Any Hebrew
verb must pertain to one such template paradigm or
binyan.
• There are five binyanim, three of which, namely katal,
hiktil and kitel can have any argument structure (niktal
and hitkatel are limited to intransitives). katal and hiktil
are skeletally rigid, while kitel is more ‘plastic’.
• The (sub-)binyanim are named after their Past-3rd-SgMsc template (e.g. katal=/C1a.’C2aC3/)*.
* The binyanim are more commonly named using the consonants p/f-’-l, e.g.
pa’al, pi’el, hif’il etc. The use of k-t-l, which is common in the noun template
system, is more transparent, and hence used here.
Background
The binyanim: katal
•
•
•
•
The default binyan in Ancient Hebrew.
Huge lexical count.
Rather non-productive in Modern Hebrew.
Highly diverse base template paradigm (six-to-nine very
different templates), e.g. /lis.’tom/ to seal:
/sa.’tam/ Past3SgMsc /sat.’mu/ Past3Pl
/so.’tem/ PresSgMsc
/sot.’mim/ PresPlMsc
/jis.’tom/ Fut3SgMsc
/jis.te.’mu/ Fut3Pl
(Prescriptively also: /stam.’tem/ Past2PlMsc, /sit.’mu/
Imp2Pl)
Background
The binyanim: hiktil
• Strongly associated with causation, but can
accommodate any argument structure.
• Large lexical count.
• Productive mostly in secondary derivation (of causatives
from existing non-causative verbs).
• Very stable base template paradigm (only two-three
rather similar templates). e.g. /le.hak.’lit/ to record:
/hik.’lit/ Past3SgMsc
/hik.’lat.nu/ Past1Pl
/mak.’lit/ PresSgMsc
/mak.li.’tim/ PresPlMsc
/jak.’lit/ Fut3SgMsc
/jak.’li.tu/ Fut3Pl
(Prescriptively also: /hak.’let/ Imp2Sg)
Background
The binyanim: kitel (canonical C1VC2VC3 form)
•
•
•
•
The default binyan in Modern Hebrew.
Huge lexical count.
Highly productive.
Moderately stable base template paradigm (five rather
similar templates), e.g. /le.ka.’bel/ to receive:
/ki.’bel/ Past3SgMsc
/kib.’lu/ Past3Pl
/ki.’bal.nu/ Past1Pl
/me.ka.’bel/ PresSgMsc /me.kab.’lim/ PresPlMsc
/je.ka.’bel/ Fut3SgMsc /je.kab.’lu/ Fut3Pl
Background
The binyanim: kitel (non-canonical C0VC0VC0 forms)
• kitel can accommodate clusters in its consonantal slots:
CCC-initial: /stip.’tez/ he stripteased
CCCC-medial: /tins.’keb/ he transcribed*
CC-final: /sig.’ment/ he segmented*
• Moderate lexical count, but highly productive, especially
when accommodating loanwords.
• Stable base template paradigm (three templates:
C0iC0eC0, C0iC0aC0, C0aC0eC0).
• CVCCVC kitel verbs (‘kirtel’) are frequent. CCVCCVC
kitel verbs (‘kristel’) are also attested. Peculiarly,
CCVCVC kitel verbs (‘kritel’) are extremely rare.
*Speech-technology jargon. Linguistic circles use different terms.
Background
The binyanim: kitel sub-binyanim
• The plasticity of kitel is exploited to accommodate bases
containing affixes, creating several sub-binyanim.
• These sub-binyanim host many denominative verbs from
affix-/reduplication-derived CVCCVC nouns.
• Prefixed sub-binyanim: iktel, miktel, tiktel, iktel
• Suffixed sub-binyanim: kitlen
• Reduplication sub-binyanim: kitlel, ktolel.
• All these sub-binyanim have moderate-to-low lexical
count, but kitlel is extremely productive and iktel has
also been becoming fashionable.
Background
Nouns and denominative verbs in Hebrew
• Nouns (and adjectives) enjoy much greater structural
flexibility in Hebrew (and other Semitic languages). There
are many more CV-templates, and templates are not at
all obligatory.
• Therefore, the derivation of a denominative verb involves
phonological mapping of free structures onto rigid
frames, with inevitable faithfulness violations. Examples:
excessive truncation:
/kon.fi.gu.’ats.ja/ configuration → /kin.’feg/ he
configured
full reduplication:
/’zap/ zap → /zip.’zep/ he zapped
Background
Denominative verbs in Hebrew (Cont.)
• For some structures it is in fact impossible to derive a
denominative verb, e.g.:
CV: /’tsi/ fleet → ???
CVCVCC: /ko.’mand/ command (in linguistics) → ???
• Yet, in most cases, not only is it possible to derive a
denominative verb, but native Hebrew speakers also have
clear intuitions how to derive it. Hypothetical examples:
CVCCVC: /’bun.ke/ bunker → /bin.’ke/ he bunkered
CVCC: /’ift/ shift → /if.’tet/ he pressed the ‘shift’ key
• The overwhelming majority of newly coined denominative
verbs in Hebrew are in either the ‘canonical’ (C1i.’C2eC3)
or in the C1VC2.’C3VC4 variants of kitel.
Background
CCVC nouns and denominative verbs
• CCVC nouns are tri-consonantal, therefore all possible
binyanim are relevant for verb derivation.
• The template paradigms of the most productive subbinyanim (canoincal kitel and kitlel) are the least
structurally faithful: /C1C2VC3/ rendition of the base never
occurs in their paradigm, whereas it does occur in katal,
hiktil and various less productive variants of kitel such as
iktel or ktolel.
• Thus there is a conflict between the morpho-lexical
requirement to use the default operation and the
phonological requirement to maximize source-derivative
faithfulness.
Background
Informal systematic survey of CCVC nouns and
denominative verbs in the Hebrew lexicon:
• 300-350 CCVC nouns (and adjectives).
• 39 unambiguous cases of denominative verbs derived
from CCVC nouns: 10 in katal, 19 in hiktil, six in kitel,
three in kitlel, four in other kitel variants.
• Although these numbers are not reliable for quantitative
analysis, the morpho-lexical vs. phonological conflict is
apparent: The otherwise preferred strategies kitel and
kitlel fare much worse that the template-faithful hiktil.
Background
Lexical survey (cont.):
• Apparent ‘island of reliability’ in CCiC: out of 12 CCiCsourced verbs, nine (75%) are in hiktil.
• Balanced variation between strategies elsewhere.
• Huge variation in CCoC-sourced verbs: 10 verbs, five
different strategies:
katal: e.g. /xa.’ap/ he napped, from /’xop/ nap
hiktil: e.g. /his.’mil/ he turned left, from /’smol/ left
kitel: e.g. /bi.’lef/ he bluffed, from /’blof/ bluff
kitlel: /bil.’geg/ he blogged, from /’blog/ blog
ktolel: /no.’e/ he scrounged, from /’no/ scrounge
Theoretical Approaches
The ‘Semitologist’ Approach*:
• In Semitic languages, lexical entries include the
consonantal root as a component in their representation.
• Derivation of the phonological contents of a novel word
requires the extraction of a consonantal root, the choice of
a template, and the combination of the two together.
• Since derivation goes through consonantal root
extraction, vocalic contents and prosodic structure of the
source of the derivation should play only a marginal role.
• Verb derivation strategies should not differ significantly
between CVCVC-sourced and CCVC-sourced nouns, nor
between CCVC nouns containing different vowels.
*Berent et al. (1997,2001,2002) clearly manifest this approach, but
might not necessarily subscribe to the current line of argumentation.
Theoretical Approaches
The ‘Universalist Phonological’ Approach*:
• Semitic languages adhere to the same phonological
constraints and representations as other languages.
• Lexical entries do not contain the consonantal root as an
independent representation component.
• Derivation of the phonological contents of a novel word is
achieved by direct source-derivative mapping, while
adhering to faithfulness and markedness constraints.
• Direct mapping and source faithfulness imply that, in the
derivation of denominative verbs, the skeletal structure
and vowel quality of the noun source should play a
significant role in determining the derivation strategy.
*See e.g. Bat-El (1994a, 1994b).
Theoretical Approaches
The ‘Lexicalist’ Approach*:
• Morphological strategies are determined by the speaker’s
knowledge of paradigm distribution in the existing lexicon.
• When choosing a morphological strategy, the speaker
applies arbitrary statistical knowledge on phonological
structures, rather than direct phonological mapping.
• The choice of derivation strategies of novel CCVCsourced denominative verbs should match the distribution
of strategies among the existing 39 CCVC-sourced verbs.
• Hypothetical strategies absent from the Hebrew lexicon
should be avoided even if they are phonologically optimal.
*This inflection-based approach, advocated in e.g. Albright(2002),
Albright&Hayes(2002), might not extend to derivational morphology.
The Experiment
Experiments on novel word derivation
• No standard format (unlike inflectional ‘wug’-tests).
• The morphological task is somewhat unnatural (most
people do not invent words on a daily basis).
• The task tends to be open-ended, and is seldom confined
to a small n-ary choice.
• Many times no derivational strategy is appropriate – a
problem for a strict forced-choice task.
• High risk of over-creativity on one hand, and strategy drift
on the other.
The Experiment - Guidelines
How to do an experiment on derivation?
• Ensure that the subjects are in the right state of mind!
• Obviate the task by using real word stimuli (not ‘wugs’)
and straightforward meanings for the derivatives!
• Keep the task simple! Cover most relevant strategies and
have the subjects choose, rather than derive themselves.
• Don’t force the subjects to choose – leave a default
alternative with no derivation available!
• Instruct subjects to prefer naturalness over creativity!
• Keep the experiment short, but don’t forget to use fillers!
• If the experiment is phonological, do not rely solely on
written form!
The Experiment - Subjects
• To date, 24 subjects have participated (a few others were
recruited but dropped out in the middle).
• Native Hebrew speakers, aged 22-36, educated
(undergrads to post-docs).
• Homogeneous and representative of General Israeli
Hebrew (mostly second generation native speakers).
• Living in Israel at present or have recently relocated from
Israel to Los-Angeles.
• No thorough background in theoretical linguistics.
• Neither academic nor professional experience in applying
prescriptivist norms.
The Experiment - Stimuli
• 63 nouns, ranging from core vocabulary, through slang
and loanwords to English words used in code-mixing.
• 48 CCVC stimuli, comprising of 16 CCiC stimuli and 8
stimuli for each of CCeC, CCaC, CCoC and CCuC.
• 15 control/filler stimuli: 5 stimuli for each of CV.’CVC,
VC.’CVC and CCV.’CVC, all perfectly balanced for vowel
qualities in both stressed and unstressed syllables.
• Stimuli never had existing semantically and morphophonologically related verbs (denominative or not).
• Stimuli were phonologically compatible with all of the
available strategies (not yielding phonotactic violations).
• Different stimuli never shared the same consonantal root.
The Experiment - Task
• Given a noun stimulus, a related predicative meaning,
and a sentence illustrating the use of the predicate, the
subject had to choose the most natural denominative verb
among eight derivational options (in Past-3rd-Sg-Msc).
• For CCVC stimuli, these options included the seven (sub-)
binyanim katal, hiktil, kitel, kitlel, iktel, ktolel (lexical
count: 1), ktilel (fictive, lexical count: 0).
• For the control conditions there were also seven options,
but these varied (since, for some stimuli, certain triconsonantal options had to be replaced by dummies).
• The eighth option was always a paraphrastic rendition of
the predicate with no derivation. The subjects were
instructed to choose this default option only as last resort.
The Experiment - Procedure
• For each experiment session, the subject receives by email a PowerPoint presentation, an answer sheet and
detailed installation instructions.
• The subject is instructed to ‘condergo’ the session while
sitting alone in front of the computer.
• The presentation begins with a multi-media introduction to
denominative verb derivation, illustrating both real verbs
and (obvious) intuitions about some hypothetical verbs.
• The introduction states explicitly that the experiment tests
how Hebrew speakers derive verbs from nouns. However,
the phonological aspects studied are not disclosed.
• The subject is explicitly instructed to prefer naturalness to
creativity.
The Experiment – Presentation
• The 63 stimuli were divided to three sessions of 21 stimuli
in each (16 CCVC and 5 of the other conditions).
• The order of the 5 non-CCVC stimuli was randomized.
• The order of the 16 CCVC stimuli was randomized, and
they were divided to four blocks of four stimuli. These four
blocks were interlaced between the non-CCVC stimuli.
• For each stimulus, the order of the seven non-default
derivational strategies was randomized.
• Graphemic as well as carefully-controlled, naturallysounding, recorded auditory renditions were created for
both the stimuli and all the derivational options.
• Each stimulus was presented, with its derivational
options, on a separate slide in a PowerPoint presentation.
The Experiment – Example
Following is an example of a stimulus presentation slide
(English glosses in curled brackets are later addition):
[shvil]
{latinization}
road)}
)‫או לא סלולה‬/‫(דרך צרה ו‬
.2
{/vil/ path (a narrow and/or unpaved
."‫ "להוליך בשביל‬:‫משמעות הפועל‬
{Verb meaning: “to lead through a path”.}
.‫ המדריך ________ את החניכים‬:‫דוגמת שימוש‬
{Usage example: The guide ____ the boy-scouts.}
‫ שבילל‬.1
‫ שיבל‬.7
‫ שבל‬.4
{/i.vel/ (kitel)}
{/a.val/ (katal)}
{/vi.lel/ (ktilel)}
‫ שבולל‬.5
‫ השביל‬.2
{/vo.lel/ (ktolel)}
{/hi.vil/ (hiktil)}
‫ הוליך בשביל‬.9
‫ שיבלל‬.6
‫ אישבל‬.3
{led through the path}
{/iv.lel/ (kitlel)}
{/i.vel/
(iktel)}
‫האזינו לכל אפשרויות הגזירה וסמנו בדף את זו שנראית לכם כמתאימה ביותר‬
{Listen to all derivations and mark the most appropriate one on the questionaire}
The Experiment – Special Focus
Special focus on hiktil in CCVC stimuli:
• The number of CCiC stimuli is twice that of other vowels.
• Two binary non-phonological parameters are controlled:
a) transitivity: whether or not the predicate takes a direct
object (strict causativity was avoided, because of the risk
of a ceiling effect).
b) homophony: whether or not the Hebrew lexicon
already has a hiktil verb with these three consonants.
• Each combination of {vowel, ±trans, ±hom} is represented
by two stimuli (four stimuli for CCiC).
• Homophony in other binyanim: For the 48 stimuli there
were 13 potential katal homophones, 11 kitel, 5 kitlel and
2 potential iktel homophones.
CV.’CVC Results
• Hegemony of kitel (and
kitlel) as expected.
• Somewhat surprising
viability of katal, maybe
due to /CV.’CVC/
skeletal faithfulness.
• Negligible use of hiktil
(and iktel).
• Results are in line with
all three theoretical
approaches.
derivation strategies for CV.'CVC
(n=110 out of 120 )
iktel
4.5%
katal
10.9%
kitlel
19.1%
hiktil
5.5%
kitel
60.0%
katal
hiktil
kitel
kitlel
ktilel
ktolel
iktel
CV.’CVC Results
• Hegemony of iktel.
• Mostly in line with the
phonological approach.
• The ‘Semitologist’ claim
that the nouns contain
an underlying //
cannot be ruled out.
• iktel is also in line
with the lexical
distribution approach,
but ktilel is not (yet it’s
marginal).
derivation strategies for VC.'CVC
(n=101 out of 120)
katal
2.0%
kitel
2.0%
hiktil
6.9%
ktilel
5.0%
iktel
80.2%
katal
hiktil
kitel
kitlel
ktilel
ktolel
iktel
kitlel
2.0%
ktolel
2.0%
CCV.’CVC Results
• CCV.’CVC stimuli do not
constitute a problem for
derivation.
• Equally co-dominated by
4-consonant kitel variants
CVC.’CVC (skeletally
unfaithful, common in the
lexicon) and CCV.’CVC
(skeletally faithful but nonexistent in the lexicon).
• Reduplication is
superfluous and appears
only marginally.
derivation strategies for CCV.'CVC
(n=115 out of 120)
krotlel
1.7%
krotel
7.0%
kritlel
7.0%
kirtel
41.7%
kritel
39.1%
kirtlel
3.5%
kirtel
kirtlel
kritel
kritlel
krotel
krotlel
CCVC Results
• Pluralism of strategies.
• Marginal use of katal.
• Substantial increase in
the popularity of hiktil,
ktilel and ktolel, mostly
at the expense of kitel.
• Both the phonological
and lexicalist approaches
can explain the
popularity of hiktil, but
ktilel and ktolel can be
explained only by the
phonological approach.
derivation strategies for CCVC
(n=1059 out of 1152)
iktel
7.1%
katal
5.9%
ktolel
11.8%
hiktil
28.2%
ktilel
14.6%
kitel
14.2%
kitlel
18.1%
katal
hiktil
kitel
kitlel
ktilel
ktolel
iktel
CCeC Results
Relative to CV.’CVC:
• CCeC is probably the
‘default’ CCVC source.
• High popularity of hiktil
and ktilel (/i/-faithful).
• Slightly higher popularity
of iktel (/e/-faithful, but
root-prefixed). Might be
non-significant.
• Significant decrease in
popularity of kitel, but
remains viable.
• Stability of kitlel.
derivation strategies for CCeC
(n=176 out of 192)
iktel
9.1%
ktolel
4.5%
katal
5.1%
hiktil
22.2%
ktilel
21.0%
kitel
18.2%
kitlel
19.9%
katal
hiktil
kitel
kitlel
ktilel
ktolel
iktel
CCaC Results
Relative to CCeC:
• Higher popularity of katal,
tightly related to the /a/melody. Surprising given
the unfaithful skeletal
structure (katal is CCVCfaithful in future tense,
where the vowel is /o/),
and the non-productive
status of katal.
• Decrease in popularity of
hiktil and ktilel.
• Like CCeC otherwise.
derivation strategies for CCaC
(n=171 out of 192)
iktel
9.9%
ktolel
6.4%
katal
13.5%
hiktil
15.8%
ktilel
15.2%
kitel
15.8%
kitlel
23.4%
katal
hiktil
kitel
kitlel
ktilel
ktolel
iktel
CCiC Results
Relative to CCeC:
• hiktil rules (/i/-faithful,
Island of Reliability).
• hiktil dominance explains
decrease in katal, kitel,
kitlel, ktolel and iktel.
• Stability of ktilel (also /i/faithful). Unclear whether
stability is genuine or an
artifact of counter-balance
between /i/-faithfulness
(positive) and dominance
of hiktil (negative).
derivation strategies for CCiC
(n=368 out of 384)
katal
3.0%
ktolel
1.9%
iktel
4.9%
ktilel
20.4%
hiktil
45.4%
kitlel
14.4%
kitel
10.1%
katal
hiktil
kitel
kitlel
ktilel
ktolel
iktel
CCoC Results
Relative to CCeC:
• ktolel (/o/-faithful) rules.
• ktolel dominance explains
the decrease in kitel,
kitlel,iktel and hiktil.
• Significant drop for ktilel,
perhaps also for hiktil.
• Probably higher popularity
of katal, explainable by
the future tense (/Ciktol/)
or by lexical statistics.
Might be non-significant.
derivation strategies for CCoC
(n=177 out of 192)
iktel
6.2%
katal
6.8%
hiktil
13.6%
ktolel
37.3%
kitel
14.7%
kitlel
16.4%
ktilel
5.1%
katal
hiktil
kitel
kitlel
ktilel
ktolel
iktel
CCUC Results
Relative to CCeC:
• Similar to CCeC, except
for the ‘mirror image’ in
ktolel vs. ktilel.
• Back-rounded faithfulness
explains ktolel popularity,
while height difference
underlies its more limited
span than in CCoC.
derivation strategies for CCuC
(n=167 out of 192)
iktel
7.8%
katal
4.8%
ktolel
19.8%
hiktil
25.1%
ktilel
4.8%
kitel
16.8%
kitlel
21.0%
katal
hiktil
kitel
kitlel
ktilel
ktolel
iktel
Transitivity Results
derivations for transitive (n=549) and
intransitive (n=510) predicates
35
% of non-default responses
• Transitivity facilitates
derivation: 96% vs.
89% non-default
responses.
• Transitivity significantly
increases hiktil (and
also kitel) responses.
• This increase is
probably responsible
for the decrease in
katal, kitlel and ktilel
responses (and not
vice-versa).
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
katal
hiktil
kitel
kitlel
intransitive
ktilel ktolel
transitive
iktel
Homophony Results
The effect of homophony on
hiktil, katal and kitel
% of non-default responses
• Results are based on
responses for 24 (vs.
24) stimuli for hiktil,
13 (vs. 35) for katal
and 11 (vs. 37) for
kitel.
• Quite predictably,
potential homophony
impedes derivation.
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
hiktil
katal
no homophony
kitel
homophony
Analysis - Stability
Stability across stimulus vowels
% of non-default responses per vowel
• ktolel, hiktil, ktilel and
katal are very sensitive
to the source vowel.
• Conversely, ktilel, kitel
and iktel are stable
across different vowels.
• This suggests (at least)
two different derivation
mechanisms. Notice in
particular the difference
between iktel and the
four sensitive strategies.
50
40
30
20
10
0
katal
hiktil
kitel
kitlel
ktilel
ktolel
iktel
Analysis – hiktil vs. ktilel
•
Phonologically, hiktil
hiktil
ktilel h/k
and ktilel are
CC{eaou}C 71/507 63/507 1.13
![+trans (14.0%) (12.4%)
equivalent (/CCiC/
-hom]
faithful). Why is there
CC{eaou}C 61/184 17/184 3.59
hiktil bias?
[+trans (33.2%) (9.2%)
a) morpho-syntactic and
–hom]
lexical knowledge.
CCiC
113/276 67/276 1.69
![+trans (40.9%) (24.3%)
b) hiktil as island of
–hom]
reliability for CCiC.
CCiC
54/92
8/92 6.75*
• When both factors
[+trans (58.7%) (8.7%)
are combined hiktil
–hom]
is as popular as kitel
* 1.13x3.59x1.69=6.85≈6.75
for CV.’CVC nouns!!!
Where is the catch …??? ;-)
Analysis – ktilel vs. ktolel
• For non-low vowel CCVC stimuli, ktilel and ktolel mirror
each other: Strong bias towards the fully faithful vowel in
CCiC and CCoC, and slightly weaker bias towards the
backness&rounding faithful vowel in CCeC and CCuC.
CCiC
ktilel ktolel
20.4% 1.9%
CCeC
ktilel ktolel
21% 4.5%
i/(i+o)
91.4%
ktilel
4.8%
i/(i+o)
82.2%
ktilel
5.1%
CCaC
ktilel ktolel i/(i+o)
15.2% 6.4% 70.3%
CCuC
ktolel
19.8%
CCoC
ktolel
37.3%
i/(i+o)
19.5%
i/(i+o)
12.0%
Analysis – hiktil vs. ktolel
• This mirror imaging is only partially replicated for hiktil vs.
ktolel in non-low vowel ![+trans –hom] CCVC stimuli. The
CCiC~CCoC asymmetry is predicted by the /i/-hiktil island
of reliability, but CCeC~CCuC asymmetry is unexplained.
CCiC
hiktil ktolel
40.9% 2.2%
CCeC
hiktil ktolel
20.9% 6.2%
i/(i+o)
95.0%
i/(i+o)
77.1%
CCuC
hiktil ktolel
12.3% 22.1%
CCoC
hiktil ktolel
9.2% 39.2%
CCaC
hiktil ktolel i/(i+o)
13.5% 7.1% 65.4%
i/(i+o)
35.7%
i/(i+o)
19.0%
Tentative Conclusions
• The experiment elicited derivations successfully: only 8%
of no-derivation answers, equally distributed between all
conditions; only marginal over-creativity; the results are
always interpretable by at least one theoretical approach.
• The results for CV.’CVC and VC.’CVC stimuli are
predictable by all approaches. As such they are not too
informative, but reinforce the experimental design.
• The popularity of kritel for CCV.’CVC nouns, of katal for
CCaC, of ktolel for CCoC and CCuC, and of ktilel for
CCiC and CCeC (and CCaC) can only be explained by the
universalist phonological approach: In choosing these
strategies the speakers neither extract a consonantal root
nor consult the existing lexicon.
Tentative Conclusions
• The phonological approach also explains hiktil~ktilel
equivalence for CC{eaou}C ![+trans –hom] stimuli and the
ktolel~ktilel mirror image for CC{ieou}C stimuli.
• The differences between the phonologically equivalent
hiktil and ktilel elsewhere are best explained by morphosyntactic and lexical knowledge, and demonstrate the
(secondary) role of lexical statistics in derivation.
• The stability of kitel, kitlel and iktel across all CCVC
conditions is best explained by the root-extraction and/or
the lexical distribution approaches. The account by the
phonological approach, relying on /CV…VC/ as the optimal
base (single-consonant edges) requires more ‘handwaving’, in particular for iktel.
Selected References
Albright, A. (2002). ‘Islands of reliability for regular morphology: evidence from Italian.’
Language 78, 684-709.
Albright, A. and Hayes, B. (2002). ‘Modeling English past tense intuitions with minimal
generalizations’. In Maxwell, M. (ed): Proceedings of the 6th Meeting of the ACL Special
Interest Group in Computational Phonology. Philadelphia, July 2002. ACL.
Bat-El, O. (1994a). ‘System modification and cluster transfer in Modern Hebrew.’ Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 12, 571-593.
Bat-El, O. (1994b). ‘Resolving prosodic mismatch in Modern Hebrew verb formation.’ In van
der Hulst and van de Weijer (eds): Leiden in Last: HIL Phonology Papers I. The Hague:
Holland Academic Graphics. 25-40.
Berent, I., and Shimron, J. (1997). ‘The representation of Hebrew words: Evidence from the
Obligatory Contour Principle.’ Cognition 64, 39-72.
Berent, I., Everett, D. L., and Shimron, J. (2001). ‘Do phonological representations specify
variables? Evidence from the Obligatory Contour Principle.’ Cognitive Psychology 42(1),
1-60.
Berent, I., Marcus, G., Shimron, J. and Gafos, A. (2002). ‘The scope of linguistic
generalizations: evidence from Hebrew word formantion.’ Cognition 83, 113-139.