Does a theory of language need a grammar? Evidence from Hebrew root structure

Phonological reduplication in sign language: Rules rule

“…Our survey of nonreduplicative disyllables in the ASL lexicon reveals that partly similar signs—those in which the two syllables share location—are systematically underrepresented relative to dissimilar signs (i.e., those in which the location feature is not shared; for details, see footnote 12) 12 . Thus, acceptability (estimated by lexical frequency) is not a linear function of similarity (i.e., feature overlap): full identity is preferred, but partial similarity is systematically avoided—a result also found in spoken languages (e.g., Berent and Shimron, 2003; Berent et al, 2004). This conclusion counters the possibility that the preference for reduplicated signs (most critically, ones with unattested handshapes) is only due to the partial similarity among some of their native features.…”

“…A large body of experimental research shows that Hebrew speakers generalize this restriction to novel forms (Berent and Shimron, 1997; Berent et al, 2001a,b, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2011, 2012a; Berent and Shimron, 2003)—a conclusion that converges with artificial language experiments with adults (Endress et al, 2005; Toro et al, 2008) and infants (Marcus et al, 1999, 2007; Gervain et al, 2008, 2012). Such results demonstrate that the reduplication function is productive, but they do not attest to the scope of the generalization, and consequently, they do not distinguish between rule-based and associative explanations.…”

On the Role of Variables in Phonology: Remarks on Hayes and Wilson 2008

“…Numerous studies have shown that people generalize their phonotactic knowledge to novel items. Constraints on identity, for example, have been shown to generalize in both natural (Berent et al 2001b, Berent and Shimron 2003, Berent et al 2004, Coetzee 2008, Frisch and Zawaydeh 2001) and artificial languages (Marcus et al 1999, Nevins 2010, Toro et al 2008). But as discussed above, many generalizations can be accounted for either with powerful expressions over variables or from expressions consisting only of feature matrices.…”

“…The generalization to /θ/ is particularly striking: not only is this segment non-native to Hebrew, but its value for the Tongue Tip Constriction Area feature (TTCA, Gafos 1999) does not occur in any native Hebrew segment. A priori it would have been doubtful that restrictions on segment identity can be captured at the feature level— smm -type roots are far more frequent and preferable to the homorganic smb even though their final consonants share every feature (Berent and Shimron 2003, Berent et al 2004); the observed generalization to a non-native feature value counters even this remote possibility. Because this generalization exceeds the space of Hebrew segments and features, Berent et al interpreted these data as implying a constraint on identity that was stated as an operation over variables.…”

Reading Disabilities Among Hebrew-speaking Children in Upper Elementary Grades: The Role of Phonological and Nonphonological Language Skills

“…Recent finding from 150 native monolingual Hebrew speakers in 2nd, 4th and 6th grade showed that morphology complexity influenced word identification accuracy and rate (Schiff, 2003). Also, several studies demonstrated a certain sensitivity of Hebrew readers to the existence of roots and patterns with both lexical decision and naming tasks (Berent, Vaknin, & Shimron, 2004;Deutsch, Frost, & Forster, 1998;Frost, Forster, & Deutsch, 1997). Thus, when tests of word identification contain complex morphological forms, readers are likely to employ morphological knowledge to analyze words and obtain word meaning (Nagy, Anderson, Shimmer, Scott, & Stallman, 1989;Taft, 1985).…”