The scope of linguistic generalizations: evidence from Hebrew word formation

Abstract

Does the productive use of language stem from the manipulation of mental variables (e.g. "noun", "any consonant")? If linguistic constraints appeal to variables, rather than instances (e.g. "dog", "m"), then they should generalize to any representable novel instance, including instances that fall beyond the phonological space of a language. We test this prediction by investigating a constraint on the structure of Hebrew roots. Hebrew frequently exhibits geminates (e.g. ss) in its roots, but it strictly constraints their location: geminates are frequent at the end of the root (e.g. mss), but rare at its beginning (e.g. ssm). Symbolic accounts capture the ban on root-initial geminates as *XXY, where X and Y are variables that stand for any two distinct consonants. If the constraint on root structure appeals to the identity of abstract variables, then speakers should be able to extend it to root geminates with foreign phonemes, including phonemes with foreign feature values. We present findings from three experiments supporting this prediction. These results suggest that a complete account of linguistic processing must incorporate mechanisms for generalization outside the representational space of trained items. Mentally-represented variables would allow speakers to make such generalizations.

Grammaticality and Ungrammaticality in Phonology

“…They hence conclude that 'knowledge of phonotactic constraints is independent from simple lexical statistics ' (2001:104). Berent, Everett and Shimron (2001), Berent, Shimron and Vaknin (2001), and Berent et al (2002) come to a similar conclusion based on word-likeness rating experiments with Hebrew listeners. There is also similar evidence for an independent contribution of grammar to speech processing in other kinds of tasks.…”

“…Moreton (2002), Pitt (1998), Berent et al (2007), Dupoux et al (2001) and Coetzee (2005) all show that grammar influences perception. Berent, Shimron and Vaknin (2001) and Berent et al (2002) show in a similar manner that grammar influences reaction times in lexical decision. Zuraw (2007) shows that the way in which Tagalog speakers applies a morphological process to nonce words cannot be accounted only by frequency statistics.…”

The Timecourse of Generalization in Phonotactic Learning

“…Likewise, Hebrew speakers judge a nonce root that starts with two identical, non-native consonants, such as [θ-θ], as less acceptable than an analogous root with non-identical consonants (e.g. [θ-k]), even though both sequences have a frequency of 0 in Hebrew (Berent et al 2002). These results suggest that speakers generalize over attested structures and apply these generalizations to make distinctions among unattested ones.…”

Rapid generalization in phonotactic learning

“…A large range of studies have shown that such generalizations can be acquired in artificial language studies (Gervain, 2014;Marcus et al, 1999;Moreton, 2012). In natural languages, generalizations that have to do with segment repetition or bans on repetition have been documented in Yucatec Mayan, Hebrew, Peruvian Aymara, and other languages (Berent et al, 2002;Gallagher, 2013).…”