written morphological analogies in hebrew dorit ravid and rachel schiff tel aviv university bar ilan...
TRANSCRIPT
Written morphological analogies in Hebrew
Dorit Ravid and Rachel Schiff
Tel Aviv University Bar Ilan UniversityIsrael
Morphology
• One of the organizing principles of the mental lexicon
• Morphemes and words
Morphology
• One of the organizing principles of the mental lexicon
• Morphemes and words• Crucial importance in Hebrew
– Highly synthetic Semitic language
Hebrew morphology:Roots and patterns
katav hixtiv katuv mixtav kituv wrote dictated written letter subtitle
któvet ktav ktiv katvan katavaaddress writing spelling typist journalistic report
hitkatvut ktuba taxtivcorrespondence marriage contract dictate
Roots and patterns: k-t-b ‘write' כתב
katav hixtiv katuv mixtav kituv wrote dictated written letter subtitle
כתב ביכת הב וכת כתב מב ותיכ
któvet ktav ktiv katvan katavaaddress writing spelling typist journalistic report
הכתב תבוכת כתב ביכתן כתב
hitkatvut ktuba taxtivcorrespondence marriage contract dictate
ותכתבה התבוכת ביכתת
Roots (k-t-b, g-d-l, p-r-s-m)
Spoken roots• Discontinuous• 3-4 consonants• Phonological alternations• Lexical core of
morphological family• Salient
Written roots• Almost continuous • 3-4 letters• Consistent orthography• Construal as entity
fostered by written properties
Patterns (hiCCiC, CaCuC, miCCaC)
Spoken patterns• Discontinuous• Prosodic templates• Provide internal vowels
(+ prefixes / suffixes)• Categorial meaning
– Verbal– Nominal
• Less salient than roots
Written patterns• Scant orthographic
representation• Vowels: almost no
representation• Discrete prefix, suffix• Construal as entity
obscured by written properties
Implications for reading and writing
• The lexically meaningful part of the word is represented in its center; letters framing the word carry grammatical and categorial meaning
• WKŠBMGDLYKM יכםגדלוכשבמ u-xshe-be-migdaley-xem ‘and-when-in-towers-yoursPl’
• Root GDL ‘grow’ surrounded by function elements
The current study
• Investigates Hebrew readers’ ability to analyze roots and patterns in written Hebrew wordforms
• Focus on nominal patterns• Testing the ability to extract and recombine roots
and patterns from written Hebrew nominals using a morphological analogies task
Participants
1. 152 gradeschool children, middle-high SES2. 167 gradeschoo children, low SES
– Five age-groups each: 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th graders– All monolingual speakers of Hebrew as a native tongue with
no diagnosed language or learning disabilities3. 38 undergraduate education students, all with a long
history of reading difficulties and diagnosed with reading disabilities within three years prior to attending university or while attending university; All monolingual speakers of Hebrew as a native tongue
The Morphological Analogies Task (MAT)
• 40 analogy sets• Each set contains two components:
– A set of stimulus nouns– A set of possible responses
• The task requires the selection of a target noun from the set of responses to complete the stimulus set
Analogy structure
KPL כפל
kéfel ‘multiplication’ MKPLH מכפלה
maxpela ‘multiple,N’
Pattern source
SRŦ סרט
séret ‘film’
Root source
? (MSRŦHמסרטה )
(masreta ‘projector’)
Root relationship
Root relationship
Pattern
relationship
Pattern
relationship
Response set 1. Correct response: target noun MSRŦHמסרטה ‘projector’
2. Main root distracter: a word containing the same root as the root source, but not the same pattern TSRYŦ תסריט ‘script’
3. Pattern distracter: a word containing the same pattern as the pattern source, but not the same root MGRPH מגרפה ‘rake’
4. Secondary root distracter: a word containing the same root shared by members of the top horizontal pair KPYL כפיל ‘double’
5. Semantic distracter: associated semantically or pragmatically but not morphologically to left-hand member of horizontal pair KWLNW9 קולנוע ‘movies’
Correct responses: High and Low SES gradeschoolers
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
G2 G3 G4 G5 G6
% c
orr
ec
t re
sp
on
se
s
H-SES
L-SES
5/6 > 3/4 > 2High > Low
Correct responses: High and Low SES gradeschoolers, adult dyslexic students
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 Adultdyslexics
% c
orr
ec
t re
sp
on
se
s
H-SES
L-SES
Ad dys
Correct responses: High and Low SES gradeschoolers, adult dyslexic students
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 Adultdyslexics
% c
orr
ec
t re
sp
on
se
s
H-SES
L-SES
Ad dys
Erroneous response types: High SES
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
G2 G3 G4 G5 G6
Semantic distracter
Secondary root distracter
Pattern distracter
Main root distracter
Main root responseFew pattern, semantic responsesNo age differences
Erroneous response types: Low SES
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
G2 G3 G4 G5 G6
Semantic distracter
Secondary root distracter
Pattern distracter
Main root distracter
Main root: increase with age; Secondary root: decline with ageSemantic and pattern distracters: decline with age
Erroneous response types: Adult dyslexic students
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Semantic distracter
Secondary root distracter
Pattern distracter
Main root distracter
Main root distracterSemantic distracter
Summary and conclusions
• Analytical morphological skills from early on in normally developing Hebrew speakers– More in high-SES gradeschoolers, less in low-SES
• Dyslexics are ‘stuck’ with the analytic skills of 3rd and 4th graders– Revert to non-morphological strategies absent in
typically-developing children
Summary and conclusions
• Roots perceived as the prime lexical construct in Hebrew words
• Patterns less salient and their perception lags behind that of roots
• But - impossible to solve the MAT without recourse to both root and pattern
Correct responses: High SES gradeschoolers, real versus nonce words
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
G2 G3 G4 G5 G6
% c
orr
ect
resp
on
ses
Real wordsNonce words
Nonce: 5/6 > 2/3/4Real > nonce
Erroneous response types: High-SES, nonce words
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
G2 G3 G4 G5 G6
Secondary root distracter
Pattern distracter
Main root distracter
Main root: decline with agePattern: surge in 5/6