Search

The literature on what we call AB constructions (freezes, irreversible binomials), such as odds and ends and copy paste, attributes the fixed word order to both phonological and non-phonological, mostly semantic constraints. However, some researchers attribute a prominent role to phonology, while others view semantics as the major contributor to word order of AB constructions. In this paper we evaluate the role of phonology in Hebrew AB constructions with reference to a harmonic grammar with weighted constraints, where constraint weight is calculated on the basis of its effect in our corpus. The grammar reveals that semantic constraints weigh more than phonological constraints in both the cumulative weight and the average weight. Nevertheless, phonology affects a great number of data items, in particular those where semantic constraints are mute. We thus conclude that although syntax and semantics are responsible for word order, phonology determines word order when the other modules do not have a say.

Across languages, certain linguistic forms are systematically preferred to others (e.g. bla > lba). But whether these preferences concern abstract constraints on language structure, generally, or whether these restrictions only apply to speech is unknown. To address this question, here we ask whether linguistic constraints previously identified in spoken languages apply to signs. One such constraint, ANCHORING, restricts the structure of reduplicated forms (AB → ABB, not ABA). In two experiments, native ASL signers rated the acceptability of novel reduplicated forms that either violated ANCHORING (ABA) or obeyed it (ABB). In Experiment 1, signers made a forced choice between ABB and ABA forms; in Experiment 2, signers rated signs individually. Results showed that signers prefer signs that obey ANCHORING over ANCHORING violations (ABB > ABA). These findings show for the first time that ANCHORING is operative in ASL signers. These results suggest that some linguistic constraints are amodal, applying to both speech and signs.

The paper addresses historical changes in the stress system of Hebrew, attending to the difference between Biblical Hebrew (script-based) and contemporary Hebrew (attested), and predicting the system of post-Hebrew; on the basis of experimental evidence and words from the periphery of the lexicon, it is predicted that the stress system of post-Hebrew will be similar to that of Biblical Hebrew. The predicted change from contemporary Hebrew to post-Hebrew is attributed to a combination of two factors: the inconsistency of the present system, and its incompliance with universal principles. The changes are addressed in terms of constraint reranking within the framework of Optimality Theory.

Cet article explore les conditions qui résultent du positionnement variable du terme source dans les amalgames anglais, dans lesquels les mêmes termes sources ont un ordre variable, créant ainsi deux amalgames différents, c’est-à-dire des doublets d’amalgames. Pour les doublets d’amalgames non synonymiques, tels que (egg × prégnant >) éggnant ‘pregnant with egg’ et prégegg ‘egg that counts down pregnancy’, le facteur principal est que dans les amalgames endocentriques, le terme source qui constitue la tête sémantique se place à droite. Pour les doublets d’amalgames synonymiques, tels que plúmpricot ~ ápriplum ‘plum‑apricot hybrid’ (< plum × ápricot), le positionnement variable du terme source dépend d’au moins quatre facteurs qui se combinent : (i) la fidélité segmentale – qui permet l’optimalisation de la similarité segmentale ; (ii) la loi de Pāṇini – qui consiste à placer le terme source le plus court devant le terme source le plus long ; (iii) l’intégrité monosyllabique – c’est-à-dire la conservation du terme source monosyllabique dans la même syllable ; et (iv) la fidélité syntagmatique – qui ajuste l’ordre linéaire des termes sources selon l’ordre qu’ils auraient dans un constituant syntaxique potentiel. In this paper, we explore the conditions that result in variable base‑word positioning in English blends, where the same base words have variable order, yielding two blends, i.e. blend doublets. In non‑synonymous doublets, such as (egg × prégnant >) éggnant ‘pregnant with egg’ and prégegg ‘egg that counts down pregnancy’, the main factor is that in endocentric blends, the base word that contributes the semantic head is right‑aligned. In synonymous blend doublets, such as plúmpricot ~ ápriplum ‘plum‑apricot hybrid’ (< plum × ápricot), variable base‑word positioning results from at least four factors interacting: (i) segmental faithfulness – maximizing segmental similarity; (ii) Pāṇini’s law – positioning the short base word before the long one; (iii) monosyllabic integrity – keeping the monosyllabic base word in the same syllable; and (iv) syntagmatic faithfulness – matching the linear order of the base words to their order in a would‑be syntactic constituent.

Does knowledge of language transfer across language modalities? For example, can speakers who have had no sign language experience spontaneously project grammatical principles of English to American Sign Language (ASL) signs? To address this question, here, we explore a grammatical illusion. Using spoken language, we first show that a single word with doubling (e.g., trafraf) can elicit conflicting linguistic responses, depending on the level of linguistic analysis (phonology vs. morphology). We next show that speakers with no command of a sign language extend these same principles to novel ASL signs. Remarkably, the morphological analysis of ASL signs depends on the morphology of participants' spoken language. Speakers of Malayalam (a language with rich reduplicative morphology) prefer XX signs when doubling signals morphological plurality, whereas no such preference is seen in speakers of Mandarin (a language with no productive plural morphology). Our conclusions open up the possibility that some linguistic principles are amodal and abstract.

Does knowledge of language consist of abstract principles, or is it fully embodied in the sensorimotor system? To address this question, we investigate the double identity of doubling (e.g., slaflaf, or generally, XX; where X stands for a phonological constituent). Across languages, doubling is known to elicit conflicting preferences at different levels of linguistic analysis (phonology vs. morphology). Here, we show that these preferences are active in the brains of individual speakers, and they are demonstrably distinct from sensorimotor pressures. We first demonstrate that doubling in novel English words elicits divergent percepts: Viewed as meaningless (phonological) forms, doubling is disliked (e.g., slaflaf < slafmak), but once doubling in form is systematically linked to meaning (e.g., slaf = ball, slaflaf = balls), the doubling aversion shifts into a reliable (morphological) preference. We next show that sign-naive speakers spontaneously project these principles to novel signs in American Sign Language, and their capacity to do so depends on the structure of their spoken language (English vs. Hebrew). These results demonstrate that linguistic preferences doubly dissociate from sensorimotor demands: A single stimulus can elicit diverse percepts, yet these percepts are invariant across stimulus modality––for speech and signs. These conclusions are in line with the possibility that some linguistic principles are abstract, and they apply broadly across language modality.

The article addresses two issues regarding Hebrew reduplication: (a) the distinction between reduplicated and nonreduplicated stems with identical consonants (e.g., minen ‘to apportion’ vs. mimen ‘to finance’), and (b) the patterns of reduplication (C1VC2VC2C, C1VC2C3VC3C,C1VC2C1CVC2C, and C1C2VC3C2CVC3C). These issues are studied from a surface point of view, accounting for speakers’ capacity to parse forms with identical consonants regardless of their base. It is argued that the grammar constructed by the learner on the basis of structural relations (base – output) can also serve for parsing surface forms without reference to a base.

Cet article propose une analyse de la morphologie non-concatenative en hebreu moderne dans le cadre de la Theorie de l'Optimalite. Il est soutenu que le mot est la base de la derivation, modifiee par des contraintes assignant une structure prosodique, une melodie vocalique et des affixes, le cas echeant. La notion de gabarit est vue comme une configuration des structures assignees par ces contraintes. La racine consonantique est entierement eliminee de la grammaire. Ce dernier point est defendu sur la base d'arguments provenant du changement diachronique et de l'apprentissage.

There are two types of truncation that yield shortening of a morphological constituent, FAKE TRUNCATION (templatic) and TRUE TRUNCATION (a-templatic, subtractive). This article provides an analysis of true truncation in colloquial Hebrew imperatives. It is shown that true truncation cannot target a designated phonological unit, since in some forms CV is truncated and in others only V. In addition, there are cases where truncation is blocked. The framework of optimality theory adopted here allows a unified account of the data in terms of constraint interaction. It is argued that an antifaithfulness truncation constraint, which must be morphological, interacts with both faithfulness and markedness constraints. Truncation is minimized to one segment by a general antideletion faithfulness constraint, but markedness constraints may impose truncation of more than one segment. There are cases where truncation is blocked, which suggests that the truncation constraint is violable. The discussion includes regular and irregular verbs and instances of free variation.

Blends, also called portmanteau words, are formed by fusing two words into one new word, where internal portions of the base words are often subtracted (one segmental string from the right part of the first word and another from the left part of the second word). For example, the English blendnixonomicshas been formed by combiningnixonandeconomicsand subtracting the stringneco. (For clarity of exposition, blends will be usually represented asnixonomics, where the subtracted material is enclosed in angled brackets and the boundary between the base elements is indicated by ⋅).

In the formation of Modern Hebrew denominative verbs, two structural properties are transferred from the base to the derived form: the consonantal root and the consonant cluster. While the model of Root-to-Template Association (McCarthy 1981) is largely based on root transfer, it fails to account for cluster transfer. In this paper I argue that the model which can actually account for cluster transfer as well as root transfer is what I will term here Stem Modification (Steriade 1988). Within this model, segmental and prosodic adjustments are made on the base itself and not on some designated material extracted from the base. This approach to stem formation also eliminates the notion of the consonantal root from the grammar of Modern Hebrew.