Written morphological analogies
in Hebrew
Dorit Ravid and Rachel Schiff
Tel Aviv University Bar Ilan University
Israel
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 katava
address writing spelling typist journalistic report
hitkatvut
ktuba
correspondence marriage contract
taxtiv
dictate
Roots and patterns: k-t-b ‘write' ‫כתב‬
katav hixtiv
katuv mixtav kituv
wrote
dictated
written
letter
subtitle
‫כתב‬
‫הכתיב‬
‫כתוב‬
‫מכתב‬
‫כיתוב‬
któvet ktav ktiv katvan katava
address writing spelling
‫כתובת‬
‫כתב‬
hitkatvut
‫כתיב‬
typist
‫כתבה כתבן‬
ktuba
correspondence marriage contract
‫התכתבות‬
‫כתובה‬
journalistic report
taxtiv
dictate
‫תכתיב‬
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 ‫וכשבמגדליכם‬
u-xshe-be-migdaley-xem ‘and-when-in-towersyoursPl’
• 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 SES
2. 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 disabilities
3. 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
P
a
t
t
e
r
n
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
Root relationship
KPL ‫כפל‬
kéfel ‘multiplication’
MKPLH ‫מכפלה‬
maxpela ‘multiple,N’
SRŦ ‫סרט‬
séret ‘film’
Pattern source
?
(MSRŦH ‫)מסרטה‬
(masreta ‘projector’)
Root source
Root relationship
P
a
t
t
e
r
n
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
Response set
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Correct response: target noun MSRŦH ‫‘ מסרטה‬projector’
Main root distracter: a word containing the same root as the root
source, but not the same pattern TSRYŦ ‫‘ תסריט‬script’
Pattern distracter: a word containing the same pattern as the
pattern source, but not the same root MGRPH ‫‘ מגרפה‬rake’
Secondary root distracter: a word containing the same root
shared by members of the top horizontal pair KPYL ‫‘ כפיל‬double’
Semantic distracter: associated semantically or pragmatically but
not morphologically to left-hand member of horizontal pair
KWLNW9 ‫‘ קולנוע‬movies’
Correct responses:
100
High and Low SES gradeschoolers
90
H-SES
% correct responses
80
70
60
50
40
L-SES
30
20
5/6 > 3/4 > 2
High > Low
10
0
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
Correct responses:
100
High and Low SES gradeschoolers, adult dyslexic students
90
H-SES
% correct responses
80
70
60
Ad dys
50
40
L-SES
30
20
10
0
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
Adult
dyslexics
Correct responses:
High and Low SES gradeschoolers, adult dyslexic students
100
90
H-SES
% correct responses
80
70
60
Ad dys
50
L-SES
40
30
20
10
0
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
Adult
dyslexics
Erroneous response types: High SES
100%
80%
Semantic distracter
60%
Secondary root distracter
Pattern distracter
40%
Main root distracter
20%
0%
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
Main root response
Few pattern, semantic responses
No age differences
Erroneous response types: Low SES
Main root: increase with age; Secondary root: decline with age
Semantic and pattern distracters: decline with age
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Semantic distracter
Secondary root distracter
Pattern distracter
Main root distracter
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
Erroneous response types: Adult dyslexic students
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Semantic distracter
Secondary root distracter
Pattern distracter
Main root distracter
Main root distracter
Semantic 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:
100
High SES gradeschoolers, real versus nonce words
90
% correct responses
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Nonce: 5/6 > 2/3/4
Real > nonce
Real words
Nonce words
0
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
Erroneous response types: High-SES, nonce words
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Secondary root distracter
Pattern distracter
Main root distracter
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
Main root: decline with age
Pattern: surge in 5/6