Cover not available
Article published In:
The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 15:2 (2020) ► pp.223–257

Morphological generalization of Hebrew verb classes

An elicited production study in native and non-native speakers

| University of Potsdam
The present work investigated how morphological generalization, namely the way speakers extend their knowledge to novel complex words, is influenced by sources of variability in language and speaker properties. For this purpose, the study focused on a Semitic language (Hebrew), characterized by unique non-concatenative morphology, and native (L1) as well as non-native (L2) speakers. Two elicited production tasks tested what information sources speakers employ in verbal inflectional class generalization, i.e., in forming complex novel verbs. Phonological similarity was tested in Experiment 1 and argument structure in Experiment 2. The analysis focused on the two most common Hebrew inflectional classes, Paal and Piel, which also constituted the vast majority of responses in the two tasks. Unlike the commonly found outcomes in Romance inflectional class generalization, the results yielded, solely for Piel, a graded phonological similarity effect and a robust argument structure effect, i.e., more Piel responses in a direct object context than without. The L2 pattern partially differed from the L1: (i) argument structure effect for L2 speakers was weaker, and (ii) L2 speakers produced more Paal than Piel responses. The results are discussed within the framework of rule-based and input-based accounts.
Keywords: morphology, generalization, inflectional classes, Hebrew, non-native speakers
Article outline
  • Generalization of Hebrew verb classes
  • Morphological generalization in non-native (L2) speakers
  • The present study
  • Experiment 1
    • Method
      • Participants
      • Simulation
      • Materials
      • Procedure
      • Data analysis
    • Results
  • Experiment 2
    • Method
      • Participants
      • Materials
      • Procedure
      • Data analysis
    • Results
  • Discussion
    • Language-specific effects on morphological generalization
    • Speaker-specific effects on morphological generalization
    • Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.19001.far
References (78)
References
Agathopoulou, E., & Papadopoulou, D. (2009). Regularity patterns of the Greek past perfective: a psycholinguistic study. In G. K. Giannakis, Μ. Baltazani, G. I. Xydopoulos & Α. Tsangalidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Greek linguistics, Ioannina (pp. 1–13).Google Scholar
Albright, A. (2002). Islands of reliability for regular morphology: Evidence from Italian. Language, 684–709. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Albright, A., & Hayes, B. (2003). Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Cognition, 901, 119–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. MIT press.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 591, 390–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., & Milin, P. (2010). Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 31, 12–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berent, I., Pinker, S., & Shimron, J. (1999). Default nominal inflection in Hebrew: Evidence for mental variables. Cognition, 721, 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berent, I., & Shimron, J. (1997). The representation of Hebrew words: Evidence from the obligatory contour principle. Cognition, 641, 39–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, R. A. (1993). Marking of verb transitivity by Hebrew-speaking children. Journal of Child Language, 201, 641–669. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997). Modern Hebrew. In R. Hetzron (Ed.), The Semitic languages (pp. 312–333). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bolozky, S. (1999a). Measuring productivity in word formation: The case of Israeli Hebrew. Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999b). On the special status of the vowels a and e in Israeli Hebrew. Hebrew Studies, 401, 233–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boudelaa, S., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2015). Structure, form, and meaning in the mental lexicon: Evidence from Arabic. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 301, 955–992. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brooks, P. J., Braine, M. D., Catalano, L., Brody, R. E., & Sudhalter, V. (1993). Acquisition of gender-like noun subclasses in an artificial language: The contribution of phonological markers to learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 321, 76–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brovetto, C., & Ullman, M. T. (2005). The mental representation and processing of Spanish verbal morphology. In Eddington, D. (Ed.), Selected proceedings of the 7th hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 98–105). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L., & Moder, C. L. (1983). Morphological classes as natural categories. Language, 251–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, L., Shu, H. U. A., Liu, Y., Zhao, J., & Li, P. (2007). ERP signatures of subject-verb agreement in L2 learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 101, 161–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 271, 3–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Some notes on the shallow structure hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 401, 693–706. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culbertson, J., Gagliardi, A., & Smith, K. (2017). Competition between phonological and semantic cues in noun class learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 921, 343–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culbertson, J., & Wilson, C. (2013). Artificial grammar learning of shape-based noun classification. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th annual meeting of the cognitive science society (pp. 2118–2123). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Cuskley, C., Colaiori, F., Castellano, C., Loreto, V., Pugliese, M., & Tria, F. (2015). The adoption of linguistic rules in native and non-native speakers: Evidence from a Wug task. Journal of Memory and Language, 841, 205–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dawdy-Hesterberg, L. G., & Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2014). Learnability and generalisation of Arabic broken plural nouns. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 291, 1268–1282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deutsch, A. (2016). The separability of morphological processes from semantic meaning and syntactic class in production of single words: Evidence from the Hebrew root morpheme. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 451, 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dewaele, J. M., & Véronique, D. (2001). Gender assignment and gender agreement in advanced French interlanguage: A cross-sectional study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 41, 275–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dussias, P. E., Marful, A., Gerfen, C., & Molina, M. T. B. (2010). Usage frequencies of complement-taking verbs in Spanish and English: Data from Spanish monolinguals and Spanish-English bilinguals. Behavior Research Methods, 421, 1004–1011. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dussias, P. E., & Scaltz, T. R. C. (2008). Spanish-English L2 speakers’ use of subcategorization bias information in the resolution of temporary ambiguity during second language reading. Acta Psychologica, 1281, 501–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eddington, D. (2000). Analogy and the dual-route model of morphology. Lingua, 1101, 281–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Dissociation in Italian conjugations: A single-route account. Brain and Language, 811, 291–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farhy, Y., & Veríssimo, J. (2019). Semantic Effects in Morphological Priming: The Case of Hebrew Stems. Language and Speech, 621, 737–750. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farhy, Y., Veríssimo, J., & Clahsen, H. (2018a). Universal and particular in morphological processing: Evidence from Hebrew. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 711, 1125–1133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018b). Do late bilinguals access pure morphology during word recognition? A masked-priming study on Hebrew as a second language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 211, 945–951. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fisher, C., Hall, D. G., Rakowitz, S., & Gleitman, L. (1994). When it is better to receive than to give: Syntactic and conceptual constraints on vocabulary growth. Lingua, 921, 333–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frigo, L., & McDonald, J. L. (1998). Properties of phonological markers that affect the acquisition of gender-like subclasses. Journal of Memory and Language, 391, 218–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garnsey, S. M., Pearlmutter, N. J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. A. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 371, 58–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hahn, U., & Nakisa, R. C. (2000). German inflection: Single route or dual route?. Cognitive Psychology, 411, 313–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hahne, A., Mueller, J. L., & Clahsen, H. (2006). Morphological processing in a second language: Behavioral and event-related brain potential evidence for storage and decomposition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 181, 121–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2013). Grammatical gender in adult L2 acquisition: Relations between lexical and syntactic variability. Second Language Research, 291, 33–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Itai, A., & Wintner, S. (2008). Language resources for Hebrew. Language Resources and Evaluation, 421, 75–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ionin, T., & Montrul, S. (2010). The role of L1 transfer in the interpretation of articles with definite plurals in L2 English. Language Learning, 601, 877–925. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 591, 434–446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 251, 603–634. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learning. Language Learning, 571, 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hudson Kam, C. L., & Newport, E. L. (2005). Regularizing unpredictable variation: The roles of adult and child learners in language formation and change. Language Learning and Development, 11, 151–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kam, C. L. H., & Newport, E. L. (2009). Getting it right by getting it wrong: When learners change languages. Cognitive Psychology, 591, 30–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krause, H., Bosch, S., & Clahsen, H. (2015). Morphosyntax in the bilingual mental lexicon: An experimental study of strong stems in German. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 371, 597–621. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leikin, M., Schwartz, M., & Share, D. L. (2010). General and specific benefits of bi-literate bilingualism: a Russian-Hebrew study of beginning literacy. Reading and Writing, 231, 269–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leiner, D. J. (2016). SoSci Survey (Version 2.6.00) [Computer software]. Available at [URL]
Levy, Y. (1983). The acquisition of Hebrew plurals: The case of the missing gender category. Journal of Child Language, 101, 107–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthews, C. (2010). On the nature of phonological cues in the acquisition of French gender categories: Evidence from instance-based learning models. Lingua, 1201, 879–900. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matuschek, H., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., Baayen, H., & Bates, D. (2017). Balancing Type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 941, 305–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maylor, B. R. (2002). Lexical Template Morphology: Change of state and the verbal prefixes in German (Vol. 581). John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, C. (2008). Morphological variability in the comprehension of agreement: An argument for representation over computation. Second Language Research, 241, 459–486. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonald, J. L. (2006). Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 551, 381–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonald, J. L., & Roussel, C. C. (2010). Past tense grammaticality judgment and production in non-native and stressed native English speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 131, 429–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. (2011). Morphological errors in Spanish second language learners and heritage speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 331, 163–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., Sanz, C., Steinhauer, K., & Ullman, M. T. (2010). Second language acquisition of gender agreement in explicit and implicit training conditions: An event-related potential study. Language Learning, 601, 154–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., Steinhauer, K., Sanz, C., & Ullman, M. T. (2012). Explicit and implicit second language training differentially affect the achievement of native-like brain activation patterns. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 241, 933–947. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Naigles, L. R. (1996). The use of multiple frames in verb learning via syntactic bootstrapping. Cognition, 581, 221–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Naigles, L. G., & Kako, E. T. (1993). First contact in verb acquisition: Defining a role for syntax. Child Development, 641, 1665–1687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parodi, T., Schwartz, B. D., & Clahsen, H. (2004). On the L2 acquisition of the morphosyntax of German nominals. Linguistics, 669–706.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
(2013). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. MIT press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plag, I. (2000). Irregular past tense formation in English interlanguage. Language Use, Language Acquisition and Language History. (Mostly) Empirical Studies in Honour of Rüdiger Zimmermann, 134–149.Google Scholar
Prasada, S., & Pinker, S. (1993). Generalisation of regular and irregular morphological patterns. Language and Cognitive Processes, 81, 1–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramscar, M. (2002). The role of meaning in inflection: Why the past tense does not require a rule. Cognitive Psychology, 451, 45–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reeder, P. A., Newport, E. L., & Aslin, R. N. (2017). Distributional learning of subcategories in an artificial grammar: Category generalization and subcategory restrictions. Journal of Memory and Language, 971, 17–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1986). On learning the past tenses of English verbs. In J. L. McClelland, D. E. Rumelhart, & The PDP Research Group (Eds.). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vol.21, pp.216–271). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Say, T., & Clahsen, H. (2002). Words, rules and stems in the Italian mental lexicon. In S. Nooteboom, F. Weerman, & F. Wijnen (Eds.), Storage and computation in the language faculty (pp. 93–129). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schuler, K. D., Reeder, P. A., Newport, E. L., & Aslin, R. N. (2017). The effect of Zipfian frequency variations on category formation in adult artificial language learning. Language Learning and Development, 131, 357–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skousen, R., Lonsdale, D., & Parkinson, D. B. (Eds.). (2002). Analogical modeling: An exemplar-based approach to language (Vol. 101). John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stavrakaki, S., & Clahsen, H. (2009). The perfective past tense in Greek child language. Journal of Child Language, 361, 113–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steinhauer, K., White, E. J., & Drury, J. E. (2009). Temporal dynamics of late second language acquisition: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Second Language Research, 251, 13–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traxler, M. J. (2005). Plausibility and verb subcategorization in temporarily ambiguous sentences: Evidence from self-paced reading. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 341, 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Velan, H., & Frost, R. (2011). Words with and without internal structure: What determines the nature of orthographic and morphological processing?. Cognition, 1181, 141–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veríssimo, J., & Clahsen, H. (2014). Variables and similarity in linguistic generalization: Evidence from inflectional classes in Portuguese. Journal of Memory and Language, 761, 61–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, L., Valenzuela, E., Kozlowska-Macgregor, M., & Leung, Y. K. I. (2004). Gender and number agreement in nonnative Spanish. Applied Psycholinguistics, 251, 105–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, M. P., & Garnsey, S. M. (2009). Making simple sentences hard: Verb bias effects in simple direct object sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 601, 368–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Marzi, Claudia & Vito Pirrelli
2023. A discriminative information-theoretical analysis of the regularity gradient in inflectional morphology. Morphology 33:4 ► pp. 459 ff. DOI logo
Clahsen, Harald & Anna Jessen
2021. Morphological generalization in bilingual language production: Age of acquisition determines variability. Language Acquisition 28:4 ► pp. 370 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.