Awareness of linear and nonlinear morphology in Hebrew:A developmental study

Running head: Morphological awareness

Dorit RavidSchool of Education and the Department of Communications Disorders,

Tel Aviv University

Adina MalenkySchool of Education, Tel Aviv University

Address for correspondence:Dorit RavidSchool of Education, Tel Aviv UniversityTel Aviv 69978, ISRAELTelefax: 972 3 5360394email: doritr@ccsg.tau.ac.il

Ravid, D. & D. Malenky. Awareness of linear and nonlinear morphology in Hebrew: A developmental study. First Language, 21, 25-56, 2001.

Abstract

The study explores the interface of language typology, universal predispositions,

language awareness, and school instruction through the examination of two morphological

domains in Hebrew: linear formation of stem-and-suffix words, and nonlinear Semitic

formation of root-and-pattern affixation. 100 children, adolescents and adults were

administered five tasks testing awareness of roots, morphological patterns, stems, and

suffixes in inflection and in derivation. Two major findings are reported and analyzed:

awareness of linear constructions emerges earlier than awareness of nonlinear forms; and

stems (roots and word stems) are easier to construe than affixes (morphological patterns and

suffixes). The paper discusses the interaction of language acquisition and use with linguistic

awareness, and the effect of tasks on different degrees of morphological awareness in .

2

1.0 Introduction

This paper investigates the development of morphological awareness in Hebrew from

preschool to adulthood in two morphological domains, aiming to shed light on a number of

developmental and linguistic issues, focusing on the role of typological constraints in

developing sensitivity to language-specific morphological structures.

1.1 Language use and language awareness

Learning a first language is a long and complex route that extends over close to two

decades (Nippold, 1998). There appear to be two modes in which language knowledge is

negotiated by children and adults. One is language use, which employs language as a means

towards carrying out cognitive and communicative goals, and is involved in holistic,

automatic and fast processing of speech and writing. Language use requires the synthesis of

separate systems of linguistic knowledge in order to map meaning onto structure in the

conventional, context-appropriate language-specific form - spoken, written, or thought

(Chafe, 1994).

Throughout the course of linguistic development, language users of different ages and

literacy backgrounds sometimes also consciously access, discuss and verbalize their language

knowledge. In such cases, children and adults evidence metalanguage or language

awareness, the ability to think about language as an object from without (Chaudron, 1983;

Gombert, 1992; Karmiloff-Smith 1986, 1992). This alternative mode treats language as a

formal problem space, focusing analytically on its components as a cognitive goal in its own

right. Metalanguage requires the ability to introspect on the linguistic components that blend

together naturally in language usage - phonemes, morphemes, words, syntactic structures,

and discourse types. Thus it involves an analytical perception of units of language, the ability

to represent on each unit separately, disassociating form from semantic content, and

conscious monitoring of one’s own linguistic knowledge (Bialystok, 1986; Valtin, 1984).

3

The emergence of a self-reflective, “aware” language mode that involves conscious

thought about linguistic units and processes has been noted at various stages of language

development and for various systems (Clark, 1978; Karmiloff-Smith, Grant, Sims, Jones &

Cuckle, 1996; Van Kleeck, 1982). Its role in first language learners is controversial: Marshall

& Morton (1978), for example, take a Piagetian view of language as a system with a

monitoring component necessary for error detection and for self-correction that will lead to

behavioral mastery. But instead of diminishing when the number of errors decreases, as

would be expected of such a system, metalinguistic capacities increase with age and the

growth of linguistic knowledge (Gombert, 1992); and since behavioral mastery of a language

is achieved quite early on, it seems that metalanguage has functions that constitute part of

natural language development (Karmiloff-Smith, 1986, 1992).

Young children display emergent metalinguistic awareness in natural interaction

through spontaneous self-repairs, “practice” sessions, questions and observations about

language (Clark, 1978). Children’s ability to perform structured linguistic tasks such as

inflectional changes in non-natural, experimental contexts implies a rudimentary

metalinguistic capacity (Ravid, 1995a). However, tasks requiring controlled, analytical,

explicit verbalization of linguistic processes and constructs are beyond the capacities of

young children, and may not be fully performed adequately before adolescence (Ashkenazi

& Ravid, 1998; Menn & Stoel-Gammon, 1995). Moreover, metalinguistic insights reflect

different perceptions of language at different ages (Nippold, Uhden & Schwarz, 1997;

Tunmer & Herriman, 1984; Van Kleeck, 1982).

Literacy and schooling have a central role in metalinguistic development. There is

evidence that specific aspects of language awareness, especially phonological and

morphological awareness, both promote and are promoted by learning to read and write

through the establishment of links between phonemes, syllables and morphemes and their

4

written representations (Bentin, 1992; Gillis & de Schutter, 1996; Fowler & Liberman, 1995;

Levin, Ravid & Rappaport, 1999, in press; Rubin, 1988). Abilities requiring more integrated

knowledge such as reading comprehension are also related to analytic metalinguistic skills

(Demont & Gombert, 1996; Yuill, 1998). Sensitivity to more specific language domains,

such as derivational morphology, has been shown to play a role in reading ability in higher

school grades and among college students (Henry, 1993; Mahony, 1994; Smith, 1998).

Metalinguistic development is thus clearly related to the acquisition of literacy and school-

based knowledge.

1.2 Morphological awareness

Morphology is closely related to other linguistic domains. Its phonological facet is

expressed in the structural components of words and the types of formal changes they

undergo in morphophonological operations. Its semantic facet is expressed in the meanings

of words and morphemes, and morphological relations play an important role in the

organization of the mental lexicon (de Jong, Schreuder & Baayen, 2000). Morphology is also

related to syntax through derivational processes expressed in the argument structure of the

sentence and through inflectional marking (Spencer, 1991). Testing morphological awareness

may thus provide a window on other structural and semantic aspects of language and their

interaction (Anglin, 1993).

A number of studies have shown that the ability to judge, segment and extract

morphological units emerges early on, but that explicit explanations using relevant

terminology occur later on. For example, kindergartners are already able to segment bi-

morphemic agentive nouns such as writer and to correct grammatical mistakes such as He

likes to watched movies. However, they find it hard to explain their morphological

corrections (Jones, 1991; Smith-Lock & Rubin, 1993). Ashkenazi & Ravid (1998) show that

5

explicitation in the explanation of morphological riddles and jokes is not fully achieved

before adolescence.

Studies indicate that morphological awareness contributes to success in the beginning

phases of literacy instruction since morphology links together phonological and semantic

facets of language (Brittain, 1970; Carlisle, 1995; Carlisle and Nomanbhoy, 1993; Levin et

al., in press). This is especially evident in studies comparing learning- and reading-disabled

children with normally achieving readers (Webster, 1994). Anglin (1993) provides evidence

that vocabulary growth in gradeschool years increases together with children’s ability to

perform morphological problem solving. In subsequent stages of becoming an efficient

reader, the most important morphological aptitude is the growing ability to segment, extract

and discuss stems and affixes from the multimorphemic vocabulary of the “literate” English

lexicon (Derwing & Baker, 1986; Freyd & Baron, 1982; Lewis & Windsor, 1996; Nagy &

Scott, 1990; Wysocki & Jenkins, 1987). Nippold (1998) shows that during the 9-through-19

age range English speakers’ understanding and use of various word classes increases together

with their ability to define words and their awareness of the lexical network which facilitates

the acquisition of new words.

1.3 Nonlinear and linear structures in Hebrew morphology

Studying the development of morphological awareness in Hebrew presents a unique

challenge of metalinguistic analysis. Hebrew morphology makes use of two major types of

word formation devices: root-and-pattern Semitic forms alongside with concatenated, linear

structures, and thus permits testing contrasts which are not found in non-Semitic languages

(Blau, 1971; Bolozky, 1997).

INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE

1.3.1 Nonlinear formation

6

The Hebrew lexicon is root-based. All verbs and most nouns and adjectives contain a

tri- or quadri-consonantal core, the Semitic root, which carries the main lexical substance of

the word (Ravid, 1990), shared by other words with the same core meaning (Table 1). This

structural core appears discontinuously in the word, since it is interdigitated by vowels

provided by the complementary structure of the pattern. The combination of root and pattern

into a word is termed nonlinear affixation (Berman, 1987a), and is illustrated in Table 1 in a

set of words related by the root k-l-t ‘take in, absorb’. A number of studies have looked at

readers’ perception of the Hebrew root. Ephratt (1997) tested 4th to 6th graders and adults on

root awareness by having them color letters within the word. She found that they consistently

colored root letters inside the words rather than using other strategies such as coloring initial

or final letter sequences. Berent & Shimron (1997) also found sensitivity to roots in two

experiments on adult Hebrew readers. No developmental study has so far explored speakers’

awareness of the Semitic root in a structured elicitation from kindergarten to adulthood.

While all the words in Table 1 share the consonantal skeleton k-l-t, they differ in the

other component of their structure, the pattern. A pattern is a phonological template

associating a stress pattern with a set of vowels, sometimes with additional affixes (e.g., the

prefix hi- in the verbal pattern hiCCiC, the suffix -an in the nominal agentive pattern

CoCCan). Each pattern is mapped onto a set of root consonants in a different way. For

example, in miklat ‘shelter’ the first two root consonants are preceded by prefix mi- and

followed by the infixed vowel a; whereas in kélet ‘input’ root consonants are separated by

the vowel set é-e with a penultimate stress pattern. The combination of root and pattern is

thus nonlinear and gives the surface form of a Semitic word (McCarthy, 1982). Each of the

components of this template occurs at a different representational tier or plane (McCarthy,

1981), and only their combination results in a possible word. Neither root nor pattern is

pronounceable, nor do they have lexical status as words. This makes them less accessible to

7

speakers than linear segments, which are pronounceable, with stems almost always extant

words.

The syntax and semantics of patterns is comparable to that of linear derivational

suffixes (Lieber, 1981). They have classificatory functions indicating syntactico-semantic

verbal and nominal classes. The seven verbal patterns are termed binyanim (literally,

buildings), and they indicate transitivity values (Berman, 1993). For example, kalat

‘absorbed’ is a transitive verb, while hiklit ‘recorded’ is causative and huklat ‘was recorded’

is its passive counterpart. Nominal patterns, a few dozen in number, indicate ontological

categories (Clark, 1993) such as agent, instrument, place, abstract nominal. For example,

CoCCan is an agent pattern, while maCCeC indicates instruments.

There is evidence that the extraction of patterns may be more difficult and require

even more explicit awareness than roots: Wile the former carry the main lexical substance of

the word and are represented by salient consonants, patterns classify words and are mostly

vocalic. Word-internal vowels, which constitute the major part of the pattern, have been

shown to be less important to Hebrew speakers than consonants (Ravid, 1995a) and may thus

be less linguistically salient. Moreover, being mostly vocalic, patterns are under-represented

in the spelling system (Shimron, 1993). For example, pattern miCCaC is represented only by

the letter M in the written word MQLT miklat ‘shelter’. Hebrew speakers, including teachers,

often claim that they do not “hear vowels” when asked to segment words. Frost, Forster &

Deutsch (1997) studied the lexical representation of Hebrew words by testing adults on

reading non-vowelled Hebrew words. They found that previous exposure to the root letters

(but not to the morphological pattern) facilitated lexical access and naming of targets that

were derivations of the root, that is, evidence for the primacy of root representations over

pattern representations in gaining access to words. Frost et al. conclude that primary

8

morphological analysis in Hebrew entails the extraction of the root and not of the word

pattern. To date, no study has examined roots versus patterns in development.

1.3.2 Linear formation

In addition to root-and-pattern structures, the Hebrew lexicon contains linearly

concatenated stem-and-suffix forms, e.g., mal’ax-i ‘angel-ic’. Table 2 illustrates linear

structures in inflection and derivation.

INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE

The major difference between linear and nonlinear operations is formal. Linear

structure consists of a pronounceable stem containing vowels, which is in most cases a word

in its own right (e.g., mada ‘science’, kos ‘glass’). Unlike the Semitic root, which is

interdigitated by the pattern, the stem is followed (in some cases, preceded) by a separate

suffix (e.g., agentive –an, diminutive –it). The result is a linear structure, e.g., mada-an

‘scientist’, kos-it ‘wine glass’. Although stems often undergo morphophonological changes

(e.g., layla / leyli ‘night / nocturnal’, cf. English five / fifth), the concatenated stem-and-suffix

form always marks the boundaries of discernibly distinct entities. In contrast, the result of

root and pattern affixation is a fused form where the two components are interdigitated. The

components of linear formation are thus more analytic than those of nonlinear forms: Unlike

the abstract, discontinuous, consonantal Semitic root, linear morphemes are identifiable,

distinct, pronounceable units.

The linear / nonlinear contrast is relevant to the inflectional / derivational dichotomy

in Hebrew. Linear structures occur in both domains, as shown in Table 2, although their

historical origins are different: inflectional suffixes are typically Semitic and practically

unchanged since Biblical Hebrew, while derivational suffixes are more recent and have

increased in number and productivity as a result of language contact with Arabic and with

9

European languages (Berman, 1987a; Gesenius, 1910; Holes, 1995; Nir, 1993). Nonlinear

formation is mostly restricted to derivation, except for tense shifting in verbs (Schwarzwald,

1996). This again leads to the expectation that linear structures should be more accessible to

analysis than nonlinear ones, as inflection is more transparent, productive, predictable and

regular than derivation.

Inflection is widespread in Hebrew and mostly obligatory. Nouns are inflected for

number and gender (e.g., sus / susa / susim / susot ‘horse / mare / horses / mares’), and

adjectives agree with them (e.g., sus gadol ‘horse big = big horse’ / susa gdola ‘mare big =

big mare’). Verbs inflect for tense, and agree with their subjects in number, gender, and (in

past and future tenses), also in person (e.g., hiskamta / hiskamt ‘you, Sg agreed / you, Fm,Sg

agreed’). Prepositions inflect for number, gender and person (e.g., mimex ‘from-

you,Fm,Sg’).

Two knowledge sources are relevant to the development of meta-morphological

perception: natural language acquisition and school instruction.

1.4 Hebrew morphology in acquisition

Grammatical morphological alternations - first number / gender distinctions, then

verb tense and person - initially appear in the speech of normally developing Israeli children

before the end of the second year of life (Dromi, 1987; Kaplan, 1983; Levy, 1980; Ravid,

1997). By the end of their third year, children make productive use of all obligatory

inflectional marking on nouns, verbs and adjectives, though mastery of stem changes and

idiosyncratic forms takes until age 7 at least (Berman, 1981a,b, 1983; Ravid, 1995a,b).

Optional inflectional marking of genitive nouns first appears productively in the early years

of gradeschool (Berman, 1985; Levin et al., in press), and opaque systems such as numerals

are not marked correctly before highschool, and even that takes school intervention (Ravid,

1995c).

10

Hebrew-speaking children display knowledge of word-formation early on, though full

mastery takes until adolescence since the derivational system is less regular and predictable

than the inflectional one, and not as productive (Berman, 1995). The literature describes

differential paths of acquisition for the three major lexical classes - nouns, verbs and

adjectives - and their structural components. Verbs. This is the most structured system in

Hebrew, with all verbs consisting of a combination of root and one of the seven verbal

patterns, termed binyanim. Most early verbs take the semantically and syntactically neutral

verbal pattern P1 (Qal), and by age three basic transitivity relations such as causativity and

incohativity are expressed in the rest of the non-passive binyanim. Though children do not

find novel verb formation, especially denominal verbs, to be easy, by age 4 they are able to

coin semantically appropriate novel verbs from other verbs in a form consistent with the

structural stipulations of their grammar, and showing knowledge of Semitic root-formation in

forming verbs with irregular roots (Berman, 1999). By kindergarten, children are familiar

with a large number of root-related word families, and make productive and mostly correct

use of salient transitivity relations (Berman, 1993). However, more marked and less

transparent operations such as morphological passive formation are still not completely

mastered by 9 years of age.

Nouns are less restricted morphologically than verbs in Hebrew and offer a challenge

of a wide range of structures from non-derived forms, through zero-conversion, to

morphologically complex blends, compounds, linear and nonlinear forms. Children readily

coin novel nouns as early as 3 years and earlier, but they often violate structural and semantic

constraints in doing so (Berman, 1999). Clark & Berman (1984) found that in younger

children the preferred structural option for agent and instrument nouns was the -an suffix,

and they also used zero-conversion from present participles (e.g., xotex ‘cuts’ for ‘cutter’),

whereas older children employed as wider variety of structures. Unlike English-speaking

11

children, the compound option was not a preferred option by Hebrew speakers in the Clark &

Berman study. Free innovation of compounds starts only at age four, and kindergartners still

do not have full command of stem changes in compounds (Berman, 1987b). Sensitivity to the

classic Semitic word-structure, however, is apparent in Hebrew early on. Children as young

as 3 were able to interpret novel nouns, indicating their ability to extract the root from the

given test item (Clark & Berman, 1984). In both a structured elicitation test of deverbal noun

coinage, and in a corpus of nearly one thousand unconventional lexical usages recorded from

children aged 2 to 8 years, Berman (1999) found that the majority of novel noun coinages

took the form of some possible root plus noun-pattern rather than linear stem-and-suffix

forms. In contrast, in a structured task eliciting novel nouns from verbs and nouns in

normally developing 8-10 and 6-8 year olds, as compared to SLI children aged 8-10,

nonlinear root-and-pattern responses were found to increase with age and to be significantly

more prevalent in the older controls (Ravid, Avivi Ben-Zvi & Levie, 1999). Not all types of

nouns are acquired productively early on. While children in all of the previously described

studies find the semantics of agent and instrument easy to express early on, coining action

and state nominals and other abstract nouns starts later, around age 5, and takes until

highschool to consolidate as a productive system. Children initially attach the abstract suffix

-ut to a variety of stems, then move on from the least marked, transitively neutral action

nominal pattern CiCuC to the appropriate action nominal pattern for each binyan and finally,

by adolescence, learn the complex lexical network of deverbal nouns (Berman, 1997; Ravid

& Avidor, 1998).

Adjectives. Morphologically complex adjectives in Hebrew take two main structures:

Nonlinear form, based on present-participle verb forms, e.g., matsxik ‘funny’ (P5), and linear

form, consisting of a nominal stem with the suffix -i, e.g., xashmal-i ‘electr-ic’. In a study of

spontaneous speech in preschoolers, Ravid & Nir (2000) found that nonlinear affixation

12

precedes linear suffixation in adjectives, which occurred only in the oldest group of

kindergartners. This finding is supported by other studies on the morphological development

of adjectives in Hebrew (e.g., Berman, 1994, 1997; Levin et al., in press; Ravid, Levie &

Avivi Ben-Zvi, in press).

A major source of information about morphological structure and semantics in

schoolage children is formal and informal school instruction. Recent studies indicate that

learning about written Hebrew both requires and fosters morphological knowledge, since

Hebrew spelling consistently represents both roots and affixes. Israeli gradeschoolers make

use of these morphological consistencies from early on in their spelling strategies (Gillis &

Ravid, 2000). Exposure to highly synthetic written Hebrew texts encourages young readers to

employ syntactic and morphological cues in analyzing long strings of letters designating

morphemes, e.g., the written string WBMHBRTH pronounced u-ve-maxbart-a ‘and-in-

notebook-hers’. Moreover, formal language instruction in Israel focuses on Hebrew structure,

and especially on its morphology and phonology, from the youngest grades.

1.5 Study hypotheses

It is clear that both linear and nonlinear formation are essential components of

Hebrew morphology, and that they both occur in natural language acquisition in different

morphological classes. Focusing on the development of meta-linguistic awareness, for which

salience and analyticity of structures are crucial (Gombert, 1992), we make two predictions:

(1) Linear precedence. Awareness of linear morphemes will precede that of nonlinear

morphemes, since linear morphemes are easier to perceive and isolate than nonlinear

morphemes which are fused together. (2) Lexical precedence. Awareness of lexical

morphemes - roots and stems, which carry the main lexical substance of the word, will

precede awareness of affixal patterns and linear suffixes, which have categorical functions in

both inflection and derivation.

13

2.0 Method

This study examines the development of morphological awareness in Hebrew

speakers, assessed by an experimental design testing two main types of processes: nonlinear

word-formation by the Semitic combination of consonantal root and affixal pattern in the

derivational domain; and linear concatenation of stem and suffix in the inflectional domain.

2.1 Participants

100 children, adolescents and adults, 20 in each of the five age groups and divided

equally by gender participated in this study: Kindergarten (mean age: 5;5; range: 5;1-5;11).

This was the youngest group that piloting showed could handle the study tasks. By this age,

children are familiar with most of the morphological constructions in Hebrew, though

mastery of exceptions and of literate forms is far in the future. Kindergartners do not receive

formal language instruction, but they are exposed to stories and poems and encouraged to

experiment with writing. 3rd grade (mean age: 8;7; range: 8;2-9) represents middle

childhood. By this age, all children without special needs have reached behavioral mastery in

reading and are well on the way to grasping spelling regularities. They are familiar with

Biblical Hebrew and in many schools have started learning English as a second language. 6th

grade (mean age: 11;7; range: 11;3-13) marks the end of gradeschool. 6th graders, on the

verge of adolescence, have virtually no spelling errors and are familiar with a range of

textual genres. They have been learning English and sometimes another foreign language for

a number of years. 9th grade (mean age:14;5; range:14;1-14;11) represents highschool, a

time when formal, analytic language instruction is at its most demanding, alongside with

reading and writing texts of all types. The oldest group is that of adults, students or college

graduates in subjects other than Hebrew language, literature or linguistics, (mean age: 27;

14

range: 20-39). All participants were native speakers of Hebrew from a middle to high socio-

economic background.

2.2 Procedure

Participants were tested individually and orally at school, in a quiet room. Adults

were tested in their homes. Kindergartners were tested in two separate meetings to reduce test

pressure. Responses were recorded and transcribed by the tester.

2.3 Materials

There were five study tasks, each containing 6 test items, in two sections: I Nonlinear

tasks: 1. Nonce words, 2. Noun patterns, 3. Analogies; II Linear tasks: 4. Backformation,

5. Grammatical judgments. Each task was preceded by 2 training items. Order of the five

tasks, of task sections, and of items within each task was randomized. The full tasks appear

in the Appendix.

2.3.1 Nonlinear formation tasks

Since root-and-pattern word formation constitutes the major lexical device in

Hebrew, we examined participants’ awareness of these two components in three lexical

categories (nouns, adjectives and verbs), by using three different tasks which provide

different ways of looking at how Hebrew speakers construe roots and patterns.

1. Nonce word task. The participant was presented with a set of 6 sentences

containing a nonce word (2 nouns, 2 verbs, and 2 adjectives) constructed of an active root

(occurring in several Hebrew words) and a pattern, again common in Hebrew words. For

example The boy *hidrig `(possible interpretation) graded’ the blocks (nonce word *hidrig

composed of root d-r-g ‘grade’ and causative verb pattern hiCCiC; cf. the extant word dereg

‘ranked’). S/he was then presented with 2 extant words, related to the nonce word

15

morphologically through the root (e.g., madrega `step’ with the same root d-r-g) or through

the pattern (hisbir `explained’ with the same pattern hiCCiC) and asked if the nonce word

was connected to the extant word. Responses were scored as correct if the participant replied

“yes”, identifying a relationship between the two words. The requirement for root and pattern

awareness in this task is thus basic, on the one hand, since it is enough to establish a

connection between two words by saying “yes” to score correct. On the other hand, the fact

that the stimulus word is an unfamiliar nonce word means participants have to focus on root

and pattern alone with no clue provided by lexical meaning of the whole word. Each root and

pattern response received a scoring of 1, so that the maximal points for each response type

was 6.

2. Noun patterns task. This task tested awareness of root and pattern in nouns by

open-ended questions. The participant was asked, for example, why a librarian (Hebrew

safran, root s-p-r ‘tell’, agent noun pattern CaCCan) is called that way. The task contained 6

nouns, each representing an ontological category: Agent, instrument, collective noun, disease

name and abstract nominal (see Appendix). A correct response contained the same root as in

the stimulus word, and a designation of its category (person, disease, etc.). An example of a

fully correct response would be: It’s a man (indicating awareness of the agent noun CaCCan)

working in the library (Hebrew sifriya, containing the root s-p-r `tell’). This task does not

require the analysis of the components of nonce words, but it does direct participants’

attention to the internal structure of a known word, seeking a same-root word to serve as a

focal point in a proposition that would explain the stimulus word. Note that a correct root

score required the actual production of a word sharing the same root, but a correct pattern

score only required a generalization about the pattern meaning – e.g., person, instrument,

disease, etc. Each root and pattern response received a scoring of 1, so that the maximal

points for each response type was 6.

16

3. Analogies task. This task tested awareness of root and pattern indirectly by

eliciting analogies to 6 words - 3 nouns, 2 verbs, one adjective. For example, the participant

was presented with the action nominal ktiva ‘writing’ (root k-t-v ‘write’, pattern CCiCa) and

asked to provide similar words. The training part directed the participants to both root and

pattern responses (see Appendix). A correct response was related to the stimulus word in

either root or pattern. Root responses could be, for example, katav `wrote’ or mixtav `letter’,

and pattern responses could be glisha `surfing’ or sgira `closing’. In this case, both response

types required an analysis of the stimulus word into its components, in addition to actually

seeking words containing one of these components. The maximal score for each response

type was 6.

2.3.2 Linear formation tasks

We examined awareness of linear components in the backformation and in the

grammaticality judgment task, focusing on awareness of the semantics of linear inflectional

affixes.

4. Backformation task. Backformation is a reverse process of deriving a simplex

stem from a complex form by removing a suffix, which occurs naturally in both child

language and language change (Ravid, 1995b). Here, we made use of this morphological

device to see if participants were aware of the relationship between complex inflectional

forms and their stems by asking them to find the word hidden within the stimulus word. This

task contained 6 inflected words with a linear structure, e.g., adumim `red, Pl’ consisting of

singular adom `red’ and the plural suffix -im. Each correct response was given a score of 1,

so that the maximal score was 6.

5. Grammatical judgment task. Participants were presented with 6 sentences with

ungrammatical inflected words and 2 grammatical sentences. They were asked to judge

which sentences were “funny” (for the children) or incorrect (the adults). They were also

17

asked to correct the incorrect items and to explain what was wrong with them. Examples: ani

halaxta `I went, 2nd person’ to the store (cf. correct ani halaxti ‘I went,1st’ or ata halaxta

‘you went,2nd’. Participants’ responses on the grammaticality judgment task were scored 1

point for each identified and corrected structure, a maximal score of 6.

3.0 Results

INSERT TABLE 3 AND FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE

Looking at the two major morphological devices in Hebrew, we hypothesized linear

precedence: Awareness of linear formation would precede nonlinear structure. In order to

test this hypothesis, we combined the scores of the three nonlinear tasks (nonce words, noun

patterns, and analogies tasks) and the two linear tasks (backformation and grammaticality),

and compared their mean percentages (Table 3). A two-way analysis of morphological task

type (2 - linear / nonlinear) by age (5) with repeated measures showed an effect of age

(F(4,95)=97.34, p<.001), of morphological task (F(1,95)=292.97, p<.001), and an interaction

of age by morphological task type (F(4,95)=6.63, p<.001), depicted in Figure 1. Simple

effects analyses confirmed an effect of age (p’s<.001 for both tasks). The post-hoc Scheffé

procedure revealed that on the linear tasks, kindergartners differed from all other groups

(p< .001); while on the nonlinear tasks, each of the younger groups of kindergartners, 3rd and

6th graders differed from all other groups (p’s<.03 or better).

We now turn to results on the nonlinear task types.

INSERT TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE

3.1 Nonlinear formation

The three nonlinear tasks examined speakers’ awareness of the two major lexical

components of Hebrew: roots and patterns. The three tasks described above tapped

participants’ awareness of root and pattern in different ways, each requiring different degrees

of awareness. The mean percentages of the three tasks are presented in Table 4. A two-way

18

ANOVA (age (5) X nonlinear task type (3)) with repeated measures found an effect for age

(F(4,95)=56.34, p<.001) and for task type (F(2,190)=194.56, p<.001: Analogies (M=84.00)

> Noun patterns (M=74.83) > Nonce Words (M=47.00) The post-hoc Scheffé procedure

revealed that each of the younger groups of kindergartners, 3rd and 6th graders differed from

all other groups (p’s<.03 or better). There was no interaction.

We hypothesized that lexical morphemes would precede categorial elements -

patterns and suffixes - in morphological awareness. A specific form of this prediction within

the nonlinear tasks is root precedence: Roots will precede patterns. In order to test this

prediction, we compared the root and pattern scores on each of the three nonlinear formation

tasks (Table 5).

INSERT TABLE 5 AND FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE

3.1.1 The nonce words task

Participants were asked a direct question about the stimulus nonce word and an extant

word sharing a root or a pattern with it (e.g., hidrig `graded’ and madrega `step’): “Are these

words connected”? Table 5 presents the mean percentages of the responses indicating root

and pattern connections between words, showing that the root precedence hypothesis was

confirmed. A two-way ANOVA (age (5) X response type (2)) with repeated measures shows

a main effect for age (F(4,95)=29.80, p<.001), for response type (F(4,95)=324.12, p<.001),

and an interaction of age and response type was found (F(4,95)=6.48, p<.001), depicted in

Figure 2. Simple effects analyses confirmed an effect of age (p’s< .001 for both response

types). The post-hoc Scheffé procedure revealed that on root responses, kindergartners

differed from all other groups, and 6th graders differed from the adults (p’s<.005 or better);

while on pattern responses, kindergartners differed only from the two oldest groups, 3rd

graders differed from both oldest groups, while 6 graders differed only from 9th graders

(p’s<.004 or better).

19

Root awareness starts as early as kindergarten and increases steadily, while pattern

awareness stays low, peaking in 9th graders who are studying formal Hebrew grammar, and

declining again in adults.

3.1.2 The noun patterns task

This task tested root and pattern awareness in a more roundabout way. Participants

were asked to explain the names of task nouns, e.g., “Why is a librarian (Hebrew safran)

called that way”?

Table 5 gives the mean percentages of responses indicating awareness of root and

pattern responses. A two-way ANOVA (age (5) x response type (2) with repeated measures

reveals an effect for age (F(4,95)=21.23, p<.001); for response type (F(1,95)=309.80,

p<.001); and an interaction of age and response type (F(4,95)=6.07, p<.001), depicted in

Figure 3. Simple effects analyses confirmed an effect of age (p’s< .001 for both response

types). The post-hoc Scheffé procedure revealed that on root responses, kindergartners

differed from all other groups (p<.001); while on pattern responses, kindergartners differed

only from the three oldest groups, and 3rd graders differed from both oldest groups (p’s<.03

or better).

Again, root responses behave differently from pattern responses: Kindergartners

already give 80% root responses, and from grade 3 onwards, this response type reaches

ceiling. Pattern responses start low, increase slowly with age, and do not exceed 80% in any

of the groups.

INSERT FIGURE 3 ABOUT HERE

3.1.3 The analogies task

Finally, we tested pattern and root awareness by asking participants to produce words

in analogy to stimulus items, Table 5 shows the root precedence hypothesis confirmed once

again. A two-way ANOVA (age (5) X response type (2)) with repeated measures reveals an

20

effect for age (F(4,95)=18.27, p<.01); for response type (F(1,95)=48.68, p<.01); and an

interaction of age and response type (F(4,95)=13.75, p<.01), depicted in Figure 4.

Simple effects analyses confirmed an effect of age only on the pattern response type

(p< .001). The post-hoc Scheffé procedure further revealed that on pattern responses,

kindergartners and 3rd graders differed from the three oldest groups (p’s<.001, except for the

difference between 3rd and 6th graders, which is marginal at .052).

All age groups were able to give root-based responses, but only 25% of the

kindergartners’ responses included a pattern-related word. By grade 9, all participants were

able to do so, yielding the highest overall pattern score of all three nonlinear tasks.

INSERT FIGURE 4 ABOUT HERE

3.2 Linear formation

We have already seen that awareness of linear forms both precedes and is easier than

nonlinear formation (Table 3). The separate mean scores of the two linear tasks are given in

Table 6. The two linear tasks probed different aspects of awareness of linear structures,

focusing on the stem in the backformation task and on the suffix in the grammaticality

judgment task. To test the prediction that stem awareness precedes suffix awareness, we

performed a 2-way ANOVA (age (5) x linear task type (2 - backformation and

grammaticality judgment) with repeated measures, which found an effect for age

(F(4,95)=57.12, p<.001), for linear task type (F(1,95)=52.67, p<.001), and an interaction

between age and task type F(4,95)=22.73, p<.001), depicted in Figure 5. Simple effects

analyses confirmed an effect of age (p’s< .001 for both linear task types). The post-hoc

Scheffé procedure revealed that on backformation, kindergartners differed from all other

groups (p’s<.009 or better); while on grammaticality judgments, kindergartners differed from

all other groups (with p’s<.001). This youngest group starts at around 85% on the

backformation task and at about half that score on the grammaticality task.

21

INSERT TABLE 6 AND FIGURE 5 ABOUT HERE

4.0 Discussion

This study examined the acquisition of morphological awareness in Hebrew, a

morphologically rich language, in 100 native speakers of Hebrew aged five years to

adulthood. Focus was on awareness of two major morphological operations in Hebrew:

nonlinear combination of root and pattern in derivational constructions, tested by three

different tasks; and linear juxtaposition of stem and suffix in inflectional constructions, tested

by two different tasks. These two word-formation devices yield almost all structures in

Hebrew, apart from compounding (Berman, 1987a; Ravid, 1990). The unique characteristics

of Hebrew morphology permitted the testing of two major hypotheses: One, that the

transparency and distinct boundaries of linear, concatenated structure would make it easier to

construe metalinguistically by Hebrew speakers than the interdigitated affixation of root and

pattern; and two, that within each construction type, stems, carrying lexical content, would be

easier to process than affixes which convey categorial value. For nonlinear structures, this

means that roots should be perceived earlier than patterns, and for linear structure, this means

that stems should be perceived earlier than suffixes. Both hypotheses were confirmed.

4.1 Analyzing linear vs. nonlinear morphology

On the tasks described in the current study, Hebrew speakers found it easier to

formally detect the structure of linear structures than that of nonlinear structures. The

combined score on awareness of nonlinear morphology starts below chance level at

kindergarten, proceeds gradually to 6th grade, and the major rise takes place in the

highschoolers (85%), who do not differ from the adults. The combined score on the linear

morphology tasks, in contrast, starts around 2/3 in kindergarten, rises steeply, and by third

grade reaches over 90% (Figure 1).

22

The precedence of linear over nonlinear structures in the language awareness tasks

seems to be in discord with the centrality of root-and-pattern word formation in natural

acquisition: Israeli children manipulate nonlinear structures in all lexical classes by

preschool, as evidenced by the growth and diversification of their vocabulary as well as by

spontaneous coinages.

A number of reasons conspire to help participants on linear tasks here. First, linear

items in this study were all inflectional, while all nonlinear items were derivational.

Inflection, being obligatory, productive, regular, semantically predictable and generally

applicable, is more accessible than derivation, which is semi-productive, nonobligatory,

irregular and non-predictable. In analyzing an inflected word into its components, the

removal of one morphological segment entails the other, even in words with changed stems.

For example, when removing the feminine suffix -a from shvura ‘broken,Fm’, the remaining

part (shavur) will always be ‘broken -Fm’, by default ‘broken,Masc’, and vice versa. In

contrast, removing the pattern or the root from a derivational form does not yield a

predictable form. This problem is not isomorphic with the type of structure that carries

derivational semantics: It is rather difficult to analyze shnaton ‘cohort’ into shana ‘year’ and

suffix -on, and sfaton ‘lipstick’ into safa ‘lip’ and suffix -on.

Moreover, metalanguage crucially differs from implicit language usage by the need

for analytic attention to distinct linguistic units. While holistic language use can draw on

long-term memory of similar forms sharing structural and semantic elements, our tasks

required specific, explicit identification and verbalization of morphological components. This

is easier to do when the boundaries between morphemes are clearly drawn, as in linear

formation, even with stem changes (e.g., adom / adum-a ‘red, Masc / Fm’), then when

morphemes are interdigitated or even fused together, as in mavreg ‘screwdriver’ consisting

23

of root b-r-g and noun pattern maCCeC. Linear stem and suffix components are thus more

transparently perceptible in the word than nonlinear roots and patterns.

In addition to the more transparent nature of linear structure, it is easier to analyze

than nonlinear formation since its components are more salient and less abstract: stems in

Hebrew (unlike English) are almost always words, while roots are never words. In carrying

out a task of isolating a morphological component, focusing on extant, pronounceable,

concrete, “real” elements such as words is easier than detecting an string of unpronounceable

consonants which does not constitute a lexical entry. Furthermore, the meaning of roots is

different from that of words (lexical entries) in being non-specified or, in a sense, potential:

root h-l-x has the generalized meaning of ‘walk’, but takes on various shades of meaning in

hélex ‘wanderer’, tahaluxa ‘parade’, mahalax ‘move’, hilux ‘gait’, tahalix ‘process’ and

halaxa ‘religious law’.

4.2 Isolating stems and affixes

Figures 2-5 indicate that as predicted, stems are more accessible than affixes within

words. Figures 2-4 show that for each nonlinear task, root scores are high even in

preschoolers, while pattern scores are lower, especially in kindergarten and 3rd grade. Figure

5 shows that the grammaticality judgment task, which required the isolation and explanation

of inflectional suffixes, was more difficult for preschoolers than the backformation task,

which demanded that they isolate the base word.

Taken together, these results show that stems, the basic lexical building blocks of

words, are more accessible to metalinguistic analysis than affixes, which are categorizing

elements, especially in the younger age groups. This has already been shown for English by

Anglin (1993) in discussing morphological problem solving strategies among gradeschool

children presented with inflected or derived words and asked to provide their meanings. Most

subjects manifested a “part to whole” pattern in which they discussed the stem embedded

24

within the target word - either a root word or an embedded derived word. Only the oldest

children were occasionally able to relate to the affixes as well as to the stems (1993:116). In

the current study, however, the unique characteristics of Hebrew morphology enable us to

perceive further differences between stems and affixes in inflected linear constructions in

contrast to derived nonlinear forms.

The difference between the accessibility of stems and affixes in linear constructions is

valid only in the youngest age group, the kindergartners. Beyond that age group, stems and

affixes were equally detectable by our subjects. However, root perception emerges very early

on, mitigated by the difficulty of the task, while pattern perception continues to challenge

older age groups. On the easier analogies and noun patterns tasks, root responses were very

high even in kindergarten, compared with much lower pattern responses, which showed

gradual rise until they converged in highschool. On the more difficult nonce words task,

pattern responses were almost nonexistent until the end of gradeschool. Thus, despite the

discontinuous, consonantal-only, nature of the Semitic root, it is easily identified as a

morphological unit early on. The complementary structure, the pattern, is a very late

development in metalinguistic abilities.

This dichotomy reflects the differential status of roots and patterns, consonants and

vowels, in Hebrew. Pattern vowels are less salient than root consonants in Hebrew, and carry

less semantic information (Ravid, 1995a). Many words in Hebrew have double and triple

vowelling options in spoken Hebrew. For example, the word for cut is xatax, but has two

other colloquial variants - xétex and xétax. The vowel pattern changes, but the root

consonants stay the same. Given the lexical vs. categorial function of roots and patterns, as

well as the under-representation of vowels in the Hebrew writing system, it is clear why the

representation of roots as a lexical prime is so stable even in preschoolers, whereas that of

patterns is so precarious even in adults. An exceptional response by one preschooler

25

demonstrates this issue. Asked if *le-hadrig ‘to-grade’ and le-hasbir ‘to-explain’ were

related, he said yes, and explained that ‘if you whisper both of these words and listen to them

from a far, they sound the same”. And he demonstrated this by whispering the two words,

eliminating the sound of the consonants to emphasize the similarity in the vowel patterning

of the two words

4.2.1 Task-related differences in nonlinear formation

While all three nonlinear tasks show the same patterns of early root and late pattern

perception, they differ in degree of difficulty due to the degree of analyticity and abstractness

required in carrying them out, and to whether the task was one of comprehension or

production.

The hardest task was the nonce words, where participants were asked to state whether

a nonce word was related in either root or pattern to extant words. This was essentially a

comprehension or judgment task, but it proved to be the hardest. Counter to what might be

expected, inquiring about a possible relationship between words did not result in a flood of

“yes” responses, and in fact on patterns there were more negative than positive responses

across the board. This is because this judgment test did not provide participants with a

familiar lexical anchor, while requiring them to analyze the nonce word into its components,

holding both nonce and target words in short-term phonological memory in order to detect a

discontinuous phonological sequence in both of them. This task thus required a high degree

of morphological analyticity in order to abstract interdigitated morphemes away from the

word.

The analogies task was the easiest of all three tasks. This was a production test,

requiring the retrieval of any two isolated words, one sharing a root and another sharing a

pattern with the stimulus word. The examples preceding the test itself required participants to

focus directly on the two discontinuous elements and retrieve words containing them with no

26

context provided. Unlike the nonce words task, target words were provided by the participant

rather than by the investigator, requiring active lexical manipulation of the “morphological

family” (de Jong, Schreuder & Baayen, 2000); but there was no need to abstract away the

morphological components of the word, rendering the task less abstract and analytic. In the

younger age groups, participants were mostly able to activate root-related words, and it was

only from 6th grade onwards that pattern-related words were also retrieved.

Another easy task was the noun patterns, where participants were asked to explain

why a certain referent was called that way. This task in fact required the production of a

proposition with two elements – a word containing the target root and a pronoun or a full NP

paraphrasing the categorical function of the pattern, e.g., because he (= agent noun) works in

a library (= target root); or because they cure (= target root) people there (= place noun).

Producing a spontaneous utterance which provides a context for real words functioning in

their natural syntactic sites is holistic and natural, and does not require as much analysis as

identifying and relating word components in the nonce words task. Moreover, this task was

less abstract since did not require specific attention to each of the nonlinear morphemes, but

rather elicited them indirectly by asking to motivate the word.

27

References

Anglin, J.M. (1993). Vocabulary development: a morphological analysis.

Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 58, 10.

Ashkenazi, O. & D. Ravid. (1998). Children’s understanding of linguistic humor: an

aspect of metalinguistic awareness. Current Psychology of Cognition 17, 367- 387.

Bentin, S. (1992). Phonological awareness, reading, and reading acquisition: a survey

and appraisal of current knowledge. In Katz, L. & R. Frost (Eds.) Orthography, phonology,

morphology and meaning. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.

Berent, I. & J. Shimron. (1997). The representation of Hebrew words: evidence from

the contour principle. Cognition 64, 39-72.

Berman, R.A. (1981a). Regularity vs. anomaly: The acquisition of inflectional

morphology. Journal of Child Language 8, 265-282.

Berman, R.A. (1981b). Children’s regularizations of plural forms in the Hebrew noun

system. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 20, 34-44.

Berman, R.A. (1983). Establishing a schema: Children’s construal of verb-tense

marking. Language Sciences 5, 61-68.

Berman, R.A. (1985). Acquisition of Hebrew. In D.I. Slobin (ed.) The crosslinguistic

study of language acquisition, Vol I. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 255-371.

Berman, R.A. (1987a). Productivity in the lexicon: new-word formation in Modern

Hebrew. Folia Linguistica 21, 225-254.

Berman, R.A. (1987b). A developmental route: leaning about the form and use of

complex nominals in Hebrew. Linguistics 25, 1057-1085.

Berman, R.A. (1993). Developmental perspectives on transitivity: A confluence of

cues. In Y. Levy (ed.) Other children, other languages: Issues in the theory of acquisition.

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 189-241.

28

Berman, R.A. (1994). Formal, lexical, and semantic factors in the acquisition of

Hebrew resultative participles. In S. Gahl, A. Dolbey, & C. Johnson (eds.) Berkeley

Linguistic Society, 20, 82-92.

Berman, R.A. (1995). Word-formation as evidence. In D. McLaughlin & S. McEwen

(eds.) Proceedings of the 19th Annual Boston University Conference on Language

Development, Vol I. Somerville, Mass: Cascadilla Press, 82-95.

Berman, R.A. (1997). Preschool knowledge of language: what five year olds know

about language structure and language use. In C. Pontecorvo (ed.) Writing development: an

interdisciplinary view. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 61-76.

Berman, R.A. (1999). Children’s innovative verbs versus nouns: Structured

elicitations and spontaneous coinages. In L. Menn & N. Bernstein-Ratner, eds. Methods in

studying language production. Mahhwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 69-93

Bialystok, E. (1986). Factors in the growth of linguistic awareness. Child

Development 57, 498-510.

Blau, Y. (1971). Biblical Hebrew phonology and morphology. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz

Hameuchad. [in Hebrew]

Bolozky, S. (1997). Israeli Hebrew phonology. In A.S. Kaye (ed.) Phonologies of

Asia and Africa. New York: Eisenbrauns, 287-311.

Brittain, M.M. (1970). Inflectional performance and early reading achievement.

Reading Research Quarterly 6, 34-48.

Carlisle, J. (1995). Morphological awareness and early reading achievement. In L.B.

Feldman (Ed.) Morphological aspects and early reading achievement. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum. Carlisle, J. & Nomanbhoy, D. (1993). Phonological and morphological

awareness in first graders. Applied Psycholinguistics 14, 177-195.

29

Chaudron, C. (1983). Research on metalinguistic judgments: a review of theory,

methods, and results. Language learning 33, 343-377.

Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness and Time. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Clark, E.V. (1978). Awareness of language: some evidence from what children say

and do. In A. Sinclair, R. Jarvella, & W. Levelt (eds.) The child’s conception of language.

New York: Springer, 17-43.

Clark, E.V. (1993). The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Clark, E.V. & R.A. Berman. (1984). Structure and use in the acquisition of word-

formation. Language 60, 542-590.

Demont, E. & Gombert, J-E. (1996). Phonological awareness as a predictor of

recoding skills and syntactic awareness as a predictor of comprehension skills. British

Journal of Educational Psychology 66, 315-332.

Derwing, B. & Baker, W. (1986). Assessing morphological development. In P.

Fletcher & M. Garman (Eds.) Language acquisition (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Dromi, E. (1987). Early lexical development. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Ephratt, M. (1997). The psycholinguistic status of the root in Modern Hebrew. Folia

Linguistica 31, 77-103.

Fowler, A.E. & Liberman, I.Y. (1995). The role of phonology and orthography in

morphological awareness. In L.B. Feldman (Ed.) Morphological Aspects of Language

Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 157-188.

30

Freyd, P. & Baron, J. (1982). Individual differences in the acquisition of derivational

morphology. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 21, 282-295.

Gesenius. (1910). Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, edited by E. Kautzsch, revised by

A.E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Gillis, S. & D. Ravid. (2000). Effects of phonology and morphology in children’s

orthographic systems: a cross-linguistic study of Hebrew and Dutch. In E. Clark (ed.) The

Proceedings of the 30th Annual Child Language Research Forum. Stanford: Center for the

Study of language and Information, 203-210.

Gillis, S. & G. de Schutter. (1996). Intuitive syllabification: universals and language

specific constraints. Journal of Child Language 23, 487-514.

Gombert, J.E. (1992). Metalinguistic development. Translated by T. Pownall. New

York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Henry, M.K. (1993). Morphological structure: Latin and Greek roots and affixes as

upper grade code strategies. Reading and Writing 5, 227-241.

Holes, C. (1995). Modern Arabic: structures, functions, and varieties. London:

Longman.

Jones, K.N. (1991). Development of morphophonemic segments in children’s mental

representations of words. Applied Psycholinguistics 12, 217-239.

de Jong, N.H., R. Schreuder, & R.H. Baayen. (2000). The morphological family size

effect and morphology. Language and Cognitive Processes 15, 329-366.

Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1986). From meta-processes to conscious access: evidence from

metalinguistic and repair data. Cognition 23, 95-147.

Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity: a developmental perspective of

cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

31

Karmiloff-Smith, A., Grant, J., Sims, K., Jones, M.C., & Cuckle, P. (1996).

Rethinking metalinguistic awareness: representing and accessing knowledge about what

counts as a word. Cognition 58, 197-219.

Kaplan, D. (1983). Order of acquisition of morpho-syntactic elements in Hebrew

speaking nursery schoolers. Master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University. [in Hebrew]

Levin I., Ravid, D., & Rappaport, S. (1999). Developing morphological awareness

and learning to write: A two-way street. In T. Nunes (Ed.) Learning to read: An Integrated

view from research and practice. Amsterdam: Kluwer, 77-104. 1999

Levin I., Ravid, D., & Rappaport, S. (In press). Morphology and spelling among

Hebrew-speaking children: From kindergarten to first grade. Journal of Child Language.

Levy, Y. (1980). The acquisition of gender. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Hebrew University in Jerusalem. [in Hebrew]

Lewis, D. & Windsor, J. (1996). Children’s analysis of derivational suffix meanings.

Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 39, 209-216.

Lieber, R. (1981). Morphological conversion within a restricted theory of the lexicon.

In M. Moortgat, H. van der Hulst, and T. Hoekstra (eds.) The scope of lexical rules.

Dordrecht: Foris.

Mahony, D.L. (1994). Using sensitivity to word structure to explain variance in high

school and college reading ability. Reading and Writing 6, 19-44.

McCarthy, J. (1981). A prosodic theory of non-concatenative morphology. Linguistic

Inquiry 12, 373-418.

McCarthy, J. (1982). Prosodic templates, morphemic templates, and morphemic tiers.

In H. van der Hulst & Smith, N. (Eds.) The structure of phonological representation, Part I.

Dordrecht: Foris.

32

Marshall, J.C. & Morton, J. (1978). On the mechanics of EMMA. In A. Sinclair, R.J.

Jarvella & W.J.M. Levelt (Eds.) The child’s conception of language. Berlin: Springer-

Verlag.

Menn, L. & Stoel-Gammon, C. (1995). Phonological development. In P. Fletcher &

B. MacWhinney (Eds.) The handbook of child language. Oxford: Blackwell, 335-359.

Nagy, W.E. & Scott, J.A. (1990). Word schemas: expectations about the form and

meaning of new words. Cognition and instruction 7, 105-127.

Nir, R. (1993). Lexical devices in Modern Hebrew. Tel Aviv: The Open University of

Israel. [in Hebrew]

Nippold, M.A. (1998). Later Language development: The school-age and adolescent

years. 2nd Edition. Austin, Texas: PRO-ED.

Nippold, M.A, Uhden, L.D. & Schwarz, I.E. (1997). Proverb explanation through the

lifespan: A study of adolescence and adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing

Research 40, 245-253.

Ravid, D. (1990). Internal structure constraints on new-word formation devices in

Modern Hebrew. Folia Linguistica 24, 289-346.

Ravid, D. (1995a). Language change in child and adult Hebrew: A psycholinguistic

perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ravid, D. (1995b). The acquisition of morphological junctions in Modern Hebrew:

the interface of rule and rote. In H. Pishwa & K. Maroldt (Eds.) The development of

morphological systematicity: A Cross-linguistic perspective. Tubingen: Gunter Narr, 55-77.

Ravid, D. (1995c). Neutralization of gender distinctions in Modern Hebrew numerals.

Language Variation and Change 7, 79-100.

Ravid, D. (1996). Accessing the mental lexicon: Evidence from incompatibility

between representation of spoken and written morphology. Linguistics 34, 1219-1246.

33

Ravid, D. (1997). Morphological development a duo: pre- and proto-morphology in

the language of Hebrew-speaking twins. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 33,

79-102.

Ravid, D. & A. Avidor (1998). Acquisition of derived nominals in Hebrew:

developmental and linguistic principles. Journal of Child Language 25, 229-266.

Ravid, D., G. Avivi Ben- Zvi & R. Levie. (1999). Derivational morphology in SLI

children: structure and semantics of Hebrew nouns. In M. Perkins & S. Howard (Eds.) New

directions in language development and disorders. New York: Plenum, 39-49.

Ravid, D., R. Levie & G. Avivi-Ben Zvi. (In press) Hebrew adjectives in language-

impaired and typically developing gradeschoolers. In L. Verhoeven (ed.).

Ravid, D. & Nir, M. (2000). On the development of the category of Adjective in

Hebrew. In In M. Beers, B. van den Bogaerde, G. Bol, J. de Jong, & C. Rooijmans (eds.)

From sound to sentence: Studies on first language acquisition. Groningen: Center for

Language and Cognition, 113-124.

Rubin, H. 1988. Morphological knowledge and early writing ability. Language and

Speech 31, 337-355.

Schwarzwald  (Rodrigue), O. (1996), Syllable structure, alternations and

verb complexity: The Modern Hebrew verb patterns reexamined. Israel Oriental Studies 16,

99-112.

Shimron, Joseph. (1993). The role of vowels in reading: A review of studies of

English and Hebrew. Psychological Bulletin 114, 52-67.

Smith, M.L. (1998). Sense and sensitivity: An investigation into fifth grade children’s

knowledge of English derivational morphology and its relationship to vocabulary and reading

ability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Graduate School of Education, Harvard

University.

34

Smith-Lock, K. & Rubin, H. (1993). Phonological and morphological analysis skills

in young children. Journal of Child Language 20, 437-454.

Spencer, A. (1991). Morphological theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Tunmer, W.E., &. Herriman, M.L. (1984). The development of metalinguistic

awareness: a conceptual overview. In W.E Tunmer, C. Pratt & M.L. Herriman (Eds.)

Metalinguistic awareness in children. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Webster, P.E. (1994). Linguistic factors in reading disability: a model for assessing

children who are without overt language impairment. Child Language Teaching and Therapy

10, 259-281.

Wysocki, K. & Jenkins, J.R. (1987). Deriving word meanings through morphological

generalization. Reading Research Quarterly 22, 66-81.

Valtin, R. (1984). The development of metalinguistic abilities in children learning to

read and write. In J. Downing & R. Valtin (Eds.) Language awareness and learning to read.

New York: Springer-Verlag, 207-226.

Van Kleeck, A. (1982). The emergence of linguistic awareness: a cognitive

framework. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 28, 237-265.

Yuill, N. (1998). Reading and riddling: the role of riddle appreciation in

understanding and improving poor text comprehension in children. Current Psychology of

Cognition 17, 313-342.

35

Word Gloss Pattern Pattern meaning

kalat absorbed CaCaC Basic verb, P1

niklat was absorbed niCCaC Passive verb, P2

hiklit recorded hiCCiC Causative verb, P5

huklat was recorded huCCaC Passive verb, P6

Word Gloss Pattern Pattern meaning

klita absorption CCiCa Action nominal

haklata recording haCCaCa Action nominal

kélet1 input CéCeC Abstract noun

taklit record taCCiC Derived nominal

maklet receiver maCCeC Instrument noun

miklat shelter miCCaC Place noun

koltan receptor CoCCan Agent noun

kalit absorbable CaCiC -Able adjective

Table 1. Words related by root k-l-t ‘take in, absorb’

36

Derived Word Gloss Stem and

Derivational Suffix

Stem and Suffix meaning

mada’an scientist mada-an science-agent

pa’oton nursery school pa’ot-on toddler-collective

kosit wine glass kos-it glass-diminutive

ma’afiya bakery ma’afe-iya baked product-place

lamdanut scholarship lamdan-ut scholar-abstract

Inflected Word Gloss Stem and

Inflectional Suffix

Stem and Suffix meaning

nafalti I fell nafal-ti fell-1st,Sg

hidpisu they printed hidpis-u printed-Pl

kosot glasses kos-ot glass-Pl,Fm

susa mare sus-a horse-Fm

armonénu our palace armon-énu palace-1st,Pl

Table 2. Linear structures in Hebrew

1 Stress is not marked unless penultimate.

37

Test groups Study tasks

Nonlinear Tasks Linear Tasks

1. K Mean

SD

45.32

7.0

64.67

16.63

2. G3 Mean

SD

60.60

13.43

91.49

5.60

3. G6 Mean

SD

70.83

10.31

93.98

4.32

4. G9 Mean

SD

84.84

7.0

97.97

2.36

5. Adults Mean

SD

81.46

8.73

97.52

2.75

Table 3. Combined mean percentages and standard deviations of participants’ scores on the

three nonlinear vs. the two linear tasks, by age group.

38

Test groups Study tasks

Nonce words Noun patterns Analogies

1. K Mean

SD

25.42

6.88

50.56

15.80

60.00

20.52

2. G3 Mean

SD

39.58

10.86

69.72

15.13

72.50

25.52

3. G6 Mean

SD

42.5

13.29

80.00

7.52

90.42

20.52

4. G9 Mean

SD

65.63

15.99

88.89

10.66

100.00

00

5. Adults Mean

SD

61.88

18.25

85.00

9.72

97.50

11.18

Table 4. Mean percentages and standard deviations of participants’ scores on the three

nonlinear study tasks, by age group

39

Age groups Nonce words Noun patterns Analogies

Root Pattern Root Pattern Root Pattern

Kindergarten Mean

SD

42.08

11.93

8.75

11.30

80.00

15.86

40.83

20.57

95.00

22.36

25.00

44.43

Grade 3 Mean

SD

72.50

20.06

6.67

10.33

96.67

11.60

55.00

19.57

100.00 45.00

51.04

Grade 6 Mean

SD

66.25

16.33

18.75

17.90

98.33

5.13

63.33

11.60

100.00 80.00

41.04

Grade 9 Mean

SD

80.83

19.52

50.42

26.14

98.33

5.13

79.17

16.11

100.00 100.00

Adults Mean

SD

88.33

16.75

35.42

27.95

97.50

6.11

74.17

17.50

95.00

22.36

100.00

Table 5. Mean percentages and standard deviations of participants’ root and pattern scores

on the three nonlinear study tasks, by age group

40

.Age groups Linear Tasks

Backformation

Mean SD

Grammaticality

Mean SD

Kindergarten 85.28 18.76 44.06 27.01

Grade 3 96.11 4.07 86.88 10.32

Grade 6 98.89 2.28 89.06 8.33

Grade 9 97.50 3.81 98.44 3.99

Adults 97.22 3.72 97.81 3.66

Table 6: Mean percentages and standard deviations of participants’ scores on the linear

tasks: Backformation and Grammaticality Judgments

41

Appendix: The five morphological awareness tasks

I Nonlinear tasks

1. Nonce words

Training: We have made up words that do not exist, but they are connected to other words

that you surely know. For example, listen to this sentence: We need to *shelf (Hebrew *le-

madef) the room. The word *le-madef is connected to a shelf (Hebrew madaf), right?

Because to*-shelf means to put up a shelf. [root relationship] And the word *le-madef is also

connected to the word le-lamed ‘to-teach’, because *le-madef is to do something, like le-

lamed [pattern relationship]

We have made up another word that does not exist, but it is connected to other words that

you surely know. Please listen to this sentence: This man is a *thrower (Hebrew *zarkan).

The word *zarkan is connected to throwing (Hebrew li-zrok), right? Because a* thrower

throws things [root relationship]. And the word *zarkan is also connected to the word baxyan

‘crybaby’ because like baxyan, *zarkan is someone who does something all the time [pattern

relationship].

Task: Now we’ll ask you about some other words that we have made up that are connected to

other words, and you’ll help us to find the connection. If participant answers ‘yes’, s/he is

asked: what is the connection?

Test Items

1. The family went *le-hitpaknek ‘to have a picnic’ in the wood (cf. conventional la-asot

piknik ‘to-make a picnic’).

Is the word *le-hitpaknek connected to...

(i) piknik ‘picnic’ (root relationship); (ii) le-hitxaten ‘to get-married’ (pattern relationship)

2. The child tried *le-hadrig ‘to grade’ the blocks (cf. conventional le-dareg).

Is the word le-hadrig connected to...

42

(i) madrega ‘step’ (root relationship); (ii) le-hasbir ‘to explain’ (pattern relationship)

3. The *mikpal ‘fold’ of the sleeve has unfolded (cf. conventional kיfel).

Is the word *mikpal connected to...

(i) hitkapel ‘folded’ (root relationship); (ii) mitbax ‘kitchen’ (pattern relationship).

4. The doctor examined the child with the *maksheva ‘listener (= stethoscope)’

Is the word *maksheva connected to...

(i) hikshiv ‘listened’ (root relationship); (ii) matslema ‘camera’ (pattern relationship)

5. This wall is *metsuba ‘colored’ white (cf. conventional tsavúa)

Is the word *metsuba connected to...

(i) tséva ‘color’ (root relationship); (ii) meshulash ‘triangle’ (pattern relationship)

5. This man is very hexleti ‘decisive’ and he always knows what is wants to do2.

Is the word hexleti connected to...

(i) hexlit ‘decided’ (root relationship); (ii) xagigi ‘festive’ (suffix relationship).

2. Noun patterns

Training: 1. Isn’t it right that a diving board (Hebrew makpetsa) is called makpetsa because

it is a thing (Hebrew maxshir ‘instrument’) that you jump (Hebrew kofets) from? [instrument

pattern]

2. And isn’t it right that a thief (Hebrew ganav) is called ganav because it’s a person that

steals (Hebrew gonev) things? [agent pattern]

Task: Now, you tell me please why ...

Test items

1. Why is safran ‘librarian’ called safran? [Agent noun]

2. Why is mavreg ‘screwdriver’ called mavreg? [Instrument noun]

3. Why is mirpa’a ‘clinic’ called mirpa’a [Place noun]

2 hexleti ‘decisive’ is an extant word, but -i suffixed adjectives are a later acquisition in Hebrew (Ravid & Nir, 2000; Levin et al, in press).

43

4. Why is tikun ‘fixing’ called tikun [Action nominal]

5. Why is tsahévet ‘jaundice’ called tsahévet [Disease-name noun]

6. Why is ףrex ‘length’ called ףrex [Abstract noun]

3. Analogies

Training: 1. The word sidewalk (Hebrew midraxa) resembles the word they step (Hebrew

dorxim) [root relationship], and also resembles the word fountain (Hebrew mizraka) [pattern

relationship], right?

2. And the word broke (Hebrew shavar) resembles the word broken (Hebrew shavur) [root

relationship], and also resembles the word wrote (Hebrew katav) [pattern relationship], right?

Task: Now tell me please words that resemble...

Test items

1. shakran ‘liar’;

2. mesaxek ‘playing’

3. ktiva ‘writing,N’

4. mutslax ‘good, successful’

5. hitnagev ‘toweled oneself’

6. dayar ‘tenant’.

II Linear tasks

4. Backformation

Training:

1. There’s a word that’s hiding inside the word tigress (Hebrew nemera). It’s the word tiger

(Hebrew namer), right? [gender inflection]

2. And there’s a word hiding inside the word they coughed (Hebrew hishta’alu). What is it?

It’s the word he coughed (Hebrew hishta’el), right? [number inflection]

44

Task: Now here are some other words with words hiding within them. Please tell me which

word is hiding within every word I’ll tell you, ok?

Test items - Inflected words:

1. shvura ‘broken,Fm’ [Masc shavur]

2. dapim ‘pages’ [Sg daf]

3. zamיret ‘singer, Fm’ [Masc zamar]

4. tslalim ‘shadows’ [Sg tsel]

5. mapiyot ‘napkins, Fm’ [Sg mapit]

6. adumim ‘red,Pl’ [Sg adom]

5. Grammaticality judgment

Training: There’s a doll here that sometimes talks funny, she can’t speak very well. Please

help us teach the doll how to speak well / correctly.

The doll says: 1. I wore a shirt (Fm) blue (Hebrew kaxol Masc). She talked funny, didn’t

she? We don’t say shirt kaxol, we say shirt kxula, because shirt is a girl (feminine gender),

right?

The doll says: 2. My phone is ringing now. She talked well, correctly, didn’t she?

Task: Now please listen to the doll and try to find out when she talks funny and makes

mistakes. Did she speak correctly or did she talk funny? Can you correct her so she speaks

correctly? Why did you have to correct the doll, what did she say that was funny?

Test items

1. I bought three doll. [noun number mismatch]

2. I have a small, Fm dog,Masc. [noun / adjective gender mismatch]

3. The drawer in my desk closed. [correct sentence]

4. I have a wound (Hebrew pיtsa) and another wound here. I have two ptsa’ot. (incorrect

form; cf. correct: ptsa’im)

45

5. The boy has a black,Fm TV remote control, Masc. [noun / adjective gender mismatch]

6. This girl drew,Pl a drawing for me. [noun / verb number mismatch]

7. My mummy bought me a teddy bear tomorrow [verb tense / temporal adverb mismatch]

8. Next week we’ll go to the beach. [correct sentence]

9. We will speak to you yesterday. [verb tense / temporal adverb mismatch]

46

0

20

40

60

80

100

K G3 G6 G9 Adults

NonlinearTasksLinear Tasks

Figure 1: Interaction of age group by morphological task type: Nonlinear and linear tasks

47

0102030405060708090

K G3 G6 G9 Adults

Root Pattern

Figure 2: The Nonce words task: Interaction of age group by root and pattern response type

48

0102030405060708090

100

K G3 G6 G9 Ads.

RootPattern

Figure 3: The Noun patterns task: Interaction of age group by root and pattern response type

49

0

20

40

60

80

100

K G3 G6 G9 Ads.

Root Patterns

Figure 4: The Analogies task: Interaction of age group by root and pattern responses

50

0

20

40

60

80

100

K G3 G6 G9 Ads

Backformation Grammaticality

Figure 5: Linear tasks: Interaction of age group by task type - Backformation and

Grammaticality

51

Notes

52