Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Written morphological analogies in Hebrew Dorit Ravid and Rachel Schiff Tel Aviv University Bar Ilan University Israel.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Written morphological analogies in Hebrew Dorit Ravid and Rachel Schiff Tel Aviv University Bar Ilan University Israel."— Presentation transcript:

1 Written morphological analogies in Hebrew Dorit Ravid and Rachel Schiff Tel Aviv University Bar Ilan University Israel

2 Morphology One of the organizing principles of the mental lexicon Morphemes and words

3 Morphology One of the organizing principles of the mental lexicon Morphemes and words Crucial importance in Hebrew –Highly synthetic Semitic language

4 Hebrew morphology: Roots and patterns katav hixtiv katuv mixtav kituv wrote dictated written letter subtitle kt ó vet ktav ktiv katvan katava address writing spelling typist journalistic report hitkatvut ktuba taxtiv correspondence marriage contract dictate

5 Roots and patterns: k-t-b ‘ write' כתב katav hixtiv katuv mixtav kituv wrote dictated written letter subtitle כיתוב מכתב כתוב הכתיב כתב kt ó vet ktav ktiv katvan katava address writing spelling typist journalistic report כתבן כתיב כתב כתובת כתבה hitkatvut ktuba taxtiv correspondence marriage contract dictate תכתיב כתובה התכתבות

6 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

7 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

8 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 WK Š BM GDL YKM וכשבמגדליכם u-xshe-be-migdaley-xem ‘ and-when-in-towers- yoursPl ’ Root GDL ‘ grow ’ surrounded by function elements

9 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

10 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

11 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

12 Analogy structure KPL כפל k é f e l ‘ multiplication ’ M KPL H מכפלה ma xp e l a ‘ multiple,N ’ Pattern source SRŦ סרט s é r e t ‘ film ’ Root source ? (M SRŦ H מסרטה ) ( ma sr e t a ‘ projector ’ ) Root relationship PatternrelationshipPatternrelationship PatternrelationshipPatternrelationship

13 Response set 1.Correct response : target noun MSRŦH מסרטה ‘projector’ 2.Main root distracter : a word containing the same root as the root source, but not the same pattern TSRYŦ תסריט ‘script’ 3.Pattern distracter : a word containing the same pattern as the pattern source, but not the same root MGRPH מגרפה ‘rake’ 4.Secondary root distracter : a word containing the same root shared by members of the top horizontal pair KPYL כפיל ‘double’ 5.Semantic distracter : associated semantically or pragmatically but not morphologically to left-hand member of horizontal pair KWLNW9 קולנוע ‘movies’

14 Correct responses: High and Low SES gradeschoolers H-SES L-SES 5/6 > 3/4 > 2 High > Low

15 Correct responses: High and Low SES gradeschoolers, adult dyslexic students H-SES L-SES Ad dys

16 Correct responses: High and Low SES gradeschoolers, adult dyslexic students H-SES L-SES Ad dys

17 Erroneous response types: High SES Main root response Few pattern, semantic responses No age differences

18 Erroneous response types: Low SES Main root: increase with age; Secondary root: decline with age Semantic and pattern distracters: decline with age

19 Erroneous response types: Adult dyslexic students Main root distracter Semantic distracter

20 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 3 rd and 4 th graders –Revert to non-morphological strategies absent in typically-developing children

21 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

22 Correct responses: High SES gradeschoolers, real versus nonce words Nonce: 5/6 > 2/3/4 Real > nonce

23 Erroneous response types: High-SES, nonce words Main root: decline with age Pattern: surge in 5/6


Download ppt "Written morphological analogies in Hebrew Dorit Ravid and Rachel Schiff Tel Aviv University Bar Ilan University Israel."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google