Testing the Abstractness of Phonological Representations in Modern Hebrew Weak Verbs
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Testing the abstractness of phonological representations in Modern Hebrew weak verbs A Dissertation Presented by Meghan Marie Sumner to The Graduate School in Partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics State University of New York at Stony Brook May 2003 Copyright by Meghan Marie Sumner 2003 State University of New York at Stony Brook The Graduate School Meghan Marie Sumner We, the dissertation committee for the above candidate for the Doctor of Philosophy degree, hereby recommend acceptance of this [thesis/dissertation]. _____________________________________ Ellen Broselow Professor of Linguistics _____________________________________ Robert D. Hoberman Professor of Linguistics _____________________________________ Christina Y. Bethin Professor of Linguistics _____________________________________ Arthur G. Samuel Professor of Psychology, SUNY Stony Brook This dissertation is accepted by the Graduate School _____________________________________ Dean of the Graduate School ii Abstract of the Dissertation Testing the abstractness of phonological representations in Modern Hebrew weak verbs by Meghan Marie Sumner Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics State University of New York at Stony Brook 2002 This dissertation argues for priming as a tool to test the reality of phonological analyses. I examine alternations in two types of weak verbs (verbs that surface without one of their traditional root consonants) in Modern Hebrew. In the cases examined here, consonant loss is phonologically motivated. I show that current analytical standards allow (at least) three psychologically plausible analyses. Each analysis, while having a goal of accurately modeling the phonological component of grammar, makes vastly different predictions about the nature of this grammar. These predictions are tested in a psycholinguistic priming experiment. The experiment is designed to provide us with direct evidence about the nature of the phonological representations for these weak verbs. The two types of weak verbs are compared to regular verbs, and two subject groups (older and iii younger adults) are included to control for language change issues in Modern Hebrew. The results support the view that younger adults have reanalyzed both types of weak verbs as vowel-final stems, providing evidence for concrete representations. For older adults, the results support an analysis proposing concrete representations for one type of weak verb, and abstract representations for the other. The ability of older adults to form abstract representations is attributed to a higher exposure to the transparent alternation than younger adults receive, as this alternation has been documented to decrease over time. The results are extended to the nominal paradigm of Modern Hebrew and I argue that we have no evidence of abstract representations for a class of segolate nouns that are traditionally analyzed as being opaque. Therefore, opacity in Modern Hebrew should not be used as motivation for modifications to Optimality Theory. Additional implications for Modern Hebrew phonology are discussed. For phonology in general, we now have a way in which we can test predictions made by competing theories. The results raise the questions of how speakers identify surface variants as related and what types and amounts of evidence are required to motivate this abstract relationship. This research also has implications for opacity in general, casting doubt on the assumption that speakers really do acquire opaque generalizations. iv for mom, dad, christian, and gram thank you Table of Contents List of Figures.................................................................................................... ix List of Tables ..................................................................................................... x Acknowledgments ............................................................................................ xi Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................................... 1 1.1. The motivation and purpose of phonological representations ................. 2 1.2. Abstractness ........................................................................................... 2 1.2.1. Transparent alternations ................................................................. 3 1.2.2. Opacity ............................................................................................ 5 1.3. The abstractness controversy ................................................................. 6 1.4. Stalemate in phonology ........................................................................... 8 1.5. The real problem ................................................................................... 10 1.5.1. Addressing the issues ................................................................... 10 Chapter 2: Modern Hebrew weak verbs ......................................................... 12 2.1. Background ........................................................................................... 12 2.2. Phonology ............................................................................................. 14 2.3. Regular verbs ........................................................................................ 14 2.4. Weak verbs ........................................................................................... 16 2.5. Phonologically-conditioned weak verbs ................................................. 17 2.5.1. Analysis 1: Abstract and concrete representations ....................... 20 2.5.2. Analysis 2: Abstract representations ............................................. 23 2.5.3. Analysis 3: Concrete representations ........................................... 25 2.5.4. The three analyses of weak verbs ................................................ 33 2.6. Predictions ............................................................................................ 34 2.6.1. Predictions of Analysis 1 ............................................................... 34 2.6.2. Predictions of Analysis 2 ............................................................... 35 2.6.3. Predictions of Analysis 3 ............................................................... 35 2.7. Conclusion ............................................................................................ 35 Chapter 3: Morphological priming in Modern Hebrew ................................. 37 3.1. Priming .................................................................................................. 37 3.1.1. Morphological priming ................................................................... 38 3.2. Morphological priming in Modern Hebrew ............................................. 40 3.2.1. Verbal pattern priming ................................................................... 42 3.2.2. Unresolved issues ......................................................................... 43 3.3. Experiment ............................................................................................ 44 3.3.1. Method .......................................................................................... 45 3.3.1.1. Participants ........................................................................... 45 3.3.1.2. Stimuli and design ................................................................ 45 vi 3.3.1.3. Procedure ............................................................................. 47 3.4. Predictions ............................................................................................ 47 3.4.1. Overall predictions ........................................................................ 47 3.4.2. Weak verb conditions .................................................................... 47 3.4.2.1. Psycholinguistic versus linguistic predictions ........................ 48 3.5. Results .................................................................................................. 49 3.6. Discussion ............................................................................................. 53 3.6.1. Related-same condition: Priming .................................................. 53 3.6.2. j-final weak verbs: No effect .......................................................... 54 3.6.3. ÷-final weak verbs: Mixed results .................................................. 54 3.6.3.1. Younger adults: No effect ..................................................... 54 3.6.3.2. Older adults: Inhibition .......................................................... 55 3.7. Phonological mismatch ......................................................................... 56 3.7.1. Mispronunciations ......................................................................... 56 3.7.2. Phonologically regular variation .................................................... 57 3.7.3. Mismatch analysis ......................................................................... 57 3.8. Neighborhood effects ............................................................................ 60 3.9. Summary ............................................................................................... 62 3.10. Conclusion .......................................................................................... 64 Chapter 4: Linguistic analysis......................................................................... 66 4.1. Experimental findings ...........................................................................