Université de Montréal Noun and verb forms in Algerian Arabic: A neuropsycholinguistic study Département de iinguistique et de traduction Faculté des arts et des sciences Thèse présentée à la Faculté des études supérieures en vue de l'obtention du grade de Philosophiæ Doctor (Ph.D.) option linguistique Juin 1997 O Zohra Mirnouni, 1997
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Université de Montréal
Noun and verb forms in Algerian Arabic: A neuropsycholinguistic study
Département de iinguistique et de traduction Faculté des arts et des sciences
Thèse présentée à la Faculté des études supérieures en vue de l'obtention du grade de
Philosophiæ Doctor (Ph.D.) option linguistique
Juin 1997
O Zohra Mirnouni, 1997
Acx(uisiins and Acquisitions et Bibliographic S e ~ ~ c e s senrieés bibiiographiques 395 weangm Street 395, Wellington OthwaON K 1 A W Obwa ON K1A ON4 Canada Canada
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distriiute or sell reproduire, prêter, districbuer ou copies of this thesis m microfonn, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/fïIm, de
reproduction sur papier ou sur format élecîronique.
The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor subsîantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or othefwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation.
Université de Montréal
Faculté des études supérieures
Cette thèse intitulée :
Noun and verb forms in Algerian Arabic: A neuropsycholinguistic study
présentée par :
Zohra Mimouni
a été évaluée par un jury composé des personnes suivantes:
SUMMARY
In the present research, we addressed the issues of lexical representation,
morphological relatedness, and modes of access in Arabic. a language that does not
conform to the prototypical iinear *xation models of the kind found in agglutinative
languages. Our investigation. based on the linguistic theoretical mode1 of lexical
representation developed by McCarthy (1979) for Arabic, was carried out in two
consecutive phases.
In the fint part. using a senes of off-line tasks, we collected data on the
performance of three agramm&c aphasic patients whose native language is A1gena.n
Arabic. Even though most of the deficits observed pacalleled those reported in the
iiterature, the pattern of omissions and substitutions of bound grammatical morphemes
appeared to largely refiect the structure of the language. More specifically, in Algerian
Arabic, where omissions of verb suffixes and prefixes may lead to the production of
nonwords, the patients' performance did not display such occurrences. Furthemore,
most of the erroneous forms stemming from omissions resulted in the masculine 3rd
singular perfective.
In the second phase of this research we used an on-line task which consisted of an
auditory morphological priming experiment. We investigated the process of word
recognition of singular and plural nouns in the performance of 24 non brain-damaged
subjects and two aphasic patients, al l native speakers of Algerian Arabic. The critical
feature of the plural system of Arabic is that most of the plural f o m do not exhibit
regularity in their patterns. Pluralization rnostiy involves stem-intemal changes as in the
broken plurals. Plural suffixation, as in the sound plurals, exists but to a much lesser
extent. In addition, some f o m may take both broken and sound plurak.
Our findings confmed the theoretical distinction between idiosyncratic and non
idiosyncratic plural forms. This was reflected in the differentiai processing of the two
plural f o m indicating whole word access for broken plurals and decomposition into
word and suffix for sound plurals. The priming obtained from morphologically related
pairs suggested for Algerian Arabic an architecture of the lexicon compatible in most of its
features with the family-like lexical models proposed by linguistic (McCarthy, 1979) and
psycholinguistic (Segui & Zubizaretra i 985) theones.
Combined features of the mode1 of McCarthy (1979) and the mode! of Segui &
Zubizaretta (1985) were proposed to account for the overail data. Morphologically related
words are ai i Listed in the lexicon in a linking relationship dominated by the discontinuous
root which acts as the head of the morphological family. Members of a morphologicai
family are accessed via the head which may be the root or the word (for irregular forms).
In the cases of AA verbs, access to verb forms takes place fmt through the discontinuous
root, then through the masculine 3rd singular perfective stem. With respect to singular
and plural nouns, irregular plurals are accessed through the singular forrn, whereas
regular plurals are accessed fmt through the root, then through the singular.
Assuming this organization of the lexicon. we suggested for the aphasic data in off-
line tasks chat omissions rnay be due to the patient's inability to access the lexicon. On-
line tesùng showed that the patients' processing abilities were welI preserved.
Raymond Queneau. W. dans l'instant fatal, Paris. 1948.
Ces deux dernières décennies ont été marquées par un foisonnerrient de recherches
portant sur L'architecture lexicale, aussi bien sur le plan théorique dans le domaine de la
linguistique, que sur le plan empirique comme en témoignent de nombreux travaux en
psycholinguistique et neurolinguistique. Parmi les questions sur lesquelles les chercheurs
se sont penchés, nous retrouvons celles de l'unité de représentation lexicale, de
l'organisation interne du lexique. ainsi que des processus d'accès et de traitement du mot.
Une revue de la littérature présentée dans le chapitre premier de cette thèse fait état
des différentes hypothèses proposées sur ces questions et nous révèle surtout on domaine
très complexe comme l'illustre i'absence de consensus au niveau des modèles qui nous
sont offerts.
vii
En ce qui concerne la première question. linguistes et psycholinguistes ont tour à
tour proposé soit le morphème, soit le mot, soit les deux comme unités de représentation
Iexicale.
L'organisation lexicale se prête à la même controverse. Dans leur tentative de rendre
compte des relations lexicales, les linguistes nous offrent trois approches différentes.
chacune reflétant le modèle de représentation lexical adopté. D'aucuns vont exprimer ces
relations en termes de règles de formation de mots. Dans les modèles qui prévoient que le
morphème est l'unité lexical de base. racines, radicaux et mots vont être reliés entre eux
par des règles de formation de mots. A l'opposé, les modèles qui excluent le morphème
du lexique vont se démarquer en restreignant les relations morphologiques aux mots.
qu'ils soient idiosyncratiques ou Le pmduit de règles de formation.
D'autres soutiennent que seules des règles de redondance peuvent rendre compte des
relations entres les items lexicaux. Selon cette approche, étant donné que tous les mots
sont listés dans Le lexique, les règles de formation de mots se iimitent à la production de
nouveIIes formes.
Par ailleurs. selon d'autres modèles. ces mêmes relations vont prendre La forme de
connections phonologiques et sémantiques que les mots développent entre eux. Les
relations lexicdes résulteraient du renforcement en parallèle de ces connections.
Dans la littérature psycholinguistique, nous trouvons des modèles d'organisation
lexicale incorporant la notion de famille morphologique p u r rendre compte des relations
lexicales. Par exemple, l'hypothèse de l'organisation en satellites (the 'satellite-entries
hypothesis' ) postule que tous les mots sont listés, chacun dans une entrée lexicale séparée.
Les items morphologiquement apparentés sont tous reliés 3 une seule forme qui joue le
rôle de noyau.
Une autre variante de la famille morphologique propose. par ailleurs, que tous les
mots dérivés sont listés et reliés entre eux. dominés par une racine commune. Libre ou liée,
qui va représenter la tête de la famille.
Les modèles d'accès Lexical vont à leur tour nous offrir des propositions adverses
selon qu'il s'agisse d'un lexique basé sur le morphème ou sur le mot. Dans les modèles
qui défendent la configuration d'un lexique morphémique, l'accès aux mots
morphologiquement complexes (dérivés et fléchis) se fait par le biais du radical, laissant
supposer une décomposition en morphèmes avant l'accès lexical. Un autre point de vue
consiste à postuler un lexique qui ne comprendrait que les mots. et par conséquent
impliquerait un accès direct de chaque mot en tant qu'unité. Ces solutions ne faisant pas
l'unanimité, les chercheurs ont alors recow à des modèles hybrides qui combineraient les
deux possibilités d'accès mais dans des conditions particulières: le processus d'accès au
mot en tant qu'unité s'appliquerait aux items connus, alors que le processus de
décomposition ne toucherait que les néologismes ou items nouveaux.
Le domaine de la pathologie du langage, et plus particulièrement. le syndrome de
I'agrammatisme a également donné lieu à des controverses sur l'architecture et le
fonctionnement du lexique. Dans leurs efforts à comprendre les causes sous-jacentes aux
omissions des marqueurs morphologiques libres et liés qui caractérisent I'agrammatisme,
pour ultimement déterminer si ces déficits linguistiques sont le résultat d'une atteinte
sélective d'une des composantes de la grammaire ou éventuellement si les processus
impliqués sont les mécanismes d'accès aux représentations de ces composantes, les
neurolinguistes nous offrent différentes interprétations. Ainsi, les travaux effectués dans
des cadres théoriques linguistiques ont tour à tour proposé l'hypothèse d'un déficit
phonologique, morphologique, syntaxique, ou lexical et pst-lexical.
Nous remarquons donc, à la lumière des propositions qui s'offrent à nous que, en
fait. plutôt que de trancher. les données existantes invitent à retenir à la fois i'une ou
l'autre des différentes hypothèses sur la nature des représentations lexicales et de leur
mode d'organisation et d'accès. Noue intérêt pour ces thèmes découle directement de cette
ambiguité. Malgré les résultats contradictoires qui les caractérisent. les nombreux travaux
sur la structure du lexique 0r.t au moins un point en commun, à savoir. ils ont tous porté
essentiellement sur des langues aux processus d'affixation linéaire qui se retrouvent dans
les langues du type agglutinatif comme l'anglais, le français ou Malien.
Nous nous proposons donc dans cette thèse. dans laquelle nous adoptons comme
point de départ le modèle de représentation lexicale proposé par McCarthy (1979).
d'étendre la recherche sur les trois questions soulevées plus haut relatives au lexique à une
langue telle que l'arabe qui se distingue par une morphologie essentiellement
nonconcatenative.
Nous nous penchons plus particulièrement sur les processus de reconnaissance et
d'accès des noms singuliers et pluriels en arabe algérien. Dans le but d'obtenir une vision
aussi complète que possible de ces processus, nous avons incorporé deux types de
tâches-'off-line' (sans contraintes temporelles) et 'on-line' (en temps réel)-que nous
avons adressés à deux types de populations de sujets-non-cérébrolésé et pathologique.
Cintérêt pour les formes du pluriel découle des proprietés exceptiomelles de leur
structure interne. Deux modes de formation des pluriels caractérisent l'arabe: un pluriel dit
'brisé' qui se traduit par un changement dans la structure interne du singulier (ex.. kursi
'chaise'lkrasa 'chaises') et un pluriel dit 'sain' qui se manifeste par un processus de
suffixation (ex.. Ibos 'robe'llbesat 'robes'). Les chapitres 2 et 4 présentent une
description de la structure interne du mot arabe et de la représentation lexicale du singulier
et pluriel des formes nominaies.
Un postulat du modèle de McCarthy (1979) concerne la différence théorique au
niveau de la représentation lexicale des deux formes du pluriel, ce qui nous a amené aux
deux hypothèses de travail suivantes:
1) Les formes du pluriel sain et du pluriel brisé en arabe algérien donnent heu à un
traitement différentiel au cours du processus de reconnaissance, tant chez le sujet
noncérébrolésé que chez les sujets agrammatiques.
2 ) Cette différence découle des traits spécifiques de ces formes et de leur organisation
structurale dans le lexique.
Ce travail de recherche s'articule en deux volets. Le premier, qui est consigné dans
le chapitre 3, est consacré aux expériences 'off-line' destinées à analyser les déficits
morphologiques dans la performance de deux sujets agrammatiques dont la langue
maternelle est l'arabe dgérien. Les données recueillies font ressortir. à certains égards, un
tableau du syndrome de l'agrammatisme similaire à ce qui se retrouve dans d'autres
langues. Cependant, lorsqu'il s'agit d'omissions de morphèmes morphologiques liés, les
erreurs produites semblent refléter la structure de la langue arabe. Contrairement des
langues comme l'anglais où I'omission de flexions verbales entraînent la production de
radicaux qui sont égaiement des mots de la langue (ex., look-ed), en arabe, elles
aboutissent parfois à des radicaux qui ne correspondent à aucun mot de la langue. Nous
remarquons alors que ces omissions ne sont pas produites chez les patients arabes. Ce
que nous relevons cependant. c'est que toutes les formes erronées qui résultent de ces
omissions ne se produisent pas de façon aléatoire, mais suivent un patron bien particulier:
les sujets utilisent la 3ème personne du singulier accompli et ce, quelle que soit la forme de
la cible.
Dans une deuxième étape. nous examinons le processus de reconnaissance des
formes du singulier et du pluriel dans une tâche 'on-line' de décision lexicale et
d'amorçage. Une description détaillée de ces techniques en temps réel est présentée aans
le chapitre 2. La population testée regroupe 24 sujets normaux et deux des trois sujets
aphasiques qui ont participé à la première étude. Les résultats obtenus c o n f i e n t nos
deux hypothèses, à savoir. la distinction théorique entre les formes idiosyncratiques et
celles qui ne le sont pas se reflète dans le processus différentiel d'accès observé entre ces
deux formes. Par ailleurs, la facilitation obtenue entre les items morphologiquement reliés
semble conforme aux modèles linguistique (McCarthy, 1979) et psycholinguistique (Segui
& Zubizaretta, 1985) qui postulent une organisation lexicale en famille morphologique.
Ces modèles permettent aussi d'expliquer les erreurs morphologiques qui caractérisent la
performance des sujets agrammatiques.
Une version finale combinant des propriétés de ces deux modèles prévoit pour
l'arabe algérien, un lexique où tous les mots seraient listés, reliés les uns aux autres, à
I'intérieur d'une famille morphoiogique, dominées par une forme ou 'tête' par laquelle
l'accès serait possible. Dans le cas des verbes, I'accès se ferait par le radical libre. d o n
que dans les cas des noms, la racine discontinue senrirait de porte d'accès pour les formes
du pluriel sain, la forme du singulier pour les formes du pluriel bris&. En nous basant sur
cette organisation lexicale, et considtrant les capacités bien préservées des patients dans
les tâches 'on-line*, nous suggérons d'attribuer les omissions qui caractérisent leur
performance dans les tâches 'off-line' à des diff~cultés d'accès lexical.
xii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of rabIes .......................................................................................................... xvi
List of Figures ........................................................................................................ xvii
1.1 Linguistics and the LeXicon ....................................................................... 8 1 . 1 . 1 The Lexicon and Listedness ............................................................ 8
1.1.2 The Lexicon and ReIatedness .......................................................... Il
1.1.3 The Lexicon and the Locus of uiflection ......................................... 14
1.1.4 The Lexicon and Productivity .......................................................... 14
1 . 2 Psycholinguistics and the Lexicon ............................................................ 17
1.2.1 The Mental bxicon and Listedness ................................................. 17
1 2.2 The Mental Lexicon and Relatedness ............................................... 20
1.2.3 The Mental Lexicon and the Locus of Mection .............................. 22
1.2.4 The Mental Lexicoa and Frequency ................................................. 22
1.3 Agrammatism and the Mental Lexicon ...................................................... 23
1.3.1 Early Descriptions of Agrammatism ................................................ 33
1 -3 -2 Linguistic Approaches to Agrarnmatism .......................................... 25
1.3 -3 Morphological Approaches to Agpmmtkm ................................... 26
1.3 -4 Cross-Linguistic S ~ d i e s of Agrammatism ...................................... 27
xiii
2.1 The Arabic Morphological System ............................................................ 31
2.1.1 The Eariy Arab Grammarians' Approach: The Binya Asliya H y p o ~ e s i s ...................................................................................... 32
...... 2.1.2 The S trucruralist Approach: The Root-and-Patiem Hypothesis 33
1.1 -3 The Generative Approach: McCarthy's Autosegmental Approach ........................................................................................ 34
Chapter t h e : Study one : Agrammatic aphasia in Arabie ................................................................................ 50
3 -4 General Discussion ................................................................................... 73
Appendix 3.1 Examples of structures used in repetition . reading alouci, md oral comprehension ............................................................ 81
Appendix 3.2 Sarnple of spontaneous speech for subject NB (Picnü.e description fiom Puadis, 199 1 .............................................. 82
xiv
Chapter four: Study two : The mental representation of singular and plural nouns in Aigerian Arabic as revealed through auditory priming in agrammatic aphasic patients ........................
.................................................................................... 4.2 Scope of the Smdy 1.2.1 Language Background and Theoretical Framework ........................
4-22 p h a l F~~ati0L-l in ...................................................................
42.3 Objectives of the Study ....................................................................
4.4 Results and Discussion ............................................................................. . .........................*........ 4.4.1 Morphologically Related vs Unrelated Pairs
. 4.4.2 Sound vs Broken PI ural Pairs ........................................................ ................................................................................. 4.4-3 R - P h d F ' k
. 4.4.4 PluralSingular vs Singular-Plural Pairs ........................................ 4.4.5 IIkgdy Sufixed Words .................................................................
Appendix 4.1 List of stimuli: Broken plurals (Monosyllabic stimuli) ..................
Appendix 4.2 List of stimuli: Broken plu& (Bisyilabic stimuli) .......................
Appendix 4.3 List of stimuli: Sound/suffixed plurais ......................................
Lexical Representation and Processing of Singular and Plurai Forms ......................................................................................................... in
. ............................... 5.3.1 Morphologically Related vs Unrelated Words . ..................................................... 5.3.2 Broken vs Sound Plural Forms
5.3.3 Singdar vs- F%md F o m ............................................................... ................................................................................. 5.3.4 Bi-Plurai Pain
5.3 -5 Illegally-S uffmed Words ................................................................. 5.3.6 Conclusion ......................................................................................
Generai Discussion ................................................................................... 5.4.1 The Nature of Lexical Representations for AA ................................
............................ 5.4.2 The Internai ûrganization of the Lexicoo for A A
............................................ 5.4.3 The Role of F ~ q u e n c y in the Lexicon
............................................................... Implications for F h e r S ~ d i e s
....................................................... List of Balnd Stems (Study One)
Sentences used in the Tasks of Repetition Reading Moud ................................................ ax-ld Comprehension (Smdy One)
Sentence used in Repetition and Reading Moud Tasks (Study Onel .........................................................................................
............................. Picnires used in Oral Comprehension (Study One)
Cumulative Results of Riming Experiment (Snidy Two) ...................
LIST OF TABLES
Pages
Table I
Table II
Table üi
Table IV
TabIe V
Table Vi
Table W
Table Vm
Table IX
Table X
Table XI
xvii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 1 1
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Figure 20
Halle's mode1 of the Iexicon ..............................................................
...... A subpart of the colle 'glue' family (Segui & Zubizarreta, 19851.
The Arabic word according to the binyu %sliys hypothesis (Bohas, 1984) .....................................................................................
............................... The basic word in Arabic according to Cantineau
McCarthy's ( 1979) intemal structure of a word in Classicai
Pages
9
13
21
32
34
McCarthy's ( 1979) intemal structure of a prefixed word in Classical Arabie ..............................................................................
......... McCarthy's ( 1979) sttuctured lexical entry for Classicai Anbic
Lexical representation of an irregutar plural form ...............................
Taft and Forster's ( 1975) mode1 ........................................................
k x k a l rep=senmtion of bi-plural fmns ............................................
Comparative mean reaction times normal vs . aphasic subjects ...........
Figure 2 1 Lexical representation of idiosyncratic forms --.---..-.-..-. .. . A-..---. .-- L 12-132
Figure 22 Lexical representation of sound and broken plural f o m ...............---- 133
xix
ABBRE VIATZONS
SYMBOLS USED FOR ARABIC TRANSCRIPTION
I
j
3 J 6 4
t J
A
glottal stop
long B
long u
long i
SYMBOLS USED IN THE THESIS
I 7 - 3 acc bisyl. BP cv f Ind rn monosyl N/A Neg nom O 0 O V p d P PLUR pres Pro S S SING SP SV0 v vso
fint penon second person third person accusative bisyiiabic broken plural consonant vowel ferninine indefrnite masculine monosyiiabic not avdab1e negation nominative O bject zero element object verbiditic pronoun subject plural P ~ W present clitic pronoun subject singular singular sound plural subject verb object verb verb subject object
ACKNO WLEDGMENTS
1 wish to thank the many people who helped me dong in this chaiienging enterprise.
First of dl, 1 am mostly indebted to my two thesis supervisors Professors Gonia Jarema
and Yves-Charles Morin. Prof. Jarema stimulated my interest in Neurolinguistics. 1 had
just started my doctoral studies when she offered me the privilege to engage in research in
agramrnatism and leam through her keen guidance and enthusiasrn the many aspects of
testing, compiling and anaiyzing data, and above ail, to lead the exciting experience of
working with agrammatic patients. 1 am most grateful for her perspicacious comments
and continuing positive encouragement throughout the course of this thesis.
I should iike to w d y thank Prof. Mono who helped me further rny knowledge of
morphological theory. His vast knowiedge of linguistic theory has been a continuous
source of inspiration and enlightenment. His invaluable comments on several venions of
this thesis have made me reaiize that perfection is a never-ending process. 1 am
particularly grateful for his generosity with his time during our discussions, when
suggesting ideas. or handing out references.
xxii
1 would like to express specid thanks to Eva Kehayia for her support and advice
when most needed. Her enthusiasm and keen interest for rny research have been most
encouraging.
I would aiso like to thank Professors Glyne Piggot. Michel Paradis and Daniel Bub
for suggestions and assistance at earlier stages of this research.
1 am indebted to Leila Ait-Mesbah, speech therapist, and tc Prof. Abdelaziz Bendib
of the Department of Neuro-Traumatology at the Mustapha Hospital of Algien, for kindly
providing access to their patients as well as hospitai facilities. 1 am most grateful to the
three patients and ali the subjects who cheerfully participated in this study.
1 owe special thanks to Paule Samson, Franche Giroux and Mathew Decter for their
superb assistance with editing. statistics and experimental design.
I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. André Roch Lecours, and to al1 the memben
of the Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier Côte-des-Neiges for integrating me and
making me feel as one of theû own.
Finally, I am grateful to my famdy here and in Algeria, and to the many friends
everywhere who have k e n rny second family.
This study was supported by scholarships from FCAR and the University of
Montreal for which I am grateful.
INTRODUCTION
Over the 1 s t two decades, an increasing amount of theoretical and empiricai
research in linguistics. psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics, has been conducted to
investigate the interna1 structure of the lexicon. More specificaliy, researchers have k e n
concemed with the following issues: (i) the unit of representation in the lexicon. (ii) the
intemal organization of the items making up the lexicon, and (iii) the modes of lexical
access and processing during normal word recognition. Several claims have been made
but each has been chailenged by other snidies. To date, a consensus has not been reached
with respect to any of the above issues.
With respect to the fmt issue, theoretical linguistic and psycholinguistic accounts
have proposed either the morpherne or the word as the basic unit of representation of the
lexicon. Compromise solutions where both morphemes and words are lexically
represented have also been put forward.
Regarding the issue of the intemal organization of the lexicon, three main
approaches prevail in theoretical linguistics. each one reflecting the mode1 adopted with
respect to the unit of representation. The f i t one attempts to express lexical relations in
tems of word formation rules: in morpheme-based models, morphological relations are
present between stems and affixes as well as between words. whereas in word-based
models, morphologicai relations are restricted to words formed from aiready existing
words. A second appmach holds that ail words are listed and that morphological
relationships are expressed in terms of redundancy d e s . According to a third approach.
lexical relatedness is captured by the relative strengths of the semantic and phonologicai
connections developed between lexical entries. Morphological relations mn in parallel to
these semantic and phonological connections.
In the psycholinguistic literanire. two fundamentai views have been put forward.
The fmt one, referred to as the satellite-entries hypotùesis, holds that aU morphologically
related words cluster unifonnly in a satellite relationship around a fom which acts as a
nucleus. This hypothesis was first proposed for the intemal organization of Serbo-
Croatian nouns in which the nucleus comsponds to the nominative singular form.
The second hypothesis whereby morphologically derived words are Listed as
autonomous but related entries suggests a family-like organization. Al1 entries for
morphologicaUy related complex words are linked to each other and constitute a
morphological family. The common root, whether bound or free, acts as the head of the
famil y.
Finally, with respect to the mode of access of mental representations, existing
psycholinguistic proposals reflect to a large extent the mode of representation of lexical
items. For those models supporting a word-based lexicon, each word has its own lexical
entry and c m be accessed in a direct manner as a whole. In contrast, in morpheme-based
models of the lexicon, cornplex words are accessed via their stems, suggesting that these
items are decomposed into their constituent morphemes pior to access.
Hybrid models proposing two parallet access routes to the lexicon have dso been
put forward. In these models, known words are accessed as whole units whereas novels
foms are decomposed into their morpheme constituents.
Research on agrammatic aphasia has provided us with invaluable insights in the
comprehension of the functional and architectural aspects of the lexicon. Agrammatism is
a pathologicai syndrome characterked by a speech output that is typicaiiy noduent and
syntacticdly reduced in terms of both the range of grammatical structures produced and
the omission and substitution of morphological markers (e.g.. plurais and tense marken)
and free-standing words (e.g., articles and prepositions). One critical issue has been to
detennuie whether such language deficits reflect selective impaiments to the components
of the linguistic grammar, such as phonology, morphofogy. syntax and semantics. and to
their representations, or aitematively, to the processes involved in accessing these
components. The various linguistically-based hypotheses that have been offered suggest
that agrammatic disorden reflect either a phonologicai impairment related to phonologicai
stress, a fundamental impairment in syntax, a morphologicd impairment of the items that
do not belong to major categories, or an impairment at both the lexical and post-lexical
levels.
When reflecting on the studies and proposais reviewed up to now. one notes that
most of the research addressing the issues of lexical representation, organization, and
access has actually focused on languages which exhibit word formation processes based
on concatenative affixation of the type found in English, i.e., words are made up of
sequences of one or several morphemes that are put together in a linear order. In an effort
to fil1 the gap created by the absence of data on nonconcatenative languages, and at the
same time validate the existing models of lexicai access and representation, research on the
lexicon is extending its scope to ty pologically different languages.
The goal of the present research is to contribute an additional step towards this
general effort. Adopting as a point of departure the lexical representation proposed by
McCarthy (1979) for Arabic, we investigate the process of word recognition of Arabic
singular and plural nouns in the performance of twenty-six native speakers of Aigerian
Arabic. two of whom are agrammatic aphasic patients and twenty four are non brain-
damaged subjects. Our methodological design incorporates both on-line and off-line
tasks.
Unlike languages like English or Italian. where the prototypical process of word
formation is linear affmation, i-e.. in which words are made up of sequences of one or
more segments or morphemes that are concatenated in a linear order (e-g., the English
word truns-form-ut-ion), Arabic exhibits a nonconcateaative morphological structure
characterized by a word formation process expressed mostly through an infixation process
or a change intemal to the word itself (e.g., k i taeb 'book'/kut ub 'books'). Most
theoreticai account. of Arabic morphology overtly or implicitly make the assumption that
the word formation process is essentially root-based, in that words are generaily derived
from a discontinuous consonantal root (e.g., katab 'he wrote' is denved from the
discontinuous root /k-t -hi). Furthermore, words are made up of three morphemes-the
discontinuous root, the vocalic basis. and a CV prosodic template.
Suffixation and prefixation are also typical operations in Arabic word formation
(e.g.. me -kt ab8 'library'lrna -kt sbe- t 'libraries' ). These two fixation processes are
present in Arabic plural formation, the morphologicd process we set out to investigate in
the present study. PluraIization in Arabic involves either suffiation as in the sound plural
(e-g.. Ibos 'dress'/ lbas~ 'dresses'), or stem-intemal changes as in the broken plural
(e-g., Qrsl 'chair'lkrgç~ 'chairs*). A theoretical analysis of the Arabic morphologicai
system and noun plural formation is presented in Chapters two and four.
In Chapter one, we present an overview of the studies on the lexicon. with a special
emphasis on those addressing the issues of lexical representation, organization, access
and processing, as well as to closely related issues such as the locus of idection, and the
role of frequenc y and productivity . The prominent part played by neuropsyc holinguis tic
research in the understanding of the complex architechire of the lexicon is also stressed.
Chapter two is concemed, in its Fust section, with the central constructs of Arabic
morphology. Three different approaches to the Arabic morphologicd system are outlined:
the early Arab grammarians' view, the suucturalist root-and-pattern hypothesis. and the
generative autosegmental approach. In the following sections, we present the issues
under investigation and the hypotheses underlying our study. These will be preceded by a
description of the lexical decision and the prirning techniques.
Chapter three is a study on the breakdown patterns of morphemes in Algerian
Arabic. It investigates the ways in which agrammatism is manifested in Algerian Arabic,
and how it compares with the existuig descriptions of the syndrome. The aphasies' error
patterns are contrasted across different modalities with those described in the literature,
then the role of language-specific features in the patterns observed is examined.
In Chapter four, we present our second study in which we conducted an auditory
morphologicai priming experiment on twenty-four non brain-damaged subjects and two
agrammatic aphasic patients. The experimentai design, which involves essentially Arabic
singular and plural noun forms. airns at exarnining the representation and access of such
f o m in the lexicon. A comparative analysis between normal and pathological data is then
performed.
The fint part of Chapter five is devoted to a surnmary of the findings. The second
part discusses the subjects' overall performance, within and across tasks. An
interpretation in the light of current Linguistic and psycholinguistic theones on the lexicon
is proposed.
CHAPTER ONE
THE LEXICON: R E U T E D ISSUES
The term lexicon is often used in the literanire with systernatic ambiguity, referring
either to the component of the grammar where lexical facts are hande& or to a simple list
of words or dictionary. Furthemore, depending on whether we are deding with the
linguist's or the psycholinguist's conception of the lexicon, it is refened to either as the
lexicon or the mental lexicon. Psycholinguists use the latter labeling in their attempts to
develop models of language use and access. In Chomsky (1970), as in much of the
Linguistic literature, the part of the grammat which deds with iexical relations is refemd to
as the lexicon. For the sake of consistency and to avoid confusion, in the present research,
the term rnorphofogical component is used interchangeahiy with the tem Iexicon to refer
to that component of the grammar which handles lexical relations.
1.1 LINGUISTICS AND TBE LEXICON
1.1.1 The Lexicon and Listedness
In linguistic theory, the lexicon is usually described as consisting of lexical envies
which are presumed to indude information about the pronunciation. the meaning and the
morphological as weil as the syntactic properties of the linguistic elements they represent.
Among the issues related to the lexicon, the yet unresolved ones are about the nature and
the organization of the items which make up the lexicon. The approach taken by the
structuralists is to include in the Lexicon a List of morphemesl and those items that are
idiosyncratic, adopting thus Bloomf~eld's d e f ~ t i o n of the lexicon:
"A complete description of a language wîii list every forrn whose function is not determined either by structure or by a marker [... 1; it will include. accordingly, a lexicon, or List of morphemes, which indicates the fom-class of each morpheme. as weii as Lists of al1 complex forms whose function is in any way irregulai' (Bloomfield, 1933:269).
On this view, al1 predictable nonarbitrary redundancies are excluded from the
lexicon. The morpheme becomes then the basic linguistic unit in the lexicon around which
non idiosyncratic words are constructed. This compositional view of the lexicon wiil be
taken later by some of the generative morphologists, who also include in their models a set
of word formation d e s (WFRs) for constructing words out of morphemes.
Halle (1973) is one of the earliest generative linguists to propose a morphological
mode1 within a generative frarnework. He proposed a lexicon which comprises a list of
the morphemes of a language and a set of word formation rules for combining them.
These rules provide information on the order in which morphemes are to appear in words.
The outputs of the WFRs go fmt through a filter whose functions, among othen, are to
- -
In the Ameflcan srructuralist view. the morpheme is defined as the 'minimal meaningful elemtd.
add idiosyncratic information to words and to mark accidental gaps2 with the feature
[-lexical insertion] to prevent them from king incorporated into a syntactic structure. For
example, a noun like arrivai which is formed by combining the verb arrive with the f l ix
-al, normdy means 'the act of V-ing'. However, a word such as recital does not fit into
this pattern. This exceptional meaning of recital must be recorded in the fdter. The
outputs of the filter form the dictionary of the !anpage which would then serve as inputs
to lexical insertion transformations. The dictionary contains ody and all infiected fomis
of the words of a language. With respect to the list of morphemes, it should be noted that
Halle proposes that each morpheme be specified syntacticaiîy for major grammatical
categones, stems, and &xes, both derivational and inflectional, as well as for additional
grammatical properties. The model which Haiie proposes cm thus be schematized as
follows:
+ Formation + Fiter + Dictionary (
Figure 1 Halle's mode1 of the lexicon
The problern with Halle's theory is that his model actuaily contains two listings: the
List of Morphemes which, together with the WFRs, defines the potential words of a
language. and the dictionary, where only actual words of a îanguage are stored.
Aronoff (1976) dispenses altogether with the notions of morphemes, filter, and the
two listings. While maintaining Halle's view of a separate component of the grammar
* In Halle's model, potentiai but not anested words Iike *anïvarion are e x p t e d to M t and thus can be produceci by WFRs; they are considered as accidentai gaps-
which houses morphological formation, he proposes, instead of a compositional lexicon,
a lexicon that has the form of a dictionary where only words may be entered as
independent. fully specified items. WFRs apply to existing words3 and not to
morphemes. He rejects the notion of the rnorpheme as the minimal lexical unit of semantic
representation. arguing that certain rnorphemes "have no rneaning which can be assigned
independently of each of the individual words in which they occui' (Aronoff, 1976:9-IO),
and gives the word hi11 authority. This is fomuiated in the Word-Based Hypothesis.
"Al1 regular word-formation processes are word-based. A new word is forrned by applying a regular rule to a single existing word. Both the new word and the existing one are members of major lexical categories" (Amnoff. l976:2 1).
A consequence of Aronoff's morphologicd theory is that words Like permit and
submit. even though polymorphemic, are not produced by mie. Since morphemes are
excluded from this model, affixes are introduced by WFRs. In other words, the
representation of an affix is the WFR which attaches the &x to its base. The word
becomes then the basic unit from which complex words are constnicted. However, it is
noteworthy to point out that this approach does not support the hypothesis of a full listing
that may be drawn from the word-based lexical organization proposed by the author. In
fact, not d words are listed in the lexicon as Aronoff clairns that the output of productive
WFRs as well as regularly inflected items are not listed4. The fmt daim stems from the
application of a lexical principle which the author refers to as blocking. Blocking. which
is defined as "the nonoccurrence of one form due to the simple existence of another"
(Aronoff, 1976:43) prevents such words as *derival and *arrivafion from king listed
since their synonymous forms derivation and arriva1 aiready exist in the lexicon.
In Aronoffs (1995) view. the word is a lcxetne, Le.. an uninflected entity wirhout case. nurnber. or gender. Note. however. that in his theory. inrgularly inflected foms are listed in the lexicon.
However, if applied systematicdy, the blocking principle would not allow the formation
of a word like gloriousness since it has a kted synonymous form glory. In order to allow
the output of productive WFRs such as -ness in spite of blocking, Aronoff (1976:45)
suggests that such foms are not entered in the lexicon. Aronoffs lexicon wili, thus,
include the idiosyncratic words of a language. the words produced by the non-productive
WFRs and onlv those words created by productive WFRs which carry idiosyncratic
features (the notion of productivity wili be discussed in the section on the lexicon and
productivi ty below).
1.1.2 The Lexicon and Relatedness
Different proposais have been made regarding the interna1 organization of the
lexicon. Ways in which relations between lexical items are accounted for depend on the
model proposed. More specifcaily, in trying to characterize the types of relations which
hold for example, between pairs of English words such as arriveAarrival, deci&/decision,
or refer.prefer, three approaches prevail. One is taken by Halle (1973) and Aronoff
(1976), who attempt to express lexical relations in terms of word formation rules.
In Halle's model, relations are present between stems and affixes as well as between
words. For example, in the word vacant the WFR [STEM+ant]& which attaches an
affix to a bound stem to form an adjective links. the stem vac- to its affjix -ant. Other
words. such as the pair arrive/arrival, are related duough the WFR W R B + al]^, which
combines affixes to words.
In Aronoffs model, a relation between stem and affix such as the one found
between vac- and-ant in Halle's model does not exist As generative niles. WFRs apply
only to derivational morphology. thus estabiishing relations between pairs such as
arrive/arrival and happy/unhappy. However. WFRs act also as redundancy rules to
express relations between already existing words such as Vregularly iafiected forms (e.g..
d m e n ; take/took).
The other approach with respect to the ways relations are expressed in the lexicon is
adopted by Jackendoff (1975). Jackendoff is the first linguist to provide us with a
morphological approach explicitly based on morphologicai relations expressed in terms of
lexical redundancy rules. In his model, al1 words of a Ianguage have separate but linked
lexical entries; a set of redundancy d e s will serve to signal, for a given lexical entry, any
redundant information aiready present in a related lexical item. According to the FuiI-entry
theory proposed by Jackendoff (1975). words iike decide and decision have distinct, f d y
specified, lexical entries. The two lexical entries are related by a redundancy d e which
"designates as redundant that information in a lexical entry which is predictable by the
existence of a related lexical item; redundant information will not be counted as
independent" (Jackendoff. 1975643). The originality of this theory lies in the role of the
redundancy d e s , which are not used as generative d e s but only as evaluation d e s .
Along the same lines, at least as far as relatedness is concemed, Ford and Singh
(199 1) propose a unified theory of morphology essentially based on the formal
relationships between words. A word, whose raison d'être is determined by the use the
speaker of a language makes of it, entertains relationships with other morphologicaliy
related words. Formal differences between morphologicaUy related words are accounted
for by a set of morphological strategiess which, according to the authors, are part of the
speaker's cornpetence. In this theory, the speaker's intemalized lexicon is viewed as
containing all words he has learned whether they are idiosyncratic or not.
In addition to expressing relations between two words. morphological strategies may be actively used in the production or comprehension of new forrns.
Finally. the last. and least common, approach in theoretical linguistics has k e n put
fornard by Bybee (1988). who proposes a lexicon where lexical relatedness is captured in
terms of direct semantic and phonological connections between lexical entries and the
relative suengths of those connections. One of the basic principles of this model is that
morphologicd relahons are defmed in terms of semantic and phonological connections that
run in parallel.
l k z t m æ t s
1 k æ t s
Figure 2 Bybee's (1988) network mode1
Figure 2 represents a network in which the word cats shares both semantic and
phonologicd connections w ith the singular form cat. The word cats is also connected to
other plural forms such as mats, rats, mps, etc., on the basis of the plural feature and the
final fricative. The other theoretical construct that characterizes Bybee's mode1 is the
concept of lexical strength. Lexical entries have varying degrees of lexical strength due
primarily to their token6 frequency. According to the author, "fiequently used fonns gain
lexical strength and foms that are not used Iose lexical suength" (Bybee. 1995131).
Thus, lexical strength is used to expfain why English irreguiar forms are usually of high
token frequency. Bybee's model further postulates varying degrees of relatedness among
6 Token frequency refers to the frequency of particular instances of a given type. Type fiequency refers to the number of different forms occuring with a particular affix (Baayen & Lieber. 199 1).
words determined by the nature and number of shared features. For example, walk is
more closely related to waiked than deceive is to decepton.
1.1.3 The Lexicon and the Locus of Inflection
It is generally assumed that the pmcesses which operate on the structures of words
are of two types. denvational and inflectional. The formal difference between the two is
somewhat diffïcuIt to establish. Informaily, one cm Say that the fmt one is regarded as
producing a new lexical item, ofien with a Merent syntactic category (e.g.. the process
allowing an Adjective to form a Noun as in happy-hrrppiness), whereas the second
changes the grammatical form of an item (e.g., Noun singular into Noun plural as in cat-
cats). Furthemore, in the formation process, inflectional affixation most often applies
after derivation (e.g., employ+ee+s). Even though this theoretical distinction between
inflection and denvation is not universaiiy supported by bguists, the locus of inflection
remains the most debated issue in morphology. giving rise to two opposing fronts. those
(Halle, 1973; Jackendoff. 1975; McCarthy, 1979) who place both derivational and
inflec tionai processes in the morphological component (S trong lexicalist hypothesis) and
those who claim that inflectional operations should be excluded from the lexicon (Weak
lexicalist hypothesis) and should be handled either by the syntax (Aronoff, 1976) or by
both sy ntax and phonology (Anderson, 1982).
1.1.4 The Lexicon and Productivity
Productivity is the term used by a nurnber of Linguists for various constraint effects
on the content of the lexicon. The notion of productivity was brought back to theoretical
scrutinity by Aronoff (1976). who used it as the crucial factor in determinhg the contents
of the lexicon. It is important to indicate that Aronoff restricted the notion of productivity
to denvational morphology. Even though the term productivity has never been given a
clear def~t ion. it has been widely associated with the active use of some of the rules of a
language. The more words and new words a mie produces. the more productive it is.
S tudies of the Engiish intlectionai system show a highly productive regular pattern
by which the suffur -ed is attached to the verb base. The nile attaching the affix -ness to
an adjective as in happiness is also considered to be productive in that it is actively used in
the language and may attach to any adjective. However, the rule attaching the affix -th as
in wannth is considered unproductive: it is found only in a very limited number of words
and cannot be used to fonn new words.
Aronoff (1976) argues that productivity cannot be recognized by the mere
cornputation of the number of forms a WFR creates, and that there is no procedure for
computing productivity. Furthemore. a number of factors interplay in the productivity of
a WFR. One of hem is semantic coherence, i.e., each time a WFR produces a word
whose meaning is predictable by the mie, we are dealing with a productive rule. In
English, for instance. al1 #ness derivatives of the form Xousness (e.g.. callousness: the
fact that/the extent to which Y is Xous) have more or less the same meaning relationships
with their base. It is therefore possible to predict the meaning of any noun of the form
Xousness from that of the adjective. The WFR attaching #ness to Xous adjectives is thus
considered semanticdiy coherent and productive. In contrast, the +ity derivatives (e.g.,
variety) of words of the fom Xous (e.g., various) have severai different meaning
relationships w ith their base, and therefore, iack semantic coherence (Aronoff, 1976:38).
Productivity may also affect listedness. Under Aronoff's view of the lexicon,
whereby "only those words which are exceptional, Le., arbitrary in at Ieast one of theu
various features will be entered in the lexicon" (Aronoff. 1976:43), it foilows that words
such as varieV rnust be listed whereas words like callousness, which are the products of
productive rules. need not be Listed. Apart from this lexical distinction between productive
and non-productive niles. Aronoff ( 1976) does not establis h forma1 criteria for
establishing whether a WFR is productive or not.
In subsequent research, Anshen and Aronoff (1981, 1988) introduce the frequency
factor to account for the productivity of derivational affixes. The authoa designed
experiments based on the English denvational affixes -ness and - i ~ in order to investigate
the relationship between the productivity of a morphological pattern and the number of
tokens that a speaker produces on that pattern. In their 198 1 study. they report that their
subjects, when presented with possible but non-occkng words formed according to
various Iegitimate patterns. more readily accept words like *stimulutiveness or *edibility
that correspond to the patterns found in a relatively large nurnber of dictionary occurrences
than words like *stimdativiîy or *edibleness whose patterns do oot. Productivity is thus
defmed in tenns of the type of morphological patterns new f o m will take, and no longer
in terms of the number of existing forms.
Along the same lines, Bybee (1988. 1995) daims that frequency is an important
dimension in the lexicon and proposes a rnorphological mode1 in which type frequency of
a morphological pattern is an important determinant of productivity. The author argues
that high type frequency contributes to productivity. Furthemore, in order for a given
pattern to attain full productivity, it is necessary that no restrictions-phonological,
sernantic or morphological-apply to it. The more open the pattern7, the greater its
productivity. This is the case of the English past in -ed or plural in -S.
Baayen and Lieber (199 1). in a corpus-based study on English derivation, confm
other researchers' claim that word type counts can be misleading. The authors argue that
Bybee (1995:430) uses the word schernas to refer to these patterns. She defines them as "emergent generalizations creatcd when two sets of words with similar patterns of sernantic and phonological connections reinforce one another".
"a rneasure of productivity based on the token frequencies of types, specificdy on the
number of hapax legomena for a given Hi in a corpus, cornes very close to according
with Our intuitions about productivity" (Baayen & Lieber. 1991:801). This proposed
rneasure is then used by the authon to compare the degrees of productivity of various
English affixes.
1.2 PSYCHOLINGUISTICS AND THE LEXICON
1.2.1 The MentaI Lexicon and Listedness
Even though psycholinguistic models have been primarily concemed with lexical
access and processing and have not addressed explicitly the question of listedness. they,
however, reflect to a large extent the internal structure and organization of the lexicon.
Three major hypotheses prevail in the literature.
The Decompsitional Hvpothesis
Early psycholinguistics shidies (Mure11 & Morton, 1974; Snodgrass & JarveUa,
1972) on access to the internal lexicon suggest that words are stored in their constituent
components (stems and affixes).
However, the fmt f o d i z e d theory was the one proposed by Taft and Forster
(1975). The main claim made by the authors is that a process of morphological
decornposition takes place pnor to lexical access. Taft and Forster used experimental
evidence collected on words which were assumed to have a decompositional intemal
stmcnire. For example, a word like rejuvenate was assumed to consist of a reai prefix re-
which contributes meaning to the word as a whole, and a bound stem -juvenate, as
opposed to a word like repertoire which was assumed not to have an internai structure (re-
is thus considered here as a pseudo-prefix in that it does not contribute any meanhg to the
word). Their main concern was to investigate whether a word like rejuvenate wouid be
stored and thus accessed as a whole word, or stored under the entry juvenate-even
though the stem juvemte does not stand as a word on its own-and therefore. accessed in
a decompositionai manner. Even though their study was based essentially on prefixed
words and pseudo-prefixed words, the authors make the general daim that "a
morphologicai analysis of words is attempted prior to lexical search" (Taft & Forster,
1975:643). They are, however, very cautious when it cornes to the issue conceming the
form in which words are stored. In this respect. the authon present us with two possible
interpretations. both compatible with the decompositionai hypothesis. As a fust
possibility, one may assume that for rejuvenate, it is the bound stem -juven- that is
actuaiiy Listed whereas for the word repertok it is the whole form that is listed. One
could also take a different stand and postulate that rejuvenate is üsted as a whole word
together wiih its intemal structure re(juven)ate)).
In subsequent research (Taft, 1979; Taft & Forster, 1976). the authors introduce
substantial changes to their initiai model. One important contribution in the revised version
to the hypothesis of an atomic lexicon is the explicit assumption by the authors that
prefixes are listed in the lexicon.
The Fuii-Listin~ Hy~othesi~
In a 1977 study comparing lexical access to affixed words (words consisting of two
morphemes: a root morpheme and a suffi) and non-affixed words (words consisting of a
single morpheme). Manelis and Tharp found no difference between the two types of
words. which Ied them to favor an independententry hypothesis according to which ail
words have separate lexical entries. One of the main proponents of this view is
B utterworth ( 1983) w ho proposes the Full Listing Hypothesis (FLH). B utterworth
envisions the lexicon as containing al l words a speaker knows, be they regular, hgular ,
derived or inflected. Under this view, each word has its own lexical entry and can be
accessed in a direct manner as a whole. B is assumed that parsing is not needed in normal
word recognition but is resorted to as a fall-back procedure in the case of novel words or
previously unheard forms. Approaches favoring Listing of ail words have been adopted by
other mearchers (Bradley, 1980; Lukatela et al., 1978; Segui & Zubizarreta, 1985).
Wvbrid Models
Stanners et ai. (1979) found evidence that access to the lexicon did not operate
according to a unitary principle for regularly inflected (e.g., pours-pour), irregularly
inflected (e-g.. hung-hang), and derived (e.g., selective-select) forms. The former
appeared to involve direct access of the base implying a prior decomposition into base and
suffm whereas the latter two types of items were found to be accessed directly as single
units. Even though the authors did not adopt nor propose a specific mode1 to account for
their results. they suggested in their concluding comments that theories of lexical access
and processing include more than a single mechaoism.
One mode1 fonnulated to account for the hypothesis that two types of lexical storage
may exist is the Augmented Addressed Morphology model (Caramma et al., 1985;
Laudanna, Badecker & Cararnazzg 1989). This processing model proposes two parallel
routes to access morphologically complex words: (i) a whole-word address procedure
used for known words and, (ii) a morpheme addnss procedure used for novel f o m .
Two important principles characterize this model: (i) morphological decomposition takes
place at the level of activation, that is, for known words a letter string simultaneously
activates both whole-word representation and the representation corresponding to the
morphemes that make up the word. and (ii) access to a whole-word representation is faster
than access to the morphemic representation.
1.2.2 The Mental Lexicon and Relatedness
Evidence that morphological relatedness plays a key role in word access and
recognition was fmt formulated in psycholinguistic processing Literature by Stanners et al.
(1979). Following Taft and Forster (1975), the authors explained the results they found
for inflected pairs like lending-[end as reflecting decomposition into base fonn and affix.
However. failure to observe simila. results for derived word pain iike select-selective led
them to suggest separate, but linked, lexical entries for derived forrns and their
corresponding base forms.
Other models have explicitly incorporated morphological relations in the lexicon.
The satellite-entries hypothesis proposed by Lukatela et al., (1980), based on experiments
on Serbo-Croatian, holds that (i) every inflected noun has its own lexical entry, and (ü) all
morphologically related words cluster uniforrnly in a satellite relationship around the
nominative singular which acts as a "nucleus".
The morphological-farnily hypothesis defended by Segui and Zubizaretta (1985)
was put forward on the b a i s of experimental data obtained on French derivationally-
affixed words. The morphologicd family consists of a set of independent but linked
lexical entries each representing a morphological relative. Two crucial features
characterize the morphological family : (i) a rwt (whether bound or free) that ail members
of the family share functions as the "head" of the family, (ü) the morphological Links that
memben of the family entertain together are directionally8 related so that they could reflect
denvational background (Fig. 3).
The authors believe this would prevent recunivity h m taking place in the lexieon.
+ V able + décollable
Figure 3 A subpart of the colle 'glue' family
(Segui & Zubizamta, 1985)
The concept of links between morphologicdy related items is also found in the
connectionist models of the lexicon. In DeU's (1986) network modelg, the Lexicon
consists of interconnected nodes which represent Ievels such as the word. the morpheme,
the syiiable, the syllable constituents, the phoneme and the phonetic features. Words have
separate representations but are connected to words sharing any or most of the above
levels. Therefore, morphologically related words constitute distinct nodes connected to
each other via the cornmon stem-morpheme node as well as to cornmon syllable and
phoneme nodes for the shared stem.
1.2.3 The Mental Lexicon and the Locus of Inflection
Even though linguists have been debating for the last two decades the issue of the
theoretical distinction between inflection and derivation and more specifically the locus of
their respective processes. psychoiinguists seem to be less concerned with this issue.
ûell's mode1 has k n designed for production.
While being aware of the existence of two distinct affvration processes. they generally
assume that denvational and inflectionai processes take place in the lexicon.
In a study on three German-speaking agrammatic subjects on various tasks, de
Bleser and Bayer (1988) notice that the patients show a good retention of inflected forms
as well as al1 types of morphological forms in the face of a strong inability to access
syntactic representations. Such a picture of the agrammatic deficit led the authors to claim
that the only theoretical framework that could account for data From agrammatic aphasics
is the one that favoa that inflections be part of the morphological operations that should be
included in the lexicon.
1.2.4 The Mental Lexicon and Frequency
While ignoring the issue of the locus of infiection and its effect on the lexicon,
psycholinguistic studies have stressed the importance of another variable, namely
frequency. Frequency has been shown to be a deterininhg factor on the way words are
organized and accessed in the lexicon and coosequently on the modeling of word
recognition processes. Taft (1979) reported a stem frequency effect for regularly inflected
fonns rnatched for frequency on a whole form basis but which ciiffer in the frequency of
the stem to which they are related. It has also b e n demonstrated in several experiments
(e.g., Bradley, 1980; Cole. Beauvillain, & Segui. 1989) that the recognition of a
morphologically cornplex word depends on its surface frequency as well as on the
frequency of the other members of the morphological family. Stemberger and
MacWhinney (1988) assert that high-frequency regulariy inflected forms are stored
whereas low-frequency regularly inflected f o m are not.
1.3 AGRAMMATISM AND THE MENTAL LEXICON
Studies of acquired language impainnents have given researchers invaluable insights
into the understanding of the functioning of the language system. More specifically,
rnorphological deficits observed in agrammatic patients have been investigated in order to
validate existing linguistic theories about the architecture of the lexicon.
1.3.1 Early Descriptions of Agramrnatism
Agramrnatism has been described traditionaily in the Iiterature as a syndrome
characterized by a marked quantitative and qualitative reduction in Broca's aphasies'
speech, manifested in the production of short utterances showing omissions and
substitutions of grammatical morphemes, whether fiee or bound, and the ~ i m p ~ c a t i o n of
syntac tic structures beyond the omission of closed-class items (Goodglass et ai., 1972).
Originally described as one of the symptoms of the larger syndrome of Broca's
aphasia, agrammatism has evolved over the numerous studies that have been conducted on
language disorders into a syndrome with its own specific features. The word
"agrammatism" was coined by Kussmaul in 1878 in a work on language disorders in
which he distinguishes between two types of grammatical impairments in aphasia: one
involving word order and the other. word inflections. According to Tissot, Mounin. and
Lhermitte (1973), Kussmaul suggested, even though not clearly. to use the term
"agrarnrnatism" to refer to the word-order disturbance and the word "akataphasia"l0 for
the loss of inflections, thus considering agrammatism as one aspect of the larger group of
grammatical disorden found in Broca's aphasia
Io Frorn the Greek word "akatalictos" rneaning without ending.
Even though the early linguistic descriptions of agrammatism reported the
occasionai absence of pronouns and of verb inflectional marken, they mostly dealt with
the internai organization of sentences. Pitres (1898) observed an absence of Iinks in the
sentences produced either orally or in wrïting by his patients and attributed the
phenornenon to a memory disorder associated with the construction of sentences. In one
of the f i t comprehensive descriptions of agrarnmatism published in Pick's (19 13) book
Die agrammatischen Sprachstorungenl 1 . Kleist established a distinction between
agrammatism and paragrammatism. a dichotomy which reflects the distinction between
grammatical deficits as wanifested in expressive aphasia and receptive aphasia.
Furthemore, while insisting on a possible disorganization of words within sentences as
one of the feanires of agrammatism. Kleist (reported in Tissot et al., 1973) also noted the
absence of punctuation in writing, the use of nouns in their nominative form. of verbs in
the infinitive and participial forms, the omission of articles, prepositions and linking
elements, as weii as the already described telegraphic style characterizhg agrammatism.
Along the same lines, and following Kleist's definition of agrammatism,
Najouanine ( 1 956) claimed that impainnents of grammatical organization alone should no t
be taken as the landmarks of agrammatism, since they cm be found in other types of
aphasias as weii, and therefore "true agrammatism", which he associated with Broca's
aphasia in its severe forms of reduced phrase length, should cover other aspects such as
the marked presence of uninflected nouns and of infinitive verbs. and the omission of
gender. nuinber. and case markers.
I I Translation: Agrammatic language disotden.
1.3.2 Linguistic Approaches to Agrammatism
Though several mearchers emphasized the need to use linguistic principles for the
analysis of aphasic impairments (Goldstein. 1948; Jackson, 1958; Luria, 1947), the early
accounts of agrammatism were Iargely descriptive, lacking theoretically-based
interpretations. The first linguistic approach to agrarnmatism was offered by Roman
Jakobson in his seminal work (1956) on the phonemic disturbances in the utterances of
aphasic patients which he compared to the speech of children. relating both to more
general aspects of phonology. Even more important was the fundamental distinction that
he made between disorders of "similarity" or selection. and disorders of "contiguity" or
combination in aphasic speech (Jakobson. 1964). According to Jakobson, in
agrammatism, "the most typical display of efferent proca's] aphasia", telegraphic speech
and syntactic disturbances reflect impairment of the cootiguity component, Le.,
agrarnrnatic subjects have difficulty with the processing underlying the temporal
concatenation of words into meankgfiil sequences.
Subsequent research in neurolinguistics bas followed the lines of Jakobson's
thinking, Le.,
"that [...] the pathology of language. far from being a random disturbance, obeys a set of rules; and that no rule underlying the regression of language can be elicited without the consistent use of linguistic techniques and methodology. The disorders of language display their own peculiar order and require a systematic linguistic cornparison with our nonnal verbal code1* (Jakobson, 196422).
For example. in an early study on the availability of the English grammatical
inflectional endings in agrammatism. Goodglass ( 1968) and Goodglass et al. ( 1972)
found that Broca's aphasics showed a distinctive order of difficulty manifested in a higher
number of omissions of the non-syllabic than the syliabic allomorphs of the respective
plural and past markers /s/ and /dl.
The first interpretation of agrammatism undertaken within the theoretical Framework
of Generative Transformational Grammar was proposed by Kean (1977) who attributed
the structure reduction of agrammatic speech to a phonological deficit despite the fact that
it appean to be a syntactic disorder on the surface. She argued that the elements omitted
by agrammatic patients are actuaiiy the phonologicai clitics (determinen, auxiliaries,
monosyllabic prepositions, strong word-boundary affixes). What is spared in the speech
of agrammatic patients are the phonological words which she defines as "the string of
segments, marked by boundaries, which function in the assignment of stress to a word [in
English]." (Kean. 1977:22). For example, a word Like definitive where the affuc -ive
plays a role in the assignment of stress will be retained whereas a word such as
defrziteness where the a f f i -ness is neutral to stress assignment wiii not.
A syntactic hypothesis conceming agrammatism has also been put forward by
several researchers. Several studies have suggested that agrammatism reflects an
underly ing sy ntac tic deficit (Bemdt & Cararnazza, 1980; Saffran, Schwartz, & Marin,
1980; Zunf & Caramazza, 1976). Others have attributed the deficit to the agrammatics'
inability to interpret thematic roles (Caplan & Hildebrandt, 1988) or to their failure to
coindex trace (Grodzins ky , 1984, 1 990).
1.3.3 Morphologieal Approaches to Agrammatism
One of the strongest criticisms of Kean's (1977) phonological interpretation of
agrammatism came from Lapointe (1983) who suggested instead lookùig at the deficit
from a morphological point of view. Lapointe rejected as too strong Kean's contention
that her description provides the best explanation for the distinction between impaired
versus retained elements. He reformulated her theory in terms of morphological levels of
word formation, i.e., an approach based on a unified theory of morphology which
stipulates that both inflectiond and derivational &xes are generated within a single
morphologicai component which interacts with the lexicon. Within the mode1 outlined by
Lapointe, the elements that are likely to be spared in agramrnatic speech are "those stem-
level items (of major categories) that are inserted into morphosyntactic stnictures during
lexical insertion" (Lapointe, 1983:24).
In an anempt to re-evduate the issues put forth in Kean (1977). Kehayia et al.,
(1 984) examined the relative retention of complex words. Working within a theoretical
framework where both derivational and inflectional processes are part of the
morphological component, the authors noted a correlation between the patients' ability to
repeat words and the distinction between listed and non-listed words on the one hand, and
the different levels of word formation on the other. They observed that while
idiosyncratic words were largely retained, complex words yielded difficulties
cornmensurate w ith the level of word formation. They , there fore, suggested the existence
of different levels of processing, and the possibility of a distinct impairment of the
morphological component of grammar.
1.3.4 Cross-Linguistic Studies of Agrammatism
A large body of studies have k e n conducted, each investigating one or some of the
features charactenzing agrammatisrn, and various theoretical interpretations have been
offered. However, most of the studies have k e n limited to English speakers. Bates,
Friederici, and Wulfeck (1987) have suggested that the investigation of linguistic
impairments in aphasia should be broadened to strucnirally different languages in order
to have a better picture of the mechanisms underiying language production and
comprehension. The authon investigated morphological impairrnents in English-.
Italian-, and German-speaking aphasic patients. A comparative analysis of the results
showed that overail, the erron produced by the patients were not violations of their
grammar, which led the authors to conclude that brain darnage does not affect the major
rules goveming the well-formedness of lexical items, but appears to affect either the
patients' ability to process morphologically complex words, or their ability to access the
lexicon.
Cross-linguistic studies have shown the effect of the varying role of language-
specific features across a number of stxucturaily distinct Ianguages such as Hebrew
3) It has become increasingly apparent that the integration of data from different
languages on the one hand. and different fields of language research on the other hand, is
needed to have a better understanding of lexical representation and processing. Linguists
have been collecting evidence from data on a myriad of typologicdly different languages
and, more recently. from different fields such as psycholinguistics and aphasiology.
Likewise. p sycholinguists and neurolingi uists have been increasingly using linguistic
concepts in their investigations in order to account for data on language processing and
language pathology.
CHAPTER TWO THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGKAL TOOLS
Before proceeding to the next sections concemed with the on-line tasks, the issues under
investigation in this work, and the accompanying testing hypotheses, a sketch of the
Arabic morphological system is presented here-particularly those aspects that are of
interest to us-both in its traditional aspect and as formaiized by structuraiist and
generative linguists.
2.1 THE ARABIC MORPHOLOGICAL SYSTEM
Most accounts of Arabic morphology overtiy or implicitiy make the assurnption that
it is essentiaily root-based. Words are taken to be formed on the basis of a lexical
discontinuous root between which are inserted sets of vowels.
2.1.1 The Early Arab GrammarianslApproach: The Binya Asliya Hypothesis
According to the approach taken by some of the thirteenth century Arab
grmarians l (e-g., I bn y a 9 B. in Bohas. 1984)- the morphology of Arabic is organized
around a set of basic nominal and verbal representations or binye 'esliye from which a i i
other Arabic words are denved. A basic form or 7osl is described as consisting of a
sequence of consonantal positions, or slots. connected to a string of vocaiic slots bearing
the grammatical function of the word. The consonantai rwt is a two-sided element; it has
an acoustic aspect represented by the consonants, and a semantic one or r n a ~ n e l ~ which is
comrnon to dl words derived from it (Bohas, 1984). This description is illustrated in the
foiiowing:
%sl-root maf na k-t-b 'write' [ P t ]
binya kat sbs 'he m t e *
Figure 4 The Arabic word according to the binya 7asliya hypothesis
(Bohas, 1984)
The basic nominal and verbal foms may have three. four or five consonants.
Bohas (1993) reports ten basic nominal forms and three verbal foms for three-
consonantai rwts. The three threeconsonant basic verbal forms are given in (1).
l 3 We arc presenting here only one of the several views that prevailed in traditional grammars-the one that Bohas (1984) refers to as "Basri". It is also the view that prevails in most of the grammar books.
l4 Bohas (1984) points out the existence in traditional morphology of Arabic of two meanings for the word mayna: one is used to express the rneaning of the mot throughout the paradigm, and the orher one to carry the sernanticesyntactic featurcs of the vocdic base.
CaCaCe ka tsba 'he wrote*
CaCl Ca raiima 'he learned'
CaCuCa garufa 'k honoted'
Inflectional and denvational processes apply to these basic nominal and verbal word
foms. For example. the plural &ut ub 'books' is derived from the singular kitssb 'book*
which is in tum generated from the basic form ketebe 'he wrote'. Likewise. keatebe 'he
corresponded* is the result of an affixation process attaching the vowel a to the basic form
k8tab8. However, even though Arab grammarians and Arabic grammars have genedy
assumed the bulk of Arabic words to be derived from a Iimited set of basic word forms,
they have never been clear about the formation process of these basic forms from the
disconiinuous root. According to Bohas (1993) who studied and analyzed sorne of the
early Arab grammars, for the Basri traditional grarnmar schools the mnsdar, one of the
classes of nominal forms, is the only one which denves directly from the root. Thus. all
other derived words corne either from the binya ?as?iye or from other derived forms.
2.1.2 The Structuralist Approach: The Root-and-pattern Hypothesis
The root-and-pattern morphological system was fmt formalized by Cantineau
(1950) who claimed that most of the Semitic vocabulary is the result of an association
between two morphological systems: the root system and the pattern system. Within this
framework, every word is identified by its root and its pattern. Roots and patterns are
found on bvo perpendicular planes. A word results from the association of a pattern with
a root. As an example, the words naze1 'he came down', yenzil 'he cornes down', and
msnzil 'house' are the results of an association between the common root NZL and the
respective patterns CaCaC, yaCCiC and maCCiC corresponding to each word (Fig. 5).
Lists of patterns
Figure 5 The basic word in Arabic according to Cantineau
(in Bohas, 1993:46)
2.1.3 The Cenerative Approach: McCarthy's Autosegmental Approach
Recentiy, the root-and-paîtem description has been formalùed into what has corne
CO be known as The Prosodic Theory of Nonconcatenative Morphology developed by
McCarthy (1979, 1981) and, McCarthy and Prince (1990) who applied to Classical
Arabic the pnnciples of Autosegmental Phonology proposed by Goldsmith (1976) for
tone in African languages. Goldsmith's autosegmental theory proposes that the underlying
phonological representation is not a linear string of segments, but a multi-tiered
representation consisting of segments and autosegments which are associated according to
a set of universal conventions15.
B y appl y ing this muitilinear approac h to Semitic morphology . McCarthy was able
to fomalize the notion of a discontinuous morpheme arranged in a three-dimensional
space. Crucial to McCarthy's theory is the idea that the consonant and the vowel
sequences that make up the word in Arabic are represented on separate planes or tiers.
Another basic tier of the representation of an Arabic word is the prosodic (CV) template.
l5 For a more cornprthmsive description of autosegmental approaches. s e Goldsmith (1976. 1990).
In word formation, the phonemic segments that make up the consonant and vowel tiers
have to be associated with the C and V slots of the CV template by means of a set of
principles (e.g.. the Weil-fonnedness Condition; Spreading; Erasure) as s h o w in Figure
6 for the word kitaab 'book'.
vocalic ternplate /l\
prosodic template i i\
c v c v v c
I I consonantal template k
I
Figure 6 McCarthy's (1979) internai stmcture of a word in Classical Arabic
AU aff'ixal rnaterial is treated in the same fashion in accordance with the Morphemic
Tier Hyphesis as shown in Figure 7 for the example nketab 'subscribe'.
p p p p p p p p p p p p - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Figure 7 McCarthyls (1979) intemal smc& of a prefïxed word in Classicai Arabic
The assumption that emerges from this theory is that the root the vocalic basis, the
CV template, and any other possible linear affm constitue distinct morphemes that make
up the word in a Semitic language. The word nkatab 'subscribe', for instance, embodies
the following morphemes: the discontinuous consonantal root lk-t -b/ which specifies the
semantic family of related lexical entries, the discontinuous set of vowels le-al which
specifies its functional/grammatical categories. the prefix In-/, and the prosodic template
CCVCVC.
2.1.4 The Arabic Lexicon: McCarthy's Hypothesis
Following Halle (1973). McCarthy assumes for Arabic a lexicon "fuiiy specified
with al1 forms, including inflections" (McCarthy, 1979:388). Given McCarthy's
morphological theory for Arabic. a "fdy specified" lexicon in the fashion of Halle would
be taken to include roots. morphemes, stems, words. and rnorphological rules.
However, only fully-inflected forms are subject to lexical insertion. McCarthy furiher
postulates that morphological rules have the form of context-sensitive rewriting and
redundancy rules. The other basic claim is that the lexical entry of a given form is
structured as a rooted n-ary branching me. A representation of a lexical entry tree for /k-
t -b/ appean in Figure 8.
At the head of the lexical tree is the consonantal root which acts as a root node.
Lexical relationships are expressed in ternis of domination and immediate domination. As
illustrated in Figure 8, lk-t -b/ acts as the root node of the lexical entry. AU other nodes
of the me are derived from lk- t -b/, though not imrnediately. For example, tekee t eb is
derived from kee t eb which is itself derived from kat eb and Ik- t -hl, though most
irnrnediately from ke t ab.
1 maktab kattab kast ab ktatab kitaabst 'O fice' 'he caused 'he corresponde& 'he wrote, 'act of writing'
Tyler et al.. 1995). To have as comprehensive and complete a picture as possible of the
nature of lexical representations and processes. however, we incorporated both off-line
and on-line testing in our experirnental design. Off-line testing is conducted in the fmt
study for the generai assessrnent of agrarnmatism in the performance of two Arabic-
speaking aphasic patients. The various tasks selected towards this end are presented in
Chapter three.
On-line tasks focus on the real-time analysis of the processes and representations
involved in speech production and perception. In aphasia, they are used to provide the
bais for a detailed examination of the ways in which these processes and representations
break down. A number of on-line techniques have proved usefui tmls in studying lexical
representations and their access. In Smdy two, we used an auditory lexical decision task
associated with a morphological prunuig paradigm.
The lexicd decision task
In studying variables that affect the speed of lexical access, psychologists have
relied heavily upon lexical decision tasks. In such tasks. the subject is presented with a
list of items (words and nonwords) and requested to decide as quickly as possible
whether the letter string displayed on a screen or the utterance heard is a word or not (that
is, is a nonword).
This research technique makes the crucial assumption that lexical access involves
some matching of the features extracted from the stimulus with an intemal representation.
When the manipulation of a variable is responsible for changes in response times, it is
assumed that the variable affects the way in which the string of letters or the utterance is
recognized.
Taft and Fonter ( 1975) used a lexical decision task to investigate whether prefixed
words were analyzed into their constituents morphemes before lexical access. In the
experirnent, they had the subjects made lexical decisions on two types of nonwords: (i)
real stems like juvenate denved from words like rejuvenate in which the prefix
conuibuted to the meaning of the word (re- in rejuvenate means again) and. (ii) pseudo
stems like gulote taken from words which begin with a pseudo prefix that does not
contribute meaning as in regulate. The subjects took longer to reject bound stems as
nonwords.
The authon interpreted the shorter reaction times for the fmt category of nonwords
as an indication that real stems are perceived as king more word-like than pseudo stems,
and may therefore be represented in the Iexicon. in cases like gulate. the item is rejected
as a nonword faster as there is no lexical representation for that item.
h a subsequent experiment whose main objective was to c o n f m the previous
results. and consequently the decomposition hypothesisl7, the subjects' reaction times to
juvenate and gulate were compared to reactions times to pseudo prefixed words like
dejuvenate and degulate. As predicted by the experimenters, the real stem pseudo
prefixed nonwords (e.g., dejuvenate) took longer to reject than the pseudo stem
nonwords (e.g., degulate). Taft and Forster explained these results as reflecting a
rnorphological decomposition of words prior to lexical search. They proposed the
following mode1 of recognition to account for their results:
j7 We are reprting herc information relevant to this study (sec Taft & Forster. 1975 for details).
Lener String
1 I . Is item divisible
into prefix and
2. Search for stem in 4. Search for whole word lexicon. Kas entry No b in Iexicon. Has envy correspondhg to corresponding to whole stem been located? word been located?
3. Can the prefix be 5 . 1s item a k e fonn? No addcd to fonn a I
Figure 10 Taft and ~orscds mode1 (1975)
According to the modei, the search for juvenate involves five steps before the final
recognition as a real word or not:
Step one: Identification for the presence of prefut and stem in the item juvenate.
Step four: Once this has k e n checked, a search begins for the entry juveme.
Step five: A lexical representation of the stem is found. The lexical entry is then
examined to check whether juvemte is a fiee form.
Step four: Search will c o n t h e to make sure there is no lexical entry for another f o m
that could exist as a free forml8.
Step seven: The item is rejected as a aonword.
18 ln English. this is a pssibility as sorne items may be fouod as free f o m (e.g.. vent) and as bound stems (e.g.. vent in prevenr).
However, classification of pseudo stems like gulnte requires four steps only (steps
one, two. four, and seven), which wiii then explain the shoner reaction times for these
items. In the second experiment, the search for the pseudo prefixed real stem (e-g.,
dejuvenare) involves the same five steps as for juvenate with an additional check on
whether the prefïx de- is legitimate or not. Four steps oniy are required to reject the item
deguiare, hence the shorter reaction times.
The Pnming Technique
Several experiments in psycholinguistics provide evidence that members of a
morphological family are strongly related in the mental lexicon (e-g., Hendeaon, Wallis,
& Knight, 1984; Kempley & Morton. 1982; S t m e r s et al., 1979). It has been shown
that the prior presentation of a word corresponding to one of the members of the
morphological farnily facilitates the subsequent recognition of the other members.
Stanners et al. (1979) based their experiments on the phenornenon of repetition or
identity priming whereby the prior visual presentation of a given word results in a
substantially reduced decision latency when presented the second time. Repetition (or
identity) priming is commonly constmed as the result of the facilitating effect on the
access procedure from the repeated activation of the lexical representation of a target
word.
In Stanners et al. (1979), this approach was adopted to investigate the relationships
between English base verbs (e-g., le&; shake). and (i) regular and irregular verb forrns
( e g , lended; shook); (ii) third person singular inflections (e.g., lenàs, shakes); (iii)
gerunds (e.g.. lending; shaking); (iv) adjective derivatives (e-g., seleetive from the base
form select). For example, in the first experiment, the targets were base verbs whereas
the primes were divided into two groups: (i) base verbs which served as control primes,
and (ii) inflected and derived forms which served as cntical primes. The subjects were
requested to make a lexical decision. fint on the word LENDING (critical prime), then on
the word U N D (critical target). then on the word POUR (control prime). and finally on
POUR (control target). The stimuli were presented visually. A lag of 10 items was used
between the occurrence of a prime and a target. A comparative analysis of reaction times
within condition (primed vs. non primed) and across the two conditions (repeated vs.
inflected prime) shows a significant priming effect in both instances. Accessing POUR
for the second time was significantly faster. Likewise, LWDING facilitated recognition
of LEND. These results were taken as evidence that recognition is facilitated when a
word has k e n preceded by another word that shares the same stem.
Morphological priming effects have aiso been reported in auditory word
recognition. Using an auditory morphological priming experimental design, Emmorey
( 1989) conducted three expenments to investigate how morphologicai structure is
represented in the Iexicon. Primes and targets were presented auditorily. The stimuli
consisted of English word pairs of the following type: (i) morphologically related words
that were not semantically related consisting of distinct prefixes foliowed by a common
stem (e-g., submit-permit) as evidenced by the existence of a common morphophonemic
rule in the derivation process (e.g., submission-permission); (ii) phonologicaily related
words (e-g., balloon-saloon); and (iii) words sharing either an inflectional suffix (e.g.,
joking-zyping), a derivational suffrx (e.g.. blackness-shormess), or fmal segments (e-g.,
tango-cargo). Words like submit used as primes were found to facilitate recognition of
morphologically related words like permit which were not semanticaiiy related but shared
the saine stem (e.g., mit for submit and permit). However, no priming was found for
phonologically related pairs or pain sharing the same suffix. The absence of priming
between suffixed words led the author to argue in favor of a word-based processing
model. Words that are morphologically related through their stem prime each other
because they are related in the lexicon.
Kempley and Morton (L982) found that prior presentation of words with regular
inflection (e-g.. reflected) strongly facilitated auditory recognition in noise of
morphologicaily related infiected words (e-g., reflecting), but the prïor presentation of an
irregularly inflected word as in knelt-heeling did not. These results were explained by
proposing a morpheme-based lexicon. Priming was thus interpreted as the lowering of
recognition thresholds for lexical units due to previous activation of the stem. In chis
model. morphologically related words prime each other because they share a single
representation.
In contrast to Kempley and Morton's results, Fowler, Napps, and Feldman (1985)
found that auditorily and visually presented irregularly inflected and derived words do
prime their morp hological relatives (e.g., drive-driven; heal-health). Fowler et al. ( 1985)
impute the differences between their results and Kempley and Morton's results to the long
delay between prime and target in the expriment by Kempley and Morton. The study also
showed that the results with auditory and visuai presentations were sirnilar.
The Primin~ Ex~erimentai Desien Used in the Present Research
Despite conflicting results arnong some experiments, priming has proved an
efficient diagnostic tool for analyzing the structure of the mental lexicon and the
mechanisms of access. We are. therefore, using this technique in Our investigation of the
lexical representation of Arabic singular and plural words. As in Kempley and Morton
(1982), Emmorey (1989). and Fowler et al. (1985). the stimuli are presented auditorily.
Words include sound (suffixed) plurals (e.g.. lbasst 'dresses'), monosyllabic broken
'nails* ) as well as the singular fomis of the plural stimuli (e-g., 168s 'dress' , wald 'boy'
and masmar 'nail'). The target immediately follows the prime. a lag of 250 mec.
separating the two items.
However. we are adding a new feature to the way word pairs are presented.
Contrary to most previous experimenü in which a list of items occurs only in the prime
position and another List of words in the target position, our stimuli are organized in such
a way that the critical items appear both as primes and as targets. For example, a singular
form serves as a prime as in the pair wald 'boy' - wlad 'boys' and as a target as in wled
'boys'-wald 'boy'. A cornparison of the amount of priming between the two pairs will
allow us to adopt a more appropriate interpretation of the results in terms of how
relationships between morphologicaily related words are structured. A detailed
description of the stimuli material. the testing procedure, the equipment and of the subjects
is given in Study two.
2.4 ISSUES UNDER INVESTIGATION
In light of the above theoretical considerations, and given the typological
particularities observed in Arabic, our main objective is to give a psycholinguistic account
of lexical access and representation by addressing the following questions:
1) Docs the discontinuous consonantal root serve as a unit of access and representation?
2) Does the discontinuous consonantal root act as the head of a morphological family?
3) How are Arabic words which are morphologicaiiy related by the processes of
inffation, suffixation and prefxation organized in the mental lexicon?
4) What are the implications of these observations on a nonconcatenative language like
Arabic for the existing theories on the lexicon?
2.5 HYPOTHESES
Considering the theoreticaiIy-based distinction between regular and irregular plurals,
the follow ing hypotheses underiie Our research:
1) First, a differential processing of regular and irregular plural forms will be observed
during word recognition.
2) Second, this difference is a reflection of the feature specifications these forms carry
and of their stnicniral organization in the lexicon.
2.6 CONCLUSION
The first part of this chapter has been concemed with the central constnicts of
Arabic morphology. We have seen that the Arabic morphologicd system displays a word
fornation process that does not conform to the prototypical hear affmation models of the
kind found in agglutinative languages. This distinguishing nonconcatenative feature of
the language is given special focus in the issues we set out to investigate in the present
research. In its second half, this chapter describes one of the experimentai tools we will be
using to investigate the organization of the lexicon. Lexical decision and pnmùig are two
techniques frequentiy used in psycholinguistics, which have proveo to be efficient tools in
word recognition and access.
CHAPTER THREE
STUDY ONE
Agrammatic Aphasia in Arabic
Department of Linguistics and Translation, University of Montreal and
Théop hile-Alajouanine Laboratocy , Research Centre of the Côtedes-Neiges Hospital,
Montreai
Aphasblogy, in press.
Address correspondence to: Z o h Mimouni, Research Centre, Cô te-des-Neiges Hospital, 4565 Queen-Mary Road. Montréal (Québec), H3 W 1 W5, Canada Tel. (5 14) 340-3540 Fax (5 13) 340-3548
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Traditionally, agrammatism has been described in the literature as a syndrome
characterized by a marked quantitative and qualitative reduction in the speech of Broca's
aphasies, manifested in the production of short utterances showing omissions and
substitutions of grammatical morphemes, whether free or bound and the simplification of
syntactic structures beyond the omission of closed-class items (Goodglass et al., 1972).
Although several researchers emphasized the need to use linguistic principles for the
anaiysis of aphasic impairrnents (Goldstein. 1948; Jackson, 1958; Luria, 1947). the early
accounts of agrammatism were largely descriptive, lacking theoretically-based
interpretations. The first linguistic approach to agrammatism was offered by Roman
Jakobson in his seminal work (1956) on the phonemic disnubances in the utterances of
aphasic patients which he compared to the speech of children. relating both to more
general aspects of phonology. Even more important was the fundamentai distinction that
he made between disorders of "similarity", or selectioo, and disorders of "contiguity", or
combination, in aphasic speech (Jakobson. 1964). According to Jakobson, in
agrammatism "the most typicai display of efferent proca's] aphasia", telegraphic speech
and syntactic disturbances reflect an impairment of the contiguity component, Le.,
agrammatic subjects have difficulty with the processing underlying the temporal
concatenation of words into rneaningful sequences.
Subsequent research in neurolinguistics has followed the lines of Jakobson's
thinking. Le., "that [...] the pathology of language, far from king a random disturbance,
obeys a set of d e s ; and that no rule underlying the regression of language can be eiicited
without the consistent use of linguistic techniques and methodology. The disorders of
language display their own peculiar order and require a systematic Linguistic cornparison
with our normal verbal code" (Jakobson, 196422). For example. in an early study on the
availability of English inflectional morphology in agrammatism, Goodglass (1968), and
Goodglass et al., (1972) found that Broca's aphasics showed a distinctive order of
difficulty manifested in a higher number of omissions of the non-syilabic than the syilabic
allomorphs of the respective plural and past markea ls/ and /d/.
A large body of studies have been conducted each investigating one or severai of the
features characterizhg agrammatism. and various theoretical interpretations have been
offered in terms of a phonological (Kean, 1977). morphological (Lapointe, 1983), and
syntactic (Caplan & Futter, 1986) breakdown. However, most of these studies have k e n
conducted on English. Bates, Fnederici, and Wulfeck ( 1987) have suggested broadening
the investigation of Linguistic impairments in aphasia to stsucturally different languages in
order to achieve a better understanding of the mechanisrns underlying language production
and comprehension.
Recently, linguistic investigations have shown the effect of the varying role of
language-specific features across structurally distinct languages such as Russian and
Hebrew (Grodzinsky, L984). as well as English. Dutch, German, Icelandic, Swedish.
French. Italian. Polish, Serbo-Croatian. Hindi. Finnish, Hebrew, Chinese. and Iapanese
(the contributon to Menn & Obler, 1990). These investigators also contributed to a
reformulation of one of the features of the syndrome, nameiy, omission of bound
grammatical morphernes is observed oniy when the resulting forrn is an existing word of
the language.
In contrat to languages like English, where the prototypical process of word
formation is linear affixation, Le., words are made up of sequences of one or more
segments or morphemes that are concatenated together in a Linear order as shown in the
word trans-fonn-at-ion, a Semitic language Wre Arabic, the language under study, is
characterized by a word formation process expressed mostly through a change intemal to
the word itself. According to the traditional treatments of Arabic, simple words are
commoniy formed on the bais of a lexical root of three or four consonants, between
which are inserted sets of vowels as shown in (1) a. In addition to this infixation process,
suffixation and prefmation are also typical operations in Arabic word formation (( 1) b).
(1) a. kitaab'book' + kutub 'books'
b . ma-kt8ba 'iibrary' mu-ktsbu- t 'Libraries'
Recently, this description has been formalized into what has corne to be known as
The Prosodic Theory of Nonconcatenative Morphology developed by McCarthy ( 1979,
198 L), and McCarthy and Prince (1990) who applied to Classical Arabic the principles of
Autosegmentai Phonology proposed by Goldsmith (1976) for tone in Afncan languages.
Goldsmith's autosegmental theory proposes that the underlying phonologicai
representation is not a linear string of segments, but a multi-tiered representation
consisting of segments and autosegments which are associated according to a set of
univenal conventions. By applying this multilinear approach to Sernitic morphology,
McCarthy was able to fomalize the notion of a discontinuous morpheme arranged in a
the-dimensional space. Crucial to McCanhy's theory is the idea that the consonants and
vowels of Semitic words belong on distinct. morphologically-defined tiers which are
associated with the C (consonant) and V (vowel) slots of a CV template. Al1 affixai
material is treated in the same fashion in accordance with the Morphemic Tier Hypothesis.
The assumption that emerges from this theory is that the root, the vocaiic basis. and any
other possible linear affix constitute distinct morphemes that make up the word in a
Sernitic language. A form Iike ki laab 'book'. for instance, embodies three different
morphemes: a discontinuous consonantai root /k-t-6/ which specifies the family of
related lexical entries, a discontuiuous set of vowels /i -O/ which identifies the lexical entry
and specifies its functional/grammatical categories, and a prosodic template CVCWC as
shown in Figure 6.
vocalic template
prosodic template I I \
c v c v v c
consonantal template k
\i/b Figure 6
McCarthy's (1979) interna1 sauii~re of a word in Classicai Arabic
An example of representation for a prefixed word (e.g., nketeb 'subscribe') is given
in Figure 7.
Figure 7 McCarthy's (1979) interna1 structurë of a prefixecl woni in Classical Arabic
Given the abve theoretical claims, and the characterization of agrammatism in terms
of omissions and substitutions of grammatical morphemes. an interesting issue is to look
at the breakdown patterns of morphemes in Arabic.
Our main objective in this paper is to investigate the ways in which agrammatism is
manifested in Algenan Arabic, and how it compares with the existing descriptions of the
syndrome. The aphasics' error patterns are contrasted across different modalities with
those described in the literature. We will then attempt to speciQ the role of language-
specific features in the patterns observed and, finally, propose an interpretation of the
subjects' performance in the iight of curent linguistic and psycholinguistic theories on the
iexicon.
3.2 METHODOLOGY
3.2.1 Language
In this paper. the term Algerian Arabic (hereafier AA) refea to Arabic as used in
Algena both in its standard and vernacular forms. AA encompasses Standard Arabic
which is used in the educational system, in the newspapen and in radio and television
programs, as well as a vemacular used in daily life. The latter form is characterized
maidy by a reduction of vowel length which may lead in some cases to vowel deletion, by
the absence of case marken. and by a distinctive syntactic structure for negation. In ternis
of word order, AA exhibits a relatively free movement of constituents. In order to obtain
comparable data between wntten and oral production, and in keeping with frequency
requirements, we included in our stimuli only structures which are commonly used in the
standard and vemacular fonns. More detaiied descriptions of the structural properties of
AA will be given in the course of our analysis.
3.2.2 Subjects
One fernale and two male right-handed Algerian Arabic-speaking patients were
tested. They were diagnosed as Broca's aphasics on the Arabic version of the Ducarne de
Ribaucourt aphasia battery (1976). None of the subjects had visual or hearing defects.
NB was 27 years old at the time of testing. She had suffered an ischemic stroke which
resulted in aphasia and severe right hemiplegia. One year post-onset, she was able to
waik but showed residuai weakness in her right arm.
RB was 35 years old and showed a mild right hemiplegia at the time of testing. He
had suffered a cerebrovascular accident which caused lefi-hernisphere brain damage and
aphasia.
OH. 27 yean old at the time of testing, had suffered head trauma resulting in a
unilateral left hemisphere front-parietai lesion.
Detailed neurological information was not available at the hospital where testing was
conducted. Al1 three subjects were native speakers of Algenan Arabic. They were
educated in Arabic and learned French as a second Ianguage in school. They were
matched with normal control subjects of the same age, sex, and educational background.
Testing was conducted in Algeria. Table 1 summarizes background data on the three
subjects.
Etiology CVA CVA Trauma
Years post-onset 8 4 2
Sex female male male
Pre-onset occupation studeat baker accountant
Years of education in Arabic 11 7 - 14
Years of education in French* 9 4 11
Handedness nght right right 'French is taught as a second Ianguage simultaneously with Arabic.
Table I Background data for agrammatic subjects
3.2.3 Testing Material
SampIes of oral speech were collected using the following tasks: (a) history of
illness (b) the 'Cookie Theft' from the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination
(Goodglass & Kaplan. 1972). and (c) recitation of verses from the Koran. The subjects
were aiso tested on parts of the Maghrebian version of the Bilingud Aphasia Test
(Paradis, 1991) which included description of a picture, repetition, reading aloud,
dictation. copying. writing, and oral cornprehension of single words and of sentences.
We aiso constructed a set of 60 simple and complex sentences which were added to the
ones included in the Bilinguai Aphasia Test battery in order to test a wider sample of
structures in repetition. reading aloud and oral comprehension. The sentences used were
of the SVO. VSO and OVS type. Arabic is a VSO language with an alternative SV0 order
(Ouhalla. 199 1) and displays a relatively free word order. Object-fint constructions
require that a clitic pronoun agreeing in gender and number with the subject be affixed to
the verb. Examples of sentences tested in repetition, reading aioud, and oral
comprehension are presented in Appendix 3.1.
3.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Apart from a non-significant number of phonetic deviations (e-g., naf tsh for mafteh
'key') . the subjects' performance on single words was accurate, and does not require any
further analysis. We will thus focus our discussion on the errors produced in the
performance of sentences. Furthemore, the data on the three control subjects. who were
matched for age. sex and educational background with the three patients, hcluded very
few errors, which led us to conclude that the structures selected met testing criteria for
frequency, complexity, and picturabiiity.
3.3.1 Oral Production
An overview of the subjects' spontaneous speech reveals features prototypical of
agrammatism, namely: simplification of syntax to grammaticdy disconnected utterances
which contain mainly content words; omissionsl9 of articles, prepositions and pronouns;
omissions ancilor substitutions of inflectionai f ixes . It must be pointed out that the
samples coiiected in spontaneous speech are too small to d o w an appropnate quantitative
and qualitative analysis of the patients' performance. The subjects were totally unable to
produce connected free speech beyond one or two-word utterances. The spontaneous
speech elicited included a maximum of twenty words (see sample in Appendix 3.2).
The subjects' performance on the tasks of repetition, reading aloud. and recitation is
essentiaily characterized by omissions and substitutions of verb affixes, and omissions of
articles. pronouns. and verbs. Tables II, ïII, and IV surnmarize the omission and
substitution patterns found in repetition, reading aloud and recitation. We do not have any
data on recitation for subject OH who could not perform the task. even though he
indicated that he knew the verse of the Koran he was requested to recite. We wiil discuss
in the following sections each of the elernents ornitted or substinited in light of the
structure of AA.
In narrative discoune. we countcd as omissions al1 missing obligatory elernents leading to syntacticaily deviant structures.
Omissions of articles 180
Omksions of subject pronouns 30
Omissions of relative pronouns 28
Omissions of verb-bound clitics 26
Omissions of negation markers 24
Verb omissions 126
Omissions of verb prefnes
Omissions of verb prefmes leading to tense substitution e.g., ya-drab + drab
3ms- hit(pres) hit(3rndpast) 'He hits' 'He hit'
Omissions of verb prefixes ieading to tense and gender substitutions e.g., ta-drab + drab
3 fs-hit(prcs) hi t(3 mdpas t) 'She hits' 'He hit'
Stem substitutions leading to tense andor gender substitutions e-g., ya-drab + darb-at
3ms-hit(pres) hit(past)-3fs 'He hiis' 'She hit'
SENTENCE REPErrTION (percent error)
Table If Omissions and substitutions in sentence repetition
Omissions of articles 186
Omissions of subject pronouns 30
Omissions of relative pronouns 28
Omissions of verb- bound clitics 28
Omissions of negation markers 24
Verb omissions 126
Omissions of verb prefixes
Omissions of verb prefixes leading to tense substitution e-g., ya-drab + drab
3ms-hit(prcs) hit(3mdpast) 'He hits' 'He hit'
Omissions of verb prefixes leading to tense and gender substitutions e-g.. ta-drab + drab
3fs- hi t(pres) hit(3mdpast) 'She hits' 'He hit'
Stem substitutions leading to tense ancilor gender substitutions e.g., ya-drab darb-at
We observe a tendency in the subjects' performance to either omit prefixes as in ( 12)
a and b resulting in a switch to the morphologically unmarked past tense form. or
substitute entire verb forms, leading to gender and tense substitutions as in ( 14). As
Grodzinsky (1984) pointed out for Hebrew, omissions in the AA system never lead to the
production of bound stems. In the present data, each time the omission of either a prefm
or a suffix would produce a stem which is not a word in the language, patients revert to a
simple morphologicaiIy unmarked form or drop entire verb forms altogether. In (13) for
instance, while ornitting the affix / -aV. the subjects never produce a nonword fonn like
*xadm. even if it is a phonologicaiiy Iegal form in AA. Our data dso show that the
omission rate of verb prefmes (84.496 and 86% respectively for NB and RB in sentence
repetition: 64% and 88.8% respectively for NB and RB in reading sentences aloud) is
much higher than the substitution rate (15.6% and 14.28% respectively for NB and RB in
sentence repetition; 36% and 1 1.1 1 % respectively for NB and RB in reading sentences
aloud).
Verb-bound cli ticsz
Verb morphology in AA exhibits a large variety of verb-bound clitics. Among them
are the object pronouns which have been tested in our study. Within the hierarchical order
of affixation of the verb-bound clitics, object pronouns must appear as a suffix, and may
23 We are using the term "clitic" here in accordance with cumnt Iiteranire on Arabic syntax (Ouhaila. 1991). We are not, however. making any theoretical c l a h regarding the statu of these items across languages.
be followed only by the negation suffix. Like many clitics in AA, they agree in gender
and number with the CO-referent. as exempMed in ( 15) and ( 16).
(15) a. ya-ktab broya 3ms-write letter 'He writes a lener'
b. ya-ktab-ha 3 ms-wri tes-it(fs) 'He writes it'
(16) a. na-katbubrsye-t 1 -write-p Ietter-fp ' We wri te letters'
b. na-katbu-hum 1 -write-pthem 'We writc hem'
As the summary Tables II and III indicate, verb-bound clitics are the most
problematic items in the performance of al1 three subjects. who show a differential
treatrnent of these affixes in the tasks of repetition (20%, 100%, and 100% respectively
for NB. RB and OH) and reading aloud (lûûa, 57.12, and lOq% respectively for NB.
RB and OH) as opposed to the task of recitation where their performance is errorless
(Table IV). Instances of pronoun omissions are given in ( 17).
(17) a. ya-drab-ha + ya-drab 3ms-hit- her(fs) 'He hits her'
However, most of the studies have been carried out on patients who are native
speakers of English, a language which, because of its Limited morphological system, relies
heavily on word order which, in turn, does not allow Bexibility of movement of the
constituents of a sentence at the surface level. Our study attempted to investigate sentence
comprehension in a language with, fust, a nonconcatenative morphology and, second, a
fairly flexible word order.
Oral comprehension was tested on a sentence-picture matching task. Examples of
sentences tested in oral comprehension are presented in Appendix 3.1. The testing
materials consisted of four pictures: the target (e.g., the girl hugs the rnother), a syntactic
distractor (role reversal: e g , the mother hugs the girl) and two semantic distractors (e.g.,
the girl hugs the girl and the woman bugs the wuman). Words used were highly familiar
and picturable (e-g., boy, man, old man, womm, girl, to hug. to follow, to surprise. to
hold, etc.). Sentence length varied between two and five words. Sentences were semi-
randomly ordered. Table V summarizes the results obtained in oral comprehension.
PERCENT ERROR BY STRUCTURE
NB RB OH
Clefi SV0
OV-pros
Cleft OV-pros
VSO
Negative SV0
Negative OV-pros
Table V Oral comprehension
As can be seen in Table V, OH'S oral comprehension of ail the sûucnires tested is
generally weii preserved. For NB and RB whose comprehension deficit is more marked.
the difficulties experienced seem to be commensurate with the complexity of the
structures. Overaii, problerns were encountered in object-fmt, clefi object, and negative
abject-fmt sentences. These structures involve a non-canonical word order and complex
verb morphology, which may result in additional processing load. Let us consider
examples (S 1) and (S4) taken from Appendix 3.1.
(SI) al-bant t a-drab al- wald the-girl 3fs-hit ihe-boy 'The giri hits the boy'
(S4) al-wald ta-darb-u a l - b a r ~ t ~ ~ the-boy 3 fs-hit- him the-girl 'the boy is hit by the girl'
24 ï h e OVS smcture has a passive rneaning in Arabic. The passive consmiction. which exists in the Ianguage, is highly infrequent and was not included in our stimuli.
In a canonical SV0 active sentence such as (S l), the prefm /ta-/ of the verb agrees
with the lexical subject al-bant in pre-verbd position. In contrast, in an object-first
sentence such as (S4), the same prefix now agrees with the postverbal lexical subject
while the verb clitic I-ul agrees with the pre-verbal object al-wald, thus creating a
crossover in the linear ordering of agreement. Subjects showed problems with (S4) type.
but not with (S 1) type sentences.
The data indicate chat the patients rely both on morphological markers and on
canonical word order. When the verb does not exhibit a bound chtic as in the active, cleft
subject and verb-initial active constructions, the percentage of errors is very low if not
equai to zero, whereas in the more morphologicaliy complex structures where the verb
prefm does not agree with the noun in subject position and canonical order is absent. the
error rate increases. Furthemore, we notice that syntactic load adds to the processing
difficulties encountered by two of the patients. This is refiected in the higher error rate
observed in the cleft object and the negative object-fmt as opposed to the other object-fmt
sentences. Moreover, the fact that the subjects manifest problems with the canonically
ordered SVOpro and negative SV0 structures indicates that canonical word order alone
does not facilitate performance (see Caplan & Hildebrandt, 1988). Cruciaily. canonical
VSO and SV0 constructions are not problematic unless they exhibit cornplex morphology.
These results point to the role of language-specific features in the performance of aphasic
subjects since, at l es t for AA, morphology and word order play a cruciai role in the
parsing capacities of agrammatic patients. Simiiar results were found for subject RB in a
cross-linguistic study by Jarema et ai.. (1991) investigating the capacity of a g r m a t i c
subjects to interpret canonical. inverted and cleft constructions of active and passive
sentences.
3.4 GENERAL DISCUSSION
The most salient and discussed features of agrammatism are the omission and
substitution of grammatical morphemes, whether bound or free, in speech production.
Our findings are consistent with this observation since our patients do omit free standing
and bound grammatical markers.
Cross-linguistic studies have shown that language-specific features determine the
pattern of omissions and substitutions found in brain-darnaged subjects. In a language
like English. stripping a word of its grammatical affïx leads to another word that
corresponds to the stem, a pattern commody reported in the Literature on English-speaking
agrammatic subjects.
However, in studies on laquages like Italian (Miceli & Mazzucchi, 1990). and
Icelandic (Magrlusdottir & Thriiinsson, 1990) where generally stems are not
morphologicaiiy weii-hned words, a&rammatic patients are reported to substitute affixes
and never produce bare stems, even when these forms exist in the paradigm as is the case
with the imperative singular form of verbs in Italian and Icelandic. Likewise. in AA
where verb stems are not always weU-formed words as shown in katb-at (wrote-3fs)
'she wrote' in which the stem kat& is not a word. bound stems are never produced as a
result of omission. In the performance of our patients, the erroneous forms are not
randomly selected, but rather are singled out arnong the possible options towards the
production of a morphologically related word. For instance, in the omission pattem
observed in the verb-bound clitics (see (17) b.), the foms resorted to are always
morphologically related words totally or partialiy saipped of their bound elements. In the
error patterns displayed, the same phenornenon is observed throughout, which leads us to
conclude that omissions or substitutions do not operate randody in the speech of our
patients. In this respect. Our conclusion is similar to the one reached by many authors.
McCarthy picnues the Arabic lexicon as a set of Lexical mots and words. FoiIowing
Haiie (1973). he assumes that the lexicon contains morphemes. words, stems. and a set of
morphological rules. Furthemore. the basic unit over which these rules operate is fmt
the discontinuous consonantal root. The lexical entry for Arabic is suuctured as a
branching tree dominated by the consonantal root h m which al1 other forms are derived.
This conception of word formation was a challenge to existing Linguistic theories on the
lexicon. Even though McCarthy adopts Halle's contention that word formation rules
operate over morphemes as well as over words, he introduces a novel conception of a
morpheme-based lexicon when he assumes the existence in the lexicon of a discontinuous
morpheme, Like the mot / k t -61.
According to McCarthy's mode1 of the lexicon, and assuming his word formation
theory, which proposes that an Arabic word is the result of a simultaneous mapping of
two discontinuous morphemes and any possible a f ix ont0 a prosodic template, only two
steps are required in order to access a word in AA. One has to first access the
discontinuous root, then the stem or the word. This is illustrated in Figure 12.
1 SteP 1 d INPUT consonantai mot k-t -b
word
Morphological Rules
ya-ktab 'he writes'
Figure 12 Access procedure for the word ya-ktab 'he writes'
The questions that arise here is why an affued fom like ye-ktab should be so
difficult to access for the patients tested in Our study, and why would it preferentially
result in the production of the free stem ktab 'he wrote' as observed in our results? As a
preliminary explmation. one couid assume that morphemes are stored according to three
categories: the consonantal roots, the vocaüc bases, and the suffixes and prefmes. W e
could then hypothesize that it is access to this Iast category of morphemes that is impaired
in Our patients, whereas access to the other two categories is preserved. Therefore,
according to Figure 12. the production of the free stem ktab can be accounted for if we
argue that accessing the suffix lya-/ is costly since it requires extra processing. Patients
are thus producing tmncated lexical items, i.e. items stripped of their prefures ancilor
suffixes. Imponantiy, the resulting foms are existing words in the language. The
patients are accessing a form whicb is morphologically less marked while keeping within
the same semantic field and the sarne grammatical category.
However, our results also show, in the items which underwent omission of suffixes
and prefixes, a significant shift towards a stem which is not part of the target. TO explain
ihis phenomenon. let us look at an another example:
ka tb-a t 'she wroteb
Figure 13 Access procedure for the word katbat 'she wrote'
Difficulty of access to the suffix k a t / here would resuit in the production of the stem
kath, which is actudiy a phonologicaily possible nonword. As already stated above. our
data do not show. in any of the tasks conducted. the production of bound stems. aithough
a substantial number of the structures tested included lexicai items which exhibited a
bound stem (45%) in their intemal structure. One may argue that these bound stems
exhibit phonotactically illegal final consonant clusters which prevent the patients from
producing them. An andysis of these bound stems (see Appendix T) reveais that the stem-
fmd consonant clusten appearing in our stimuli are aU possible occurrences in AA. These
considerations exclude an alternative explmation in ternis of language-specific
phonological constraints applying here and thus preventing the patients from producing
such stems.
What is of interest in our findings is that the form that the patients systematically
resort to when expenencing difficulties with affues is the masculine 3rd singular
perfective (see (10) d.), be this fonn part of the target or not. This gives rise to two
important questions: 1 ) why woul d the patients avoid producing phonologically well-
formed bound stems which are presumed to be listed in the mode1 of the lexicon proposed
by McCarthy?. and 2) why would they resort to a specific form and not pick randomiy
among the other rmt-related forms that are also available in the same lexical entry?
Grodzinsky (1984: 105) has suggested on the basis of data on agrarnmatic Hebrew-
and Russian-speakers. that mis-selections of inflected forms are made randomly "in cases
where the inflectional paradigrn of an item does not include 0-i.e., the 'bare' stem is a
nonword-". an assumption which does not hold for the present data. unless we dismiss
the restricting notion of "paradigrn" and adopt a wider notion of "family" (Scgui &
Zubizarreta, 1985) where verb f o m are not organized on the basis of tense and aspect.
Centml to Segui and Zubizarreta's mode1 are the concepts of "family" and of "head". As
suggested by the authors, what defines a family is the common root that al1 memben of
the family share. This common root, whether free or bound. may constitute the head via
which access is possible.
An approach incorporating the concept of morphological farnily was adopted for AA
by Mimouni. Kehayia and Jarema ( 1992). The study. which tested singular and plural
forms of nouns in AA through an auditory priming experiment, was conducted on 24 non
brain-damaged subjects. The results showed that in AA nouns are organized into families
where the head is the singular form for irregular plurds and the consonantai root for
regular plurals. The suffixed plural fomi is shown not to be accessed directly. It was
suggested that in order to access a plural word Wce Ibes-st 'dress-es', the subjects access
fmt the root 1-b-S. and then the singular Ibes 'dress' before accessing the target.
An organization of the mental lexicon into families is also most pertinent to the present
data. We propose that the masculine 3rd singular perfective, the form Our subjects most
frequently resort to when in diffîculty, represents the head of a verb family in AA, and
access to any member of the family is achieved via this fom (Fig. 14). This interpretation
would aiso explain why the lowest error rate in the comprehension task concems
structures containing these verb forms or forms which are the closest to them in the
step 1 - WüT word (head of the farniiy) ktab + 3 ms perfective
'he wmte'
Morphological Rules
step 2 OUTPUT wad ya-ktab 'he wtites'
Figure 14 Access procedure for AA verbs
Even though McCarthy's mode1 of lexical organization includes bound stems
togedier with words and roots in the list of items that make up the lexicon. it does not
explicitly speciQ whether bound stems can serve as inputs to morphological rules or not
~McCaahy does, however. state that inputs need not "be words in the (lexicalist) syntactic
sense of this tem." (McCarthy. 1979:390). The present data show that free stems and
bound stems do not play the same role in the lexicon. While the results do not provide
evidence that bound stems are listed. they do show. at least for verbs in AA. that these
items do not serve as inputs to morphological d e s . Rather, it is the masculine 3rd
singular perfective fkee stem which serves as input for al1 verb forms in a lexical entry.
Acknowledgments This study was supported by an FCAR scholarship to the principai author. We are gratefui to Rofessor Abdelaziz Bendib and Leila Ait-Mesbah, speech thcrapist, of the Department o f Neuro-Traumotology, Mustapha Hospital. Algiers. for their valuable assistance. and to the patients who panicipated in this study. We thank Yves-Charles Morin and Eva Kehayia for fruitful discussions, and the reviewers for their very hirlpful comments. WC would a h like to thank Paule Samson for her technical assistance.
Symbols used: s: Singular pres: Resent p: Plural Neg: Negaiion f: Ferninine h k indefinite m: Masculine
Appendix 3.1 Examples of structures used in repetition. reading aloud and oral comprehension
Cleft S V 0 6 3 )
ai-bant ta-drab ai-waid the-girl 3fs-hit the-boy 'the gir1 hits the boy'
hije ta-darb-u she 3fs-hic-him .she hits him'
al-bant hija elli ta-dfab al-wald the-girl she who 3fs-hit the-boy 'It Is the girl who hits the boy'
al-wald t a-darb-u al-bant the-boy 3fs-hit-hirn the-girl 'the boy is hic by the girl'
Cleft OV-pros (SS) al-wald huwa ell i ta-darb-u al-bant
the-boy he who 3fs-hit-him the-girl 'it is the boy who is hit by the girl'
VSO (S6) ta-drab al-bant al- wald
3fs-hit the-girl the-boy 'the girl hits the boy'
Negative S V 0 (S?) al-bant me-ta-drab-S al-wald
the-gir 1 Neg-3fs-hit-Neg the-boy 'the girl doesn't hit the boy'
1 . Département de linguistique et traduction, Université de Montréal, Monaéai 2. Laboratoire Théophile-Najouanine, Centre de recherche,
Centre hospitaiier Côtedes-Neiges, M o n W 3. Department of Linguistics, Mffiill University, Montréal 4. Research Department, Iewish Retiabilitation Hospital, Montréai
Bruin and Language, submitted
Address correspondence to: Zohra Mirnouni. Centre de recherche, Centre hospitaiier Côte-des-Neiges, 4565 chemin Queen-Mary. Montréal (Qc). H3W 1 WS, Canada Tel. (514) 340-3540 Fax (5 14) 340-3548
ABSTRACT
Adopting as a point of departure the mode1 of lexical organization developed
by McCarthy ( 1979) for Arabic. we address. in the present paper. the issues
of lexical representation. morphological relatedness, and modes of access in
Algenan Arabic in an auditory rnorphological priming experiment. More
specifically, we investigate the process of word recognition of singular and
plural nouns in the performance of 26 subjects. 24 of whom are non brain-
damaged subjects and two of whom are agrammatic aphasies. Plurais in
Arabic involve either suffixation as in the sound plural (e.g.. l b e s
'dress ' l lbes~ 'dresses' or stem-interna1 changes as in the broken plurals
(e.g., kursl 'chair'lkras& 'chairs'). Our findings reveal a differential
processing of the two f o m indicating whole word access for broken plurais
and decomposition into word and suffx for suffixed plurals. Furthemore.
for Algerian Arabic, the evidence suggest an architecture of the lexicon
reflecting a family-like organization taking into account language-specific
features.
This study was supported by an FCAR scholarship to the principal author. In preparing this experiment, 1 benefited from helpful discussions with Yves-Charles Morin, Glyne Piggott and DanieI Bub. 1 am grateful to Professor Abdelaziz Bendib and Leila Ait-Mesbah, speech therapist, of the Department of Neuro- Traumotology, Mustapha Hospital. Algies. for their valuable assistance, and to the patients who participated in this study. 1 thank Mathew Decter who helped in putting together the experirnentd design; Fmcine Giroux and Paule Samson for theu technical assistance.
4.1 INTRODUCTION
A theory of language must contain as a cenaal component a iïst of the elements that
are used in the formulation of meaningful sentences. In linguistic ternis, this component is
referred to as the lexicon, Le., our store of information on lexical items which are
accessed and manipulated by grammar. In psycholinguistic te-, this is Our mental
lexicon, i.e., the actual component of human cognition in which an individual's
knowledge about lexical items is stored. This component plays a crucial role in the
mapping of propositions onto Linguistic utterances. Many authors have claimed that the
mental lexicon comprises lists of lexical items. analogous to the lists of words in a
dictionary. Research in theoretical linguistics and psychohguistics over the last three
decades has demonstrated that the system of lexical storage and retrieval is extremely
cornplex. Nevertheless, despite the rich body of literature in the field and the various
models proposed, a number of fundamental issues stiU remain unresolved. These issues
concem: 1) the identification of the units that serve as eatries in the mental lexicon, 2) the
intemal organization of the mental lexicon and 3) the different modes of access of mental
representations during normal processing.
With respect to the first issue, theoreticai hguistic and psycholinguistic accounts
have advanced in parailel ways in proposing that the fundamental unit of the (mental)
lexicon is either the morpheme (Halle. 1973; Taft & Forster, 1975) or the word (Aronoff,
1976; Buttenvorth. 1983). There are also those that put forward compromise solutions
where both morphemes and words are lexicdy represented (Anderson. 1992; Cararnazza,
Laudanna, & Romani, 1988; DeU, 1986).
Regarding the issue of the internai organization of the lexicon in theoretical
hguistics, Jackendoff (1975) provides us with a morphological approach explicitiy based
on morphological relations expressed in ternis of lexical redundancy d e s which link two
morphologically related words. In his model, ail related words of a language have
separate, but linked, lexical entries. In the psycholinguistic literature, it has k e n shown
that there are phonetic, semantic. and morphological associations between mental
representations. Specifically with respect to morphological associations, it is suggested
that every word has its own entry (with or without intemal specifications) but all entries
for morphologically related complex words are linked either to a base form or nucleus
(satellite-entries hypothesis, Lukatela et al., 1980). or to each other, the common root
acting as the head of a given morphological family (morphological-family hypothesis.
Segui & Zubizaneta, 1985). This concept of Links between morphologicaliy related items
is also found in the connectionist models of the lexicon (Dell, 1986).
Finally. with respect to the issue of the mode of access of mental representations,
existing psycholinguistic proposais reflect to a large extent the mode of representation of
lexical items. According to the authors who support the full listing hypothesis, each word
has its own lexical entry and cm be accessed in a direct manner as a whole (Bunenvorth.
1983; Manelis & Tharp. 1977). Under this view. parsing is not needed in normal word
recognition but is resorted to as a fall-back procedure in the case of novel words or
previously unheard forms. In contrast, according to the decomposition hypothesis initiaily
advocated by Taft and Forster (1975) and refined in Taft (1979), it is claimed that
complex words are accessed via their stems. This implies that complex items are
decomposed into their constituent morphemes prior to access.
Finally. given that both of the above proposais have been vaiidated by various
concurrent studies, hybrid models have been put forward. For example, Laudanna and
Burani (1985) and Del1 (1986) have proposed that two parailel routes are available for
access of the lexicon: A whole-word access procedure used for known words, and a
morpheme address procedure used for novel forms.
A large number of the psycholinguistic studies addressing the issues of lexical
representation, organization, and access have initiaiiy focused on English. Recently, there
has been a surge of research on other languages (e.g., Finnish, French, Gerrnan, Greek,
Italian. Polish, Serbo-Croatian). A common characteristic across ali of these languages is
their concatenative structure. i.e., words are made up of sequences of one or severai
morphemes that are put together in a linear order. In an effort to validate the existing
models of lexical access and representation, psycholinguistic research is extending its
scope to typologically different languages (e.g., Hebrew: Feldman & Bentin. 1994;
1984; Kehayia & Jarema, 1994; Kernpley & Morton. 1982; Stanners et al., 1979). It also
demonstrates that priming is present even for morphological relatives which exhibit
reduced morphotactic t r a n ~ ~ a r e n c y ~ ~ . since in our data, the change of vowels as well as
the change in the Linear arrangement of segments (CVCCVC vs. CCVCVC) between the
singular and the plural in the broken plural pairs (e-g., faniallfneial) did not prevent the
occurrence of priming.
Similar results were found by Fowler et al. (1985) who conducted two experirnents
on English words in both visual and auditory modalities and observed strong pruning
effects even when the orthographie or phonological representation of morphologically
related pairs did not fully overlap (e.g., clear/clarifjr). Along the same line, although
Stanners et ai. (1979) did fud a priming effect between related irregular verb f o m such
as h u n g h n g or shookMake, priming was reported to be of a lesser extent than that for
identical word-pain like h a n g h n g . Our fuidings are, however. in contrast with those
reported by Kempley and Morton (1982), who found no facilitation between auditorily
presented irregularly related words such as manhien. losr/los& held/holding. One
should recall that this lack of facilitation in Kempiey and Morton's results has been
imputed to the long delay between prime and target (Fowler. Napps. & Feldrnan, 1985).
With respect to the aphasic subjects, we observe that, in generai. their performance
is accurate but is much slower than that of the control group. This observation is
consistent with the results reported in the Literature by Prather et al. (1992) and Kehayia
(1993). who concluded that lexical access is slowed rather than unavailable in nonfluent
aphasies. A point worth king pointed out here is the variability in the performance of the
two patients. S 1's performance is characterized by long RTs, but overall, it parallels that
29 Acording to Kilani-Schoch (1988a: 1 18) "plus la segmentation est difficile percevoir. moins grande est la transparence morphotactique". Morphotactic tramparency is gradient and can be measured by the degrce of changes brought about by a process of affixation. The more cornplex the changes. the las the degrce of morphotac tic transparency.
of the controls. S2 on the other hand, even though generaiiy faster than SI. does not
show the great facilitation obtained with other subjects in morphologically related pairs.
more specifically in the singular-plural pairs for bisyilabic broken plurals as well as as for
sound plurals. However, when compared to the controls on a subject-basis. S2's overail
performance is hardly different from that of the slowest of the subjects (see Fig. 20).
The present results also nile out the possibility that, as a distinct morpheme in an
Arabic word, the vocalic bais may have an effect on lexical access. Unrelated pairs
sharing a vocalic bais only (e-g., mzsrnar 'naii' + fMa! 'cup*) are not found to yield
any priming.
4.4.2 Sound vs. Broken Plural Pairs
R e s u l ~
As indicated in Tables VI and VII, mea n RTs fo lr morphological relatii V a r y
across types of plurais. Statisticai analyses of the data on rnorphologically related pairs
show that within the set of plurals tested, broken plurals are responded to significantiy
faster (p < .û4) than sound plurals.
Further, length was not found to be a confounding variable in the conuol subjects'
performance. In order to veriw whether length was a detemiiniag factor in the differential
processing of the plural forms. we performed statistical compaxisons of mean RTs for ali
bisyllabic pairs. The same latencies (X = 8 10 msec.) were found for bisyllabic unrelated
pairs like qahwe 'coffee'lmrqa 'mirror' and malteh 'key'/lanh! 'cup', whereas bisyiiabic
related pairs like maftah 'key'lmfatah 'keys' h m the broken plural group yielded much
faster RTs (X = 755 msec.) than for bisyllabic related pairs like mraya 'mirror'lmreyet
'mirron' from the sound/suffixed plural group (X = 979 msec.). The possibility that
length may have affected access is hence mled out.
With respect to the two aphasic subjects, Figure 20 shows, as mentioned above, an
overail pattern which refiects a slower performance than the one observed in the control
group. The patients' mean RTs do not, however, deviate importantly from those of the
slowest control subject for both types of p l d s .
O Controls' rnax RTs - Controls' mean RTs
S 1's mean RTs
S2's mean RTs
Broken plural Sound plural
Figure 20 Comparative mean reaction times for normal vs. aphasic subjects
Singular-plurai pairs (Broken and sound plurals)
Discussioq
Cornparhg the impaired and non-impaired subjects' performance on sound and
broken plurals, we note thai the amwnt of priming among the morphologically related
words is greater for broken plural than for sound plural forms. In the absence of
frequency and length effects, this fmdiug points towards a differential processing of the
two plural forms. More specificaily. if we assume that during the recognition of suffied
plurais, a decornposition of the suffied form into stem + affix takes place, then we may
postulate that the processing of both the stem and the s u f i leads to slower reaction times.
In the case of the broken plural, where suffiation does not occur and plurality is
expressed through stem-interna1 changes. reaction times are faster, pointing towards
whoie word access.
4.4.3 Bi-Plural Pairs
That there are differential recognition processes between the broken and sound
plurals discussed above is funher supported by the data on the bi-plurals as shown in
Table W. Here again, for the controls, access is significantly (p < 0.03) faster for
broken plural forms tban for the altanate suffixexi fomis.
Controls Patient Patient (N=24) S 1 S2
Broken Pld-Singular' criticaI pairs 7 10 1048 1008 e. g . . s i e r - s a h
"mes"-"tne"
Sound Plural-Siagular criticai pairs 7 1 1 1034 988 e . g . , sefr&seirs
Singular-Sound plural critical pairs 975* 1 100* 998* e . g . , s8ff dds8&a (3 (17) (u)
"~C**- "~ I#S"
Targct is somctimes rejected as a nonwod Eigurcs betwecn parentheses indicatc emr rates.
Table Vm Bi-plural pain
(mean reaction times in mscc.)
Discussion
Apart from the effect resulting from the type of plural used. we also observe in this
group of stimuli what appears to be an inhibition effect when either the singular or the
broken plural form is used as the prime for the suffixed bi-plural form (e.g., sier + sairet; seira + safrat). In these cases, non aphasic as weli as aphasic subjects either
rejected the suffixed bi-plural form as a nonword or accepted it with longer RTs than the
ones obtained with the rest of the suffixed fonns. Note, however, that the error rate
among non-aphasic subjects is not significant and is reported here only for cornparison
purposes.
Regarding the inhibition effect observed with the bi-plural forms, two explanations
may be advanced. First. the aitemate suffied form in the bi-plural group is associated
with a specific semantic context which is required in order for this form to be recognized
easily. According to Heath (1987), the occurrences of these lexical items is restricted to
enurneration andfor small numbers of objects. In our experiment, lexical items were
presented as single units.
The second possibility is that these forms, which are of low frequency, are not
stored in the lexicon and therefore, have to be generated through a word formation rule.
At the same the. the alternate high-frequency broken plural form inhibits the formation of
the suffixed form.
4.4.4 Plural-Singular vs. Singuiar-Plural Pairs
ResuIe
Tables IX and X below, which recapitulate data on related pairs, are presented to
isolate a finding that we believe crucial for the present research. Across aii conditions, for
controls singular forms are found to be accessed significantly faster than plurd foms (p <
0.009 for broken plurals; p = 0.000 for sound plurals). Furthennon, singulars of broken
plurals yielded faster RTs than those of sound plurals. In conuast. in the bi-plural group,
singulars show the same RTs whether the prime is a sound or a broken plural form. A
similar pattern is observed in the performance of the two aphasic subjects.
Taft 1979) seems best suited to account for the differential processing of sound and
broken plurals observed in Our experiment. Further evidence of a decomposition process
during word recognition of suffixed forms cornes from the long reaction times observed
with illegaiiy suffmed words.
Another aspect of McCarthy's mode1 supported by our data concerns the fdy - l i ke
morphological organization of lexical entries. According to McCarthy's view. al1 singular
fonns are listed within their respective morphological families, dominated by their
discontinuous roors. Furthemore. singulars whose plurals are irregular are stored in two
separate lexical enuies. once dominated by the root, and a second t h e dominating the
broken plural form. The as yrnmetrical organization charac terizing the relations hips
between head and memben of a given morphologicai farnily is displayed in the results
obtained. For example. even though the broken plural f o m are listed together with their
corresponding singular f o m separate from the discontinuous root, access to these f o m
does not yield the same RTs. The singulars are always found to be accessed faster. If we
assume, however. that access to the plural takes place through the singular. then this form
must be activated faster than the plural. The assumption that singulars of broken plural
forms are not accessed via the discontinuous root is M e r supported by the RTs obtained
in the bi-plural group. If the singulars of the bi-plural forms exhibiting suffixed plurals
were accessed through the discontinuous root, then these forms should yield the same
RTs as singulars in the sound plural group. This is not shown by our data. which
indicate instead RTs sirnilar to singuiars in the broken plural group.
Accounts supporting a famiiy organization of the lexicon have already been put
fonvard in psychoiinguistic literature (Lukatela et al., 1980; Segui & Zubizarreta, 1985).
Regarding the question of the organization of morphological relatives, Lukatela et
al. (1980) developed the satellite-entries model for Serbo-Croatian, where an inflected
word and not the root is proposed as the nucleus to which ali morphological relatives are
uni fody Iinked. Accoràing to this view, one should expect an equal amount of priming
between the nucleus and any of its satellites. In our experiment, even though the results
pointed toward the existence of a lexical form acting as a head of a family. the asymmetry
observed in the amount of priming between memben of a morphological family
contradicts the view of a satellite organization of affixed forms. Rather, our data suggest
that lexical items do not cluster around a nucleus in a uniform fashion. An organization
more compatible with our data is that proposed by Segui and Zubizarreta (1985). who
suggested that lexical items are accessed via the lexical entry for the common root (where
root = word) which acu as the head of the family. This lexical structure is reflected in our
results in that singulars and broken plurals seem to be accessed via the head of their
respective families. There are. however, some difficulties with adopting this model to
account for Our data. The authoa' clairn that suffuted words are listed, headed by a
word. does not hold for AA. Whiie broken plural forms seem to be accessed via the
singular, i.e., a word, suffixed forms seem to be accessed via the discontinuous
consonantal root.
One of Our fmdings still rernains a pualing matter. It concems the inhibitory effect
observed in accessing the suffixed form of broken plurals. Two explanations based on
linguistic and psycholinguistics considerations may be advanced, but would require
further investigation.
Fint. language-specific semantic constraints may be relateci to this type of words.
Heath ( 1987: 100) observed that in some of these cases, "there may be a semantic nuance
in the choice, whereby the suffixal kat/ variant is associatexi with enmeration and /or with
smaii numbers of abjects". This hypothesis is consistent with our own and other AA
native speakers' intuition, but it could not be further documented, as Heath's observation
on this semantic idiosyncratic feahlre of these plurals is the only instance that could be
found in the Iiterature. Thus, if these forms occur in restncted contexts. thei. frequency
of use is consequently reduced, which leads us to our next solution.
The second possibility is that these forms, which are of low frequency, are not
stored in the lexicon and therefore, have to be generated through a word formation rule.
At the same time, the alternate high-fkquency broken plural form inhibits the formation of
the suffixed forrn. In horse-race models (e.g. Anshen & Aronoff, 1988), this would be
explained by a cornpetition between the two forms. The high-frequency broken fonn
would prevent the low-frequency suffixed form from k i n g produced. However, in the
absence of a frequency table for Arabic, this hypothesis cannot be verified. Furthemore,
the mode1 of Anshen & Aronoff has k e n designed for production. Whether it could be
applied here remains open.
Finally, comparing control and aphasic data we may conclude that despite the
longer RTs observed in the latter group, overall patterns of word recognition are similar
for controls and aphasics across ail experimental stimuli. The present results do not
support the existence of the morphological deficit found in these patients in off-line
testing. On-line testing shows that the patients' processing abilities are well preserved.
leading us to conclude that a single-explanatory account may not be sufficient to
undentand agrammatic deficits.
Appendix 4.1 List of stimuli: Broken plurals
(Monosyllabic stimuli)
Targec t, Pnme Gloss Conml prime 1 Gloss
Sing H PIur Sing/Plur
fmal/imul
ktaf/ktaf
ZbaVdbal
d far /d f a r
Tdam/Cdam
b YaVb Yal
w ald/ w lad
banthnul
Cabd/Tbad
ianb/inab
kab5/kba8
Tar f /Traf
mountain
nail
bone
mule
boy
giri
individual
si&
gdamlgdam
hbaVhba1
Sfar/S far
xbar/xbar
hnak/hnak
SbaT/SbaT
habs/hbas
Tawd/Cwad
ka?b/klab
Tars/Crss
dayf/dy8f
qan t /qna t
heel
me'=
eyelash
a piece of news
cheek
finger
jail
horse
dog
marriage
l9"'st
corner
Control prime 2 Gloss Conml prime 3 Gtoss S ing/Plur Sing
qbar /qbur &rave bab dooc
dharldhur back kas g l a s
paiace ksr
fmt fer
bus
mouse
ihar/Shur month wad s m
bharlbhur sea i a r neighbor
danb/dnub sin fus pickax
chicken nub
letter Sag
Appendix 4.2 List of stimuli: Broken plurais
(Bisyilabic stimuli) - - - ---
Target H Rime Gloss
Sing H Plur
fanial/fnuial
ma f tah/m fatah
sarwal/srawal
Cangud/fnagad
sandug/snadag
saiïum/slalam
ma Trah/rnTurah
barnus/brenas
ma Trag/m rarag
sabba f.sb8baT
maskin/msakan
mandil/mnadal
kaskas
masrnar
manguS
fakrun
mahbul
rnayraf
sarduk
maz wad barrad
barmil
Tafri t
Control prime 2 Gloss kursi chair rabsi
babur boat Sadf monkey kabus gun iamaf' moque bendir tambourine Tadi in Pan hanu t store za waS bd Surab Ii p lizar curtain
Appendix 4.3 List of stimuli: Soundlsuffixed plurais
Target Prime Gloss
Sing t) Plur
mrays/maraya t rnirror/mix~ors luYa/fu va t languagdanguages xadma/xadma t jobljo bs ragba/ragbaC neckfnec ks kalma/kalma t word/words S ixa/S txat teachedteachers Tùiba/Tbibat doctor/doctors dhez/Zhazat dowryldowries Ibas/lbesa t dress/dresses lsan/lsana t tongue/tongues Ylaf/Ylafa t envelopelenvelopes hsab/hsabat account/accounts
- - -
Control prime 1 Gloss Cefsa/Safsa t stepfsteps warda/werda t flowedflowers
fiiendlfrknds walk/waiks piIgrim/piIgrims neighborlneighbors auntlaunts box/boxes slaplslaps wavefwaves t n z u d k d soup/soups
saira/sairet/s2ar treehea Çam Ca/garn Ca t /Srna T candle/candles namlu/namlat/nrnal antiants Jarfa/qarTa V q r a S bonielbotties naxla/naxia t /nxal p h tfee/trees nahla/nahla t/nhal fxehees haiWha2la t/hf al pmidge/pamidges xaSba/xaS&at/xSab w d sticIdstickS garba/garbat/grab flask/flasks
Conml prime 1 Gloss haira/hairat/hiar stone/stones
cow/cows sheet/sheets lofloaves streetls treets hoiefholes lourdice bas kethas kets short tabldtables
Control ~ n m e 2 Gloss
dru2
nium drus
9dw dinah r iai hyuT sfuf
stain stars teeth cooking pots wings men walk rows
CHAPTER FZVE
GENERAL DISCUSSION
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The overail results of the two snidies provide converging evidence on a number of
theoretical points and issues related to the lexicon. These will be reviewed in the general
context of the hypotheses underlying the present research, namely:
1 . A differentiai processing of regular and irregular plural forms wiil be observed
dunng word recognition.
2. This difference is a reflection of the feature specificatioas these forms cany and
of their structural organization in the lexicon.
We will proceed fust with a summary of the data from Study one, and undencore
the major points of morphological breakdown in AA. An overview of the major fmdngs
related to the second study will then be presented. Findly, a discussion of the currendy
debated issues of listedness, relatedness and the role played by frequency in the lexicon
wiii foilow in light of the findings h m Study one and Study two.
5.2 MORPHOLOGICAL DEFICITS
Studies of language deficits have been carried out for various objectives. One of
them is to use the patterns of deficits observed to validate existing theories of the normal
language system.
Morphological deficits. for example, have been extensively investigated in various
tasks and in different languages in order to understand the mechanisms underlying lexical
representation and processing. More specificaily, in agrammatic aphasia, morphological
breakdown has maidy involved omission and substitution of bound and free tical al
morphemes leading to reduced-length sentences as welI as syntactic ~ imp~ca t ion . These
general characteristics of the syndrome of agrammatic aphasia have ernerged from various
studies across various languages - (e.g., Goodglass, 1968; Kean. 1977; Goodglass et al.,
Anshen, F. & Aronoff, M. (1981). Morphological productivity and phonological
transparency. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 26,63-72. Anshen, F. & Aronoff. M. (1988). Producing morphologically complex words.
Linguistic, 26. 64 1-655.
Aronoff, M. (1976). Word formation in generative grarnrnar. Linguistic Inquiry,
Monograph #1. Cambridge, MA.: MIT EVess. Baayen. H. & Lieber, R. (1991). Productivity and English denvation: A corpus based
s tudy. Linguistics, 2 9, 80 1 -843.
Bates, E., Friederici, A., & Wulfeck. B. ( 1987). Comprehension in aphasia: A cross-
Iinguistic snidy. Brain arzà Languuge ,32, 19-67.
Berndt, R.S. & Caramazza, A. (1980). A redefinition of the syndrome of Broca's
aphasia: Implications for a neuropsychologicai mode1 of language. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 1. 225-278. Blachère. R. & Gaudefroy-Demombynes. M. (1975). Grammaire de l'orabe classique.
Paris: Maisonneuve et Larose.
Bloomf~eld, L. (1933). Language. New York, NY: Holt.
Bo has. G. ( 199 3). Développements récents en linguistique arabe et sémitique. Séminaire
tenu au Collège de France. Damas, Syrie: Institut français d'études arabes de
Damas. Bohas, G. & Guillaume, J.P. ( 1984). Étude des théories des grammairiens arabes- Tome I
Morphologie et phonologie. Damas: Institut français de Damas. Bradley, D.C. ( 1980). Lexical representation of derivational relation. In, M. Aronoff and
M. Kean (Eds.), Juncmre. Saratoga, CA: Amma Libri & Co. Bub, D.N. & Gum, T. (1988). PsycNab Software. (unpublished).
Buttenvonh, B. (1983). Lexical representation. In, B. Butterworth (Ed.), Language
production Vol. 2, (pp. 257-294). London: Academic Press.
Bybee, J.L. (1988). Morphology as lexical organization. In, M. Hammond and M. Noonan (Eds.), Theoretical rnorphology: Approaches in modern iinguistics, (pp.
1 19- 14 1). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bybee, I.L. (1995). Regular morphology and the 1exIcon. Lnnguage and Cognitive
Processes, 1 O(5), 425 -45 5. Bybee, J.L. & Slobin, D.I. (1982). Rules and schemas in the development and use of the
English past tense. Language, 58,265-289.
Cantineau, J. ( 1950). La notion de «schème» et son altération dans diverses langues
sémitiques. Semitica. 3.
Caplan, D. & Futter, C. (1986). Assignment of thematic soles to nouns in sentence
comprehension by an agrammatic patient. Brain and Language, 27, L 17- 134.
Caplan. D. & Hildebrandt, N. ( 1988). Disorders of syntuctic comprehension. Cambridge,
MA: MTT Press.
Caramazza, A., Laudanna, A., & Romani, C. (1988). Lexical access and inflectionai
and the organization of the lexicon: Evidence from acquired dyslexia. Cognitive
Neuro-Psychology. 2, 8 1 - 1 14.
Caramazza, A. & ZUI'if, E.B. (1976). Dissociation of algorithmic and heuristic processes
in language comprehension: Evidence from aphasia. Brain and Lmguage, 3,572- 582.
Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In, R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum
(Eds.). Readings in English tm.formational gramar, (pp. 184-22 1). Waltham, MA: Blaisdeîi.
Chomsky. N. (1988). Language and problerns of knowledge. l'le Managua lectures.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cole, P., Beauvillain. C., & Segui. J. (1989). On the representation and processing of
prefixed and suffixed derived words: A differential frequency effect. Journal of
Memory and Language. 28, 1 - 13.
de Bleser, R. & Bayer. 1. (1988). On the role of inflectional morphology in
agrammatism. In, M. Hamrnond and M. Noonan (Eds.), Theoretical morphology:
Approaches in modern linguirtics, (pp. 45-69). San Diego, CA: Acadernic Press.
Dell, F. & Vergnaud, .J.-R. (1984). Les développements récents en phonologie: queIques
idées centrales. In, F. Dell. D. Herst, and .i.-R. Vergnaud (Eds.), Les formes
sonores du langage. Paris: Hermann.
Deii, G.S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production.
Psychological Review. 93. 283-32 1.
Ducame de Ribaucourt, BI. (1976). Test pour l'examen de l'aphasie. Paris: Centre de
psychologie appliquée.
Emmorey. K.D. (1989). Auditory morphological priming in the lexicon. Languuge and
Cognitive Processes. 4(2), 73-92.
Feldman, L.B. & Bentin, S. (1994). Morphological analysis of disnipted morphemes: Evidence from Hebrew. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
47A(2), 407-435.
Ford, A. & Singh. R. (1991). Propédeutique morphologique. Folia Linguistica.
XXV(3/4)* 549-574.
Fowler, C.A.. Napps. S., & Feldman, L.B. (1985). Relations among regular and
irregular morphologically related words in the lexicon as revealed by repetition
priming. Memory and Cognition. 13(3), 24 1-255.
Goldsmith, J. (1976). Autosegmental phonology. Doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT, (published in 1979. Garland, New York).
Goldstein. K. ( 1948). Language and language disturbances. New York, NY: Grune &
S traton. Goodglass, H. (1968). Studies on the grammar of aphasies. In. S. Rosenberg and J.
Koplin (Eds.), Developments NI applied psycholinguistics research, (pp. 177-208).
New York, NY: MacMillan.
Goodglass. H., Gleason, J.B.. Bemholtz. N.A., & Hyde, M.R. (1972). Some linguistic
structures in the speech of a Broca's aphasic. Cortex, 8, 19 1-212.
Goodg lass, H. & Kaplan. E. ( 1972). ïhe assessrnent of aphasia and relured disorders.
Philadelphia, PA: Lea and Febiger.
Grodzinsky , Y. ( 1 984). The syntactic characterization of agrammaùsm. Cognition, 16,
99- 120.
Grodzinsky. Y. ( 1986). Language deficits and the theory of syntax. Brain and Language,
27, 135-159.
Grodzinsky, Y. (1990). Theoretical perspectives on language deficits. Cambridge. MA:
MIT Press.
Halle. M. (1973). Prolegomena to a theory of word formation. Linguistic Inquiry. 4. 3-
16.
Heath, J. ( 1987). Ablaur and ambiguity phonology of a Moroccan Arabic dialect. Albany,
NY:State University of New York Press. Henderson, L. (1985). Toward a psychoiogy of morphemes. In. A.W. Ellis (Ed.),
Progress in the psychology of Imguage. VoLI. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hendenon, L., Wallis, J., & Knight, D. (1984). Morphemic structure and lexical access.
In, H. Bouma and D.G. Bouwhuis (Eds.). Attention and pe$onnonce X: Control of
language processes. Wsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Jackendoff. R. ( 1975). Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Languuge.
51 (3), 639-67 1.
Jackson, J.H. (1958). Selected writings of John Hughlings Jackson. New-York, NY:
Basic Books.
Jakobson, R. (1956). Two aspects of language and two types of aphasic disturbances. In,
R. Jakobson and M. Halle (Eds.), Fundamentals of language. (pp. 55-82). The Hague: Mouton.
Jakobson. R. (1964). Toward luiguistic typology of aphasic irnpairments. In, A.V.S. De Reuck and M. O'Connor (Eds.), Disorders of language, (pp. 21-46). London:
Churchiil.
larema, G. Br Fnederici, A.D. (1994). Processing articles and pronouns in a g r m a t i c
aphasia: Evidence from French. Braui and Lmguoge, 46.683-694.
Jarema, G. Br Kadzielawa, D. (1990). Agrammatism in Polish: A case study. In, L.
Menn and L.K. Obler (Eds.). Agrammatic aphasia. A cross-language narrative
sourcebook, (pp. 8 17-893). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
larema, G. & Kehayia, E. (1992). Impairment of inflectional morphology and lexical storage. Brain and Laquage, 43, 54 1 -564.
Jarema, G., Kehayia, E., Mimouni, Z., & Kadzielawa, D. (1991). Interaction between
rnorphology and syntax in thematic rote assignment in agrammatism: A cross-
linguistic study. Paper presented at the Academy of Aphasia 29th Annual Meeting. Rome, Italy.
Kean. M.L. ( 1 977). The linguis tic interpretatioa of aphasic syndromes: Agrammatisrn in
Broca's aphasia, an example. Cognition, 5, 9-46.
Kehayia, E. (1990). Morphological deficits in agrammatic aphasia: A comparative
linguistic study. Unpubiished doctoral dissertation. Montréal: McGili University.
Kehayia. E. (1993). Morphological priming of derived and inflected words: A
neurolinguistic and psycholinguistic study. Paper presented at the Academy of
Aphasia 31st Annual Meeting, Tucson, AZ.
Kehayia, E., Caplan, D., & Piggot, G.L. (1984). On the repetition of derivational *xes
by English agrammatics. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics, 2 (1).
Kehayia, E. & Jarema, G. (1994). Morphologicai priming (or prVn#ing?) of inflected
verbs forms: A comparative study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 8(2), 83-94.
Kehayia, E., Jarema, G., & Kadzielawa, D. (1990). A cross-linguistic study of
morphological errors in aphasia: Evidence from English, Greek and Polish. In, J.-L. Nespoulous and P. Villiard (Eds.), Morphology, phonology, and aphasia,
(pp- 140- 155). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Kempley. S.T. & Morton, 1. (1982). The effects of priming with regularly and irregularly
related words in auditory word recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 73,
44 1-454.
Kilani-Schoch, M . ( l988a). Introduction à la morphologie naturelle. Berne: Éditions Peter
Lang. Kilani-Schoch, M. (1988b). Discontinuité ou continuité de la base morphologique en
arabe classique et en arabe tunisien? Zeitschriftfur arabische linguistik, 8 1-92.
Kussmaul, A. (1878). In, R.J. Tissot, G. Mounin, and F. Lhermitte (1973).
L'agrammathw. Bruxelles: Dessart.
Lapointe, S.G. (1983). Some issues in the linguistic description of agrammatism.
Cognition, 14, 1-39.
Laudanna, A., Badecker, W.. & Caramma, A. (1989). Priming homographic stems.
Journal of Mernury and Lunguage, 28,53 1-546.
Laudanna, A. & Burani, C. (1 985). Address mechanisrns to decomposed lexical entries. Linguistics, 23, 775-792.
inflected nouns in the internai lexicon. Memory and Cognition. 8 (3,415-423.
Lukatela, G.. Mandic. 2.. Gligorijevic, B., Kostic, A., Savic, M., & Tuwey, M.T. ( 1978). Lexical decision for inflected nous. Lrmguage and Speech. 21. 166- 173.
Luria, AR. ( 1947). Traumatic Aphasia. (Reprinted in translation, Mouton, The Hague,
1970).
MacKay, DG. (1978). Denvational rules and the internai lexicon. Journal of Verbal
Leaming and Verbal Behovior, 17.6 1-7 1.
Mac Whinney , B. ( 1978). The acquisition of morphophonology . Monographs of the
Society for research in child development. Serial no. 174,43(1-2).
MagnUsd6tt.h. S. & Thrainsson, H. (1990). Agrammatism in Icelandic: Two case studies.
In, L. Menn and L.K. Obler (Eds.), Agrammatic aphasia. A cross-langunge
narrative sourcebook. (pp. 443-544). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Manelis, L. & Tharp, D.A. (1977). The processing of affixed words. Memory &
Cognition, 5. 690-695.
Matthew, H. & Kehayia, E. (1994). Sensitivity to argument structure in agramrnatism. Paper presented at the Academy of Aphasia 32ndAnnunl Meeting, Boston, MA.
McCarthy, J.J. ( 1979). Fomal problems in semitic phonology and rnorphology.
Unpubiished doctoral dissertation. Cambridge. MA: MIT. McCarthy, J. J. ( 198 1). A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. Linguistic
Inquiry, 12(3). 3734 18.
McCarthy, J.J. (1983). A prosodic account of Arabic broken plurals. la, 1. Dihoff (Ed.),
Current trends in African linguistics, I . (pp. 289-320). Fons: Dordrecht.
McCarthy, J.J. & Prince, A.S. (1990). Foot and word in prosodic morphology: The
Arabic broken plural. Naturai b g t i a g e and Linguistic Theory, 8, 209-283.
Mem. L. & Obler. L.K. (Eds.) ( 1990). Agrammatic aphmia. A cross-lunguage narrative
sourcebook. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Miceii, G. & Caramazza, A. (1988). Dissociation of inflectiond and derivational
morphology . Bruin and Language, 35,24-65.
Miceli, G. & Mazzucchi, A. (1990). Agrammatism in Italian: Two case studies. In. L.
Menn and L.K. Obler (Eds.). Agrammatic aphasia. A cross-language narrative
sourcebook, ( p p . 7 17-8 16). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mirnouni, 2. & Jarema, G. (in press). Agramrnatic aphasia in Arabic. Aphasiology.
Mimouni. 2.. Kehayia, E., Br Jarema, G. (1992). Morphological priming of inflected
nouns in a nonconcatenative language: Implications for lexical storage and access.
Congress of the Academy of Aphasia 30th Annual Meeting. Toronto. Ontario.
Murell. G.A. & Morton, J. (1974). Word recognition and morphemic structure. Journal
of Ekperimental Psychology. 102,963-968.
Nespoulous, J.-L., Dordain. M., Perron, C.. Jarema, G., & Chazd, M. (1990).
Agrammatism in French: Two case studies. In, L. Mem and L.K. Obler (Eds.), Agrammatic aphasia. A cross-language narrative sourcebook, ( p p . 623-716).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ouhalla, J. ( 199 1). Functional categories and parametric variation. New York, N Y :
Routledge. Paradis, M. ( 1983). ReadVlgs on aphasiu in bilingualr and polyglots. Quekc: Didier.
Paradis. M. (199 1). Maghrebian version of the Blingual Aphasia Test. Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaun
Pick, A. ( 19 13). In, M. Paradis ( 1983). Readings on apharia in bilinguals and po lyglots.
Que'bec: Didier.
Pinker, S. ( 199 1). Rules of language. Science, 253, 5 30-535.
Pitres. A. (1898). In, M. Paradis (1983). Readings on aphasia in bilinguals and
polyglots. Que'bec: Didier. Prather, P., Zurif, E.. Stem. C.. & Rosen. T.J. (1992). Slowed lexical access in
nonfluent aphasia: A case snidy. Brain and Language, 43,336-348.
Queneau. R. (1948). Le temps passé. In, L'htant Fatal, Paris. Rosenthal, V . & Goldblum, M.L. (1989). On certain grammatical prerequisites for
agrammatic behaviour in comprehension. JounuzZ of Neurolinguistics, 4, 179-2 1 1. Saffran. E.M., Schwartz. M.F., & Marin, O.S.M. (1980). The word order problem in
agrammatism: II. Production. Brain and Language, 10,263-280.
Schwartz, M.F., Saffran. E.M.. & Marin, O.S.M. ( 1980). The word order problern in
agrammatism. 1. Comprehension. Brain and h g u a g e , 10, 249-262.
Segui, J. & Zubizarreta, M.-L. (1985). Mental representation of morphological complex
words and lexical access. Linguistics, 23, 759-774.
Sells, P. ( 1 985). Lectures on conternporary syntactic Theories: An introduction to
governrnent-binding theory. generali~ed phrase structure gramrnar. and lexical-
fincrional grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Snodgrass. J.G. & larvella. R.J. (1972). S o m linguistic determinants of word
for morphologically related words. Journal of Verbal Leaming and Verbal Behavior.
18, 399-41 2.
Stemberger, J.P. & MacWhinney, B. (1986). Frequency and the lexical storage of
regularfy inflected fonns. Memory di Cognition, 14(1 l), 17-26.
Stemberger, J.P. & MacWhinney, B. (1988). Are inflected forms stored in the lexicon ?
In, M. Hammond and M. Noonan (Eds.), Theoretical morpholagy: Approaches in
modern linguistics, (pp. 10 1- 1 16). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Tafi, M. (1979). Recognition of afixed words and the word frequency effect. Memory &
Cognition, 7, 263-272.
Taft. M. & Forster, K. ( 1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 63 5-647.
Taft, M. & Forster. K. (1976) Lexical storage and retrieval of polymoiphemic and
polysyllabic words. Journal of Verbal Leuming and Verbal Beh ior , 15, 607-620.
Tissot, R.I., Mounin, G. & Lhennitte. F. (1 973). L'agrammatisme. Bruxelles: Dessart.
Tyler, L.K. (1992). Spoken language comprehension: An experirnental approach to
disordered and mmral processing. Cambridge, MA: ha Press.
Tyler. L.K., Osuin, R.K.. Cooke, M., & Moss, H.E. (1995). Automatic access of
lexical information in Broca's aphasics : Agauist the automaticity hypothesis. Brain
and Languuge, 48, 13 1 - 1 62.
Zhang. B.Y. & Peng, D.L. (1992). Decomposed storage in the Chinese lexicon. In, H.C. Chen & O.J.L. Tzeng (Eds.), Language processing in Chinese, (pp. 13 1 - 149).
London: Elsevier.
Zurif, E.B. & Caramaua. A. (1976). Psycholinguistic structures in aphasia: Studies in
syntax and semantics. In, H. Whitaker and K.A. Whitaker (Eds.). Studies in
neurolhguistics. Vol. I . (pp. 261-292). New York, NY: Academic Press.
APPENDIX I
LIST OF BOUND STEMS (Study One)
Target Stem Examples of occurrences of same consonant clusters
t aaat 'she followed' ta& wlx “P-' î2aat 'she hugged' Tanp T u a 'neck'
nena t 'she hit' rien S m 'tenasse* a i a t 'she greeted' qa&! halu 'w* %agnat 'she worked' ~a la l l m&l 'regret*
f aha t 'she understood' f a h s a h 'shart'
Yaga t 'she washed' Yaa fasl 'season'
2aMat 'she p u U d 2aM w2d ' human*
gaMat 'she held' 9aL?d wd 'human' damrat 'she pushed' damr x a m 'wine'
SaBat 'she drank' s'as Y a r Q 'we~t '
haspat 'she counted* ha& v a ? 'rush'
W&at 'she lcnead&* f'aip s a + 'prison '
SENTENCES USED IN THE TASES OF REPETITION, READING ALOUD AND ORAL COMPREKENSION
(Study One)
The boy hits the girl
The boy kisses the man
The girl follows the mother
The girl hits the boy
The girl hugs the woman
The man holds the old man
The man kisses the boy
The man surprises the woman
The mother follows the girl
The old man holds the man
The woman hugs the girl
The woman surprises the man
VSO
The boy hits the girl
The boy kisses the man
The girl follows the mother
The girl hits the boy
The girl hugs the woman
The man holds the old man
The man kisses the boy
The man surprises the woman
The mother follows the girl
The old =an holds the man
The woman hugs the girl
The woman surprises the man
OAS JP13
The boy is hit by the girl
The boy is kissed by the man
The girl is followed by the mother
The girl is hit by the boy
The girl is hugged by the woman
The man is held by the old man
The man is surprised by the woman
The mother is foilowed by the girl
The old man is held by the man
The woman is hugged by the girl
The woman is surprised by the man
The man is kissed by the boy
It is the boy who is kissed by the man
It is the girl who is hit by the boy
It is the girl who is hugged by the woman
It is the mother who is followed by the girl It is the girl who is foliowed by the rnother It is the man who is kissed by the boy It is the man who is surprised by the woman It is the woman who is surprised by the man It is the man who is held by the old man It is the old man who is held by the man It is the woman who is hugged by the girl
It is the boy who is hit by the girl
SENTENCES USED IN REPETITION AND READING ALOUD TASKS
(Study One)
The father does it(m)
The mother washes it/him
The boy holds it/him
The girl pushes it/him
He does it(f)
She washes itfher
He holds it/her
She pushes it/her
The father explains to him
The rnother kneads it(m)
The boy drinks it(m)
The girl counts it(m)
He explains to ber
She kneads it(f)
He di& it(f)
She counts it(f)
PICTURES USED IN ORAL COMPREHENSION (Study One)
APPENDZX V
CUMULATIVE RIESULTS OF PRIMING EXPERIMENT (Study two)
Subject cumulative results for critical stimuli Plural-Singular pairs