, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 107–125 | Cite as

Affix-favored Contrast Inequity and Psycholinguistic Grounding for Non-concatenative Morphology

  • Adam Ussishkin


Lexical Decision Task Lexical Access Lexical Item Lexical Entry Neighborhood Density 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adam, G. (2002). From variable to optimal grammar: Evidence from language acquisition and language change. Ph.D. dissertation, Tel-Aviv University.Google Scholar
  2. Bakovic, E. (2000). Harmony, dominance, and control. Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  3. Bat-El O. (1994). Stem modification and cluster transfer in Modern Hebrew. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory: 12, 571–596Google Scholar
  4. Bat-El, O. (2002). Semitic verb structure with a universal perspective. In J. Shimron, (Ed.), Language processing and language acquisition in a root-based morphology (pp. 29–59). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  5. Beckman J. (1997). Positional faithfulness, positional neutralisation, and Shona vowel harmony. Phonology, 14: 1–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benmamoun E. (1999). Arabic morphology: the central role of the imperfective. Lingua, 108: 175– 201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boudelaa S., & Marslen-Wilson W. (2000). Non-concatenative morphemes in language processing: Evidence from Standard Arabic. Proceedings of the Workshop on Spoken Word Access Processes, 1: 23–26Google Scholar
  8. Boudelaa S., & Marslen-Wilson W. (2001). Morphological units in the Arabic lexicon. Cognition, 81: 65–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boyczuk, B., & Baum, S. (1999). The influence of neighborhood density on phonetic categorization in aphasia. Brain and Language, 67, 46–70.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, R. A. (2002). Effects of lexical confusability on the production of coarticulation. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, 101.Google Scholar
  11. Bybee, J. (2005). Restrictions on phonemes in affixes: a crosslinguistic test of a popular hypothesis. Linguistic Typology, 9, 165–222.Google Scholar
  12. Cluff, M., & Luce, P. (1990). Similarity neighborhoods of spoken two-syllable words: retroactive effects on multiple activation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 551–563.Google Scholar
  13. Darden, B. (1992). The Cairene Arabic verb without form classes. In D. Brentari, et al., (Eds.), The Joy of Grammar (pp. 11–24). PhiladealPhia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  14. Davis S., & Zawaydeh B. (2001). Arabic hypocoristics and the status of the consonantal root. Linguistic Inquiry, 32: 512–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deustch, A., Frost, R., & Forster, K. (1998). Verbs and nouns are organized and accessed differently in the mental lexicon: evidence from Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1238–1255.Google Scholar
  16. Dirks, D., Takayanagi, S., Moshfegh, A., Noffsinger, P. D., & Fausti, S. (2001). Examination of the Neighborhood Activation Theory in normal and hearing-impaired listeners. Ear and Hearing, 22, 1–13.Google Scholar
  17. Even-Shoshan A. (1993). The condensed hebrew dictionary. Kiryat Ha-Sefer, JerusalemGoogle Scholar
  18. Farwaneh, S. (2006). Hypocoristics revisited: Challenging the centrality of the consonantal root. Paper presented at the 20th annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics, Kalamazoo, Michigan.Google Scholar
  19. Forster, K. (1978). Accessing the mental lexicon. In E. Walker, (Ed.), Explorations in the biology of language (pp. 139–174). Vermont: Bradford Books.Google Scholar
  20. Frost, R., Forster, K., & Deutsch, A. (1997). What can we learn from the morphology of Hebrew: a masked priming investigation of morphological representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 829–856.Google Scholar
  21. Frost R., Deutsch A., & Forster K. (2000). Decomposing morphologically complex words in a nonlinear morphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26: 751–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gordon B. (1983). Lexical access and lexical decision: mechanisms of frequency sensitivity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18: 24–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Graf. D. (2005). Alignment properties of affixes and their role in Hebrew morphology. Ms., University of Leiden.Google Scholar
  24. Heath J. (1987). Ablaut and Ambiguity. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  25. Krämer, M. (2001). What is wrong with the right side? Edge (a)symmetries in phonology and morphology. Ms., University of Ulster.Google Scholar
  26. Krämer, M. (2002). The root-affix metaconstraint and its reversal in vowel harmony. Handout of talk from 10th Manchester Phonology Meeting.Google Scholar
  27. Luce, R. (1963). Detection and recognition. In R. Luce, R. Bush, & E. Galanter, (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology (pp. 103–189), New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Luce, P. (1986). Neighborhoods of words in the mental lexicon. Research on speech perception progress report, no. 6. Bloomington: Indiana University, Psychology Department, Speech Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
  29. Luce P., & Pisoni D. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: the Neighborhood Activation Model. Ear and Hearing, 19: 1–38Google Scholar
  30. McCarthy, J. (1979). Formal problems in semitic phonology and morphology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  31. McCarthy J. (1981). A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry, 12: 373–418Google Scholar
  32. McCarthy, J. (1993). Template form in prosodic morphology. L. Stvan et al., (Eds.), Papers from the third annual formal linguistics society of midamerica conference (pp. 187–218), Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  33. McCarthy, J. (2003). Richness of the base and the determination of underlying representations. Ms., UMass [available on ROA at].Google Scholar
  34. McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In J. N. Beckman, L. Walsh Dickey, & S. Urbanczyk, (Eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18, Papers in Optimality Theory (pp. 249–384). Amherst: GLSA publication.Google Scholar
  35. McOmber, M. (1995). Morpheme edges and Arabic infixation. In Eid, Mushira (Ed.), Perspectives on arabic linguistics Vol. 7 (pp. 173–188). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  36. Metsala J. (1997). An examination of word frequency and neighborhood density in the development of spoken-word recognition. Memory and Cognition, 25: 47-56Google Scholar
  37. Morais J., Bertelson P., Cary L., & Alegria J. (1986). Literacy training and speech segmentation. Cognition, 24: 45–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moscoso del Prado Martiń, F., Deutsch, A., Frost, R., Schreuder, R., De Jong, N., & Baayen, H. (2005). Changing places: A cross-language perspective on frequency and family size in Dutch and Hebrew. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 496–512.Google Scholar
  39. Newman R., Sawusch J., & Luce P. (1997). Lexical neighborhood effects in phonetic processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 23: 873–889Google Scholar
  40. Norris D. (1994). Shortlist: A connectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition, 52: 189–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Noske, M. (2000). [ATR] harmony in Turkana: a case of FAITH SUFFIX » FAITH ROOT. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 18, 771–812.Google Scholar
  42. Paradis, C. (1992). Lexical phonology and morphology: The nominal classes in Fula. New York, London: Garland.Google Scholar
  43. Pensalfini, R. (2002). Vowel harmony in Jingulu. Lingua, 112, 561–586.Google Scholar
  44. Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms., Rutgers University, and University of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
  45. Prunet J.-F., Béland R., & Idrissi A. (2000). The mental representation of Semitic words. Linguistic Inquiry, 31: 609–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ratcliffe, R. (1998). The “Broken” Plural problem in arabic and comparative Semitic. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  47. Segalowitz S., & Lane K. (2000). Lexical access of function versus content words. Brain and Language, 75: 376–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sumner, M. (2003). Testing the abstractness of phonological representations in Modern Hebrew weak verbs. Ph.D. Dissertation, SUNY Stony Brook.Google Scholar
  49. Ussishkin, A. (1999). The inadequacy of the consonantal root: modern Hebrew denominal verbs and output-output correspondence. Phonology, 16, 401–442.Google Scholar
  50. Ussishkin, A. (2000). The emergence of fixed prosody. Ph.D. Dissertation, UC Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
  51. Ussishkin A. (2005). A fixed prosodic theory of nonconcatenative templatic morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 23: 169–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ussishkin, A., & Twist, A. (2006). Bases of affixation in Semitic: psycholinguistic evidence from Hebrew and Maltese. LSA annual meeting, Albuquerque, New Mexico.Google Scholar
  53. Ussishkin, A., and Wedel, A. (2002). Neighborhood density and the root-affix distinction. In M. Hirotani, (Ed.), Proceedings of NELS Vol 32 (pp. 539–549). GLSA, UMass Amherst.Google Scholar
  54. Vaux, B. (2005). Formal and empirical arguments for morpheme structure constraints. Handout from talk presented at LSA, Oakland, CA.Google Scholar
  55. Vitevitch M., & Luce P. (1998). When words compete: levels of processing in perception of spoken words. Psychological Science, 9: 325–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vitevitch M., Pisoni D. Luce P., & Auer E. (1999). Phonotactics, neighborhood activation and lexical access for spoken words. Brain and Language, 68: 306–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wright, R. (1997). Lexical competition and reduction in speech: a preliminary report. In Research on spoken language processing: Progress report no. 21 (1996–1997), Indiana University. MorphologyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Scince Buisness Media B.V 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations