vanFormal and semantic effects of morphological

1 Running head: MORPHOLOGICAL FAMILIES IN HEBREW

vanFormal and semantic effects of morphological families on word recognition in Hebrew

Avital Deutsch The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Victor Kuperman McMaster University

Running head: Morphological families in Hebrew

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Avital Deutsch, The Seymour Fox School of Education, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, 9190501, Israel. [email protected]

Word count: 10606

2 Running head: MORPHOLOGICAL FAMILIES IN HEBREW

Formal and semantic effects of morphological families on word recognition in Hebrew

Abstract

In Hebrew, content words are usually composed of two interleaving morphemes; roots which carry semantic information, and word-patterns which mainly carry grammatical information. The family-size effect in languages with non-concatenative morphology has been previously examined only with respect to the root. The present study reports a lexical-decision experiment with 260 Hebrew nouns representing a variety of nominal word-patterns and roots. We observed independent facilitatory effects of morphological family-sizes of the roots and the nominal word-patterns. The family size effect of the nominal word-pattern was stronger for words with low frequency. The novelty of these findings is in showing in a within-stimuli design that both morphemes have a role in defining the complex family effect in a language with non-concatenated morphology, despite the massive differences in their linguistic characteristics. The data provide evidence in favour of the proposed multi-dimensional structure of the Hebrew lexicon.

Keywords: Hebrew, lexical decision, morphology, word-patterns

3 Running head: MORPHOLOGICAL FAMILIES IN HEBREW

Introduction A morphologically complex word is necessarily at an intersection of two or more families of words, each showing a different degree of formal and semantic coherence. For instance, a derived English word government has a stem govern, which belongs to the family that also includes governor, governance, and governing, and a suffix -ment, which defines a family that includes department, embarrassment and development. Moreover, as a unique intersection of the stem and the suffix, the word government generates its own family with inflectional (governments), derivational (governmental) or compound (emergency government) members. In languages with rich morphological systems, a complex word may be implicated in a much larger number of overlapping paradigms and classes (see e.g., Milin, Durdevic, & Moscoso del Prado Martín, 2009; Milin, Kuperman, Baayen, & Kostic, 2009). Interactions between intersecting families of words are at the core of determining how complex words are learned, stored in memory, recognized and produced (see among others Bertram, Laine, & Karvinen, 1999; Bertram, Schreuder, & Baayen, 2000; Burani & Thornton, 2003; Kuperman, Bertram, & Baayen, 2010). As discussed at length below, this research question is particularly challenging in languages with non-concatenative morphology, which characterizes Semitic languages, such as Hebrew. In such languages all morphemes are bound (i.e., do not exist as stand-alone words), and are interwoven in a word form: these linguistic properties increase the effort of identifying morphemes in a complex word. The present study explores the family size effect in Hebrew, with an emphasis on the contribution of the nominal word-pattern morpheme to the family size effect in Hebrew. The primary goal of this paper is to identify the contribution of the nominal word-pattern to visual recognition of Hebrew nouns, against the backdrop of better-known contribution of the root family size and whole-word frequency. This exploration is novel because only very few studies have explored the family size effect in languages with non-concatenative morphological structure. Moreover, virtually all these studies concentrated on only one aspect of the family size effect – the contribution of the root morpheme (see below). In the remainder of the Introduction, we provide a brief sketch of the Hebrew derivational morphology and orthographic system, and briefly review research on the role that the two main Hebrew derivational morphemes – the roots and word-patterns (including the verbal and nominal patterns) in lexical access. We then motivate our research on the family size effect in Hebrew in light of previous findings, and emphasize the status of the nominal word-pattern in determining lexical representation of complex words in Hebrew.

4 Running head: MORPHOLOGICAL FAMILIES IN HEBREW

A brief description of Hebrew derivational structure and orthography In Hebrew, as in other Semitic languages, a vast majority of nouns and adjectives, as well as all verbs, are composed of two derivational morphemes, roots and word-patterns. The roots consist of consonants, usually three. A word-pattern can be a sequence of only vowels, or both vowels and consonants. While in concatenative languages positions of affixes and stems are determined by a general set of rules, a fundamental feature of derivational morphology in Semitic languages is that the phonemes of each Hebrew morpheme are interwoven in a way determined by the structure of the word-pattern. For example, the words /madega/ (a stair), and /daga/ (rank) are composed of the root d..g. embedded within the nominal word-patterns maCCeCa and CaCCa, respectively (the capital letter C represents the position of the root letters). Thus, no simple, linear decomposing principle seems likely to apply to Hebrew derivation. The root usually carries the core meaning of the word, whereas the word-pattern creates variations on this meaning. The word-pattern determines the word’s grammatical characteristics (i.e., word-class and verb sub-categorization), as well as its vocalic and metrical structure. In phonological terms, the word-pattern carries segmental information (specific vowels and sometimes consonants) and suprasegmental information (metrical structure). That is, word-pattern morphemes combine phonological, grammatical and some vague semantic information. Although the general principle of embedding a root in a word-pattern is shared by the Hebrew nominal and verbal systems, the two systems differ in some important linguistic characteristics: for a more comprehensive description, see Deutsch, Frost and Forster (1998). As the current study deals only with nouns, we will restrict our description to nominal wordpatterns. The semantic information carried by the word-patterns is very global and, for nouns, mainly classifies the core meaning of the root into large semantic categories such as tool, instrument or profession. Furthermore, semantic characteristics of the nominal patterns are often ambiguous: a given word-pattern can usually denote more than one semantic category, and specific semantic categories can be denoted by more than one such pattern. For example, the nominal word-pattern “maCCeCa” can denote a tool such as /makdexa/ (a drill), or instruments such as /mabxena/1 (a test tube) and /maʦlema/ (a camera). But it may also denote

1

Because of phonetic regularities of Hebrew, the phoneme /b/ in this and other examples below is pronounced as a [v]. Similarly the phoneme /k/ in the following example is pronounced as [x]. In all below examples, the transcription will represent the phonological structure of the word.

5 Running head: MORPHOLOGICAL FAMILIES IN HEBREW

words which are not tools or instruments, such as /madega/ (a stair) or /makpela/ (a product of multiplication). At the same time, the meaning of tool can be conveyed by other nominal word-patterns, such as ¨CaCCiC¨2, which forms the basis of /patiʃ/ (a hammer), and “miCCeCet¨, which forms the basis of /mibreʃet/ (a brush). Furthermore, there are many nominal word-patterns that can hardly be semantically characterized at all and may denote various nouns (concrete or abstract), such as ¨taCCiC¨, which gives us /tapit/ (a menu) and /taktsir/ (an abstract), or ¨tiCCoCet¨, which provides /tizmoret/ (an orchestra) and /tismonet/ (a syndrome). There are about 3000 roots versus about 100 word-patterns (only 7 of which are currently productive verbal patterns) in Modern Hebrew. Any consonant can be part of a root, but only a few can be segments of word-patterns (/m/, /n/, /ʔ/, /t/, /h/, /j/). Whereas root consonants can appear in any position within a word, the consonantal segments of wordpatterns appear at the beginning and/or end of a word. However, since the same consonants can be part of a root morpheme in one word and part of a word-pattern morpheme in another, separating the consonantal segments into the two morphemes can be difficult. The structure is even more complicated in written forms, as some of the potential roots' consonantal letters can also function as the vowel letters of a word-pattern. For example, the letter 'heh' /h/, denoting a fricative glottal consonant in the word /mehiut/ (speed), derived from the root m.h.., can also denote the vowel /a/ in the final position of a word, as in the word /madega/, whose orthographic transcription -- mdgh -- ends with the letter "heh", denoting the final vowel /a/ of the maCCeCa pattern. Hebrew script is a consonantal alphabetic script (written from right to left). It consists of 22 letters representing 22 consonants, although one (yod /j/) is a semi-vowel. At some point four of them acquired the additional function of vowels inserted into the consonantal script. In addition, pointed spelling methods were developed, with various symbols inserted into the script to represent the complete array of vowels. In Modern Hebrew these symbols are usually omitted. Thus, the generally used unpointed system is fairly opaque to the words’ vocalic structure.

2

The double CC between the two vowels represents the gemination of the second root consonant in this nominal word-pattern. In this case the vowel /a/ is a short vowel, and has a special mark in pointed Hebrew, in contrast to a long /a/. However, this phonetic distinction has not been kept in spoken Hebrew.

6 Running head: MORPHOLOGICAL FAMILIES IN HEBREW

The role of derivational morphology in lexical access in Hebrew The role of the two morphemes, the root and the (nominal and verbal) word-pattern, has been intensively investigated, mostly in visual word recognition but also in word production in Hebrew. Yet almost no work has been done on word-pattern family size effects, that is, taking into account the influence of the size of the morphological paradigm of the wordpattern, rather than an overall influence of a word-pattern on lexical access. The following is a brief description of the main findings, especially those coming from paradigms that tap into initial processes of lexical access, i.e., the masked priming lexical decision (or naming) and the eye-tracking studies measuring the parafoveal preview benefit effect. The research on written word recognition using these paradigms has revealed robust effects of the root on lexical access (Deutsch, et al., 1998; Deutsch, Frost, Pelleg, Pollatsek, & Rayner, 2003; Deutsch, Frost, Pollatsek, & Rayner, 2005; Frost, Forster, & Deutsch, 1997). The contribution of a semantic component to the root effect was examined by comparing words with transparent roots (similar to the English govern in government) to those with opaque ones (similar to depart in department). In the masked-priming paradigm, the size of the root effect has been similar for the prime-target pair of words that shared a root, whether or not they were also semantically related (Deutsch et al., 2005; Frost et al., 1997). Thus, the root effect has been argued to be independent of semantic transparency. However, in an experimental paradigm that allowed clear perception and an unequivocal identification of the priming stimuli, such as cross modal-priming with spoken primes and written targets, the root priming effect was modulated by semantic similarity and increased for semantically related pair of words (Frost, Deutsch, Gilboa, Tannenbaum, & Marslen-Wilson, 2000). Even in this case, however, root priming was evident for semantically unrelated pair of words derived from the same root, indicating its independent role in lexical access, unconditioned by semantic relation. The role of the root in lexical access was also demonstrated in word production. Using the picture-word-interference paradigm, a significant facilitation effect was induced by a shared root for the distractor stimuli and the picture to be named, regardless of the semantic similarity between the two (Deutsch & Meir, 2011; Deutsch, 2016). In contrast to the substantial experimental evidence for the influence of the root effect, the influence of nominal word-patterns on lexical access is less documented, and reported findings are mixed. (For a comprehensive review on the nominal word-pattern effect see Deutsch, Velan & Michaly, 2018). Still, the word-pattern’s influence on visual word recognition has been recently demonstrated using a fast-priming experimental paradigm for sentence reading and a “delayed-letters” procedure (Deutsch et al., 2018). This procedure

7 Running head: MORPHOLOGICAL FAMILIES IN HEBREW

allowed to isolate the facilitative effect induced by a shared nominal word-pattern and a hypothesized counteracting interference effect induced by the competition between the roots of two words that were derived from different roots but with the same nominal word-pattern. The involvement of the word-patterns in lexical access was also evident in the course of production, with the picture-word-interference paradigm. In particular, naming latency for pictures was facilitated by spoken distractors derived from the same nominal word-pattern of the pictures' names (Deutsch & Malinovitch, 2015; Kolan, Leikin, & Zwitserlood, 2011). Importantly, the role of both roots and patterns in mediating lexical access is also evident in other Semitic languages with a non-concatenative morphological structure. A series of experiments on Arabic carried by Boudelaa, Marslen-Wilson and colleagues have used the masked-priming paradigm for visual word recognition and has revealed a stable facilitating influence induced by primes that consisted of the root or the verbal-pattern morpheme (Boudelaa & Marslen-Wilson, 2005). As in Hebrew, the root priming effect was found to be independent from semantics. Unlike Hebrew, studies in Arabic revealed morphological priming effects induced by the nominal word-pattern in the regular experimental setting of masked-priming (Boudelaa & Marslen-Wilson, 2005; 2011). Importantly, the evidence of morphological priming from the nominal word-pattern is more fragile than that of other morphological priming effect (i.e., the root and verbal word-pattern effects) in Arabic, and depends on the 'productivity of the root with which a given nominal word-pattern is combined’, namely a root’ family size, as well as the conceptual transparency of the pattern. The findings in Arabic based on masked priming procedure were also replicated with other less timesensitive priming procedures which involved spoken, auditory word presentation, including cross-modal priming (Boudelaa & Marslen-Wilson, 2011) and auditory-auditory procedures (Boudelaa & Marslen-Wilson, 2013). Lastly, morphological priming effects were also examined in Maltese using an auditory-auditory priming procedure, with clearly presented or auditorily masked primes (Ussishkin, Dawson, Wedel, and Schluter, 2015). Similar to Hebrew and Arabic, a root priming effect was evident, however unlike those languages, no morphological priming effect was observed for verbal word-patterns. In sum, the findings in Semitic languages reveal clear evidence for morphological priming effects, independent from semantic factors. These findings support the common conclusion that the non-concatenated morphological units of Semitic languages mediate the process of lexical access in visual word recognition. The converging evidence based on findings obtained in visual-visual masked priming procedures, cross-modal procedures, and auditory-auditory procedures, along with findings in Hebrew in the domain of production,

8 Running head: MORPHOLOGICAL FAMILIES IN HEBREW

allow the generalization of this claim to an a-modal conceptualization of lexical access (Deutsch & Malinovitch, 2015). Despite this wealth of research, to our knowledge, very few studies on Semitic languages have directly probed the effects of morphological family size on word recognition. For instance, the only in-depth examination of the effect that a morphological family has on derived word recognition in Hebrew is a lexical decision study by Moscoso del Prado Martín, Deutsch, Frost, Schreuder, De Jong and Baayen (2005). Moreover, this study only focused on one of the major derivational morphemes in Hebrew, i.e., the root morpheme. As far as we know, no study has looked at the family size of the nominal word-pattern as a factor relevant for word recognition in Semitic languages. Since our secondary goal is to replicate effects of the root family size in Hebrew word recognition (and thus provide a test for the only demonstration of this effect so far), we briefly review the findings of Moscoso del Prado Martín et al. (2005).

Family size effect in Hebrew In line with the prior literature (Schreuder & Baayen, 1997), Moscoso del Prado Martín et al. defined family size as a number (type count) of words that share a root. As shown in Finnish (e.g., Bertram, Baayen, & Schreuder, 2000) and Germanic languages including English and Dutch (e.g., De Jong, Feldman, Schreuder, Pastizzo, & Baayen, 2002; Kuperman, Bertram, & Baayen, 2010; Schreuder & Baayen, 1997), derived words with stems that are used in a larger number of other words (i.e., words with a larger stem family) are recognized faster. Moscoso del Prado Martín et al. (2005) was the first study to demonstrate the family-size effect in a Semitic language, Hebrew, a language where a morphological root that stands at the basis of the family is by definition a non-concatenative orthographic and phonological unit and is not a stand-alone word. Another important question asked in Moscoso del Prado Martín et al. (2005) is whether morphological family effects are determined by shared family semantics or form. Since root priming effects were found to be independent of semantic similarity between the root and the whole word in Semitic languages (see above), Hebrew can provide a test for whether a nonsemantic effect of the family size is possible. To this end, Moscoso del Prado Martín et al. (2005) have distinguished between families derived from homonymic roots (roots with more than one core meaning) and non-homonymic roots (roots with only one meaning). For homonymic roots, not all members of a given root family are necessarily related, as for example

9 Running head: MORPHOLOGICAL FAMILIES IN HEBREW

in the case of the root z.m.. which appears in two semantic fields, one relating to music (e.g., /zama/ (a singer), /tizmoet/ (an orchestra), zeme (singing)), and one relating to agriculture, (e.g., /mazmea/ (pruning shears), /zmora/ (twig) and /zomer/ (he is pruning) etc). However, the members of families derived from non-homonymic roots are all semantically related, as for example in the case of the homonymic root like b.g.. with the core meaning of maturation (e.g., /bagut/ (maturity), /mitbage/ (teenager), baga (to grow up) etc.). A different pattern of results was observed for these two types of the root, which differed in their semantic characteristics. Response times to Hebrew words were facilitated by a greater family size, but only in semantically cohesive root families (i.e., non-homonymic roots). This effect is in line with family size effects reported in Indo-European languages and Finnish (e.g., Bertram et al., 2000; de Jong et al., 2002; Moscoso del Prado Martín, Bertram, Schreuder & Baayen, 2004; Schreuder & Baayen, 1997). However, for families with homonymic roots, an inhibitory effect was observed, induced by the type count of the semantically unrelated members. No inhibitory responses induced by semantically unrelated family members have ever been reported in Indo-European languages (see Schreuder, Burani, & Baayen, 2003) or Finnish (Moscoso del Prado Martín et al., 2005)3. Accordingly, Moscoso del Prado Martín et al. (2005) have suggested that the family size effect in Hebrew has two components – a facilitatory component that operates on the formal level of representation of the root units, and a central, lexical level, which involve semantic representation. In the case of homonymic roots, competition at the lexical level among the various semantic fields activated by the shared form representation of the root results in delayed response time (for a more comprehensive explanation see Moscoso del Prado Martín et al., 2005). Since our current experiment manipulates the root family size along with the family size of the nominal wordpatter, in analyzing the data we took into account the semantic characteristics of any given root as a homonymic or non-homonymic root.

3

Although inhibition effect of semantically unrelated members on the family size effect within a language was not documented, inhibitory influence was demonstrated between interlanguage homographs (Dijkstra, Moscoso del Prado Martín, Schulpen, Schreuder, & Baayen, 2005; Mulder, Dijkstra, Schreuder, & Baayen, 2014). Within a language, exclusion of semantically unrelated members from the family count enhanced the size of the effect in Dutch (Bertram, et al., 2000; but see Moscoso del Prado Martín et al. (2004) and Finnish (Moscoso del Prado Martín et al., 2004), leading to the conclusion that the effect is driven solely by semantically related morphological relatives.

10 Running head: MORPHOLOGICAL FAMILIES IN HEBREW

The role of morphological families in the organization of the Hebrew mental lexicon To reiterate, our primary interest is in the role of the nominal word-pattern in Hebrew word recognition. Given that a nominal word-pattern is a predominantly formal morphological unit with a much vaguer semantic content than a root, its examination enables us to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the nature of the family size effect with respect to its conceptual and/or formal aspects. Of particular theoretical importance is how family size effects of the root and the nominal word-pattern fit into an existing model of the Hebrew mental lexicon, described in this section. In view of a robust effect of the root and the root family, as well as an apparent independent effect of the nominal word-pattern on lexical access, the following conceptualization of the Hebrew mental lexicon was suggested. The Hebrew lexicon is organized and accessed via consonantal root units (e.g., Frost, Kugler, Deutsch & Forster, 2005), across all word classes. That is, any given root unit has all its derivations (nouns and verbs) clustered around it. Additionally, an argument has been made for a coexisting network of nominal word-patterns, in which words are clustered (across roots) according to their morpho-phonological structure (Deutsch & Malinovitch, 2015; Deutsch et al., 2018). In line with the linguistic notion that morphemes are units carrying meaning, this multi-dimensional organization exploits both the formal and semantic aspects of morphological units. Accordingly, the level of organization of the lexicon via root units categorizes words according to their semantic content (in most cases), whereas the organization according to a word-pattern is phonologically and orthographically based, using the vowels and the words’ supra-segmental structure. The process of morphological decomposition during word recognition is thus envisioned as a reciprocal process in which the two basic derivational morphemes are computed concurrently. The dual-component structure of the decomposition may help the parsing system allocate orthographic segments to morphological segments, that is, decide which letters belong to the word-patterns and which to the root (see Frost 2006; 2012 for a comprehensive account of this notion). Under this view, the two morphemes together provide all aspects of the word: its complete phonological and supra-segmental structure, as well as the semantic and grammatical information. To demonstrate the validity of this account, one needs to present evidence that both morphemes (the root and the word-pattern) and their respective families have independent impact on lexical organization. One also needs to delineate the mutual influence that the morphological components of this complex organization have on lexical access. As noted above, evidence concerning the morphological family effects, has only been reported once so far, and only with respect to the root morpheme (Moscoso del Prado Martín et al., 2005). The

11 Running head: MORPHOLOGICAL FAMILIES IN HEBREW

current study is the first psycholinguistic investigation of families of Hebrew words sharing nominal word-patterns. Below we report a lexical decision study of Hebrew nouns selected to represent a spectrum of nominal word-patterns with families widely variable in their size. We predict that the word-pattern family size will have an independent contribution to the speed and accuracy of Hebrew word recognition over and above whole-word frequency. A word-pattern family size effect would be a strong demonstration that families are influential even if their role in the whole word is purely formal and semantically vacuous. Selected words also showed a natural variability in the size of their root family: In this same study, we have also examined the root family effect. This enables us to replicate the root effect previously demonstrated in Hebrew, and to examine possible interactions between the lexical frequency of the target words and their respective families (root and nominal wordpattern) effects. We expect potential interactions between these effects to grant further insights into the architecture of the mental lexicon of a Hebrew speaker.

Methods Participants Thirty-three undergraduate students at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem were recruited via the internal experimental registration electronic system of the Hebrew University. Students participated in the experiment for course credit or for payment (about $4 for each participant). All were native speakers of Hebrew and reported no reading impairments. All had normal or corrected (via glasses or contact lenses) vision.

Materials Estimation of nominal word-pattern family size: As a first step, we selected nominal word-patterns to represent a range of families with a very small to a very large number of members. The eleven chosen nominal word-patterns are reported in Table 1. "Table 1 about here”

For each nominal word-pattern, we conducted a search for word-forms matching the pattern in a frequency database of the 165 million word-token Hebrew Blog corpus by Linzen (2009). In the second step, we identified lemmas and obtained estimates of lemma frequency

12 Running head: MORPHOLOGICAL FAMILIES IN HEBREW

by summing up frequencies of word-forms in singular and plural (e.g., frequency of lemma /madʁega/ (a stair) factored in a sum of frequencies of /madʁega/ and /madʁegot/ (stairs)). Since in Hebrew the definite determiner ha and certain prepositions are written jointly with the word-form they modify, we also added to the lemma frequency estimate the frequencies of word- forms preceded by the determiners and prepositions. Thus, the frequency estimate of lemma /madʁega/ also factored in frequencies of forms like /hamadʁegot/ (the stairs), /lemadʁega/ (to a stair), /mehamadʁega/ (from the stair) and others. The resulting list of lemmas was adjudicated by the research assistant to exclude typos and other erroneous matches in the nominal word-pattern family. The literature on morphological families in European languages typically quantifies the magnitude of a family in two ways: a type count, i.e., a family size (the count of different members in the family) or token count, i.e., family frequency (the summed frequency of all members in the family). For comparability with Moscoso del Prado Martín et al.’s (2005) work on Hebrew and most other work on morphological families in non-Semitic languages, we opted for family size (type count) as a measure of family magnitude. Thus, any orthographic form that was picked by our search, and could be read as a word derived from a given nominal wordpattern, entered into its family size count. Thus for example the family size count of the orthographic form mtn included the nouns /mitan/ (luggage) and /maten/ (a charger(. Furthermore, only typical forms of Hebrew words (i.e., complex words that include the explicit appearance of all three root's consonants and the complete syllabic structure of the word-pattern) were included in the stimuli list and in the type frequency estimation of the nominal word-patterns.4 No forms were included in which one of the root's consonants is assimilated into the following root's radical causing variation in the syllabic structure of the pattern. This restriction might have decreased our estimates of the type size of nominal wordpatterns In the third step, we selected experimental stimuli from the list of available lemmas using the following criteria. Excluded were lemmas that (i) had homographs outside of the nominal word-pattern so that each stimulus could represent only one word in Hebrew, (ii) presented phonological patterns that were atypical of the regular nominal word-pattern (e.g., changes in some of the vowels due to phonetic features of specific root consonants), or (iii) occurred 10 or fewer times in the Hebrew Blog corpus, and thus are likely to be unknown to

4

The words derived from the nominal word-pattern CiCCuC include quadrilateral roots formed from gemination of a sequence of two consonants.

13 Running head: MORPHOLOGICAL FAMILIES IN HEBREW

most Hebrew speakers. A total of 260 Hebrew nouns were selected. Since word-pattern families ranged in size, the number of stimuli selected from each nominal word-pattern was variable too. Estimation of root family size: As a fourth step, we determined root families for all selected stimuli. Our 260 words represented 225 unique roots. Each root was looked up in the appendix of Even-Shoshan’s (1983) dictionary and the reported count of lemmas sharing this root was used as an estimate of type-based root family size. Moreover, Even-Shoshan provides information on (potentially multiple) meanings associated with a given root, and associates lemmas within a root family with each meaning. This enabled us to estimate the Related and Unrelated family size, as counts of lemmas that shared a root with our target lemmas and either were or were not semantically similar to the meaning of our targets (see Moscoso del Prado Martin et al., 2005). With a few exceptions, a root occurred only once in our stimuli. Finally, we complemented 260 target words by an equal number of nonwords. All nonwords were derived from existing nominal word-patterns and were created by changing one letter to generate a non-existing root. The non-words were all pronounceable combinations in Hebrew. One hundred and thirty of the non-words were derived from the same 11 nominal word-patterns used for the target words, and another 130 non-words were derived from 11 nominal word-patterns other than the ones used for target words. The list of the nominal wordpatterns and the number of stimuli derived from each such pattern is reported in Table 1.

Variables Dependent variables were latency and accuracy of responses to word and nonword stimuli in a lexical decision task. For each stimulus, we obtained the following independent variables: lemma frequency of occurrence (Frequency), nominal word-pattern family size (Pattern Size), and both the total root family size (Root Size) and family sizes of semantically related and unrelated subsets of the root family (Related and Unrelated Root Size), see above. Table S1 in the Supplementary materials reports the Hebrew target words used in this study and their lexical characteristics. Since distributions of both the word-pattern and root family sizes were skewed, we logtransformed them (base e). Also, with a slight modification of Moscoso del Prado Martín et al. (2005), we calculated a ratio of unrelated to related root family size R = log(Unrelated+1)/log(Related+1) to quantify the degree of semantic support that a lemma receives from its root family.

14 Running head: MORPHOLOGICAL FAMILIES IN HEBREW

Additionally, we indexed each word for its word length in characters. Responses in a lexical decision task are known to be affected by a participant’s performance in previous trials (Baayen, Vasishth, Kliegl, & Bates, 2017), accordingly we included both the response time and accuracy of the previous trial, and the ordinal number of the trial in the experiment, as covariates. All variables and their descriptive statistics for the selected stimuli before and (where applicable) after transformation are presented in Table 2. "Table 2 about here”

Apparatus and Procedure The experiment was conducted on an IBM Intel core 6600 computer paired up with a CRT LG Flatron screen. The software used for presenting of stimuli and for measuring the reaction times was DMDX (version 5.1.3.4) display system. The stimulus list consisting of 260 words and 260 nonwords. The complete list of stimuli was divided into 2 blocks. Each block included 130 words and 130 non-words with the same distribution of nominal word-patterns in each block. Stimuli within each block were randomized for each participant. Stimuli were presented one at a time in the middle of the screen, preceded by a fixation mark for 500 ms. The stimuli were written in black letters on a white background, font David, in the size of 20-point letters. Each stimulus remained on the screen for 1500 ms, and was followed by a 500 ms of black screen. The maximum time span allowed for response was 2000 ms from stimulus onset. Participants were instructed to determine whether the presented string is an existing word or not by pressing the right bottom of a two-keys response box for “yes” and the left bottom for “no”. The experiment was preceded by 4 training trials. Feedback was given at the end of each training trail. No feedback was given during the experiment itself. Participant could ask for a short intermission between the two blocks. The entire experiment lasted no longer than 20 minutes.

Statistical considerations We made use of generalized additive mixed effects models (GAM models; Hastie & Tibshirani, 1990; Wood, 2006) as implemented in the mgcv package 1.8-7 (Wood, 2006; 2011) of the R statistical computing software (R Core Team, 2015). Unlike a linear regression model, in a GAM model the functional relation between a predictor and the response variable need not be linear (Baayen, Kuperman, & Bertram, 2010). Instead, the GAM enables a flexible smoothing

15 Running head: MORPHOLOGICAL FAMILIES IN HEBREW

of nonlinear relations in any number of dimensions. In a GAM, multiple predictors may be combined in a single smooth, yielding either a nonlinear functional relationship (between one independent variable and a dependent variable), a wiggly surface (when two independent variables are combined) or a wiggly hypersurface (when three or more independent variables are combined). Our critical two-way interactions (word frequency x word-pattern family size and word frequency x root family size) and three-way interactions (word frequency x wordpattern family size x root family size) used tensor products to approximate complex surfaces formed by either two or three independent variables and a dependent one. These nonlinear interactions are not reported in an ANOVA-style (as a combination of main effects and an interaction term) but rather as parameters characterizing the shape of the smoothed surface and its inferential statistics. We log-transformed word frequency and family sizes of the nominal word-pattern and the root to remove skewness; we further z-transformed these variables for comparability of scales. Due to skeweness, response times in the lexical decision tasks were inverse-transformed and multiplied by -1000 to ensure that increasing values correspond to longer response latencies and that the value range of the dependent variable is on par with other variables. The inverse transformation was indicated by the Box-Cox test. Models with continuous dependent variables (e.g., response times) used the underlying Gaussian distribution, while binary variables (accuracy) used the binomial distribution. To attenuate the influence of outliers, we removed data points with absolute scaled residuals exceeding 2.5 standard deviations, and refitted each model after trimming: these are the models reported below. Inclusion of random effects (including by-item and by-participant splines for experimental effects, Baayen et al., 2017) was permitted when it improved the performance of the model, as indicated by the compareML function of the itsadug library (van Rij et al., 2015). Finally, in all models we observed that inclusion of the previous trial’s latency and accuracy rendered unnecessary further account of autocorrelated errors in the lexical decision performance (Baayen, van Rij, Cat, & Wood, 2017): autocorrelation terms did not additionally improve the performance of the models. In the interest of space, we only reported models where critical predictors and interactions reached statistical significance: other models are available upon request. To visualize a wiggly multi-dimensional surface formed by a two-way interaction A x B we opted for presenting its two-dimensional cross-sections as effects of one predictor (A) on a dependent variable at fixed levels (10, 30, 50, 70 and 90th percentiles) of another predictor (B). These visualizations are made on the basis of models reported below and use the function plot_smooth in the itsadug package (van Rij, Wieling, Baayen, & van Rijn, 2015). For

16 Running head: MORPHOLOGICAL FAMILIES IN HEBREW

legibility, values of the dependent variables were back-transformed to milliseconds in the plots only. For detailed description and worked examples of the use of generalized mixed-effects additive models in psycholinguistics see Balling and Baayen (2012), Matuschek, Kliegl, and Holschneider (2015). We also fitted linear mixed effects models, which supported the interactive patterns revealed by the GAM models. However, GAM models offered a more accurate approximation of non-linear patterns, such as ones found and discussed below. We do not report lmer models here for the sake of space.

Results and Discussion The original data pool consisted of 17,610 data points (33 participants x 520 stimuli). We removed 25 items (17 words and 8 nonwords) with an error rate about 30%. No participant showed an error rate over 20%: no participants were removed from consideration. The resulting data set contained 16,335 trials: a subset of 8,019 responses to existing words was analyzed for response accuracy. We further extracted a subset of 7,394 correct responses to existing words, removed all trials with RTs shorter than 400 ms and – to eliminate exceedingly short or long responses as outliers – we further removed the bottom and top 1% of the RT distribution for every participant. The resulting data set of 7,034 data points served as a basis for our RT analysis.

Response latencies The RT distribution had a typical heavy right tail, and had a mean of 677 ms (sd = 197 ms), a median of 632 ms, and a range of 401 to 1779 ms. Effects of critical importance for our study were those of word frequency, nominal word-pattern family size and root family size, observed either as independent effects or interactions. The best-performing generalized additive model fitted to response latencies showed a two-way nonlinear (tensor product) interaction of word frequency by nominal word-pattern family size as well as a main effect of root family size: for model specification see Tables 3 and 4. It also contained such control predictors as word length, RT to the previous stimulus, as well as random intercepts for word and nominal word-pattern and random by-subject splines for the ordinal trial number in the experimental list (Baayen et al., 2017). "Table 3 about here” "Table 4 about here”

17 Running head: MORPHOLOGICAL FAMILIES IN HEBREW

A highly reliable two-way interaction (F = 15.218, p < 0.001) shown in Figure 1, left panel revealed that the disadvantage that low-frequency words showed was particularly strong from words belonging to small-size nominal word-patterns. For nominal word-patterns with the size equal to or greater than the median family size (50-th percentile or higher), the predicted effect of word frequency was nearly identical, ranging from about 680 ms for the lowest-frequency words to about 570 ms for the highest-frequency words. However, words from smaller patterns (at the 10-th or 30-th percentile of the nominal word-pattern size distribution) showed the same predicted RTs for the highest-frequency words (i.e., 570 ms), but much longer predicted RTs for lower-frequency words, reaching a maximum predicted RT of 760 ms and 740 ms respectively. We elaborate on this finding in the General Discussion.

============= INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE =============

Figure 1 right panel further demonstrates a reliable linear facilitatory effect of root family size on lexical decision RTs (F = 4.299, p = 0.004). Words with more commonly occurring roots were recognized faster, with an estimated difference of about 25 ms between the smallest and largest root family. Like the nominal word-pattern effect in lower frequency words, this observation suggests that one’s experience with recognizing a given root in a larger number of morphological contexts comes with an advantage in recognizing any member of the root family. Contrary to the findings of Moscoso del Prado Martín et al. (2005), we did not observe an independent (linear or nonlinear) effect of either the unrelated-to-related ratio, or separately considered related root family size or its unrelated counterpart. We elaborate on this discrepancy in the General Discussion. Finally, comparisons with the model reported above (Tables 3 and 4) indicated a weaker performance of the models containing three-way interactions of word frequency x word-pattern family size x root family size or ratio, or any other combination of two-way interactions between indices related to word, nominal wordpattern and root. Thus, none of these interactions was supported by the data.

Accuracy The overall accuracy of responding to existing words was 95%. The best-performing model fitted to the binary variable of accuracy contained a two-way interaction (tensor product) between word frequency x nominal word-pattern family size, as well as non-interactive effects of length, previous RT and the same random effects as in the model above (Tables 3 and 4). Specifications of the model are reported in Tables 5 and 6.

18 Running head: MORPHOLOGICAL FAMILIES IN HEBREW

The two-way interaction predicting accuracy converged in its nature with the interaction predicting response times, and was highly reliable (χ2 = 118.182, p < 0.001). Words from all nominal word-patterns showed higher accuracy if they had a higher frequency of occurrence. However, words from small nominal word-patterns (e.g., at the 10-th percentile of word-pattern family size) showed a greater disadvantage due to a low frequency of occurrence than words from larger nominal word-patterns. Again, we interpret this as support for the notion that the discontinuous nominal word-pattern is part and parcel of the word recognition process in Hebrew, in that more common patterns serve as stronger ortho-phonological cues to the grammatical function and meaning of the word under recognition. No index of the root family size reached statistical significance in the model, and neither were three-way or any other two-way interactions reliable. Finally, longer words elicited less accurate responses (b = -0.356, SE = 0.100, z = -3.57, p < 0.001). "Table 5 about here” "Table 6 about here” ============= INSERT FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE =============

General Discussion The present study addresses a long-standing question of representation of complex words in the mental lexicon, and their retrieval during written comprehension. In Hebrew, the target language of our study, the typical and most common word structure is a composition of two basic morphemes which interweave to form a word in a non-concatenative way. This nonlinearity makes languages like Hebrew a particularly intriguing test-case for theories of morphological processing, and for the often hypothesized processes of morphological parsing and semantic composition. Our study focused on Hebrew nouns, which present a combination of two bound derivational morphemes: a root and a nominal word-pattern. Our main point of interest was to test whether the morphological family of a nominal word-pattern influences the word recognition effort, over and above the properties of the word itself and multiple additional controls. To our knowledge, this is a first study to address this question. A dominant conceptualization of the family size effect is a notion that families affect recognition of a word because – and to the extent that -- they are semantically similar to that word (see Moscoso del

19 Running head: MORPHOLOGICAL FAMILIES IN HEBREW

Prado Martin et al., 2004; 2005). Since nominal word-patterns in Hebrew are morphological units which carry only vague and coarse semantic information, a demonstration of a family size effect stemming from those patterns would make a strong case against this notion. In a within-study design, we combined this examination with a test of the root family effect for the same target words taking into account semantic coherence characteristics of any given root. A lexical decision study with 260 derived nouns selected from 11 nominal wordpatterns and representing 225 unique roots revealed importance nominal word-pattern family, as well as root family effects. Thus, words that belonged to larger nominal word-pattern families or root families (i.e., words whose nominal word-patterns or roots were shared by a larger number of other words) showed shorter lexical decision latencies. Larger nominal wordpattern families were also associated with higher accuracy. The influence of the word-pattern emerged in an interaction with derived word frequency: lower-frequency words from small nominal word-pattern families took longer to process and elicited more errors that lowerfrequency words from large word-patterns. We interpret this finding as evidence that the ortho-phonological information encoded in a nominal word-pattern is accessed during visual word recognition in Hebrew, along with the information carried by the root. The nominal word-pattern family appears to provide paradigmatic support to its members, similar to the facilitatory effects of the root effect in Hebrew. A greater experience with processing morphologically similar forms, i.e., forms sharing the non-concatenative word-nominal pattern in Hebrew, grants a degree of advantage in the speed of recognizing words from that word-pattern. This conclusion accords with previous findings concerning the influence of nominal word-patterns on very early phases of visual word recognition (Deutsch et al., 2018) and lexical access in word production (Deutsch & Malinovitch, 2016), as well as with findings in Arabic that revealed the influence of wordpatterns in various priming paradigms tapping on processes of lexical access, (see the Introduction). As argued above, nominal word-patterns are semantically vague and offer at best a very low level of semantic coherence between respective family members. The observed family size effect is exciting because it provides evidence that a purely formal relationship (as the one observed between nouns sharing a nominal word-pattern and is operationalized as the type number of these nouns) is sufficient to elicit an appreciable effect on the word recognition effort. This is a novel addition to be body of literature showing an involvement of the wordpattern families in recognition of Hebrew words in print.

20 Running head: MORPHOLOGICAL FAMILIES IN HEBREW

We also replicated the main effect of root family size on lexical decision responses, first reported in Moscoso del Prado Martin (2004; 2005), with another set of stimuli and a broader selection of roots and root families. However, some of Moscoso del Prado Martín et al.’s (2005) results did not find a replication in our data. The degree of semantic coherence in the root family (measured as a ratio of semantically related members of the family to semantically unrelated ones) predicted whether the root family size effect would be facilitatory or inhibitory in Moscoso del Prado Martín et al (for related work see Marelli, Amenta, & Crepaldi, 2015). Yet no main effect or an interaction involving semantic coherence in the root family was observed in our data. One possibility is that the discrepancy is due to the differences in the design and statistical analysis between the two studies. As the main focus of the present study was to investigate the nominal word-pattern effect, we did not create a balanced representation of homonymic roots (i.e., roots with semantically diverse members) and nonhomonymic roots (i.e., roots where all members are semantically related). Thus, most of our roots (152 out or 225) were non-homonymic and thus semantically coherent; moreover, among homonymic and semantically diverse roots most only had 1 to 3 members unrelated to the meaning of the target word. As a result, our study did not offer a sufficient range of values to investigate the effect of relatedness in meaning between members of a root family. Another possibility is that semantics is simply not a core component of a family size effect in Hebrew: it is observed in some selections of items but may not generalize to all items. This possibility would be in line with our own finding of a non-semantic effect of nominal word-pattern family size and with prior reports of semantically independent effects of the root and word-pattern morphemes (see Introduction). The present data do not allow for further disentangling of these possibilities: we leave this to future research. Finally, the present results are novel in uncovering evidence in Hebrew for the involvement of morphological families of both core morphemes in an experiment with a withinstimuli design. This combined influence dovetails well with reported effects that multiple morphological families jointly exert in concatenative languages (e.g., families of the base and the suffix in a derived word, or of the first and second constituents in a compound, see the Introduction for references)..

Theoretical implications: Our demonstration of the family size effect of nominal word-patterns sheds new light on both generic models of morphological processing and the ones proposed for Hebrew specifically. To reiterate, the effect is intriguing given that (a) a family size effect is often argued to mostly be of semantic nature (De Jong et al., 2002; 2004; including the root

21 Running head: MORPHOLOGICAL FAMILIES IN HEBREW

family size effect in Hebrew, see Moscoso del Prado Martín et al., 2005), but (b) semantic characteristics of the nominal word-patterns are vague (see the Introduction). Specifically, the theoretical framework advocated by Moscoso del Prado Martín et al. (2005) suggested that the root family effect in Hebrew includes two components – one which operates at a formal level of word presentation, and is insensitive to semantic notions, and the other which operates at a higher, central lexical level, sensitive to semantic meaning. In this framework, our results can be interpreted as an indication that the nominal word-pattern family size effect takes place at the formal level along with the root family effect. This viewpoint is aligned with the role that a nominal word-pattern plays in Hebrew derivation, i.e., as a mostly formal unit expressed in the orthographic, phonological and supra-segmental word structure. Apparently, ascribing the family size effect to the root morpheme (i.e., the morpheme which carries the core semantic meaning of the word) is incomplete, in a language where no morpheme can be a stand-alone word. The observation that nominal word-pattern family size interacted with derived word frequency is a necessary piece of evidence to support conceptualization of Hebrew morphology proposed in Frost (2006; 2012). There are at least two organizing principles for words in the mental lexicon of a Hebrew speakers. Words are organized around roots that map into semantic units and, as we demonstrate here in the context of 'the family size effect', around nominal word-patterns as units providing a word with its phonological (including supra-segmental) and orthographic form (Frost, 2006; 2012). The word frequency x word-pattern family size interaction fits well the premises of the dual- or multiple-route models (Burani & Laudanna, 1992; Schreuder & Baayen, 1995; Baayen, et al., 1997; Kuperman et al., 2009), i.e., the “hungry” parallel and simultaneous access to all formal and semantic information stored in both the morphemes and their combinations (Libben, 2005). Interestingly, no interaction between word frequency and root family size was observed either in the current experiment or in the previous demonstration of the root family size effect in Hebrew (Moscoso del Prado Martín et al., 2015). Since a null effect cannot be conclusively interpreted in the null-hypothesis statistical-testing framework, we confine ourselves to listing some possibilities for the absence of this interaction. One is a possibility that an interaction would be observed if wider ranges of both root family size and word frequency were employed in the experiment, and if a superior statistical power were achieved by using a larger number of items or subjects. Another possibility is that the word-pattern family size and word frequency operate on the same level of representation (formal), while at least some cognitive factors underlying the root family size effect operate on a different, higher level (semantic). A series

22 Running head: MORPHOLOGICAL FAMILIES IN HEBREW

of large-scale investigations using large numbers of items and subjects and, ideally, a variety of time-sensitive experimental paradigms is required to establish whether word frequency interacts with family sizes of both morphemes or only with that of the nominal word-pattern. Finally, the existence of family size effect anchored in a nominal word-pattern is evidently easy to incorporate into theories that posit explicit representation of morphemic units, independently of the semantic level of word representation. However, it is harder to reconcile with the current implementations of “amorphous” models that claim a direct mapping between forms and meaning (e.g., Baayen et al., 2011). These implementations encode contiguous sequences of letters as formal cues to meanings. Thus, Hebrew morphology presents amorphous models with a new challenge of simulating human performance, i.e., picking up non-concatenative, interleaved orthographic patterns from an input that does not overtly express most vowels, and learning the mappings between these formal patterns and meanings that range from very well defined (for roots that have semantically coherent families), to disperse (for roots with semantically diverse families), to extremely generic (for a majority of nominal word-patterns). In sum, the demonstration of the nominal word-pattern’s influence, along with the root’s influence, is a crucial step towards the ultimate experimental purpose of empirically demonstrating the interaction between morphemes in a complex word and in the Hebrew mental lexicon. Our study has strengthened the empirical base for studying storage and retrieval of non-concatenative morphology from the mental lexicon of Hebrew speakers, and made a step towards formulating critical tests for existing models of morphological processing.

Acknowledgments Thanks are due to Jonathan Mey-Tal for his help with stimulus selection and data collection. This work was supported by the Lady Davis Foundation (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) visiting professorship and the following research grants to the second author: The Canadian NSERC Discovery grant RGPIN/402395-2012 (Kuperman, PI), the Ontario Early Researcher award (Kuperman, PI), the Canada Research Chair (Kuperman, PI), the CFI Leaders Opportunity Fund (Kuperman, PI), the SSHRC Partnership Training Grant 895-2016-1008 (Libben, PI). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Canadian government.

23 Running head: MORPHOLOGICAL FAMILIES IN HEBREW

References Baayen, R. H., Dijkstra, T., & Schreuder, R. (1997). Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual-route model. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 94-117. Baayen, R.H., Kuperman, V., & Bertram, R. (2010). Frequency effects in compound processing. In S. Scalise & I. Vogel (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding, (pp. 257–270). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Johns Benjamins. Baayen, R. H., Milin, P., Đurđević, D. F., Hendrix, P., & Marelli, M. (2011). An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological review, 118, 438. Baayen, R. H., van Rij, J., van, De Cat, C. & Wood, S. N. (2018). Autocorrelated errors in experimental data in the language sciences: Some solutions offered by Generalized Additive Mixed Models. In D. Speelman, K. Heylen, & D. Geeraerts, (Eds.) Mixed Effects Regression Models in Linguistics, (pp. 49-69). Berlin: Springer. Baayen, R. H., Vasishth, S., Kliegl, R., and Bates, D. (2017). The cave of Shadows. Addressing the human factor with generalized additive mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 206 - 234. Balling, L. W., & Baayen, R. H. (2012). Probability and surprisal in auditory comprehension of morphologically complex words. Cognition, 125, 80-106. Bertram, R., Laine, M., & Karvinen, K. (1999). The interplay of word formation type, affixal homonymy, and productivity in lexical processing: Evidence from a morphologically rich language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 213–226. Bertram, R., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2000). The balance of storage and computation in morphological processing: The role of word formation type, affixal homonymy, and productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 26, 489–511. Boudelaa, S. & Maslen-Wilson, W. D. (2004). Allomorphic variation in Arabic: Implications for lexical processing and representation. Brain and Language, 90, 106-116. Boudelaa, S., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2005). Discontinous morphology in time: Incremental masked priming in Arabic. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 2017-260. Boudelaa, S., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2011). Productivity and priming: Morphemic

24 Running head: MORPHOLOGICAL FAMILIES IN HEBREW decomposition in Arabic. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 624-652.

Boudelaa, S., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2013). Morphological structure in the Arabic mental lexicon: Parallels between standard and dialectal Arabic. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 1453-1473. Burani, C., & Laudanna, A. (1992). Units of representation for derived words in the lexicon. Advances in psychology, 94, 361-376. Burani, C., & Thornton, A. (2003). The interplay of root, suffix and wholeword frequency in processing derived words. In R. H. Baayen & R. Schreuder (Eds.), Morphological structure in language processing (pp. 157–208). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. De Jong, N. H., Feldman, L. B., Schreuder, R., Pastizzo, M., & Baayen, R. H. (2002). The processing and representation of Dutch and English compounds: Peripheral morphological and central orthographic effects. Brain and Language, 81, 555-567. De Jong, N. H., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2000). The morphological family size effect and morphology. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 329–365. Deutsch, A. (2016). The separability of morphological processes from semantic meaning and syntactic class in production of single words: Evidence from the Hebrew root morpheme. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45, 1-28. Deutsch, 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, & Cognition, 24, 1238-1255. Deutsch, A., Frost, R., Peleg, S, Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K (2003). Early morphological effects in reading: Evidence from parafoveal preview benefit in Hebrew. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 415-422. Deutsch, A. Frost, R. Pollatsek, K. & Rayner, K. (2005). Morphological parafoveal preview benefit effects in reading: Evidence from Hebrew. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 341-371. Deutsch, A. & Malinovitch, T. (2016). The role of the morpho-phonological word-pattern unit in single-word production in Hebrew. Journal of Memory and Language, 87, 1-15. Deutsch, A., & Meir, A. (2011). The role of the root morpheme in mediating word production in Hebrew. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 716-744.

25 Running head: MORPHOLOGICAL FAMILIES IN HEBREW Deutsch, A., Velan, H. & Michaly, T. (2018). Decomposition in a non-concatenated morphological structure involves more than just the roots: Evidence from fast priming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 7, 85-92. Dijkstra, T., Moscoso del Prado Martín, F., Schulpen, B., Schreuder, R., & Harald Baayen, R. (2005). A roommate in cream: Morphological family size effects on interlingual homograph recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 7-41. Even-Shoshan, A. (1982). The New Dictionary in three Volumes. (in Hebrew). Supplement volume, 1983, Appendix II. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer. Frost, R., Deutsch, A., Gilboa, O., Tannenbaum, M., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2000). Morphological priming: Dissociation of phonological, semantic, and morphological factors. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1277-1288. Frost, R., Forster, K. I., & 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. Frost, R., Kugler, T., Deutsch, A., & Forster, K. I. (2005). Orthographic structure versus morphological structure: principles of lexical organization in a given language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 31, 1293-1326. Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (1990). Generalized additive models. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Kolan, L., Leikin, M., & Zwitserlood, P. (2011). Morphological processing and lexical access in speech production in Hebrew: Evidence from picture–word interference. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 286-298. Kuperman, V., Bertram, R. and Baayen, R.H. (2008). Morphological dynamics in compound processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 23, 1089-1132. Kuperman, V., Bertram, R. & Baayen, R.H. (2010). Processing trade-offs in the reading of Dutch derived words. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 83-97. Kuperman, V., Bertram, R., Schreuder, R. and Baayen, R.H. (2009). Reading of polymorphemic Dutch compounds: Towards a multiple route model of lexical processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 35,, 876–895. Libben, G. (2005). Everything is psycholinguistics. Material and methodological considerations in the study of compound processing. Canadian Journal of Linguistics,

26 Running head: MORPHOLOGICAL FAMILIES IN HEBREW 50, 267-283.

Linzen, T. (2009). Corpus of blog postings collected from the Israblog website. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. Marelli, M., Amenta, S., & Crepaldi, D. (2015). Semantic transparency in free stems: The effect of Orthography-Semantics Consistency on word recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 1571-1583. Matuschek, H., Kliegl, R., & Holschneider, M. (2015). Smoothing spline ANOVA decomposition of arbitrary splines: An application to eye movements in reading. PloS One, 10(3), e0119165. Milin, P., Đurđević, D. F., & Moscoso del Prado Martín, F. M. (2009). The simultaneous effects of inflectional paradigms and classes on lexical recognition: Evidence from Serbian. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 5064. Milin, P., Kuperman, V., Kostic, A., & Baayen, R.H. (2009). Paradigms bit by bit: An information-theoretic approach to the processing of inflection and derivation. In J. P. Blevins, & J. Blevins (Eds.), Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition, (pp. 214-252). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Moscoso del Prado Martín, F., Bertram, R., Häikiö, T., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2004). Morphological family size in a morphologically rich language: the case of Finnish compared with Dutch and Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 1271. Moscoso del Prado Martín, F., Deutsch, A., Frost, R., Schreuder, R., De Jong, N. H., & Baayen, R. H. (2005). Changing places: A cross-language perspective of frequency and family size in Dutch and Hebrew. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 496-512. Mulder, K., Dijkstra, T., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, H. R. (2014). Effects of primary and secondary morphological family size in monolingual and bilingual word processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 72, 59-84. Plaut, D. C., & Gonnerman, L. M. (2000). Are non-semantic morphological effects

27 Running head: MORPHOLOGICAL FAMILIES IN HEBREW

incompatible with a distributed connectionist approach to lexical processing?. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 445-485. R Core Team (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2008). Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 942-971. Rueckl, J. G., Mikolinski, M., Raveh, M., Miner, C. S., & Mars, F. (1997). Morphological priming, fragment completion, and connectionist networks. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 382-405. Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (1997). How complex simplex words can be. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 118-139. Schreuder, R., Burani, C., & Baayen, R. H. (2003). Parsing and semantic opacity. In E. M. H. Assink & D. Sandra (Eds.). Reading complex words. Cross-language studies (pp. 159-189). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Usisshkin, A., Dawson, C., R., Wedel, A., and Schluter, K. (2015). Auditor masked priming in Maltese word recognition. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 1096-1115. Van Rij, J., Wieling, M., Baayen, R. H., & van Rijn, H. (2015). itsadug: Interpreting time series, autocorrelated data using gamms. R package, version, 1(1). Wood, S. N. (2006). On confidence intervals for generalized additive models based on penalized regression splines. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Statistics, 48, 445-464. Wood, S. N. (2011). Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 73, 3-36.

28 Running head: MORPHOLOGICAL FAMILIES IN HEBREW

Table 1. Nominal word-patterns with their corpus-based estimates of family size (number of unique nouns in the word-pattern) and the number of stimuli used in the experiment. “C” in the name of the word-pattern stands for a consonant. Given in italic are the commonly used names of the nominal word-patterns in which the root consonants are presented by the letters Q, T, and L.

Nominal

word Example

pattern

Word-pattern family Number of stimuli in size (type count)

the experiment

186

48

miCCaC / miQTaL

/mimʃal/ (goverment) 107

43

CiCCuC / QiTQuT

/iʃuʃ/ (rustling)

56

38

miCCaCa /miQTaLa

/miKDaMa/

42

34

hitCaCCut /

/hitBaGut/

hitQaTLut

(adolescence)

(including allomorph hiCtaCCut / hiQtaTLut)

(advance payment) taCCiC / taQTiL

/taLMiD/ (a student)

75

25

tiCCoCet / tiQToLet

/tiKʃoet/

19

18

(communication) CiCaCon / QiTaLon

/ZiKaon/ (memory)

31

17

CaCeCet / QaTeLet

/KaSePet/ (a safe)

57

13

hiCaCCut /

/hiMaNut/

14

10

hiQaTLut

(avoidance) 18

7

ɁaCCaCa / ɁaQTaLa /ɁaZHaa/ (warning)

29 Running head: MORPHOLOGICAL FAMILIES IN HEBREW

/miSTo/ (hiding

miCCoC / miQToL

11

7

place)

Table 2: Descriptive statistics of dependent and independent variables.

Variable

RT

Range

284:4000

Mean (SD)

690 (289)

Range

Mean (SD)

transformed

transformed

-0.0035:-0.0003

-0.0016 (0.0004)

Accuracy

0:1

0.94 (0.22)

Word frequency

6:13287

1012 (2133)

-2.09:2.23

0 (1)

Root family size

3:58

22 (11)

-1.71:3.22

0 (1)

Word-pattern

11:186

82 (58)

-2.17:1.38

0 (1)

0:1.90

0.42

-0.62:395

0 (1)

Word length

4:7

5.27 (1.01)

Trial number

5:520

260(150)

-1.72:1.72

0 (1)

family size Ratio of unrelated/related root size

30 Running head: MORPHOLOGICAL FAMILIES IN HEBREW

Table 3. Parametric coefficients of the generalized additive mixed model fitted to inversetransformed lexical decision response latencies. N after trimming = 6544 (N before trimming = 7034). Deviance explained = 33%. Estimated

Standard Error

z-value

p-value

Intercept

-1.562

0.114

-13.658