The nature of regularity and irregularity: evidence from Hebrew nominal inflection

Most evidence for the role of regular inflection as a default operation comes from languages that confound the morphological properties of regular and irregular forms with their phonological characteristics. For instance, regular plurals tend to faithfully preserve the base's phonology (e.g., rat-rats), whereas irregular nouns tend to alter it (e.g., mouse-mice). The distinction between regular and irregular inflection may thus be an epiphenomenon of phonological faithfulness. In Hebrew noun inflection, however, morphological regularity and phonological faithfulness can be distinguished: Nouns whose stems change in the plural may take either a regular or an irregular suffix, and nouns whose stems are preserved in the plural may take either a regular or an irregular suffix. We use this dissociation to examine two hallmarks of default inflection: its lack of dependence on analogies from similar regular nouns, and its application to nonroots such as names. We show that these hallmarks of regularity may be found whether or not the plural form preserves the stem faithfully: People apply the regular suffix to novel nouns that do not resemble existing nouns and to names that sound like irregular nouns, regardless of whether the stem is ordinarily preserved in the plural of that family of nouns. Moreover, when they pluralize names (e.g., the Barak-Barakim), they do not apply the stem changes that are found in their homophonous nouns (e.g., barak-brakim lightning), replicating an effect found in English and German. These findings show that the distinction between regular and irregular phenomena cannot be reduced to differences in the kinds of phonological changes associated with those phenomena in English. Instead, regularity and irregularity must be distinguished in terms of the kinds of mental computations that effect them: symbolic operations versus memorized idiosyncrasies. A corollary is that complex words are not generally dichotomizable as regular or irregular different aspects of a word may be regular or irregular depending on whether they violate the rule for that aspect and hence must be stored in memory.     

Patterns of neuropsychological performance in multiple system atrophy compared to sporadic and hereditary olivopontocerebellar atrophy

Although neuropsychological symptoms are associated with multiple system atrophy (MSA), sporadic olivopontocerebellar atrophy (sOPCA), and dominantly inherited olivopontocerebellar atrophy (dOPCA), the differences between these groups have not been explored. We compared 28 MSA patients on psychiatric rating scales and neuropsychological measures to 67 sOPCA patients, 42 dOPCA patients, and 30 normal controls. Patients with dOPCA, sOPCA, and MSA all exhibited significant deficits on motor-related tasks, as well as relatively mild deficits in cognitive functioning. Patients with MSA had greater neuropsychological dysfunction, particularly in memory and other "higher order" cognitive processes, than patients with either sOPCA or dOPCA.     

In the name of democracy: The value of democracy explains leniency towards wrongdoings as a function of group political organization

According to the “democracy‐as‐value” hypothesis, democracy has become an ideological belief system providing social value to democratic individuals, groups and institutions, granting legitimacy to their actions (even if dishonest or violent), and protecting them from consecutive punishments. The present research investigates the extent to which this legitimizing process is based on the individual endorsement of democratic principles. Across four experiments, following the misdeed of a (few) group member(s), respondents who valued democratic group organization and democracy in general expressed more lenient retributive justice judgments towards democratic (as compared with nondemocratic) offender groups. These findings shed light on the ways in which democratic ideology infuses justice judgments. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Phonological Constraints on the Assembly of Skeletal Structure in Reading

Linguistic research suggests that certain skeletal frames (e.g., CVC) are preferred to others (e.g., VCC). We examine whether such preferences constrain reading in the Stroop task. We demonstrate that CCVC nonwords facilitate naming the color black (/blæk{{\rm /bl{\ae}k}}/, a CCVC frame) relative to CVC controls. Conversely, CCVC items inhibit red (a CVC frame) relative to CVC controls. These results suggest that readers are sensitive to the congruency between the skeletal structure of color names and printed nonwords. However, various frames are not all equally preferred: the color black is named faster with a VCC frame, an infrequent and ill-formed frame, relative to a CVC frame, a frequent and grammatically preferred frame. These findings suggest that the representation of printed words specifies distinct slots for consonants and vowels, and readers are equipped with preferences (either grammatical or statistical) concerning skeletal frames. These conclusions underscore the contribution of linguistic knowledge to skilled reading.     

Do phonological representations specify variables? Evidence from the obligatory contour principle

Mental variables are central to symbolic accounts of cognition. Conversely, according to the pattern associator hypothesis, variables are obsolete. We examine the representation of variables by investigating the Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP, McCarthy, 1986) in Hebrew. The OCP constrains gemination in Hebrew roots. Gemination is well formed at the root's end (e.g., SMM), but not in its beginning (e.g., SSM). Roots and geminates, however, are variables; hence, according to the pattern associator view, the OCP is unrepresentable. Three experiments demonstrate that speakers are sensitive to the presence of root gemination and constrain its location. In forming words from novel biconsonantal roots, speakers prefer to reduplicate the root's final over its initial radical, and they rate such outputs as more acceptable. The avoidance or rejection of root-initial gemination is independent of its position in the word and is inexplicable by the statistical frequency of root tokens. Our results suggest that linguistic representations specify variables. Speakers' competence, however, is governed by violable constraints.     

What we know about what we have never heard: evidence from perceptual illusions

Are speakers equipped with preferences concerning grammatical structures that are absent in their language? We examine this question by investigating the sensitivity of English speakers to the sonority of onset clusters. Linguistic research suggests that certain onset clusters are universally preferred (e.g., bd>lb). We demonstrate that such preferences modulate the perception of unattested onsets by English speakers: Monosyllabic auditory nonwords with onsets that are universally dispreferred (e.g., lbif) are more likely to be classified as disyllabic and misperceived as identical to their disyllabic counterparts (e.g., lebif) compared to onsets that are relatively preferred across languages (e.g., bdif). Consequently, dispreferred onsets benefit from priming by their epenthetic counterpart (e.g., lebif-lbif) as much as they benefit from identity priming (e.g., lbif-lbif). A similar pattern of misperception (e.g., lbif-->lebif) was observed among speakers of Russian, where clusters of this type occur. But unlike English speakers, Russian speakers perceived these clusters accurately on most trials, suggesting that the perceptual illusions of English speakers are partly due to their linguistic experience, rather than phonetic confusion alone. Further evidence against a purely phonetic explanation for our results is offered by the capacity of English speakers to perceive such onsets accurately under conditions that encourage precise phonetic encoding. The perceptual illusions of English speakers are also irreducible to several statistical properties of the English lexicon. The systematic misperception of universally dispreferred onsets might reflect their ill-formedness in the grammars of all speakers, irrespective of linguistic experience. Such universal grammatical preferences implicate constraints on language learning.