@Article{Berent1997,
  author   = {I Berent and J Shimron},
  journal  = {Cognition},
  title    = {The representation of {H}ebrew words: {E}vidence from the obligatory contour principle.},
  year     = {1997},
  number   = {1},
  pages    = {39-72},
  volume   = {64},
  abstract = {The Hebrew root morpheme typically consists of three consonants. Hebrew
	allows a gemination of a root consonant, but constrains its location
	[McCarthy, J. (1979). Formal problems in semitic phonology and morphology.
	Cambridge, MA; MIT Ph.D. dissertation. Distributed by Indiana University
	Linguistics Club. Garland Press, New York, 1985]. A gemination of
	a root-consonant is permitted at the end of the root (e.g., [mss]),
	but not at its beginning (e.g., [ssm]). Two experiments examined
	readers' sensitivity to the structure of the root morpheme by obtaining
	ratings for nonwords derived from nonroots. Root-initial gemination
	(e.g., [ssm]) was judged unacceptable compared to root-final gemination
	(e.g., [mss]) or no gemination controls (e.g., [psm]). The sensitivity
	to root structure emerged regardless of the position of the root
	in the word. These results have several implications. (1) Our findings
	demonstrate morphological decomposition. Hebrew speakers' ratings
	reflect a phonological constraint on the location of geminates. Being
	the domain of this constraint, the root morpheme must form a separate
	constituent in the representation of Hebrew words. (2) The rejection
	of root-initial gemination supports the psychological reality of
	the Obligatory Contour Principle, a pivotal constraint in autosegmental
	phonology. (3) A sensitivity to the location of geminates presupposes
	a distinction between the representation of geminate and nongeminate
	bigrams. Such a distinction, however, requires the implementation
	of a symbol. Our findings converge with numerous linguistic evidence
	in suggesting that the representation of constituency structure is
	necessary to account for linguistic generalizations.},
  keywords = {Adult, Analysis of Variance, Cognition, Human, Linguistics, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Phonetics, Reading, Speech, Speech Perception, Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S., 9342931},
}

{"_id":"JJnMMvHcMqYCL4Haq","bibbaseid":"berent-shimron-therepresentationofhebrewwordsevidencefromtheobligatorycontourprinciple-1997","author_short":["Berent, I","Shimron, J"],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","author":[{"firstnames":["I"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Berent"],"suffixes":[]},{"firstnames":["J"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Shimron"],"suffixes":[]}],"journal":"Cognition","title":"The representation of Hebrew words: Evidence from the obligatory contour principle.","year":"1997","number":"1","pages":"39-72","volume":"64","abstract":"The Hebrew root morpheme typically consists of three consonants. Hebrew allows a gemination of a root consonant, but constrains its location [McCarthy, J. (1979). Formal problems in semitic phonology and morphology. Cambridge, MA; MIT Ph.D. dissertation. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club. Garland Press, New York, 1985]. A gemination of a root-consonant is permitted at the end of the root (e.g., [mss]), but not at its beginning (e.g., [ssm]). Two experiments examined readers' sensitivity to the structure of the root morpheme by obtaining ratings for nonwords derived from nonroots. Root-initial gemination (e.g., [ssm]) was judged unacceptable compared to root-final gemination (e.g., [mss]) or no gemination controls (e.g., [psm]). The sensitivity to root structure emerged regardless of the position of the root in the word. These results have several implications. (1) Our findings demonstrate morphological decomposition. Hebrew speakers' ratings reflect a phonological constraint on the location of geminates. Being the domain of this constraint, the root morpheme must form a separate constituent in the representation of Hebrew words. (2) The rejection of root-initial gemination supports the psychological reality of the Obligatory Contour Principle, a pivotal constraint in autosegmental phonology. (3) A sensitivity to the location of geminates presupposes a distinction between the representation of geminate and nongeminate bigrams. Such a distinction, however, requires the implementation of a symbol. Our findings converge with numerous linguistic evidence in suggesting that the representation of constituency structure is necessary to account for linguistic generalizations.","keywords":"Adult, Analysis of Variance, Cognition, Human, Linguistics, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Phonetics, Reading, Speech, Speech Perception, Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S., 9342931","bibtex":"@Article{Berent1997,\n author = {I Berent and J Shimron},\n journal = {Cognition},\n title = {The representation of {H}ebrew words: {E}vidence from the obligatory contour principle.},\n year = {1997},\n number = {1},\n pages = {39-72},\n volume = {64},\n abstract = {The Hebrew root morpheme typically consists of three consonants. Hebrew\n\tallows a gemination of a root consonant, but constrains its location\n\t[McCarthy, J. (1979). Formal problems in semitic phonology and morphology.\n\tCambridge, MA; MIT Ph.D. dissertation. Distributed by Indiana University\n\tLinguistics Club. Garland Press, New York, 1985]. A gemination of\n\ta root-consonant is permitted at the end of the root (e.g., [mss]),\n\tbut not at its beginning (e.g., [ssm]). Two experiments examined\n\treaders' sensitivity to the structure of the root morpheme by obtaining\n\tratings for nonwords derived from nonroots. Root-initial gemination\n\t(e.g., [ssm]) was judged unacceptable compared to root-final gemination\n\t(e.g., [mss]) or no gemination controls (e.g., [psm]). The sensitivity\n\tto root structure emerged regardless of the position of the root\n\tin the word. These results have several implications. (1) Our findings\n\tdemonstrate morphological decomposition. Hebrew speakers' ratings\n\treflect a phonological constraint on the location of geminates. Being\n\tthe domain of this constraint, the root morpheme must form a separate\n\tconstituent in the representation of Hebrew words. (2) The rejection\n\tof root-initial gemination supports the psychological reality of\n\tthe Obligatory Contour Principle, a pivotal constraint in autosegmental\n\tphonology. (3) A sensitivity to the location of geminates presupposes\n\ta distinction between the representation of geminate and nongeminate\n\tbigrams. Such a distinction, however, requires the implementation\n\tof a symbol. Our findings converge with numerous linguistic evidence\n\tin suggesting that the representation of constituency structure is\n\tnecessary to account for linguistic generalizations.},\n keywords = {Adult, Analysis of Variance, Cognition, Human, Linguistics, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Phonetics, Reading, Speech, Speech Perception, Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S., 9342931},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Berent, I","Shimron, J"],"key":"Berent1997","id":"Berent1997","bibbaseid":"berent-shimron-therepresentationofhebrewwordsevidencefromtheobligatorycontourprinciple-1997","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["Adult","Analysis of Variance","Cognition","Human","Linguistics","Pattern Recognition","Visual","Phonetics","Reading","Speech","Speech Perception","Support","U.S. Gov't","P.H.S.","9342931"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}}},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://endress.org/publications/ansgar.bib","dataSources":["xPGxHAeh3vZpx4yyE","TXa55dQbNoWnaGmMq"],"keywords":["adult","analysis of variance","cognition","human","linguistics","pattern recognition","visual","phonetics","reading","speech","speech perception","support","u.s. gov't","p.h.s.","9342931"],"search_terms":["representation","hebrew","words","evidence","obligatory","contour","principle","berent","shimron"],"title":"The representation of Hebrew words: Evidence from the obligatory contour principle.","year":1997}