Cover not available
Introduction published In:
What is a verb? – Linguistic, psycholinguistic and developmental perspectives on verbs in Germanic and Semitic languages
Edited by Eva Smolka and Dorit Ravid
[The Mental Lexicon 14:2] 2019
► pp. 169–188
Introduction

What is a verb?

Linguistic, psycholinguistic and developmental perspectives on verbs in Germanic and Semitic languages

 | University of Konstanz
 | Tel Aviv University
Verbs constitute one of the basic building blocks of a clause, setting the structure of arguments and expressing the relationships among nouns in various thematic roles. In general terms, verbs are lexical items expressing verb-oriented notions such as activities, processes, and states. In morphol-​ogy-rich languages, the syntactic and lexical roles of verbs are mediated by typologically-oriented morphological means. The current Special Issue contrasts the structure and functions of verbs in languages from two morphologically rich, yet typologically different families. The articles in the Special Issue present spoken and written aspects of verbs in usage and development in German (a Germanic language) on the one hand, in Hebrew, Neo-Aramaic, and Arabic (Semitic languages), on the other. From a theoretical linguistic perspective, we ask how the different typological features of these languages affect the function of verbs in sentences, and from a psycholinguistic perspective, we ask how typological differences affect the processing of verbs in the mature minds of adults and in the developing minds of children.
Keywords: Hebrew morphology, verb lexicon, socio-economic status (SES), peer talk, preschool, network analysis, growth potential, morphological priming, semantic priming, prefixed verbs in German
Article outline
  • What makes Semitic and Germanic languages ‘morphologically rich’?
  • Why focus on verbs?
  • Semitic verb morphology
  • Germanic verb morphology
  • Psycholinguistic perspectives of Semitic and Germanic verb processing
  • Access to the verbal root
  • Argument structure and valency of verbs
  • Developmental psycholinguistic aspects of verbs
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 15 January 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.00003.int
References (82)
References
Armon-Lotem, S. & Berman, R. A. (2003). The emergence of grammar: Early verbs and beyond. Journal of Child Language, 301, 845–878. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ashkenazi, O. (2015). Input-output relations in the morphological acquisition of Hebrew verbs. Doctoral dissertation, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
Ashkenazi, O., D. Ravid & S. Gillis. (2016). Breaking into the Hebrew verb system: a learning problem. First Language, 361, 505–524. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ashkenazi, O., Gillis, S., & Ravid, D. (In press). Input-output relations in the early acquisition of Hebrew verbs. Journal of Child Language. DOI logo
Bar-Kochva, I. & Hasselhorn, M. (2017). The training of morphological decomposition in word processing and its effects on literacy skills. Frontiers in Psychology. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bar-On, A. & D. Ravid. (2011). Morphological decoding in Hebrew pseudowords: a developmental study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 321, 553–581. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Behrens, H. (1998). How difficult are complex verbs? Evidence from German, Dutch and English. Linguistics, 36(4), 679–712. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, R. A. (1985). Acquisition of Hebrew. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(1986). A step-by-step model of language learning. In I. Levin (Ed.) Stage and structure: Re-opening the debate. (pp. 191–219). Norwood, N.J: Ablex.Google Scholar
(1988). Productivity in the lexicon: New-word formation in Modern Hebrew”. Folia Linguistica, 211, 425–461.Google Scholar
(1993a). Marking of verb transitivity by Hebrew-speaking children. Journal of Child Language, 201, 641–669. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993b). Developmental perspectives on transitivity: A confluence of cues. In Y. Levy (Ed.), Other children, other languages: issues in the theory of acquisition (pp. 189–241). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(1994). Formal, lexical, and semantic factors in acquisition of Hebrew resultative participles. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 201, 82–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Revisiting roots in Hebrew: A multi-faceted view. In M. Muchnik & Z. Sadan. Studies on Modern Hebrew and Jewish languages in honor of Ora (Rodriguez) Schwarzwald (pp. 132–158). Jerusalem: Carmel Press.Google Scholar
Bolozky, S. (1999). Measuring productivity in word-formation: The case of Israeli Hebrew. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boudelaa, S., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2004). Allomorphic variation in Arabic: Implications for lexical processing and representation. Brain and Language, 901, 106–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bozic, M., Tyler, L. K., Su, L., Wingfield, C., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2013). Neurobiological systems for lexical representation and analysis in English. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(10), 1678–1691. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cremeer, A., Goodwin, D. A., Wilder, R. J., Tamminga, M., & Embick, D. (2019). Opacity, transparency, and morpholgoical priming: A study of prefixed verbs in Dutch . Cremeer: Manuscript submitted for publication. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dattner, E. (2015). Mapping Hebrew dative constructions. Ph.D dissertation, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
(2019). The Hebrew dative: Usage patterns as discourse profile constructions. Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Grauwe, S., Lemhöfer, K., & Schriefers, H. (2019). Processing derived verbs: the role of motor-relatedness and type of morphological priming. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(8), 973–990. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deutsch, A., Frost, R., & Forster, K. I. (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(5), 1238–1255.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2015). Frequency shapes syntactic structure. Journal of Child Language, 421, 278–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Odorico, L., Carubbi, S., Salerni, N., & Calvo, V. (2001). Vocabulary development in Italian children: A longitudinal evaluation of quantitative and qualitative aspects. Journal of Child Language, 281, 351–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Domínguez, A., de Vega, M., & Barber, H. (2004). Event-related Brain Potentials Elicited by Morphological, Homographic, Orthographic, and Semantic Priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(4), 598–608. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dörre, L., & Smolka, E. (2019). When the pig is bought in a poke – The influence of transitivity and adjacency on the processing of passivized idiomatic sentences. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U., Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi, Sonja Schwaiger, and Jutta Ransmayr. 2018. Skalierung der morphosemantischen Transparenz/Opazität deutscher und italienischer Diminutive. In Die Zukunft von Grammatik – Die Grammatik der Zukunft. Festschrift für Werner Abraham anlässlich seines 801. Geburtstags, eds. E. Leiss and S. Zeman, 117–132. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Drews, E., Zwitserlood, P., & Neuwinger, E. (2000). How semantic is morphological priming? Evidence from derivationally prefixed verbs in German. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
Durrell, M. (2001). Strong verb ablaut in the West Germanic Languages. Linguistische Arbeiten, 4461.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, P. (2004). Grundriß der deutschen Grammatik: Das Wort (2nd ed. Vol. 11). Stuttgart-Weimar: J. B. Metzler. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feldman, L. B., & Soltano, E. G. (1999). Morphological priming: The role of prime duration, semantic transparency, and affix position. Brain and Language, 68(1–2), 33–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feldman, L. B., Soltano, E. G., Pastizzo, M. J., & Francis, S. E. (2004). What do graded effects of semantic transparency reveal about morphological processing? Brain and Language, 90(1–3), 17–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fleischer, W., & Barz, I. (1992). Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache . Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Frost, R. (2012). Towards a universal model of reading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(5), 263–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frost, R., Deutsch, A., & Forster, K. I. (2000). Decomposing morphologically complex words in a nonlinear morphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(3), 751–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frost, R., Deutsch, A., Gilboa, O., Tannenbaum, M., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2000). Morphological priming: Dissociation of phonological, semantic and morphological factors. Memory and Cognition, 28(8), 1277–1288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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(4), 829–856.Google Scholar
Golinkoff, R. M. & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2008). How toddlers begin to learn verbs. Trends in Cognitive Science, 121, 397–403. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gonnerman, L. M., Seidenberg, M. S., & Andersen, E. S. (2007). Graded semantic and phonological similarity effects in priming: Evidence for a distributed connectionist approach to morphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(2), 323–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumnior, H., Bölte, J., & Zwitserlood, P. (2006). A chatterbox is a box: Morphology in German word production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(7–8), 920–944. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günther, F., Smolka, E., & Marelli, M. (2019). ‘Understanding’ differs between English and German: Capturing systematic language differences of complex words. Cortex, 1161, 158–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, M. (1953). The German conjugation. Word, 91, 45–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kielar, A., & Joanisse, M. F. (2011). The role of semantic and phonological factors in word recognition: An ERP cross-modal priming study of derivational morphology. Neuropsychologia, 49(2), 161–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klampfer, S. (2003). Emergence of verb paradigms in one Austrian child. In D. Bittner, W. Dressler, & M. Kilani-Schoch (Eds.), Development of Verb Inflection in First Language Acquisition: A Cross-linguistic Perspective, (pp. 297–321). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levie, R., Ben Zvi, G. & Ravid, D. (2017). Morpho-lexical development in language-impaired and typically developing Hebrew-speaking children from two SES backgrounds. Reading and Writing, 301, 1035–1064. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levie, L., Ashkenazi, O., Eitan Stanzas, S., Zwilling, R., Raz, E., Hershkovitz, L. & Ravid, D. (Under review). The route to the derivational verb family in Hebrew: A psycholinguistic study of acquisition and development.
Lüdeling, A., & De Jong, N. H. (2001). German particle verbs and word formation. In N. Dehé, R. Jackendoff, A. McIntyre, & S. Urban (Eds.), Explorations in verb-particle constructions Berlin: Mouton der Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lustigman, L. (2012). Developing structural specification: Productivity in early Hebrew verb usage. First Language, 331, 47–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Tyler, L. K., Waksler, R., & Older, L. (1994). Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 101(1), 3–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meunier, F., & Longtin, C.-M. (2007). Morphological decomposition and semantic integration in word processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(4), 457–471. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, J. (2016). Morphology in typology. In Andrew Hippisley and Gregory Stump (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of morphology (pp. 710–742). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olsen, S. (1996). Partikelverben im deutsch-englischen Vergleich. In E. Lang & G. Zifonun (Eds.), Deutsch-typologisch (pp. 261–288). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plaut, D. C., & Gonnerman, L. M. (2000). Are non-semantic morphological effects incompatible with a distributed connectionist approach to lexical processing? Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(4–5), 445–485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Tyler, L. K. (2000). Morphological and semantic effects in visual word recognition: A time-course study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(4–5), 507–537. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ravid, D. (1990). Internal structure constraints on new-word formation devices in Modern Hebrew. Folia Linguistica, 241, 289–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). A developmental perspective on root perception in Hebrew and Palestinian Arabic. In Y. Shimron (Ed.), Language processing and acquisition in languages of Semitic, root-based morphology (pp. 293–319). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Word-level morphology: A psycholinguistic perspective on linear formation in Hebrew nominals. Morphology, 161, 127–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Spelling morphology: the psycholinguistics of Hebrew spelling. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019a). Derivation. In Ruth A. Berman (Ed.), Usage-based studies in Modern Hebrew: Background, morpho-lexicon, and syntax (pp. 203–265). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2019b). First language acquisition of morphology. In R. Lieber (Ed.) The Oxford encyclopedia of morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ravid, D. & R. Schiff. (2006). Roots and patterns in Hebrew language development: evidence from written morphological analogies. Reading and Writing, 191, 789–818. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ravid, D., Ashkenazi, O., Levie, R., Ben Zadok, G., Grunwald, T., Bratslavsky, R., & Gillis, S. (2016). Foundations of the root category: analyses of linguistic input to Hebrew-speaking children. In R. Berman (ed.) Acquisition and development of Hebrew: From infancy to adolescence (pp. 95–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1998). Metrical structure in planning the production of spoken words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 241, 922–939.Google Scholar
Saiegh-Haddad, E. (2018). MAWRID: A model of Arabic word reading in development. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 511, 454–462. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandoval, M. & Gómez, R. L. (2013). The development of nonadjacent dependency learning in natural and artificial languages. WIRES Cognitive Science, 41, 511–522. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schirmeier, M. K., Derwing, B. L., & Libben, G. (2004). Lexicality, morphological structure, and semantic transparency in the processing of German ver-verbs: The complementarity of on-line and off-line evidence. Brain and Language, 901, 74–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schriefers, H., Zwitserlood, P., & Roelofs, A. (1991). The identification of morphologically complex spoken words: Continuous processing or decomposition? Journal of Memory and Language, 30(1), 26–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarzwald, O. R. (2000). Morphology in context [in Hebrew]. Helkat Lashon, 29–32, 310–314.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (Ed.). (1985). The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, Vol. 11. The data; Vol. 21. Theoretical issues. Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Smolka, E. (this volume). Aufhören (‘stop’) activates hören (‘hear’) but not Musik (‘music’) – The difference between lexical and semantic processing of German particle verbs. The Mental Lexicon.
Smolka, E., & Eulitz, C. (2018). Psycholinguistic measures for German verb pairs: Semantic trans-parency, semantic relatedness, verb family size, and age of reading acquisition. Behavior Research Methods, 50(4), 1540–1562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smolka, E., & Baayen, H. (in prep.). When stems mean more than words: Developmental trajectories in the processing of complex verbs in German-speaking 11–15 year olds .
Smolka, E., Gondan, M., & Rösler, F. (2015). Take a stand on understanding: Electrophysiological evidence for stem access in German complex verbs. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9(62). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smolka, E., Khader, P. H., Wiese, R., Zwitserlood, P., & Rösler, F. (2013). Electrophysiological evidence for the continuous processing of linguistic categories of regular and irregular verb inflection in German. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(8), 1284–1304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smolka, E., Komlósi, S., & Rösler, F. (2009). When semantics means less than morphology: The processing of German prefixed verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(3), 337–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smolka, E., Libben, G., & Dressler, W. (2019). When Morphological Structure Overrides Meaning: Evidence from German Prefixed and Particle Verbs. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 34(5), 599–614. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smolka, E., Preller, K. H., & Eulitz, C. (2014). ‘Verstehen’ (‘understand’) primes ‘stehen’ (‘stand’): Morphological structure overrides semantic compositionality in the lexical representation of German complex verbs. Journal of Memory and Language, 721, 16–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smolka, E., Zwitserlood, P., & Rösler, F. (2007). Stem access in regular and irregular inflection: Evidence from German participles. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(3), 325–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tatsumi, T. & Pine, J. M. (2016). Comparing generativist and constructivist accounts of the use of the past tense form in early child Japanese. Journal of Child Language, 431, 1365–1384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wegener, H. (2003). Entstehung und Funktion der Fugenelemente im Deutschen, oder: warum wir keine *Autosbahn haben. Linguistische Berichte, 1961, 425–457.Google Scholar
Wiese, R. (1996). Phonological versus morphological rules: on German Umlaut and Ablaut. Journal of Linguistics, 32(1), 113–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xanthos, A., Laaha, S., Gillis, S., Stephany, U., Aksu-Koc, A., Christofidou, A., Gagarina, N., Hrzica, G., Ketrez, F. N., Kilani-Schoch, M., Korecky-Kröll, K., Kovačević, M., Laalo, K., Palmović, M., Pfeiler, B., Voeikova, M. D., & Dressler, W. U. (2011). On the role of morphological richness in the early development of noun and verb inflection. First Language, 31(4), 461–479. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Opitz, Andreas, Denisa Bordag & Alberto Furgoni
2022. Mental Representation of Word Family Structure: The Case of German Infinitives, Conversion Nouns and Other Morphologically Related Forms. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Opitz, Andreas, Denisa Bordag & Alberto Furgoni
2024. Morphosyntactic underspecification affects the processing of verbal forms at different levels of abstraction in L1 and L2 German. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Smolka, Eva & Wolfgang U. Dressler
2022. The Influence of Roots and Stems on the Lexical Processing of Complex Words in German. In Developing Language and Literacy [Literacy Studies, 23], ► pp. 231 ff. DOI logo
Ditges, Ruth, Elena Barbieri, Cynthia K. Thompson, Sandra Weintraub, Cornelius Weiller, Marek-Marsel Mesulam, Dorothee Kümmerer, Nils Schröter & Mariacristina Musso
2021. German Language Adaptation of the NAVS (NAVS-G) and of the NAT (NAT-G): Testing Grammar in Aphasia. Brain Sciences 11:4 ► pp. 474 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.