Elena Even-Simkin

Common Semantic Denominators of the Internal Vowel Alternation System in English

Abstract The Internal Vowel Alternation (IVA) system is commonly referred to as arbitrarily appearing in a small number of the so-called irregular noun plurals (e.g. goose–geese, mouse–mice) and past tense verb forms (e.g. sing–sang, take–took) in Modern English. But, historically, IVA was a prevalent and productive process in Old English in both the nominal and the verbal systems. In this paper, we will postulate that the IVA is a full-fledged sign system composed of a signal (signifiant) that is connected to a meaning (signifié) in the Saussurean sense. It has already been demonstrated that the IVA nominal and verbal forms are systematic phonologically (Even-Simkin & Tobin 2009). In this paper we will present the semantic systems underlying the IVA forms. Beedham (2005:114) argues that [a]ll linguistic forms must fit into the system somehow, and they all must have a meaning, it is simply a case of working out how they fit in and what the meaning is. In this semantic analysis of the IVA forms we will show that the English IVA systems are both motivated and systematic semantically – i.e. that differences in form always imply differences in meaning (Bolinger 1977). We will maintain that each IVA pattern reflects a fundamental common semantic denominator. Thus our study connects the form (phonology) and the meaning (semantics) of the phenomenon of IVA as a full-fledged system of linguistic signs in English.

A morpho-phonological Past Tense processing as a clinical marker in SLI EFL learners

ABSTRACT The clinical marker in specific language impairment (SLI) population is the subject of considerable debate. SLI is the one of the frequently diagnosed atypical language phenomena found among early school-age children (McArthur et al., 2000; Spear-Swerling, 2006). For example, children with SLI have difficulty applying the Past Tense rule to verbs, even though they can accurately repeat phonologically similar forms of the words (Hoeffner & McClelland, 1993). In this study, I discuss the grammatical deficits in the SLI population by studying the generation of both ‘regular’ and ‘irregular’ English Past Tense forms and explain how the rates of the correct use of the ‘irregular’ versus ‘regular’ form may be considered as a clinical SLI marker. This study defines the differences in the grammatical sensitivity in the EFL learners and provides additional essential insight into SLI, in general, and its identification in the EFL learners, in particular.