Dissertation - Michael Becker

3.5.4 Transcription and encodingFor each participant, two sections of the recording were transcribed: the testing roundsfor the singulars, and the plural generations rounds. The recordings were matched upwith the intended responses as they appeared on the server log, and written using a broadphonetic transcription.For the testing rounds on the singulars, each response was given a score. A perfectscore of 1 was given for a perfect recall of the expected form. Recalls with spirantizedlabials were also accepted, i.e. avoS for aboS or afoz for apoz were also given a score of 1.Pronunciations with an initial [h] (e.g. haboS for aboS ) were also considered perfect andgiven a score of 1. Such pronunciations were considered to be within the normal range ofvariation in Hebrew, and compatible with perfect memorization. A score of .5 was givento any response that deviated from the expected form minimally, i.e. one feature on onesegment (amik for amig or apuz for apoz) or by transposition of two consonants (asix foraxis). A score of 0 was given to lack of recall or to any form that deviated from the expectedform by more than one feature. This created a memorization score for each participant, ona scale of 0–20, quantifying their ability to correctly recall the singulars of the artificiallanguages. Since the singulars in both languages were the same, the memorization score isuseful for controlling for any differences between the two groups.The rounds of plural generation were broadly transcribed, and the plural forms werecoded for their stem vowels and choice of plural affix.Most speakers produced fullsentences, as indicated in (120), and a few just provided the singular and the plural withouta frame sentence. No participant gave just plural forms without repeating the singulars.All participants repeated the singular forms they heard essentially perfectly, so no codingof the singulars was necessary. Speakers also had no trouble with reproducing the twoconsonants of the singular in the plural form, so no coding of that aspect was necessaryeither. Occasional initial [h]’s or the substitution of [e] for [a] in the initial syllable (habokotor ebok-ot for the expected abok-ot) were considered to be within the normal range of120