I. SOUNDS IN MODERN HEBREW Hebrew shorashim – the triliteral roots – have already been analysed from many points of view, for example in Morgenbrod & Serifi (1976, 1977, 1978). The aim of this article is an examination of the sound structure of shorashim.

In general we can divide the consonants which form the shorashim into two different types; concerning (a) the manner of articulation (e.g. plosives, nasals, etc.); and (b) the place of articulation (e.g. bilabials, labiodentals, etc.).

In this study we have concentrated on position of articulation and ignore manner of articulation.

In Figure I the consonants forming the shorashim are related to the different kinds of sounds according to Wendt (1961).

In order to investigate the relationship between the sounds it is convenient to establish so-called compound matrices with a computer. All computation was done by a program in COBOL running on the SIEMENS System 4004. As material for our analysis we took 2443 shorashim from the sources Barkaly (1972) and Even-Shoshan (1972).

The phonology of French continues to command widespread attention in the development of linguistic theory. The most recent, and most novel, contribution to the explicit description of sound patterns in this language is Anderson (1982), who demonstrates the central rôle played by syllabic structure in alternations obtaining between null and ‘e-instable’, or schwa. In expected contrast to the natural generative phonology approach advocated, for example, by Klausenburger (1978), Anderson advances the more orthodox generative position (cf. Schane, 1968; Dell, 1973) that characterizes such alternations as petit m. ‘pəti]/petite f. [pətit] ‘small’ in terms of the phonological deletion of basic word-final consonants (masculine forms) and final ‘protective’ schwas (feminine forms). This familiar, ‘abstract’ kind of account has been challenged most comprehensively by Tranel (1981), but it still represents the standard alternative within more or less traditional generative phonology, which, without further elaboration, Anderson and the comments that follow here share as a point of departure.

Sign-Based Construction Grammar (sbcg) is, on the one hand, a formalized version of Berkeley Construction Grammar (bcg), and, on the other hand, a further development of constructionist Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (hpsg). The volume edited by Hans Boas and Ivan Sag is the first book length presentation of the framework. Its centerpiece is a 130-page synopsis of the theory by Ivan Sag. The other contributions to the volume provide background, justification, case studies, an extension to diachronic syntax and a presentation of the FrameNet Constructicon. This review gives a guided tour of the framework, explaining its central notions and assumptions, as well as the notation in which they are cast. It also compares the sbcg framework with other types of Construction Grammar and with hpsg. The case studies are summarized and briefly evaluated.