Beckman, J.
1998Positional Faithfulness. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Boersma, P.
1998 Functional Phonology: Formalizing the Interaction Between Articulatory and Perceptual Drives . The Hague: HAG.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. & Hayes, B.
2001Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 45–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clements, G.N.
1990The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In Papers in Laboratory Phonology, 1: Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech , J. Kingston & M. Beckman (eds), 283–333. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D.A.
2011On the unity of children’s phonological error patterns: Distinguishing symptoms from the problem. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 25: 968–974. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dinnsen, D.A. & Barlow, J.A.
1998On the characterization of a chain shift in normal and delayed phonological acquisition. Journal of Child Language 25: 61–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dinnsen, D.A., O’Connor, K.M. & Gierut, J.A.
2001The puzzle-puddle-pickle problem and the Duke-of-York gambit in acquisition. Journal of Linguistics 37: 503–525. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farris-Trimble, A.W.
2008Cumulative Faithfulness Effects. PhD dissertation, Indiana University at Bloomington.Google Scholar
2009Weighted constraints and faithfulness cumulativity in phonological acquisition. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development , J. Chandlee, M. Franchini, S. Lord & G.-M. Rheiner (eds), 151–162. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
2010Nothing is better than being unfaithful in multiple ways. In Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society 44, M. Bane, J.J. Bueno Holle, T. Grano, A.L. Grotberg & Y. McNabb (eds), 79–93. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Gnanadesikan, A.
2004Markedness and faithfulness constraints in child phonology. In Fixing Priorities: Constraints in Phonological Acquisition, R. Kager, J. Pater & W. Zonneveld (eds), 73–108. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Jesney, K.
2011Cumulative Constraint Interaction in Phonological Acquisition and Typology. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jesney, K. & Tessier, A-M.
2011Biases in Harmonic Grammar: The road to restrictive learning. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 251–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirchner, R.
1996Synchronic chain shifts in optimality theory. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 341–350.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, C.
1970On the functional unity of phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 291–306.Google Scholar
Legendre, G., Miyata, Y. & Smolensky, P.
1990aHarmonic Grammar—A formal multi-level connectionist theory of linguistic well-formedness: Theoretical foundations. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 388–395. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
1990bHarmonic grammar —a formal multi-level connectionist theory of linguistic well-formedness: An application. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , 884–891. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Legendre, G., Sorace, A. & Smolensky, P.
2006The Optimality Theory–Harmonic Grammar connection. In The Harmonic Mind: From Neural Computation to Optimality-Theoretic Grammar, P. Smolensky & G. Legendre (eds), 903–966. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Łubowicz, A.
2002Derived environment effects in optimality theory. Lingua 112: 243–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marantz, A.
1982Re reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 435–482.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. & Prince, A.
1995Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory , J. Beckman, L. Walsh Dickey & S. Urbanczyk (eds), 249–384. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J.
2002 A Thematic Guide to Optimality Theory . Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
McMurray, B., Cole, J.S. & Munson, C.
2011Features as an emergent product of computing perceptual cues relative to expectations. In Where Do Phonological Features Come From? [Language Faculty & Beyond 6], G.N. Clements & R. Ridouane (eds), 197–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McMurray, B. & Jongman, A.
2011What information is necessary for speech categorization? Harnessing variability in the speech signal by integrating cues computed relative to expectations. Psychological Review 188: 219–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moreton, E. & Smolensky, P.
2002Typological consequences of local constraint conjunction. In Proceedings of the 21st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics , L. Mikkelsen & C. Potts (eds), 306–319. Cambridge MA: Cascadilla Press (Available on Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA-525).Google Scholar
Pater, J.
1999Austronesian nasal substitution and other NC effects. In The Prosody Morphology Interface , H. van der Hulst, R. Kager, & W. Zonneveld (eds), 310–343. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001Austronesian nasal substitution revisited. In Segmental Phonology in Optimality Theory: Constraints and Representations , L. Lombardi (ed.), 159–182. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pater, J. & Barlow, J.
2003Constraint conflict in cluster reduction. Journal of Child Language 30: 487–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, A. & Smolensky, P.
1993/2004  Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar . Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Smith, N.V.
1973 The Acquisition of Phonology: A Case Study . Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Smolensky, P.
1995On the structure of the constraint component Con of UG. Ms, University of California at Los Angeles. ROA 86.Google Scholar
1996The initial state and ‘‘richness of the base’’ in Optimality Theory. Technical report JHU-CogSci-96–4, Department of Cognitive Science, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore MD.Google Scholar
2006Optimality in phonology II: Harmonic completeness, local constraint conjunction, and feature domain markedness. In The Harmonic Mind: From Neural Computation to Optimality-Theoretic Grammar, P. Smolensky & G. Legendre (eds), 27–160. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Toscano, J. & McMurray, B.
2010Cue integration with categories: Weighting acoustic cues in speech using unsupervised learning and distributional statistics. Cognitive Science 34: 434–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar