Cover not available
Article published In:
Language and Linguistics
Vol. 24:4 (2023) ► pp.565–610

Probabilistic phonology

A review of theoretical perspectives, applications, and problems

 | Simon Fraser University
 | Pacific Lutheran University
Probability and frequency are becoming increasingly important in phonological analysis. This article reviews contemporary perspectives on how phonological theory addresses gradient phonological patterns shaped by probability and frequency, drawing on theories of the lexicon, grammar, and statistics. After examining their motivations, we show how these diverse theoretical perspectives have been applied to a variety of problems in core phonology, including phonotactics, morphophonology, sound change, phonological categorization, and language development. Our review of theory and applications supports a growing consensus in the field that phonological theories must reckon with probability. Our review also identifies problems stemming from a lack of cohesion in the field, and suggests potential solutions to these problems.
Keywords: probability, frequency, gradience, exemplar theory, information theory, constraint-based grammar, connectionism
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Gradience, frequency, and probability
    • 2.2Synopsis of probability theory
  • 3.Theoretical perspectives
    • 3.1Variable rules
    • 3.2Information theory phonology
    • 3.3Phonology with Bayesian inference
    • 3.4Exemplar phonology
    • 3.5Analogical models of phonology
    • 3.6Constraint-based models
    • 3.7Connectionist phonology
  • 4.Applications
    • 4.1Linguistic discovery and description
    • 4.2Phonological variation
    • 4.3Experimental phonology
    • 4.4Phonological categorization
    • 4.5Sound change
    • 4.6Language development and segmentation
  • 5.Discussion: Finding common ground
    • 5.1Problems
    • 5.2Some productive trends
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 14 September 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00141.ald
References (219)
References
Adriaans, Frans W. & Kager, René. 2017. Learning novel phonotactics from exposure to continuous speech. Laboratory Phonology 8(1). 1–14. (Article 12.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Albright, Adam. 2009. Feature-based generalization as a source of gradient acceptability. Phonology 26(1). 9–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Albright, Adam & Hayes, Bruce. 2003. Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Cognition 90(2). 119–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alderete, John & Bob, Tanya. 2005. A corpus-based approach to Tahltan stress. In Hargus, Sharon & Rice, Keren (eds.), Athabaskan prosody, 369–391. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alderete, John & Bradshaw, Mark. 2013. Samoan root phonotactics: Digging deeper into the data. Linguistic Discovery 11(1). 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alderete, John & Finley, Sara. 2016. Gradient vowel harmony in Oceanic. Language and Linguistics 17(6). 769–796.Google Scholar
Alderete, John & Tupper, Paul. 2018. Connectionist approaches to generative phonology. In Hannahs, S. J. & Bosch, Anna R. K. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of phonological theory, 360–390. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Alderete, John & Tupper, Paul & Frisch, Stefan A. 2013. Phonological constraint induction in a connectionist network: Learning OCP-place constraints from data. Language Sciences 371. 52–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Arto. 1997. Deriving variation from grammar. In Hinskens, Frans L. & van Hout, Roeland & Wetzels, W. Leo (eds.), Variation, change, and phonological theory, 35–68. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Variation and optionality. In de Lacy, Paul (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology, 519–536. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aslin, Richard N. & Saffran, Jenny R. & Newport, Elissa L. 1998. Computation of conditional probability statistics by 8-month-old infants. Psychological Science 9(4). 321–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aylett, Matthew & Turk, Alice. 2004. The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech 47(1). 31–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Todd M. & Hahn, Ulrike. 2001. Determinants of wordlikeness: Phonotactics or lexical neighborhoods? Journal of Memory and Language 44(4). 568–591. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becker, Michael & Gouskova, Maria. 2016. Surface-oriented generalizations as grammar inference in Russian vowel deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 47(3). 391–425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becker, Michael & Ketrez, Nihan & Nevins, Andrew. 2011. The surfeit of the stimulus: Analytic biases filter lexical statistics in Turkish laryngeal alternations. Language 87(1). 84–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Mary Esther & Edwards, Jan. 2010. Generalizing over lexicons to predict consonant mastery. Laboratory Phonology 1(2). 319–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benus, Stefan. 2005. Dynamics and transparency in vowel harmony. New York: New York University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Bird, Steven & Klein, Ewan & Loper, Edward. 2009. Natural language processing with Python. Sevastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2006. Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42(3). 531–573. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bod, Rens. 2003. Introduction to elementary probability theory and formal stochastic language theory. In Bod, Rens & Hay, Jennifer & Jannedy, Stefanie (eds.), Probabilistic linguistics, 11–37. Cambridge: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul. 1998. Functional phonology: Formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Hamann, Silke. 2008. The evolution of auditory dispersion in bidirectional constraint grammars. Phonology 25(2). 217–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Hayes, Bruce. 2001. Empirical tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32(1). 45–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brent, Michael R. & Cartwright, Timothy A. 1996. Distributional regularity and phonotactic constraints are useful for segmentation. Cognition 61(1-2). 93–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2000. The phonology of the lexicon: Evidence from lexical diffusion. In Barlow, Michael & Kemmer, Suzanne (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 65–85. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & McClelland, James L. 2005. Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. The Linguistic Review 22(2-4). 381–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cedergren, Henrietta Cecilia Jonas. 1973. The interplay of social and linguistic factors in Panama. Ithaca: Cornell University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Cedergren, Henrietta Cecilia Jonas & Sankoff, David. 1974. Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language 50(2). 333–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chambers, Kyle E. & Onishi, Kristine H. & Fisher, Cynthia. 2003. Infants learn phonotactic regularities from brief auditory experience. Cognition 87(2). B69–B77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chandlee, Jane & Heinz, Jeffrey. 2017. Computational phonology. In Aronoff, Mark (ed.), Oxford research encylcopedia of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ( DOI logo) (Accessed 2023-04-21.)Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1961. Some methodological remarks on generative grammar. Word 17(2). 219–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Miller, George A. 1963. Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. In Luce, R. Duncan & Bush, Robert R. & Galanter, Eugene (eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology, vol. 21, 269–321. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V. 2016. First language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. & Kawahara, Shigeto. 2013. Frequency biases in phonological variation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31(1). 47–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. & Pater, Joe. 2008. Weighted constraints and gradient restrictions on place co-ccurrence in Muna and Arabic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26(2). 289–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. The place of variation in phonological theory. In Goldsmith, John & Riggle, Jason & Yu, Alan C. L. (eds.), The handbook of phonological theory, 2nd edn., 401–434. Malden: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen Priva, Uriel. 2012. Sign and signal: Deriving linguistic generalizations from information utility. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
. 2015. Informativity affects consonant duration and deletion rates. Laboratory Phonology 6(2). 243–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Informativity and the actuation of lenition. Language 93(3). 569–597. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cole, Jennifer. 2009. Emergent feature structures: Harmony systems in exemplar models of phonology. Language Sciences 31(2-3). 144–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coleman, John & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 1997. Stochastic phonological grammars and acceptability. In Coleman, John (ed.), Computational phonology: Third Meeting of the ACL Special Interest Group in computational phonology, 49–56. Somerset, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Crosswhite, Katherine & Alderete, John & Beasley, Tim & Markman, Vita. 2003. Morphological effects on default stress in novel Russian words. In Garding, Gina & Tsujimura, Mimu (eds.), WCCFL 22: Proceedings of the 22nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 151–164. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Cutler, Anne. 1980. Errors of stress and intonation. In Fromkin, Victoria A. (ed.), Errors in linguistic performance: Slips of tongue, ear, pen, and hand, 67–80. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Daelemans, Walter & Zavrel, Jakub & van der Sloot, Ko & van den Bosch, Antal. 2002. TiMBL: Tilburg memory-based learner, version 4.2, reference guide (ILK technical report; vol. 01–04). Tilburg: Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Daland, Robert. 2013. Variation in the input: A case study of manner class frequencies. Journal of Child Language 40(5). 1091–1122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. What is computational phonology? Loquens 1(1). ( DOI logo) (Accessed 2023-04-21.) (e004.)Google Scholar
. 2015. Long words in maximum entropy phonotactic grammars. Phonology 32(3). 353–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daland, Robert & Hayes, Bruce & White, James & Garellek, Marc & Davis, Andrea & Norrmann, Ingrid. 2011. Explaining sonority projection effects. Phonology 28(2). 197–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daland, Robert & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2011. Learning diphone-based segmentation. Cognitive Science 35(1). 119–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daland, Robert & Zuraw, Kie. 2018. Loci and locality of informational effects on phonetic implementation. Linguistic Vanguard 4(s2). 1–10. (Article no. 20170045.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dell, Gary S. 1986. A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review 93(3). 283–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dell, Gary S. & Juliano, Cornell & Govindjee, Anita. 1993. Structure and content in language production: A theory of frame constraints in phonological speech errors. Cognitive Science 17(2). 149–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dinnsen, Daniel A. & Charles-Luce, Jan. 1984. Phonological neutralization, phonetic implementation and individual differences. Journal of Phonetics 12(1). 49–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drager, Katie K. 2011. Sociophonetic variation and the lemma. Journal of Phonetics 39(4). 694–707. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durand, Jacques & Gut, Ulrike & Kristoffersen, Gjert (eds). 2014. The Oxford handbook of corpus phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eddington, David. 2000. Spanish stress assignment within the analogical modeling of language. Language 76(1). 92–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Issues in modeling language processing analogically. Lingua 114(7). 849–871. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eisner, Jason. 2002. Parameter estimation for probabilistic finite-state transducers. In Isabelle, Pierre & Charniak, Eugene & Lin, Dekang (eds.), Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 1–8. Philadelphia: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam. 2011. Gradience and categoricality in phonological theory. In van Oostendorp, Marc & Ewen, Colin J. & Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, volume IV: Phonological interfaces, 2115–2136. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam & Baayen, R. Harald. 2003. Predicting the unpredictable: Interpreting neutralized segments in Dutch. Language 79(1). 5–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Analogical effects in regular past tense production in Dutch. Linguistics 42(5). 873–903. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Corpora and exemplars in phonology. In Goldsmith, John & Riggle, Jason & Yu, Alan C. L. (eds.), The handbook of phonological theory, 2nd edn., 374–400. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Naomi H. & Griffiths, Thomas L. & Goldwater, Sharon & Morgan, James L. 2013. A role for the developing lexicon in phonetic category acquisition. Psychological Review 120(4). 751–778. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Naomi H. & Griffiths, Thomas L. & Morgan, James L. 2009. Learning phonetic categories by learning a lexicon. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 311. 2208–2213. ([URL]) (Accessed 2023-04-21.)
Fikkert, Paula. 1994. On the acquisition of prosodic structure. Leiden: Leiden University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
. 2007. Acquiring phonology. In de Lacy, Paul (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology, 537–554. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finley, Sara. 2013. Generalization to unfamiliar talkers in artificial language learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 20(4). 780–789. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finley, Sara & Badecker, William. 2007. Towards a substantively biased theory of learning. In Crane, Thera & David, Oana & Fenton, Donna & Haynie, Hannah J. & Katseff, Shira & Lee-Goldman, Russell & Rouvier, Ruth & Yu, Dominic (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General session and parasession on multilingualism and fieldwork, 142–153. Berkeley & Washington, D.C.: Berkeley Linguistics Society & Linguistic Society of America. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flemming, Edward. 2010. Modeling listeners: Comments on Pluymaekers et al. and Scarborough. In Fougeron, Cécile & Kühnert, Barbara & D’Imperio, Mariapaola & Vallée, Nathalie (eds.), Laboratory phonology 10 1, 587–605. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frank, Michael C. & Goodman, Noah D. & Tenenbaum, Joshua B. 2007. A Bayesian framework for cross-situational word-learning. In Platt, J. & Koller, D. & Singer, Y. & Roweis, S. (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 20: 21st Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2007, 41–48. Red Hook, NY: Curran Associates, Inc. (31 vols.)Google Scholar
Frisch, Stefan A. 1996. Similarity and frequency in phonology. Evanston: Northwestern University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
2004. Language processing and segmental OCP effects. In Hayes, Bruce & Kirchner, Robert & Steriade, Donca (eds.), Phonetically-based phonology, 346–371. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Frequency effects. In van Oostendorp, Marc & Ewen, Colin J. & Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, volume IV: Phonological interfaces, 2137–2163. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Phonotactic patterns in lexical corpora. In Cohn, Abigail C. & Fougeron, Cécile & Huffman, Marie K. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of laboratory phonology, 458–470. New York: Oxford University Press. (With assistance from Renwick, Margaret E. L.)Google Scholar
Frisch, Stefan A. & Brea-Spahn, María R. 2010. Metalinguistic judgments of phonotactics by monolinguals and bilinguals. Laboratory Phonology 1(2). 345–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frisch, Stefan A. & Large, Nathan R. & Pisoni, David B. 2000. Perception of wordlikeness: Effects of segment probability and length on the processing of nonwords. Journal of Memory and Language 42(4). 481–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frisch, Stefan A. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Broe, Michael B. 2004. Similarity avoidance and the OCP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22(1). 179–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frisch, Stefan A. & Stearns, Adrienne M. 2006. Linguistic and metalinguistic tasks in phonology: Methods and findings. In Fanselow, Gisbert & Féry, Caroline & Schlesewsky, Matthias & Vogel, Ralf (eds.), Gradience in grammar: Generative perspectives, 70–84. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frisch, Stefan A. & Zawaydeh, Bushra Adnan. 2001. The psychological reality of OCP-Place in Arabic. Language 77(1). 91–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Andrew & Johnson, Keith. 2013. Phonetic bias in sound change. In Yu, Alan C. L. (ed.), Origins of sound change: Approaches to phonologization, 51–97. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goad, Heather. 2001. Assimilation phenomena and initial constraint ranking in early grammars. In Do, H.-J. Anna & Domínguez, Laura & Johansen, Aimee (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD 25), vol. 11, 307–318. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Goldrick, Matthew. 2007. Connectionist principles in theories of speech production. In Gaskell, Gareth M. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics, 515–530. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldrick, Matthew & Blumstein, Sheila E. 2006. Cascading activation from phonological planning to articulatory processes: Evidence from tongue twisters. Language and Cognitive Processes 21(6). 649–683. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldrick, Matthew & Daland, Robert. 2009. Linking speech errors and phonological grammars: Insights from Harmonic Grammar networks. Phonology 26(1). 147–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, John A. 1976. Autosegmental phonology. Cambridge: MIT. (Doctoral dissertation.)
(ed.) 1993. The last phonological rule: Reflections on constraints and derivations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John A. & Larson, Gary. 1990. Local modeling and syllabification. In Ziolkowski, Michael & Noske, Manuela & Deaton, Karen (eds.), Papers from the 26th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, volume 2: The parasession on the syllable in phonetics & phonology, 129–142. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John & Riggle, Jason. 2012. Information theoretic approaches to phonological structure: The case of Finnish vowel harmony. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30(3). 859–896. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldwater, Sharon & Griffiths, Thomas L. & Johnson, Mark. 2009. A Bayesian framework for word segmentation: Exploring the effects of context. Cognition 112(1). 21–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldwater, Sharon & Johnson, Mark. 2003. Learning OT constraint rankings using a maximum entropy model. In Spenader, Jennifer & Eriksson, Anders & Dahl, Östen (eds.), Variation within Optimality Theory: Proceedings of the Stockholm workshop on variation within Optimality Theory, 111–120. Stockholm: Stockholm University.Google Scholar
. 2004. Priors in Bayesian learning of phonological rules. Proceedings of the Seventh Meeting of the ACL Special Interest Group in Computational Phonology: Current Themes in Computational Phonology and Morphology, 35–42. Barcelona: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gorman, Kyle. 2013. Generative phonotactics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Guy, Gregory R. 1991a. Explanation in variable phonology: An exponential model of morphological constraints. Language Variation and Change 3(1). 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991b. Contextual conditioning in variable lexical phonology. Language Variation and Change 3(2). 223–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, Kathleen Currie. 2009. A probabilistic model of phonological relationships from contrast to allophony. Columbus: The Ohio State University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
. 2012. Phonological relationships: A probabilistic model. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 22(1). 1–14.Google Scholar
Hall, Kathleen Currie & Mackie, J. Scott & Lo, Roger Yu-Hsiang. 2019. Phonological CorpusTools: Software for doing phonological analysis on transcribed corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24(4). 522–535. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, Kathleen Currie & Hume, Elizabeth & Jaeger, T. Florian & Wedel, Andrew B. 2018. The role of predicability in shaping phonological patterns. Linguistic Vanguard 4(s2). 1–15. (Article no. 20170027.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1962. Phonology in generative grammar. Word 18(1–3). 54–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hare, Mary. 1992. The role of similarity in Hungarian vowel harmony: A connectionist account. In Sharkey, Noel E. (ed.), Connectionist natural language processing: Readings from Connection Science, 295–322. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harlow, Ray. 1991. Consonant dissimilation in Maori. In Blust, Robert A. (ed.), Currents in Pacific Linguistics: Papers on Austronesian languages and ethnolinguistics in honour of George W. Grace (Pacific Linguistics Series C-117), 117–128. Canberra: Pacific Linguisitcs (The Australian National University).Google Scholar
Hashimoto, Daiki. 2021. Probabilistic reduction and mental accumulation in Japanese: Frequency, contextual predictability, and average predictability. Journal of Phonetics 871. (Article 101061.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer & Foulkes, Paul. 2016. The evolution of medial /t/ over real and remembered time. Language 92(2). 298–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer & Nolan, Aaron & Drager, Katie K. 2006. From fush to feesh: Exemplar priming in speech perception. The Linguistic Review 23(3). 351–379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & Londe, Zsuzsa Cziráky. 2006. Stochastic phonological knowledge: The case of Hungarian vowel harmony. Phonology 23(1). 59–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & Siptár, Péter & Zuraw, Kie & Londe, Zsuzsa. 2009. Natural and unnatural constraints in Hungarian vowel harmony. Language 85(4). 822–863. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & Wilson, Colin. 2008. A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry 39(3). 379–440. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heinz, Jeffrey. 2010. Learning long-distance phonotactics. Linguistic Inquiry 41(4). 623–661. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles Francis. 1955. A manual of phonology. Baltimore: Waverly Press.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth. 2008. Markedness and the language user. Phonological Studies 111. 83–98.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth & Mailhot, Frédéric. 2013. The role of entropy and surprisal in phonologization and language change. In Yu, Alan C. L. (ed.), Origins of sound change: Approaches to phonologization, 29–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jarosz, Gaja. 2006. Rich lexicons and restrictive grammars: Maximum likelihood learning in Optimality Theory. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Johnson, Elizabeth K. & Jusczyk, Peter W. 2001. Word segmentation by 8-month-olds: When speech cues count more than statistics. Journal of Memory and Language 44(4). 548–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Keith. 2006. Resonance in an exemplar-based lexicon: The emergence of social identity and phonology. Journal of Phonetics 34(4). 485–499. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, ‘Ōiwi Parker. 2008. Phonotactic probability and the Māori passive: A computational approach. In Eisner, Jason & Heinz, Jeffrey (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Meeting of the ACL Special Interest Group on Computational Morphology and Phonology (SIGMORPHON 2008), 39–48. Columbus: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, Dan. 2003. Probablistic modeling in psycholinguistics: Linguistic comprehension and production. In Bod, Rens & Hay, Jennifer & Jannedy, Stefanie (eds.), Probablistic linguistics, 39–95. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. 2012. What statistics do learners track? Rules, constraints or schemas in (artificial) grammar learning. In Gries, Stefan Th. & Divjak, Dagmar (eds.), Frequency effects in language, volume 1: Frequency effects in language learning and processing, 53–82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. 1964. Semi-sentences. In Fodor, Jerry A. & Katz, Jerrold J. (eds.), The structure of language: Readings in the philosophy of language, 400–416. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
Kawahara, Shigeto. 2011. Experimental approaches in theoretical phonology. In van Oostendorp, Marc & Ewen, Colin J. & Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, volume IV: Phonological interfaces, 2283–2303. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keller, Frank. 2000. Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. (Doctoral dissertation.)
. 2006. Linear optimality theory as a model of gradience in grammar. In Fanselow, Gisbert & Féry, Caroline & Schlesewsky, Matthias & Vogel, Ralf (eds.), Gradience in grammar: Generative perspectives, 270–288. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirov, Christo & Wilson, Colin. 2013. Bayesian speech production: Evidence from latency and hyperarticulation. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 351. 788–793.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1969. Contraction, deletion, and inherent variablity of the English copula. Language 45(4). 715–762. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Quantitative analysis of linguistic variation. In Ammon, Ulrich & Dittmar, Norbert & Mattheier, Klaus J. & Trudgill, Peter (eds.), Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society, 2nd edn., vol. 11, 6–21. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laks, Bernard. 1995. A connectionist account of French syllabification. Lingua 95(1-3). 51–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lau, Jey Han & Clark, Alexander & Lappin, Shalom. 2017. Grammaticality, acceptability, and probability: A probabilistic view of linguistic knowledge. Cognitive Science 41(5). 1202–1241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine & Miyata, Yoshiro & Smolensky, Paul. 1990. Can connectionism contribute to syntax? Harmonic grammar, with an application. In Ziolkowski, Michael & Noske, Manuela & Deaton, Karen (eds.), Papers from the 26th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, volume 1: The general session, 237–252. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Leung, Man-Tak & Law, Sam-Po & Fung, Suk-Yee. 2004. Type and token frequencies of phonological units in Hong Kong Cantonese. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 36(3). 500–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, Björn. 1986. Phonetic universals in vowel systems. In Ohala, John J. & Jaeger, Jeri J. (eds.), Experimental phonology, 13–44. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian & Precoda, Kristin. 1992. Syllable structure and phonetic models. Phonology 9(1). 45–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, Andy. 2007. The evolving lexicon. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Maye, Jessica & Werker, Janet F. & Gerken, LouAnn. 2002. Infant sensitivity to distributional information can affect phonetic discrimination. Cognition 82(3). B101–B111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1986. OCP Effects: Gemination and antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry 17(2). 207–263.Google Scholar
McClelland, James L. & Elman, Jeffrey L. 1986. The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology 18(1). 1–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCollum, Adam G. 2018. Vowel dispersion and Kazakh labial harmony. Phonology 35(2). 287–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McQueen, James M. 1998. Segmentation of continuous speech using phonotactics. Journal of Memory and Language 39(1). 21–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McQueen, James M. & Cutler, Anne & Norris, Dennis. 2006. Phonological abstraction in the mental lexicon. Cognitive Science 30(6). 1113–1126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mester, Ralf-Armin. 1986. Studies in tier structure. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Moore-Cantwell, Claire. 2013. Over- and under- generalization in learning derivational morphology. In Keine, Stefan & Sloggett, Shayne (eds.), NELS 42: Proceedings of the Forty-Second Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, vol. 21, 41–54. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
. 2016. The representation of probabilistic phonological patterns: Neurological, behavioral, and computational evidence from the English stress system. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Moreton, Elliott. 2002. Structural constraints in the perception of English stop-sonorant clusters. Cognition 84(1). 55–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Analytic bias and phonological typology. Phonology 25(1). 83–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munson, Benjamin & Edwards, Jan & Beckman, Mary E. 2012. Phonological representations in language acquisition: Climbing the ladder of abstraction. In Cohn, Abigail C. & Fougeron, Cécile & Huffman, Marie K. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of laboratory phonology, 288–309. New York: Oxford University Press. (With assistance from Renwick, Margaret E. L.)Google Scholar
Myers, James. 2007. Linking data to grammar in phonology: Two case studies. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 33(2). 1–22.Google Scholar
. 2012. Testing phonological grammars with lexical data. In Myers, James (ed.), In search of grammar: Experimental and corpus-based studies, 139–174. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Myers, James & Tsay, Jane. 2005. The processing of phonological acceptability judgments. (Paper presented at the Proceedings of Symposium on 90–92 NSC Projects, Taipei, 28–29 May 2005.)
Newport, Elissa L. & Aslin, Richard N. 2004. Learning at a distance: I. Statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies. Cognitive Psychology 48(2). 127–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, Dennis & McQueen, James M. 2008. Shortlist B: A Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. Psychological Review 115(2). 357–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nosofsky, Robert M. 1986. Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental psychology: General 115(1). 39–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orzechowska, Paula & Ridouane, Rachid. 2018. The structure of vowelless verbal roots in Tashlhiyt Berber. In Klessa, Katarzyna & Bachan, Jolanta & Wagner, Agnieszka & Karpiński, Maciej & Śledziński, Daniel (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Speech Prosody, 537–541. ISCA Archive. ([URL]) (Accessed 2023-04-10.) DOI logo
Padgett, Jaye. 1995. Stricture in feature geometry. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 2004. Russian vowel reduction and Dispersion Theory. Phonological Studies 71. 81–96.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye & Tabain, Marija. 2005. Adaptive dispersion theory and phonological vowel reduction in Russian. Phonetica 62(1). 14–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paolillo, John C. 2002. Analyzing linguistic variation: Statistical models and methods. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe. 1999. Austrturnonesian nasal substitution and other NC effects. In Kager, René & van der Hulst, Harry & Zonneveld, Wim (eds.), The prosody morphology interface, 310–343. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pierce, John R. 1961. An introduction to information theory: Symbols, signals, and noise. 1st edn. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 1993. Dissimilarity in the Arabic verbal roots. In Schafer, Amy J. (ed.), NELS 23: Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 23 1, vol. 21, 367–381. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
1994. Syllable structure and word structure: A study of triconsonantal clusters in English. In Keating, Patricia A. (ed.), Phonological structure and phonetic form: Papers in laboratory phonology III 1, 168–188. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001a. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In Bybee, Joan L. & Hopper, Paul L. (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 137–158. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001b. Why phonological constraints are so coarse-grained. Language and Cognitive Processes 16(5-6). 691–698. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003a. Phonetic diversity, statistical learning, and acquisition of phonology. Language and Speech 46(2-3). 115–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003b. Probabilistic phonology: Discrimation and robustness. In Bod, Rens & Hay, Jennifer & Jannedy, Stefanie (eds.), Probability theory in linguistics, 177–228. Cambridge: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. Phonological representation: Beyond abstract versus episodic. Annual Review of Linguistics 21. 33–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2022. More than seventy years of probablistic phonology. In Dresher, B. Elan & van der Hulst, Harry (eds.), The Oxford history of phonology, 639–655. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plaut, David C. & Kello, Christopher T. 1999. The emergence of phonology from the interplay of speech comprehension and production: A distributed connectionist approach. In MacWhinney, Brian (ed.), The emergence of language, 381–415. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Pluymaekers, Mark & Ernestus, Mirjam & Baayen, R. Harald. 2005. Articulatory planning is continuous and sensitive to informational redundancy. Phonetica 62(2–4). 146–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan S. & Smolensky, Paul. 2004[1993]. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden: Blackwell. (Final version of the widely-circulated 1993 Technical Report.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan S. & Tesar, Bruce. 2004. Learning phonotactic distributions. In Kager, René & Pater, Joe & Zonneveld, Wim (eds.), Constraints in phonological acquisition, 245–291. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rácz, Péter & Hay, Jennifer & Needle, Jeremy & King, Jeanette & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2016. Gradient Māori phonotactics. Te Reo 591. 3–21.Google Scholar
Riggle, Jason Alan. 2004. Generation, recognition, and learning in finite-state Optimality Theory. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Rose, Yvan & MacWhinney, Brian & Byrne, Rodrique & Hedlund, Gregory & Maddocks, Keith & O’Brien, Philip & Wareham, Todd. 2006. Introducting Phon: A software solution for the study of phonological acquisition. In Bamman, David & Magnitskaia, Tatiana & Zaller, Colleen (eds.), BUCLD 30: Proceedings of the 30th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 489–500. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Saffran, Jenny R. & Aslin, Richard N. & Newport, Elissa L. 1996. Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science 274(5294). 1926–1928. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saffran, Jenny R. 2003. Statistical language learning: Mechanisms and constraints. Current Directions in Psychological Science 12(4). 110–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, David & Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Smith, Eric. 2005. GoldVarb X: A variable rule application for Macintosh and Windows. Toronto: Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto. ([URL]) (Accessed 2023-04-21.)
Scarborough, Rebecca Anne. 2004. Coarticulation and the structure of the lexicon. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Schatz, Thomas & Feldman, Naomi H. & Goldwater, Sharon & Cao, Xuan-Nga & Dupoux, Emmanuel. 2021. Early phonetic learning without phonetic categories: Insights from large-scale simulations on realistic input. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 118(7). 1–12. (Article e2001844118.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shannon, Claude E. & Weaver, Warren. 1949. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie. 1979. Speech errors as evidence for a serial-ordering mechanism in sentence production. In Copper, William E. & Walker, Edward C. T. (eds.), Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett, 295–342. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Shaw, Jason & Kawahara, Shigeto. 2018. Predictability and phonology: Past, present and future. Linguistic Vanguard 4(s2). 1–11. (Article no. 20180042.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shi, Lei & Griffiths, Thomas L. & Feldman, Naomi H. & Sanborn, Adam N. 2010. Exemplar models as a mechanism for performing Bayesian inference. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 17(4). 443–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skousen, Royal. 1989. Analogical modeling of language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
. 1992. Analogy and structure. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. Analogy: A non-rule alternative to neural networks. Rivista di Linguistica 7(2). 213–231.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul. 1988. On the proper treatment of connectionism. Brain and Behavioral Sciences 111. 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. On the comprehension/production dilemma in child language. Linguistic Inquiry 27(4). 720–731.Google Scholar
. 2006. Harmony in linguistic cognition. Cognitive Science 30(5). 779–801. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smolensky, Paul & Goldrick, Matthew & Mathis, Donald. 2014. Optimization and quantization in gradient symbol systems: A framework for integrating the continuous and the discrete in cognition. Cognitive Science 38(6). 1102–1138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smolensky, Paul & Legendre, Géraldine. 2006. The harmonic mind: From neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar. Cambridge: The MIT Press. (21 vols.)Google Scholar
Solé, Maria-Josep & Beddor, Patrice Speeter & Ohala, Manjari. 2007. Experimental approaches to phonology. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorace, Antonella & Keller, Frank. 2005. Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua 115(11). 1497–1524. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
St. John, Mark F. & McClelland, James L. 1988. Learning and applying contextual constraints in sentence comprehension (Technical Report AIP 39). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stanley, Richard. 1967. Redundancy rules in phonology. Language 43(2). 393–436. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Staubs, Robert D. 2014. Computational modeling of learning biases in stress typology. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Suomi, Kari & McQueen, James M. & Cutler, Anne. 1997. Vowel harmony and speech segmentation in Finnish. Journal of Memory and Language 36(3). 422–444. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tesar, Bruce & Smolensky, Paul. 2000. Learnability in Optimality Theory. Cambridge: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Michael S. C. & McClelland, James L. 2008. Connectionist models of cognition. In Sun, Ron (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of computational psychology, 23–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tilsen, Sam. 2009. Subphonemic and cross-phonemic priming in vowel shadowing: Evidence for the involvement of exemplars in production. Journal of Phonetics 37(3). 276–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Treiman, Rebecca & Kessler, Brett & Knewasser, Stephanie & Tincoff, Ruth & Bowman, Margo. 2000. English speakers’ sensitivity to phonotactic patterns. In Broe, Michael B. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology V: Acquisition and the lexicon, 269–282. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tupper, Paul F. 2015. Exemplar dynamics and sound merger in language. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics 75(4). 1469–1492. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turnbull, Rory John. 2015. Assessing the listener-oriented account of predictability-based phonetic reduction. Columbus: The Ohio State University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Vousden, Janet I. & Brown, Gordon D. A. & Harley, Trevor A. 2000. Serial control of phonology in speech production: A hierarchical model. Cognitive Psychology 41(2). 101–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vroomen, Jean & Tuomainen, Jyrki & de Gelder, Beatrice. 1998. The roles of word stress and vowel harmony in speech segmentation. Journal of Memory and Language 38(2). 133–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warner, Natasha & Jongman, Allard & Sereno, Joan A. & Kemps, Rachèl. 2004. Incomplete neutralization and other sub-phonemic durational differences in production and perception: Evidence from Dutch. Journal of Phonetics 32(2). 251–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wedel, Andrew B. 2003. Self-organization and categorical behavior in phonology. In Nowak, Pawel M. & Yoquelet, Corey & Mortensen, David (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 611–622. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. Exemplar models, evolution and language change. The Linguistic Review 23(3). 247–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wedel, Andrew B. & Kaplan, Abby & Jackson, Scott. 2013. High functional load inhibits phonological contrast loss: A corpus study. Cognition 128(2). 179–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, Katherine S. & Peperkamp, Sharon & Kirk, Cecilia & Morgan, James L. 2008. Rapid acquisition of phonological alternations by infants. Cognition 107(1). 238–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Colin. 2006. Learning phonology with substantive bias: An experimental and computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science 30(5). 945–982. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Colin & Davidson, Lisa. 2013. Bayesian analysis of non-native cluster production. In Kan, Seda & Moore-Cantwell, Claire & Staubs, Robert (eds.), NELS 40: Proceedings of the Fortieth Annual Meeting of the North East Lingusitic Society, vol. II1, 265–278. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
Xu, Fei & Tenenbaum, Joshua B. 2007. Word learning as Bayesian inference. Psychological Review 114(2). 245–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yip, Moira. 1989. Feature geometry and cooccurrence restrictions. Phonology 6(2). 349–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zuraw, Kie Ross. 2000. Patterned exceptions in phonology. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles. (Doctoral dissertation.)
. 2003. Probability in language change. In Bod, Rens & Hay, Jennifer & Jannedy, Stefanie (eds.), Probabilistic linguistics, 139–176. Cambridge: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zuraw, Kie. 2007. The role of phonetic knowledge in phonotactic patterning: Corpus and survey evidence from Tagalog infixation. Language 83(2). 277–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zuraw, Kie & Hayes, Bruce. 2017. Intersecting constraint families: An argument for harmonic grammar. Language 93(3). 497–548. DOI logoGoogle Scholar