Article published In:
Language and Linguistics
Vol. 24:4 (2023) ► pp.565610
References
Adriaans, Frans W. & Kager, René
2017Learning novel phonotactics from exposure to continuous speech. Laboratory Phonology 8(1). 1–14. (Article 12.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Albright, Adam
2009Feature-based generalization as a source of gradient acceptability. Phonology 26(1). 9–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Albright, Adam & Hayes, Bruce
2003Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Cognition 90(2). 119–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alderete, John & Bob, Tanya
2005A 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
2013Samoan root phonotactics: Digging deeper into the data. Linguistic Discovery 11(1). 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alderete, John & Finley, Sara
2016Gradient vowel harmony in Oceanic. Language and Linguistics 17(6). 769–796.Google Scholar
Alderete, John & Tupper, Paul
2018Connectionist 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.
2013Phonological constraint induction in a connectionist network: Learning OCP-place constraints from data. Language Sciences 371. 52–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Arto
1997Deriving 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
2007Variation 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.
1998Computation of conditional probability statistics by 8-month-old infants. Psychological Science 9(4). 321–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aylett, Matthew & Turk, Alice
2004The 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
2001Determinants of wordlikeness: Phonotactics or lexical neighborhoods? Journal of Memory and Language 44(4). 568–591. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becker, Michael & Gouskova, Maria
2016Surface-oriented generalizations as grammar inference in Russian vowel deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 47(3). 391–425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becker, Michael & Ketrez, Nihan & Nevins, Andrew
2011The 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
2010Generalizing over lexicons to predict consonant mastery. Laboratory Phonology 1(2). 319–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benus, Stefan
2005Dynamics and transparency in vowel harmony. New York: New York University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Bird, Steven & Klein, Ewan & Loper, Edward
2009Natural language processing with Python. Sevastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P.
2006Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42(3). 531–573. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bod, Rens
2003Introduction 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
1998Functional phonology: Formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Hamann, Silke
2008The evolution of auditory dispersion in bidirectional constraint grammars. Phonology 25(2). 217–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Hayes, Bruce
2001Empirical tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32(1). 45–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brent, Michael R. & Cartwright, Timothy A.
1996Distributional regularity and phonotactic constraints are useful for segmentation. Cognition 61(1-2). 93–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L.
2000The 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
2001Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & McClelland, James L.
2005Alternatives 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
1973The interplay of social and linguistic factors in Panama. Ithaca: Cornell University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Cedergren, Henrietta Cecilia Jonas & Sankoff, David
1974Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language 50(2). 333–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chambers, Kyle E. & Onishi, Kristine H. & Fisher, Cynthia
2003Infants learn phonotactic regularities from brief auditory experience. Cognition 87(2). B69–B77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chandlee, Jane & Heinz, Jeffrey
2017Computational phonology. In Aronoff, Mark (ed.), Oxford research encylcopedia of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ( DOI logo) (Accessed 2023-04-21.)Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1957Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1961Some methodological remarks on generative grammar. Word 17(2). 219–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1965Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris
1968The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Miller, George A.
1963Introduction 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.
2016First language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. & Kawahara, Shigeto
2013Frequency biases in phonological variation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31(1). 47–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. & Pater, Joe
2008Weighted constraints and gradient restrictions on place co-ccurrence in Muna and Arabic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26(2). 289–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011The 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
2012Sign and signal: Deriving linguistic generalizations from information utility. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
2015Informativity affects consonant duration and deletion rates. Laboratory Phonology 6(2). 243–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017Informativity and the actuation of lenition. Language 93(3). 569–597. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cole, Jennifer
2009Emergent feature structures: Harmony systems in exemplar models of phonology. Language Sciences 31(2-3). 144–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coleman, John & Pierrehumbert, Janet B.
1997Stochastic 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
2003Morphological 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
1980Errors 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
2002TiMBL: Tilburg memory-based learner, version 4.2, reference guide (ILK technical report; vol. 01–04). Tilburg: Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Daland, Robert
2013Variation in the input: A case study of manner class frequencies. Journal of Child Language 40(5). 1091–1122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014What is computational phonology? Loquens 1(1). ( DOI logo) (Accessed 2023-04-21.) (e004.)Google Scholar
2015Long 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
2011Explaining sonority projection effects. Phonology 28(2). 197–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daland, Robert & Pierrehumbert, Janet B.
2011Learning diphone-based segmentation. Cognitive Science 35(1). 119–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daland, Robert & Zuraw, Kie
2018Loci and locality of informational effects on phonetic implementation. Linguistic Vanguard 4(s2). 1–10. (Article no. 20170045.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dell, Gary S.
1986A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review 93(3). 283–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dell, Gary S. & Juliano, Cornell & Govindjee, Anita
1993Structure 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
1984Phonological neutralization, phonetic implementation and individual differences. Journal of Phonetics 12(1). 49–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drager, Katie K.
2011Sociophonetic variation and the lemma. Journal of Phonetics 39(4). 694–707. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durand, Jacques & Gut, Ulrike & Kristoffersen, Gjert
(eds) 2014The Oxford handbook of corpus phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eddington, David
2000Spanish stress assignment within the analogical modeling of language. Language 76(1). 92–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004Issues in modeling language processing analogically. Lingua 114(7). 849–871. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eisner, Jason
2002Parameter 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
2011Gradience 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
2003Predicting the unpredictable: Interpreting neutralized segments in Dutch. Language 79(1). 5–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004Analogical effects in regular past tense production in Dutch. Linguistics 42(5). 873–903. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011Corpora 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.
2013A 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.
2009Learning 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
1994On the acquisition of prosodic structure. Leiden: Leiden University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
2007Acquiring phonology. In de Lacy, Paul (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology, 537–554. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finley, Sara
2013Generalization to unfamiliar talkers in artificial language learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 20(4). 780–789. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finley, Sara & Badecker, William
2007Towards 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
2010Modeling 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.
2007A 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.
1996Similarity and frequency in phonology. Evanston: Northwestern University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
2004Language 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
2011Frequency 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
2012Phonotactic 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.
2010Metalinguistic 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.
2000Perception 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.
2004Similarity avoidance and the OCP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22(1). 179–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frisch, Stefan A. & Stearns, Adrienne M.
2006Linguistic 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
2001The psychological reality of OCP-Place in Arabic. Language 77(1). 91–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Andrew & Johnson, Keith
2013Phonetic 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
2001Assimilation 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
2007Connectionist 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.
2006Cascading 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
2009Linking speech errors and phonological grammars: Insights from Harmonic Grammar networks. Phonology 26(1). 147–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, John A.
1976Autosegmental phonology. Cambridge: MIT. (Doctoral dissertation.)
(ed.) 1993The last phonological rule: Reflections on constraints and derivations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John A. & Larson, Gary
1990Local 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
2012Information 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
2009A Bayesian framework for word segmentation: Exploring the effects of context. Cognition 112(1). 21–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldwater, Sharon & Johnson, Mark
2003Learning 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
2004Priors 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
2013Generative phonotactics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Guy, Gregory R.
1991aExplanation in variable phonology: An exponential model of morphological constraints. Language Variation and Change 3(1). 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991bContextual conditioning in variable lexical phonology. Language Variation and Change 3(2). 223–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, Kathleen Currie
2009A probabilistic model of phonological relationships from contrast to allophony. Columbus: The Ohio State University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
2012Phonological 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
2019Phonological 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.
2018The role of predicability in shaping phonological patterns. Linguistic Vanguard 4(s2). 1–15. (Article no. 20170027.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris
1962Phonology in generative grammar. Word 18(1–3). 54–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hare, Mary
1992The 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
1991Consonant 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
2021Probabilistic 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
2016The evolution of medial /t/ over real and remembered time. Language 92(2). 298–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer & Nolan, Aaron & Drager, Katie K.
2006From fush to feesh: Exemplar priming in speech perception. The Linguistic Review 23(3). 351–379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & Londe, Zsuzsa Cziráky
2006Stochastic phonological knowledge: The case of Hungarian vowel harmony. Phonology 23(1). 59–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & Siptár, Péter & Zuraw, Kie & Londe, Zsuzsa
2009Natural and unnatural constraints in Hungarian vowel harmony. Language 85(4). 822–863. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & Wilson, Colin
2008A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry 39(3). 379–440. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heinz, Jeffrey
2010Learning long-distance phonotactics. Linguistic Inquiry 41(4). 623–661. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles Francis
1955A manual of phonology. Baltimore: Waverly Press.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth
2008Markedness and the language user. Phonological Studies 111. 83–98.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth & Mailhot, Frédéric
2013The 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
2006Rich lexicons and restrictive grammars: Maximum likelihood learning in Optimality Theory. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Johnson, Elizabeth K. & Jusczyk, Peter W.
2001Word 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
2006Resonance 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
2008Phonotactic 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
2003Probablistic 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
2012What 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.
1964Semi-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
2011Experimental 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
2000Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. (Doctoral dissertation.)
2006Linear 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
2013Bayesian speech production: Evidence from latency and hyperarticulation. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 351. 788–793.Google Scholar
Labov, William
1969Contraction, deletion, and inherent variablity of the English copula. Language 45(4). 715–762. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004Quantitative 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
1995A connectionist account of French syllabification. Lingua 95(1-3). 51–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lau, Jey Han & Clark, Alexander & Lappin, Shalom
2017Grammaticality, acceptability, and probability: A probabilistic view of linguistic knowledge. Cognitive Science 41(5). 1202–1241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine & Miyata, Yoshiro & Smolensky, Paul
1990Can 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
2004Type and token frequencies of phonological units in Hong Kong Cantonese. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 36(3). 500–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, Björn
1986Phonetic 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
1992Syllable structure and phonetic models. Phonology 9(1). 45–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, Andy
2007The evolving lexicon. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Maye, Jessica & Werker, Janet F. & Gerken, LouAnn
2002Infant sensitivity to distributional information can affect phonetic discrimination. Cognition 82(3). B101–B111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J.
1986OCP Effects: Gemination and antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry 17(2). 207–263.Google Scholar
McClelland, James L. & Elman, Jeffrey L.
1986The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology 18(1). 1–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCollum, Adam G.
2018Vowel dispersion and Kazakh labial harmony. Phonology 35(2). 287–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McQueen, James M.
1998Segmentation of continuous speech using phonotactics. Journal of Memory and Language 39(1). 21–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McQueen, James M. & Cutler, Anne & Norris, Dennis
2006Phonological abstraction in the mental lexicon. Cognitive Science 30(6). 1113–1126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mester, Ralf-Armin
1986Studies in tier structure. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Moore-Cantwell, Claire
2013Over- 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
2016The representation of probabilistic phonological patterns: Neurological, behavioral, and computational evidence from the English stress system. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Moreton, Elliott
2002Structural constraints in the perception of English stop-sonorant clusters. Cognition 84(1). 55–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008Analytic bias and phonological typology. Phonology 25(1). 83–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munson, Benjamin & Edwards, Jan & Beckman, Mary E.
2012Phonological 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
2007Linking data to grammar in phonology: Two case studies. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 33(2). 1–22.Google Scholar
2012Testing 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
2005The 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.
2004Learning at a distance: I. Statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies. Cognitive Psychology 48(2). 127–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, Dennis & McQueen, James M.
2008Shortlist B: A Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. Psychological Review 115(2). 357–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nosofsky, Robert M.
1986Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental psychology: General 115(1). 39–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orzechowska, Paula & Ridouane, Rachid
2018The 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
1995Stricture in feature geometry. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
2004Russian vowel reduction and Dispersion Theory. Phonological Studies 71. 81–96.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye & Tabain, Marija
2005Adaptive dispersion theory and phonological vowel reduction in Russian. Phonetica 62(1). 14–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paolillo, John C.
2002Analyzing linguistic variation: Statistical models and methods. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe
1999Austrturnonesian 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.
1961An introduction to information theory: Symbols, signals, and noise. 1st edn. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B.
1993Dissimilarity 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
1994Syllable 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
2001aExemplar 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
2001bWhy phonological constraints are so coarse-grained. Language and Cognitive Processes 16(5-6). 691–698. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003aPhonetic diversity, statistical learning, and acquisition of phonology. Language and Speech 46(2-3). 115–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003bProbabilistic 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
2016Phonological representation: Beyond abstract versus episodic. Annual Review of Linguistics 21. 33–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2022More 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.
1999The 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
2005Articulatory 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
2004Learning 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.
2016Gradient Māori phonotactics. Te Reo 591. 3–21.Google Scholar
Riggle, Jason Alan
2004Generation, 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
2006Introducting 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.
1996Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science 274(5294). 1926–1928. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saffran, Jenny R.
2003Statistical language learning: Mechanisms and constraints. Current Directions in Psychological Science 12(4). 110–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, David & Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Smith, Eric
2005GoldVarb X: A variable rule application for Macintosh and Windows. Toronto: Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto. ([URL]) (Accessed 2023-04-21.)
Scarborough, Rebecca Anne
2004Coarticulation 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
2021Early 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
1949The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie
1979Speech 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
2018Predictability 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.
2010Exemplar models as a mechanism for performing Bayesian inference. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 17(4). 443–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skousen, Royal
1989Analogical modeling of language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
1992Analogy and structure. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995Analogy: A non-rule alternative to neural networks. Rivista di Linguistica 7(2). 213–231.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul
1988On the proper treatment of connectionism. Brain and Behavioral Sciences 111. 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996On the comprehension/production dilemma in child language. Linguistic Inquiry 27(4). 720–731.Google Scholar
2006Harmony in linguistic cognition. Cognitive Science 30(5). 779–801. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smolensky, Paul & Goldrick, Matthew & Mathis, Donald
2014Optimization 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
2006The 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
2007Experimental approaches to phonology. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorace, Antonella & Keller, Frank
2005Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua 115(11). 1497–1524. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
St. John, Mark F. & McClelland, James L.
1988Learning and applying contextual constraints in sentence comprehension (Technical Report AIP 39). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stanley, Richard
1967Redundancy rules in phonology. Language 43(2). 393–436. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Staubs, Robert D.
2014Computational modeling of learning biases in stress typology. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Suomi, Kari & McQueen, James M. & Cutler, Anne
1997Vowel harmony and speech segmentation in Finnish. Journal of Memory and Language 36(3). 422–444. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tesar, Bruce & Smolensky, Paul
2000Learnability in Optimality Theory. Cambridge: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Michael S. C. & McClelland, James L.
2008Connectionist models of cognition. In Sun, Ron (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of computational psychology, 23–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tilsen, Sam
2009Subphonemic 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
2000English 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.
2015Exemplar dynamics and sound merger in language. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics 75(4). 1469–1492. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turnbull, Rory John
2015Assessing 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.
2000Serial 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
1998The 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
2004Incomplete 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.
2003Self-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
2006Exemplar models, evolution and language change. The Linguistic Review 23(3). 247–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wedel, Andrew B. & Kaplan, Abby & Jackson, Scott
2013High 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.
2008Rapid acquisition of phonological alternations by infants. Cognition 107(1). 238–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Colin
2006Learning 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
2013Bayesian 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.
2007Word learning as Bayesian inference. Psychological Review 114(2). 245–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yip, Moira
1989Feature geometry and cooccurrence restrictions. Phonology 6(2). 349–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zuraw, Kie Ross
2000Patterned exceptions in phonology. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles. (Doctoral dissertation.)
2003Probability in language change. In Bod, Rens & Hay, Jennifer & Jannedy, Stefanie (eds.), Probabilistic linguistics, 139–176. Cambridge: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zuraw, Kie
2007The 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
2017Intersecting constraint families: An argument for harmonic grammar. Language 93(3). 497–548. DOI logoGoogle Scholar