1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Language and Linguistics
  4. Volume 24, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 24, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1606-822X
  • E-ISSN: 2309-5067
EPUB
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

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.

© 2023 ILAS
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00141.ald
2023-09-14
2024-10-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lali.00141.ald
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lali.00141.ald.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00141.ald&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Adriaans, Frans W. & Kager, René
    2017 Learning novel phonotactics from exposure to continuous speech. Laboratory Phonology8(1). 1–14. (Article 12.) 10.5334/labphon.20
     https://doi.org/10.5334/labphon.20 [Google Scholar]
  2. Albright, Adam
    2009 Feature-based generalization as a source of gradient acceptability. Phonology26(1). 9–41. 10.1017/S0952675709001705
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675709001705 [Google Scholar]
  3. Albright, Adam & Hayes, Bruce
    2003 Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Cognition90(2). 119–161. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(03)00146‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00146-X [Google Scholar]
  4. Alderete, John & Bob, Tanya
    2005 A corpus-based approach to Tahltan stress. InHargus, Sharon & Rice, Keren (eds.), Athabaskan prosody, 369–391. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.269.21ald
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.269.21ald [Google Scholar]
  5. Alderete, John & Bradshaw, Mark
    2013 Samoan root phonotactics: Digging deeper into the data. Linguistic Discovery11(1). 1–21. 10.1349/PS1.1537‑0852.A.424
     https://doi.org/10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.424 [Google Scholar]
  6. Alderete, John & Finley, Sara
    2016 Gradient vowel harmony in Oceanic. Language and Linguistics17(6). 769–796.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Alderete, John & Tupper, Paul
    2018 Connectionist approaches to generative phonology. InHannahs, S. J. & Bosch, Anna R. K. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of phonological theory, 360–390. New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Alderete, John & Tupper, Paul & Frisch, Stefan A.
    2013 Phonological constraint induction in a connectionist network: Learning OCP-place constraints from data. Language Sciences371. 52–69. 10.1016/j.langsci.2012.10.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  9. Anttila, Arto
    1997 Deriving variation from grammar. InHinskens, Frans L. & van Hout, Roeland & Wetzels, W. Leo (eds.), Variation, change, and phonological theory, 35–68. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.146.04ant
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.146.04ant [Google Scholar]
  10. 2007 Variation and optionality. Inde Lacy, Paul (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology, 519–536. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486371.023
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486371.023 [Google Scholar]
  11. Aslin, Richard N. & Saffran, Jenny R. & Newport, Elissa L.
    1998 Computation of conditional probability statistics by 8-month-old infants. Psychological Science9(4). 321–324. 10.1111/1467‑9280.00063
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00063 [Google Scholar]
  12. 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 Speech47(1). 31–56. 10.1177/00238309040470010201
     https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309040470010201 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bailey, Todd M. & Hahn, Ulrike
    2001 Determinants of wordlikeness: Phonotactics or lexical neighborhoods?Journal of Memory and Language44(4). 568–591. 10.1006/jmla.2000.2756
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2756 [Google Scholar]
  14. Becker, Michael & Gouskova, Maria
    2016 Surface-oriented generalizations as grammar inference in Russian vowel deletion. Linguistic Inquiry47(3). 391–425. 10.1162/LING_a_00217
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00217 [Google Scholar]
  15. Becker, Michael & Ketrez, Nihan & Nevins, Andrew
    2011 The surfeit of the stimulus: Analytic biases filter lexical statistics in Turkish laryngeal alternations. Language87(1). 84–125. 10.1353/lan.2011.0016
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2011.0016 [Google Scholar]
  16. Beckman, Mary Esther & Edwards, Jan
    2010 Generalizing over lexicons to predict consonant mastery. Laboratory Phonology1(2). 319–343. 10.1515/labphon.2010.017
     https://doi.org/10.1515/labphon.2010.017 [Google Scholar]
  17. Benus, Stefan
    2005 Dynamics and transparency in vowel harmony. New York: New York University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Bird, Steven & Klein, Ewan & Loper, Edward
    2009 Natural language processing with Python. Sevastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Blevins, James P.
    2006 Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics42(3). 531–573. 10.1017/S0022226706004191
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226706004191 [Google Scholar]
  20. Bod, Rens
    2003 Introduction to elementary probability theory and formal stochastic language theory. InBod, Rens & Hay, Jennifer & Jannedy, Stefanie (eds.), Probabilistic linguistics, 11–37. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5582.003.0005
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5582.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
  21. Boersma, Paul
    1998 Functional phonology: Formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Boersma, Paul & Hamann, Silke
    2008 The evolution of auditory dispersion in bidirectional constraint grammars. Phonology25(2). 217–270. 10.1017/S0952675708001474
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675708001474 [Google Scholar]
  23. Boersma, Paul & Hayes, Bruce
    2001 Empirical tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry32(1). 45–86. 10.1162/002438901554586
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438901554586 [Google Scholar]
  24. Brent, Michael R. & Cartwright, Timothy A.
    1996 Distributional regularity and phonotactic constraints are useful for segmentation. Cognition61(1-2). 93–125. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(96)00719‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00719-6 [Google Scholar]
  25. Bybee, Joan L.
    2000 The phonology of the lexicon: Evidence from lexical diffusion. InBarlow, Michael & Kemmer, Suzanne (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 65–85. Stanford: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 2001 Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511612886
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612886 [Google Scholar]
  27. 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 Review22(2-4). 381–410. 10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2‑4.381
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2-4.381 [Google Scholar]
  28. Cedergren, Henrietta Cecilia Jonas
    1973 The interplay of social and linguistic factors in Panama. Ithaca: Cornell University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Cedergren, Henrietta Cecilia Jonas & Sankoff, David
    1974 Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language50(2). 333–355. 10.2307/412441
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412441 [Google Scholar]
  30. Chambers, Kyle E. & Onishi, Kristine H. & Fisher, Cynthia
    2003 Infants learn phonotactic regularities from brief auditory experience. Cognition87(2). B69–B77. 10.1016/s0010‑0277(02)00233‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00233-0 [Google Scholar]
  31. Chandlee, Jane & Heinz, Jeffrey
    2017 Computational phonology. InAronoff, Mark (ed.), Oxford research encylcopedia of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ( 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.116) (Accessed2023-04-21.)
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.116 [Google Scholar]
  32. Chomsky, Noam
    1957 Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783112316009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112316009 [Google Scholar]
  33. 1961 Some methodological remarks on generative grammar. Word17(2). 219–239. 10.1080/00437956.1961.11659755
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1961.11659755 [Google Scholar]
  34. 1965 Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris
    1968 The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Chomsky, Noam & Miller, George A.
    1963 Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. InLuce, R. Duncan & Bush, Robert R. & Galanter, Eugene (eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology, vol.21, 269–321. New York: John Wiley.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Clark, Eve V.
    2016 First language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781316534175
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316534175 [Google Scholar]
  38. Coetzee, Andries W. & Kawahara, Shigeto
    2013 Frequency biases in phonological variation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory31(1). 47–89. 10.1007/s11049‑012‑9179‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-012-9179-z [Google Scholar]
  39. Coetzee, Andries W. & Pater, Joe
    2008 Weighted constraints and gradient restrictions on place co-ccurrence in Muna and Arabic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory26(2). 289–337. 10.1007/s11049‑008‑9039‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-008-9039-z [Google Scholar]
  40. 2011 The place of variation in phonological theory. InGoldsmith, John & Riggle, Jason & Yu, Alan C. L. (eds.), The handbook of phonological theory, 2nd edn., 401–434. Malden: Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444343069.ch13
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444343069.ch13 [Google Scholar]
  41. Cohen Priva, Uriel
    2012 Sign and signal: Deriving linguistic generalizations from information utility. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 2015 Informativity affects consonant duration and deletion rates. Laboratory Phonology6(2). 243–278. 10.1515/lp‑2015‑0008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lp-2015-0008 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2017 Informativity and the actuation of lenition. Language93(3). 569–597. 10.1353/lan.2017.0037
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2017.0037 [Google Scholar]
  44. Cole, Jennifer
    2009 Emergent feature structures: Harmony systems in exemplar models of phonology. Language Sciences31(2-3). 144–160. 10.1016/j.langsci.2008.12.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2008.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  45. Coleman, John & Pierrehumbert, Janet B.
    1997 Stochastic phonological grammars and acceptability. InColeman, 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]
  46. Crosswhite, Katherine & Alderete, John & Beasley, Tim & Markman, Vita
    2003 Morphological effects on default stress in novel Russian words. InGarding, Gina & Tsujimura, Mimu (eds.), WCCFL 22: Proceedings of the 22nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 151–164. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Cutler, Anne
    1980 Errors of stress and intonation. InFromkin, Victoria A. (ed.), Errors in linguistic performance: Slips of tongue, ear, pen, and hand, 67–80. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 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]
  49. Daland, Robert
    2013 Variation in the input: A case study of manner class frequencies. Journal of Child Language40(5). 1091–1122. 10.1017/S0305000912000372
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000912000372 [Google Scholar]
  50. 2014 What is computational phonology?Loquens1(1). ( 10.3989/loquens.2014.004) (Accessed2023-04-21.) (e004.)
     https://doi.org/10.3989/loquens.2014.004 [Google Scholar]
  51. 2015 Long words in maximum entropy phonotactic grammars. Phonology32(3). 353–383. 10.1017/S0952675715000251
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675715000251 [Google Scholar]
  52. Daland, Robert & Hayes, Bruce & White, James & Garellek, Marc & Davis, Andrea & Norrmann, Ingrid
    2011 Explaining sonority projection effects. Phonology28(2). 197–234. 10.1017/S0952675711000145
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675711000145 [Google Scholar]
  53. Daland, Robert & Pierrehumbert, Janet B.
    2011 Learning diphone-based segmentation. Cognitive Science35(1). 119–155. 10.1111/j.1551‑6709.2010.01160.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01160.x [Google Scholar]
  54. Daland, Robert & Zuraw, Kie
    2018 Loci and locality of informational effects on phonetic implementation. Linguistic Vanguard4(s2). 1–10. (Article no. 20170045.) 10.1515/lingvan‑2017‑0045
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2017-0045 [Google Scholar]
  55. Dell, Gary S.
    1986 A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review93(3). 283–321. 10.1037/0033‑295X.93.3.283
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.283 [Google Scholar]
  56. Dell, Gary S. & Juliano, Cornell & Govindjee, Anita
    1993 Structure and content in language production: A theory of frame constraints in phonological speech errors. Cognitive Science17(2). 149–195. 10.1207/s15516709cog1702_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1702_1 [Google Scholar]
  57. Dinnsen, Daniel A. & Charles-Luce, Jan
    1984 Phonological neutralization, phonetic implementation and individual differences. Journal of Phonetics12(1). 49–60. 10.1016/S0095‑4470(19)30850‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30850-2 [Google Scholar]
  58. Drager, Katie K.
    2011 Sociophonetic variation and the lemma. Journal of Phonetics39(4). 694–707. 10.1016/j.wocn.2011.08.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2011.08.005 [Google Scholar]
  59. Durand, Jacques & Gut, Ulrike & Kristoffersen, Gjert
    (eds) 2014 The Oxford handbook of corpus phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199571932.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199571932.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  60. Eddington, David
    2000 Spanish stress assignment within the analogical modeling of language. Language76(1). 92–109. 10.1353/lan.2000.0022
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2000.0022 [Google Scholar]
  61. 2004 Issues in modeling language processing analogically. Lingua114(7). 849–871. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(03)00063‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00063-9 [Google Scholar]
  62. Eisner, Jason
    2002 Parameter estimation for probabilistic finite-state transducers. InIsabelle, 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]
  63. Ernestus, Mirjam
    2011 Gradience and categoricality in phonological theory. Invan Oostendorp, Marc & Ewen, Colin J. & Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, volume IV: Phonological interfaces, 2115–2136. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0089
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0089 [Google Scholar]
  64. Ernestus, Mirjam & Baayen, R. Harald
    2003 Predicting the unpredictable: Interpreting neutralized segments in Dutch. Language79(1). 5–38. 10.1353/lan.2003.0076
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0076 [Google Scholar]
  65. 2004 Analogical effects in regular past tense production in Dutch. Linguistics42(5). 873–903. 10.1515/ling.2004.031
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2004.031 [Google Scholar]
  66. 2011 Corpora and exemplars in phonology. InGoldsmith, John & Riggle, Jason & Yu, Alan C. L. (eds.), The handbook of phonological theory, 2nd edn., 374–400. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444343069.ch12
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444343069.ch12 [Google Scholar]
  67. Feldman, Naomi H. & Griffiths, Thomas L. & Goldwater, Sharon & Morgan, James L.
    2013 A role for the developing lexicon in phonetic category acquisition. Psychological Review120(4). 751–778. 10.1037/a0034245
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034245 [Google Scholar]
  68. 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 Society311. 2208–2213. (https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2s9953qz) (Accessed2023-04-21.)
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Fikkert, Paula
    1994 On the acquisition of prosodic structure. Leiden: Leiden University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  70. 2007 Acquiring phonology. Inde Lacy, Paul (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology, 537–554. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486371.024
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486371.024 [Google Scholar]
  71. Finley, Sara
    2013 Generalization to unfamiliar talkers in artificial language learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review20(4). 780–789. 10.3758/s13423‑013‑0402‑7
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0402-7 [Google Scholar]
  72. Finley, Sara & Badecker, William
    2007 Towards a substantively biased theory of learning. InCrane, 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. 10.3765/bls.v33i1.3523
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v33i1.3523 [Google Scholar]
  73. Flemming, Edward
    2010 Modeling listeners: Comments on Pluymaekers et al. and Scarborough. InFougeron, Cécile & Kühnert, Barbara & D’Imperio, Mariapaola & Vallée, Nathalie (eds.), Laboratory phonology101, 587–605. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110224917.5.587
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110224917.5.587 [Google Scholar]
  74. Frank, Michael C. & Goodman, Noah D. & Tenenbaum, Joshua B.
    2007 A Bayesian framework for cross-situational word-learning. InPlatt, 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. (31vols.)
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Frisch, Stefan A.
    1996 Similarity and frequency in phonology. Evanston: Northwestern University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  76. 2004 Language processing and segmental OCP effects. InHayes, Bruce & Kirchner, Robert & Steriade, Donca (eds.), Phonetically-based phonology, 346–371. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486401.011
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486401.011 [Google Scholar]
  77. 2011 Frequency effects. Invan Oostendorp, Marc & Ewen, Colin J. & Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, volume IV: Phonological interfaces, 2137–2163. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0090
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0090 [Google Scholar]
  78. 2012 Phonotactic patterns in lexical corpora. InCohn, 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]
  79. Frisch, Stefan A. & Brea-Spahn, María R.
    2010 Metalinguistic judgments of phonotactics by monolinguals and bilinguals. Laboratory Phonology1(2). 345–360. 10.1515/labphon.2010.018
     https://doi.org/10.1515/labphon.2010.018 [Google Scholar]
  80. 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 Language42(4). 481–496. 10.1006/jmla.1999.2692
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2692 [Google Scholar]
  81. Frisch, Stefan A. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Broe, Michael B.
    2004 Similarity avoidance and the OCP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory22(1). 179–228. 10.1023/B:NALA.0000005557.78535.3c
     https://doi.org/10.1023/B:NALA.0000005557.78535.3c [Google Scholar]
  82. Frisch, Stefan A. & Stearns, Adrienne M.
    2006 Linguistic and metalinguistic tasks in phonology: Methods and findings. InFanselow, Gisbert & Féry, Caroline & Schlesewsky, Matthias & Vogel, Ralf (eds.), Gradience in grammar: Generative perspectives, 70–84. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274796.003.0004
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274796.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  83. Frisch, Stefan A. & Zawaydeh, Bushra Adnan
    2001 The psychological reality of OCP-Place in Arabic. Language77(1). 91–106. 10.1353/lan.2001.0014
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2001.0014 [Google Scholar]
  84. Garrett, Andrew & Johnson, Keith
    2013 Phonetic bias in sound change. InYu, Alan C. L. (ed.), Origins of sound change: Approaches to phonologization, 51–97. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573745.003.0003
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573745.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  85. Goad, Heather
    2001 Assimilation phenomena and initial constraint ranking in early grammars. InDo, 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]
  86. Goldrick, Matthew
    2007 Connectionist principles in theories of speech production. InGaskell, Gareth M. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics, 515–530. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198568971.013.0031
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198568971.013.0031 [Google Scholar]
  87. Goldrick, Matthew & Blumstein, Sheila E.
    2006 Cascading activation from phonological planning to articulatory processes: Evidence from tongue twisters. Language and Cognitive Processes21(6). 649–683. 10.1080/01690960500181332
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960500181332 [Google Scholar]
  88. Goldrick, Matthew & Daland, Robert
    2009 Linking speech errors and phonological grammars: Insights from Harmonic Grammar networks. Phonology26(1). 147–185. 10.1017/S0952675709001742
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675709001742 [Google Scholar]
  89. Goldsmith, John A.
    1976 Autosegmental phonology. Cambridge: MIT. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  90. (ed.) 1993 The last phonological rule: Reflections on constraints and derivations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Goldsmith, John A. & Larson, Gary
    1990 Local modeling and syllabification. InZiolkowski, 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]
  92. Goldsmith, John & Riggle, Jason
    2012 Information theoretic approaches to phonological structure: The case of Finnish vowel harmony. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory30(3). 859–896. 10.1007/s11049‑012‑9169‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-012-9169-1 [Google Scholar]
  93. Goldwater, Sharon & Griffiths, Thomas L. & Johnson, Mark
    2009 A Bayesian framework for word segmentation: Exploring the effects of context. Cognition112(1). 21–54. 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.03.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.03.008 [Google Scholar]
  94. Goldwater, Sharon & Johnson, Mark
    2003 Learning OT constraint rankings using a maximum entropy model. InSpenader, 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]
  95. 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. 10.3115/1622153.1622158
     https://doi.org/10.3115/1622153.1622158 [Google Scholar]
  96. Gorman, Kyle
    2013 Generative phonotactics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Guy, Gregory R.
    1991a Explanation in variable phonology: An exponential model of morphological constraints. Language Variation and Change3(1). 1–22. 10.1017/S0954394500000429
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500000429 [Google Scholar]
  98. 1991b Contextual conditioning in variable lexical phonology. Language Variation and Change3(2). 223–239. 10.1017/S0954394500000533
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500000533 [Google Scholar]
  99. Hall, Kathleen Currie
    2009 A probabilistic model of phonological relationships from contrast to allophony. Columbus: The Ohio State University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  100. 2012 Phonological relationships: A probabilistic model. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics22(1). 1–14.
     [Google Scholar]
  101. 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 Linguistics24(4). 522–535. 10.1075/ijcl.18009.hal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18009.hal [Google Scholar]
  102. Hall, Kathleen Currie & Hume, Elizabeth & Jaeger, T. Florian & Wedel, Andrew B.
    2018 The role of predicability in shaping phonological patterns. Linguistic Vanguard4(s2). 1–15. (Article no. 20170027.) 10.1515/lingvan‑2017‑0027
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2017-0027 [Google Scholar]
  103. Halle, Morris
    1962 Phonology in generative grammar. Word18(1–3). 54–72. 10.1080/00437956.1962.11659765
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1962.11659765 [Google Scholar]
  104. Hare, Mary
    1992 The role of similarity in Hungarian vowel harmony: A connectionist account. InSharkey, Noel E. (ed.), Connectionist natural language processing: Readings from Connection Science, 295–322. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑2624‑3_14
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2624-3_14 [Google Scholar]
  105. Harlow, Ray
    1991 Consonant dissimilation in Maori. InBlust, 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]
  106. Hashimoto, Daiki
    2021 Probabilistic reduction and mental accumulation in Japanese: Frequency, contextual predictability, and average predictability. Journal of Phonetics871. (Article 101061.) 10.1016/j.wocn.2021.101061
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2021.101061 [Google Scholar]
  107. Hay, Jennifer & Foulkes, Paul
    2016 The evolution of medial /t/ over real and remembered time. Language92(2). 298–330. 10.1353/lan.2016.0036
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0036 [Google Scholar]
  108. Hay, Jennifer & Nolan, Aaron & Drager, Katie K.
    2006 From fush to feesh: Exemplar priming in speech perception. The Linguistic Review23(3). 351–379. 10.1515/TLR.2006.014
     https://doi.org/10.1515/TLR.2006.014 [Google Scholar]
  109. Hayes, Bruce & Londe, Zsuzsa Cziráky
    2006 Stochastic phonological knowledge: The case of Hungarian vowel harmony. Phonology23(1). 59–104. 10.1017/S0952675706000765
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675706000765 [Google Scholar]
  110. Hayes, Bruce & Siptár, Péter & Zuraw, Kie & Londe, Zsuzsa
    2009 Natural and unnatural constraints in Hungarian vowel harmony. Language85(4). 822–863. 10.1353/lan.0.0169
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0169 [Google Scholar]
  111. Hayes, Bruce & Wilson, Colin
    2008 A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry39(3). 379–440. 10.1162/ling.2008.39.3.379
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2008.39.3.379 [Google Scholar]
  112. Heinz, Jeffrey
    2010 Learning long-distance phonotactics. Linguistic Inquiry41(4). 623–661. 10.1162/LING_a_00015
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00015 [Google Scholar]
  113. Hockett, Charles Francis
    1955 A manual of phonology. Baltimore: Waverly Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Hume, Elizabeth
    2008 Markedness and the language user. Phonological Studies111. 83–98.
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Hume, Elizabeth & Mailhot, Frédéric
    2013 The role of entropy and surprisal in phonologization and language change. InYu, Alan C. L. (ed.), Origins of sound change: Approaches to phonologization, 29–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573745.003.0002
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573745.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  116. Jarosz, Gaja
    2006 Rich lexicons and restrictive grammars: Maximum likelihood learning in Optimality Theory. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Johnson, Elizabeth K. & Jusczyk, Peter W.
    2001 Word segmentation by 8-month-olds: When speech cues count more than statistics. Journal of Memory and Language44(4). 548–567. 10.1006/jmla.2000.2755
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2755 [Google Scholar]
  118. Johnson, Keith
    2006 Resonance in an exemplar-based lexicon: The emergence of social identity and phonology. Journal of Phonetics34(4). 485–499. 10.1016/j.wocn.2005.08.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2005.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  119. Jones, ‘Ōiwi Parker
    2008 Phonotactic probability and the Māori passive: A computational approach. InEisner, 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. 10.3115/1626324.1626331
     https://doi.org/10.3115/1626324.1626331 [Google Scholar]
  120. Jurafsky, Dan
    2003 Probablistic modeling in psycholinguistics: Linguistic comprehension and production. InBod, Rens & Hay, Jennifer & Jannedy, Stefanie (eds.), Probablistic linguistics, 39–95. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5582.003.0006
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5582.003.0006 [Google Scholar]
  121. Kapatsinski, Vsevolod
    2012 What statistics do learners track? Rules, constraints or schemas in (artificial) grammar learning. InGries, Stefan Th. & Divjak, Dagmar (eds.), Frequency effects in language, volume 1: Frequency effects in language learning and processing, 53–82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110274059.53
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110274059.53 [Google Scholar]
  122. Katz, Jerrold J.
    1964 Semi-sentences. InFodor, 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]
  123. Kawahara, Shigeto
    2011 Experimental approaches in theoretical phonology. Invan Oostendorp, Marc & Ewen, Colin J. & Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, volume IV: Phonological interfaces, 2283–2303. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0096
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0096 [Google Scholar]
  124. Keller, Frank
    2000 Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  125. 2006 Linear optimality theory as a model of gradience in grammar. InFanselow, Gisbert & Féry, Caroline & Schlesewsky, Matthias & Vogel, Ralf (eds.), Gradience in grammar: Generative perspectives, 270–288. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274796.003.0014
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274796.003.0014 [Google Scholar]
  126. Kirov, Christo & Wilson, Colin
    2013 Bayesian speech production: Evidence from latency and hyperarticulation. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society351. 788–793.
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Labov, William
    1969 Contraction, deletion, and inherent variablity of the English copula. Language45(4). 715–762. 10.2307/412333
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412333 [Google Scholar]
  128. 2004 Quantitative analysis of linguistic variation. InAmmon, 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. 10.1515/9783110141894.1.1.6
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110141894.1.1.6 [Google Scholar]
  129. Laks, Bernard
    1995 A connectionist account of French syllabification. Lingua95(1-3). 51–76. 10.1016/0024‑3841(95)90101‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(95)90101-9 [Google Scholar]
  130. Lau, Jey Han & Clark, Alexander & Lappin, Shalom
    2017 Grammaticality, acceptability, and probability: A probabilistic view of linguistic knowledge. Cognitive Science41(5). 1202–1241. 10.1111/cogs.12414
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12414 [Google Scholar]
  131. Legendre, Géraldine & Miyata, Yoshiro & Smolensky, Paul
    1990 Can connectionism contribute to syntax? Harmonic grammar, with an application. InZiolkowski, 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]
  132. 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, & Computers36(3). 500–505. 10.3758/BF03195596
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195596 [Google Scholar]
  133. Lindblom, Björn
    1986 Phonetic universals in vowel systems. InOhala, John J. & Jaeger, Jeri J. (eds.), Experimental phonology, 13–44. Orlando: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  134. Maddieson, Ian & Precoda, Kristin
    1992 Syllable structure and phonetic models. Phonology9(1). 45–60. 10.1017/S0952675700001494
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675700001494 [Google Scholar]
  135. Martin, Andy
    2007 The evolving lexicon. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  136. Maye, Jessica & Werker, Janet F. & Gerken, LouAnn
    2002 Infant sensitivity to distributional information can affect phonetic discrimination. Cognition82(3). B101–B111. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(01)00157‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00157-3 [Google Scholar]
  137. McCarthy, John J.
    1986 OCP Effects: Gemination and antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry17(2). 207–263.
     [Google Scholar]
  138. McClelland, James L. & Elman, Jeffrey L.
    1986 The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology18(1). 1–86. 10.1016/0010‑0285(86)90015‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90015-0 [Google Scholar]
  139. McCollum, Adam G.
    2018 Vowel dispersion and Kazakh labial harmony. Phonology35(2). 287–326. 10.1017/S0952675718000052
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675718000052 [Google Scholar]
  140. McQueen, James M.
    1998 Segmentation of continuous speech using phonotactics. Journal of Memory and Language39(1). 21–46. 10.1006/jmla.1998.2568
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2568 [Google Scholar]
  141. McQueen, James M. & Cutler, Anne & Norris, Dennis
    2006 Phonological abstraction in the mental lexicon. Cognitive Science30(6). 1113–1126. 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_79
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_79 [Google Scholar]
  142. Mester, Ralf-Armin
    1986 Studies in tier structure. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  143. Moore-Cantwell, Claire
    2013 Over- and under- generalization in learning derivational morphology. InKeine, 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]
  144. 2016 The representation of probabilistic phonological patterns: Neurological, behavioral, and computational evidence from the English stress system. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  145. Moreton, Elliott
    2002 Structural constraints in the perception of English stop-sonorant clusters. Cognition84(1). 55–71. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(02)00014‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00014-8 [Google Scholar]
  146. 2008 Analytic bias and phonological typology. Phonology25(1). 83–127. 10.1017/S0952675708001413
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675708001413 [Google Scholar]
  147. Munson, Benjamin & Edwards, Jan & Beckman, Mary E.
    2012 Phonological representations in language acquisition: Climbing the ladder of abstraction. InCohn, 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]
  148. Myers, James
    2007 Linking data to grammar in phonology: Two case studies. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics33(2). 1–22.
     [Google Scholar]
  149. 2012 Testing phonological grammars with lexical data. InMyers, James (ed.), In search of grammar: Experimental and corpus-based studies, 139–174. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.
     [Google Scholar]
  150. Myers, James & Tsay, Jane
    2005 The processing of phonological acceptability judgments. (Paper presented at theProceedings of Symposium on 90–92 NSC Projects, Taipei, 28–29 May 2005.)
     [Google Scholar]
  151. Newport, Elissa L. & Aslin, Richard N.
    2004 Learning at a distance: I. Statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies. Cognitive Psychology48(2). 127–162. 10.1016/S0010‑0285(03)00128‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00128-2 [Google Scholar]
  152. Norris, Dennis & McQueen, James M.
    2008 Shortlist B: A Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. Psychological Review115(2). 357–395. 10.1037/0033‑295X.115.2.357
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.357 [Google Scholar]
  153. Nosofsky, Robert M.
    1986 Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental psychology: General115(1). 39–57. 10.1037/0096‑3445.115.1.39
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.115.1.39 [Google Scholar]
  154. Orzechowska, Paula & Ridouane, Rachid
    2018 The structure of vowelless verbal roots in Tashlhiyt Berber. InKlessa, Katarzyna & Bachan, Jolanta & Wagner, Agnieszka & Karpiński, Maciej & Śledziński, Daniel (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Speech Prosody, 537–541. ISCA Archive. (https://www.isca-speech.org/archive/speechprosody_2018/orzechowska18b_speechprosody.html) (Accessed2023-04-10.) 10.21437/SpeechProsody.2018‑109
     https://doi.org/10.21437/SpeechProsody.2018-109 [Google Scholar]
  155. Padgett, Jaye
    1995 Stricture in feature geometry. Stanford: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  156. 2004 Russian vowel reduction and Dispersion Theory. Phonological Studies71. 81–96.
     [Google Scholar]
  157. Padgett, Jaye & Tabain, Marija
    2005 Adaptive dispersion theory and phonological vowel reduction in Russian. Phonetica62(1). 14–54. 10.1159/000087223
     https://doi.org/10.1159/000087223 [Google Scholar]
  158. Paolillo, John C.
    2002 Analyzing linguistic variation: Statistical models and methods. Stanford: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  159. Pater, Joe
    1999 Austrturnonesian nasal substitution and other NC effects. InKager, René & van der Hulst, Harry & Zonneveld, Wim (eds.), The prosody morphology interface, 310–343. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511627729.009
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627729.009 [Google Scholar]
  160. Pierce, John R.
    1961 An introduction to information theory: Symbols, signals, and noise. 1st edn.New York: Dover Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  161. Pierrehumbert, Janet B.
    1993 Dissimilarity in the Arabic verbal roots. InSchafer, Amy J. (ed.), NELS 23: Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society231, vol.21, 367–381. Amherst: GLSA.
     [Google Scholar]
  162. 1994 Syllable structure and word structure: A study of triconsonantal clusters in English. InKeating, Patricia A. (ed.), Phonological structure and phonetic form: Papers in laboratory phonologyIII1, 168–188. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511659461.011
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511659461.011 [Google Scholar]
  163. 2001a Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. InBybee, Joan L. & Hopper, Paul L. (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 137–158. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.45.08pie
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.08pie [Google Scholar]
  164. 2001b Why phonological constraints are so coarse-grained. Language and Cognitive Processes16(5-6). 691–698. 10.1080/01690960143000218
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960143000218 [Google Scholar]
  165. 2003a Phonetic diversity, statistical learning, and acquisition of phonology. Language and Speech46(2-3). 115–154. 10.1177/00238309030460020501
     https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309030460020501 [Google Scholar]
  166. 2003b Probabilistic phonology: Discrimation and robustness. InBod, Rens & Hay, Jennifer & Jannedy, Stefanie (eds.), Probability theory in linguistics, 177–228. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5582.003.0009
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5582.003.0009 [Google Scholar]
  167. 2016 Phonological representation: Beyond abstract versus episodic. Annual Review of Linguistics21. 33–52. 10.1146/annurev‑linguistics‑030514‑125050
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030514-125050 [Google Scholar]
  168. 2022 More than seventy years of probablistic phonology. InDresher, B. Elan & van der Hulst, Harry (eds.), The Oxford history of phonology, 639–655. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198796800.003.0030
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198796800.003.0030 [Google Scholar]
  169. Plaut, David C. & Kello, Christopher T.
    1999 The emergence of phonology from the interplay of speech comprehension and production: A distributed connectionist approach. InMacWhinney, Brian (ed.), The emergence of language, 381–415. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
     [Google Scholar]
  170. Pluymaekers, Mark & Ernestus, Mirjam & Baayen, R. Harald
    2005 Articulatory planning is continuous and sensitive to informational redundancy. Phonetica62(2–4). 146–159. 10.1159/000090095
     https://doi.org/10.1159/000090095 [Google Scholar]
  171. 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.) 10.1002/9780470759400
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470759400 [Google Scholar]
  172. Prince, Alan S. & Tesar, Bruce
    2004 Learning phonotactic distributions. InKager, René & Pater, Joe & Zonneveld, Wim (eds.), Constraints in phonological acquisition, 245–291. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486418.009
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486418.009 [Google Scholar]
  173. Rácz, Péter & Hay, Jennifer & Needle, Jeremy & King, Jeanette & Pierrehumbert, Janet B.
    2016 Gradient Māori phonotactics. Te Reo591. 3–21.
     [Google Scholar]
  174. Riggle, Jason Alan
    2004 Generation, recognition, and learning in finite-state Optimality Theory. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  175. 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. InBamman, 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]
  176. Saffran, Jenny R. & Aslin, Richard N. & Newport, Elissa L.
    1996 Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science274(5294). 1926–1928. 10.1126/science.274.5294.1926
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.274.5294.1926 [Google Scholar]
  177. Saffran, Jenny R.
    2003 Statistical language learning: Mechanisms and constraints. Current Directions in Psychological Science12(4). 110–114. 10.1111/1467‑8721.01243
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01243 [Google Scholar]
  178. 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. (individual.utoronto.ca/tagliamonte/goldvarb.html) (Accessed2023-04-21.)
     [Google Scholar]
  179. Scarborough, Rebecca Anne
    2004 Coarticulation and the structure of the lexicon. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  180. 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 America118(7). 1–12. (Article e2001844118.) 10.1073/pnas.2001844118
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2001844118 [Google Scholar]
  181. Shannon, Claude E. & Weaver, Warren
    1949 The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  182. Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie
    1979 Speech errors as evidence for a serial-ordering mechanism in sentence production. InCopper, William E. & Walker, Edward C. T. (eds.), Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett, 295–342. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  183. Shaw, Jason & Kawahara, Shigeto
    2018 Predictability and phonology: Past, present and future. Linguistic Vanguard4(s2). 1–11. (Article no. 20180042.) 10.1515/lingvan‑2018‑0042
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2018-0042 [Google Scholar]
  184. Shi, Lei & Griffiths, Thomas L. & Feldman, Naomi H. & Sanborn, Adam N.
    2010 Exemplar models as a mechanism for performing Bayesian inference. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review17(4). 443–464. 10.3758/PBR.17.4.443
     https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.4.443 [Google Scholar]
  185. Skousen, Royal
    1989 Analogical modeling of language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
     [Google Scholar]
  186. 1992 Analogy and structure. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑8098‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8098-4 [Google Scholar]
  187. 1995 Analogy: A non-rule alternative to neural networks. Rivista di Linguistica7(2). 213–231.
     [Google Scholar]
  188. Smolensky, Paul
    1988 On the proper treatment of connectionism. Brain and Behavioral Sciences111. 1–23. 10.1017/S0140525X00052432
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00052432 [Google Scholar]
  189. 1996 On the comprehension/production dilemma in child language. Linguistic Inquiry27(4). 720–731.
     [Google Scholar]
  190. 2006 Harmony in linguistic cognition. Cognitive Science30(5). 779–801. 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_78
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_78 [Google Scholar]
  191. 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 Science38(6). 1102–1138. 10.1111/cogs.12047
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12047 [Google Scholar]
  192. Smolensky, Paul & Legendre, Géraldine
    2006 The harmonic mind: From neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar. Cambridge: The MIT Press. (21vols.)
     [Google Scholar]
  193. Solé, Maria-Josep & Beddor, Patrice Speeter & Ohala, Manjari
    2007 Experimental approaches to phonology. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  194. Sorace, Antonella & Keller, Frank
    2005 Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua115(11). 1497–1524. 10.1016/j.lingua.2004.07.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2004.07.002 [Google Scholar]
  195. 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. 10.21236/ADA218908
     https://doi.org/10.21236/ADA218908 [Google Scholar]
  196. Stanley, Richard
    1967 Redundancy rules in phonology. Language43(2). 393–436. 10.2307/411542
     https://doi.org/10.2307/411542 [Google Scholar]
  197. Staubs, Robert D.
    2014 Computational modeling of learning biases in stress typology. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  198. Suomi, Kari & McQueen, James M. & Cutler, Anne
    1997 Vowel harmony and speech segmentation in Finnish. Journal of Memory and Language36(3). 422–444. 10.1006/jmla.1996.2495
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.2495 [Google Scholar]
  199. Tesar, Bruce & Smolensky, Paul
    2000 Learnability in Optimality Theory. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/4159.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4159.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  200. Thomas, Michael S. C. & McClelland, James L.
    2008 Connectionist models of cognition. InSun, Ron (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of computational psychology, 23–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  201. Tilsen, Sam
    2009 Subphonemic and cross-phonemic priming in vowel shadowing: Evidence for the involvement of exemplars in production. Journal of Phonetics37(3). 276–296. 10.1016/j.wocn.2009.03.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2009.03.004 [Google Scholar]
  202. Treiman, Rebecca & Kessler, Brett & Knewasser, Stephanie & Tincoff, Ruth & Bowman, Margo
    2000 English speakers’ sensitivity to phonotactic patterns. InBroe, Michael B. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology V: Acquisition and the lexicon, 269–282. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  203. Tupper, Paul F.
    2015 Exemplar dynamics and sound merger in language. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics75(4). 1469–1492. 10.1137/140998408
     https://doi.org/10.1137/140998408 [Google Scholar]
  204. Turnbull, Rory John
    2015 Assessing the listener-oriented account of predictability-based phonetic reduction. Columbus: The Ohio State University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  205. Vousden, Janet I. & Brown, Gordon D. A. & Harley, Trevor A.
    2000 Serial control of phonology in speech production: A hierarchical model. Cognitive Psychology41(2). 101–175. 10.1006/cogp.2000.0739
     https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2000.0739 [Google Scholar]
  206. Vroomen, Jean & Tuomainen, Jyrki & de Gelder, Beatrice
    1998 The roles of word stress and vowel harmony in speech segmentation. Journal of Memory and Language38(2). 133–149. 10.1006/jmla.1997.2548
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2548 [Google Scholar]
  207. 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 Phonetics32(2). 251–276. 10.1016/S0095‑4470(03)00032‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(03)00032-9 [Google Scholar]
  208. Wedel, Andrew B.
    2003 Self-organization and categorical behavior in phonology. InNowak, 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. 10.3765/bls.v29i1.1011
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v29i1.1011 [Google Scholar]
  209. 2006 Exemplar models, evolution and language change. The Linguistic Review23(3). 247–274. 10.1515/TLR.2006.010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/TLR.2006.010 [Google Scholar]
  210. Wedel, Andrew B. & Kaplan, Abby & Jackson, Scott
    2013 High functional load inhibits phonological contrast loss: A corpus study. Cognition128(2). 179–186. 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.03.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  211. White, Katherine S. & Peperkamp, Sharon & Kirk, Cecilia & Morgan, James L.
    2008 Rapid acquisition of phonological alternations by infants. Cognition107(1). 238–265. 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.11.012
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.11.012 [Google Scholar]
  212. Wilson, Colin
    2006 Learning phonology with substantive bias: An experimental and computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science30(5). 945–982. 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_89
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_89 [Google Scholar]
  213. Wilson, Colin & Davidson, Lisa
    2013 Bayesian analysis of non-native cluster production. InKan, 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]
  214. Xu, Fei & Tenenbaum, Joshua B.
    2007 Word learning as Bayesian inference. Psychological Review114(2). 245–272. 10.1037/0033‑295X.114.2.245
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.245 [Google Scholar]
  215. Yip, Moira
    1989 Feature geometry and cooccurrence restrictions. Phonology6(2). 349–374. 10.1017/S0952675700001068
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675700001068 [Google Scholar]
  216. Zuraw, Kie Ross
    2000 Patterned exceptions in phonology. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  217. 2003 Probability in language change. InBod, Rens & Hay, Jennifer & Jannedy, Stefanie (eds.), Probabilistic linguistics, 139–176. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5582.003.0008
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5582.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  218. Zuraw, Kie
    2007 The role of phonetic knowledge in phonotactic patterning: Corpus and survey evidence from Tagalog infixation. Language83(2). 277–316. 10.1353/lan.2007.0105
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2007.0105 [Google Scholar]
  219. Zuraw, Kie & Hayes, Bruce
    2017 Intersecting constraint families: An argument for harmonic grammar. Language93(3). 497–548. 10.1353/lan.2017.0035
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2017.0035 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00141.ald
Loading
Probabilistic phonology
Language and Linguistics 24, 565 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00141.ald
/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00141.ald
/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00141.ald
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): connectionism; constraint-based grammar; exemplar theory; frequency; gradience; information theory; probability

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error