Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-mnklg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T05:11:18.240Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conspiring to Mean: Experimental and Computational Evidence for a Usage-Based Harmonic Approach to Morphophonology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Vsevolod Kapatsinski
Vsevolod Kapatsinski*
Affiliation:
University of Oregon
*
Department of Linguistics 1290 University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403 [vkapatsi@uoregon.edu]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article reports on an experiment with miniature artificial languages that provides support for a synthesis of ideas from usage-based phonology (Bybee 1985, 2001, Nesset 2008) and harmonic grammar (Legendre et al. 1990, Smolensky & Legendre 2006). All miniature artificial languages presented to subjects feature velar palatalization (k → t∫) before a plural suffix, -i. I show that (i) examples of -i simply attaching to a [t∫]-final stem help palatalization (supporting t → t∫i over t → ti and p → t∫i over p → pi), a finding that provides specific support for product-oriented schemas like ‘plurals should end in [t∫i]’; (ii) learners tend to perseverate on the form they know, leveling stem changes, which provides support for paradigm-uniformity constraints in favor of retaining gestures composing the known form, for example, ‘keep labiality’; and (iii) the same plural schema helps untrained singular-plural mappings more than it helps trained ones. This result is accounted for by proposing that schemas and paradigm-uniformity constraints clamor for candidate plural forms that obey them. Given that competition is between candidate outputs, the same schema provides more help to candidates that violate strong paradigm-uniformity constraints and are therefore weak relative to competitor candidates. A computational model of schema extraction is proposed.

Keywords

morphophonologyminiature artificial-language learningcomputational modelingpalatalizationschemasrulesconstraints

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 89 , Issue 1 , March 2013, pp. 110 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abbot-Smith, Kirsten, and Behrens, Heike. 2006. How known constructions influence the acquisition of other constructions: The German passive and future constructions. Cognitive Science 30. 995–1026.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Albright, Adam. 2009. Feature-based generalisation as a source of gradient acceptability. Phonology 26. 9–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albright, Adam, and Hayes, Bruce. 2003. Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Cognition 90. 119–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Altmann, Gerry T. m., Dienes, Zoltán; and Goode, Alastair. 1995. Modality independence of implicitly learned grammatical knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 21. 899–912.Google Scholar
Ambridge, Ben, and Lieven, Elena V. M.. 2011. Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical viewpoints. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aslin, Richard N., Saffran, Jenny R.; and Newport, Elissa N.. 1998. Computation of conditional probability statistics by 8-month-old infants. Psychological Science 9. 321–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berent, Iris, Steriade, Donca, Lennertz, Tracy; and Vaknin, Vered. 2007. What we know about what we have never heard: Evidence from perceptual illusions. Cognition 104. 591–630.10.1016/j.cognition.2006.05.015CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bergen, Benjamin K. 2004. The psychological reality of phonaesthemes. Language 80. 290–311.10.1353/lan.2004.0056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berko, Jean. 1958. The child's learning of English morphology. Word 14. 150–77.10.1080/00437956.1958.11659661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul. 2004. A stochastic OT account of paralinguistic tasks such as grammaticality and prototypicality judgments. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, ms. Online: http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/paul/papers/ParalinguisticTasks.pdf.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and Weenink, David. 2009. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (version 5.1.07). Online: http://www.praat.org/.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2008. Paradigmatic morphology. La raison morphologique: Hommage á la memoire de Danielle Corbin, ed. by Fradin, Bernard, 29–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Braine, Martin D. 1987. What is learned in acquiring word classes—A step toward an acquisition theory. Mechanisms of language acquisition, ed. by MacWhinney, Brian, 65–87. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Braine, Martin d., Brody, Ruth e., Brooks, Patricia J.; Sudhalter, Vicki, Ross, Julie a., Catalano, Lisa; and Fisch, Shalom M.. 1990. Exploring language acquisition in children with a miniature artificial language: Effects of item and pattern frequency, arbitrary subclasses, and correction. Journal of Memory and Language Journal of Memory and Language 29. 591–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, Patricia J., Braine, Martin d. s., Catalano, Lisa, Brody, Ruth e.; and Sudhalter, Vicki. 1993. Acquisition of gender-like noun subclasses in artificial language: The contribution of phonological markers to learning. Journal of Memory and Language 32. 76–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browman, Catherine P., and Goldstein, Louis. 1989. Articulatory gestures as phonological units. Phonology 6. 201–51.10.1017/S0952675700001019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browman, Catherine P., and Goldstein, Louis. 1991. Tiers in articulatory phonology, with some implications for casual speech. Papers in laboratory phonology 1: Between the grammar and the physics of speech, ed. by Kingston, John and Beckman, Mary E., 341–76. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511612886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2002. Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. The evolution of language out of pre-language, ed. by Givón, Talmy and Malle, Bertram F., 109–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2003. Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, vol. 2, ed. by Tomasello, Michael, 145–68. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., and Moder, Carol Lynn. 1983. Morphological classes as natural categories. Language 59. 251–70.10.2307/413574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., and Slobin, Dan I.. 1982. Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past. Language 58. 265–89.10.1353/lan.1982.0021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, Bert. 2006. Particle placement and the case for ‘allostructions’. Constructions, special volume 1. Online: http://elanguage.net/journals/constructions/.Google Scholar
Charles-Luce, Jan, and Luce, Paul A.. 1990. Similarity neighbourhoods of words in young children's lexicons. Journal of Child Language 17. 205–15.10.1017/S0305000900013180CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Corbin, Danielle. 1989. Form, structure and meaning of constructed words in an associative and stratified lexical component. Yearbook of Morphology 1989. 31–54.Google Scholar
Daelemans, Walter, and van, Antal Bosch, den. 2005. Memory-based language processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dell, Gary S. 1986. A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review 93. 283–321.10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.283CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dell, Gary S., Burger, Lisa K.; and Svec, William R.. 1997. Language production and serial order: A functional analysis and a model. Psychological Review 104. 123–47.10.1037/0033-295X.104.1.123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C., and Ferreira-Junior, Fernando. 2009. Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7. 187–220.10.1075/arcl.7.08ellCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam, and Baayen, R. Harald. 2011. Corpora and exemplars in phonology. The handbook of phonological theory, 2nd edn., ed. by Goldsmith, John, Riggle, Jason, and Yu, Alan C. L., 374–400. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781444343069.ch12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrar, Michael J. 1992. Negative evidence and grammatical morpheme acquisition. Developmental Psychology 28. 90–98.10.1037/0012-1649.28.1.90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frigo, Lenore, and McDonald, Janet L.. 1998. Properties of phonological markers that affect the acquisition of gender-like subclasses. Journal of Memory and Language 39. 218–45.10.1006/jmla.1998.2569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, Stefan a., Pierrehumbert, Janet B.; and Broe, Michael B.. 2004. Similarity avoidance and the OCP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22. 179–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fromkin, Victoria A. 1970. The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Language 46. 27–52.Google Scholar
Gafos, Adamantios I. 2002. A grammar of gestural coordination. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20. 269–337.10.1023/A:1014942312445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerken, LouAnn, Wilson, Rachel; and Lewis, William. 2005. Infants can use distributional cues to form syntactic categories. Journal of Child Language 32. 249–68.10.1017/S0305000904006786CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2002. Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics 13. 327–56.10.1515/cogl.2002.022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldrick, Matthew. 2004. Phonological features and phonotactic constraints in speech production. Journal of Memory and Language 51. 586–603.10.1016/j.jml.2004.07.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, Louis, Pouplier, Marianne, Chen, Larissa, Saltzman, Elliot; and Bird, Dani. 2007. Dynamic action units slip in speech production errors. Cognition 103. 386412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldstone, Robert L. 2000. Unitization during category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26. 86–112.Google ScholarPubMed
Goldwater, Sharon, and Johnson, Mark. 2003. Learning OT constraint rankings using a maximum entropy model. Proceedings of the Stockholm Workshop on Variation within Optimality Theory, ed. by Spenader, Jennifer, Eriksson, Anders, and Dahl, Östen, 111–20. Stockholm: Stockholm University, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, Robert J. 2002. The addition bias in Dutch and Spanish phonological speech errors: The role of structural context. Language and Cognitive Processes 17. 61–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 2004. Phonological acquisition in optimality theory: The early stages. Fixing priorities: Constraints in phonological acquisition, ed. by René, Kager, Pater, Joe, and Zonneveld, Wim, 158–203. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486418.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 2009. Introductory phonology. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 2011. Interpreting sonority-projection experiments: The role of phonotactic modeling. Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), Hong Kong, 835–38. Online: http://www.icphs2011.hk/ICPHS_CongressProceedings.htm.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, and Wilson, Colin. 2008. A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry 39. 379–440.10.1162/ling.2008.39.3.379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Zuraw, Kie, SiptÁr, Péter; and Londe, Zsuzsa. 2009. Natural and unnatural constraints in Hungarian vowel harmony. Language 85. 822–63.10.1353/lan.0.0169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hothorn, Torsten, Hornik, Kurt; and Zeileis, Achim. 2006. Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 15. 651–74.10.1198/106186006X133933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, Darin, and Pulleyblank, Douglas. 2004. Harmonic scales as faithfulness. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 49. 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard. 2007. Maximum entropy models and stochastic optimality theory. Architectures, rules, and preferences: A festschrift for Joan Bresnan, ed. by Grimshaw, Jane, Maling, Joan, Manning, Chris, Simpson, Jane, and Zaenen, Annie, 467–79. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark. 1984. A discovery procedure for certain phonological rules. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING ’84) 10. 344–47.10.3115/980431.980561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Mark. 2002. Optimality-theoretic lexical functional grammar. The lexical basis of sentence processing: Formal, computational and experimental issues, ed. by Stevenson, Suzanne and Merlo, Paolo, 59–73. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/nlp.4.04johCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Lamia Haddad, and Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. 2011. In the beginning there were the weird: A phonotactic novelty preference in adult word learning. Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), Hong Kong, 978–81. Online: http://www.icphs2011.hk/ICPHS_CongressProceedings.htm.Google Scholar
Kager, René. 1999. Optimality theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511812408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, Yoonjung. 2011. Loanword phonology. The Blackwell companion to phonology, vol. 4: Phonological interfaces, ed. by Oostendorp, Mark van, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth, and Rice, Keren, 2258–82. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. 2005. Productivity of Russian stem extensions: Evidence for and a formalization of network theory. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico master's thesis.Google Scholar
Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. 2006. To scheme or to rule: Evidence against the dual-mechanism model. Berkeley Linguistics Society 31. 193–204.Google Scholar
Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. 2009a. The architecture of grammar in artificial grammar learning: Formal biases in the acquisition of morphophonology and the nature of the learning task. Bloomington: Indiana University dissertation.Google Scholar
Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. 2009b. Testing theories of linguistic constituency with configural learning: The case of the English syllable. Language 85. 248–77.10.1353/lan.0.0118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. 2012a. What statistics do learners track? Rules, constraints and schemas in (artificial) language learning. Frequency effects in language: Learning and processing, ed. by Gries, Stefan Th. and Divjak, Dagmar, 53–82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110274059.53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. 2012b. Chunk-schema competition in deriving new forms of known words. Paper presented at the American International Morphology Meeting, Amherst, MA. Online: http://pages.uoregon.edu/vkapatsi/AIMM_C4B_Sept.pdf.Google Scholar
Keil, Frank C. 1979. Semantic and conceptual development: An ontological perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674181816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Syllabification in Chukchee: A constraints-based analysis. Proceedings of the Formal Linguistics Society of the Midwest 4. 160–81.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1996. Base-identity and uniform exponence: Alternatives to cyclicity. Current trends in phonology: Models and methods, ed. by Durand, Jacques and Laks, Bernard, 363–93. Salford: European Studies Research Institute and University of Salford.Google Scholar
Keuleers, Emmanuel. 2008. Memory-based learning of inflectional morphology. Antwerp: University of Antwerp dissertation.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles. 1970. On the functional unity of phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry 1. 291–306.Google Scholar
Kochetov, Alexei. 2011. Palatalization. The Blackwell companion to phonology, vol. 3: Phonological processes, ed. by Oostendorp, Mark van, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth, and Rice, Keren, 1666–90. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Köpcke, Klaus-Michael. 1988. Schemas in German plural formation. Lingua 74. 30335.10.1016/0024-3841(88)90064-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Legendre, Geraldine, Miyata, Yoshiro; and Smolensky, Paul. 1990. Harmonic grammar: A formal multi-level connectionist theory of linguistic well-formedness: Theoretical foundations. Proceedings of the 12th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 388–95.Google Scholar
Lobben, Marit. 1991. Pluralization of Hausa nouns, viewed from psycholinguistic experiments and child language data. Oslo: University of Oslo master's thesis.Google Scholar
Mandler, Jean Μ. 2000. Perceptual and conceptual processes in infancy. Journal of Cognition and Development 1. 3–36.10.1207/S15327647JCD0101N_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, G. F., Vijayan, S., Rao, S. Bandi; and Vishton, P. Μ.. 1999. Rule learning by seven-month-old infants. Science 283. 77–80.10.1126/science.283.5398.77CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, Andrew. 2007. The evolving lexicon. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
Massaro, Dominic W. 1970. Retroactive interference in short-term recognition memory for pitch. Journal of Experimental Psychology 83. 32–39.10.1037/h0028566CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McClelland, James L., McNaughton, Bruce L.; and O’Reilly, Randall c.. 1995. Why there are complementary learning systems in the hippocampus and neocortex: Insights from the successes and failures of connectionist models of learning and memory. Psychological Review Psychological Review 102. 419–57.10.1037/0033-295X.102.3.419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLennan, Conor T., and Luce, Paul A.. 2005. Examining the time course of indexical specificity effects in spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 31. 306–21.Google ScholarPubMed
Menn, Lise, and MacWhinney, Brian. 1984. The repeated morph constraint: Toward an explanation. Language 60. 519–41.10.2307/413990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitroff, Stephen R., Simons, Daniel J.; and Levin, Daniel T.. 2004. Nothing compares 2 views: Change blindness can occur despite preserved access to the changed information. Perception and Psychophysics 66. 1268–81.10.3758/BF03194997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitrovic, Ivana. 2012. A phonetically natural vs. native language pattern: An experimental study of velar palatalization in Serbian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 20. 229–68.10.1353/jsl.2012.0011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreton, Elliott. 2002. Structural constraints in the perception of English stop-sonorant clusters. Cognition 84. 55–71.10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00014-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesset, Tore. 2005. Opaque softening: A usage-based approach. Poljarnyj Vestnik 8. 55–68.10.7557/6.1331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesset, Tore. 2008. Abstract phonology in a concrete model: Cognitive linguistics and the morphology-phonology interface. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110208368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesset, Tore. 2010. Why not? Prototypes and blocking of language change in Russian verbs. Cognitive linguistics in action: From theory to application and back, ed. by Tabakowska, Elżbieta, Choińsky, Michal, and Wiraszka, Ukasz, 125–44. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1978. Southern Bantu vs. the world: The case of palatalization of labials. Berkeley Linguistics Society 4. 370–86.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole, and LaCharité, Darlene. 1997. Preservation and minimality in loanword adaptation. Journal of Linguistics 33. 379–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pauen, Sabina. 2002. The global-to-basic shift in infants’ categorical thinking: First evidence from a longitudinal study. International Journal of Behavioral Development 26. 492–99.10.1080/01650250143000445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peperkamp, Sharon. 2003. Phonological acquisition: Recent attainments and new challenges. Language and Speech 46. 97–113.10.1177/00238309030460020401CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 1993. Dissimilarity in the Arabic verbal roots. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 23. 367–81.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2006. The statistical basis of an unnatural alternation. Laboratory phonology 8: Varieties of phonological competence, ed. by Louis Goldstein, D. H. Whalen, and Best, Catherine, 81–107. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197211.1.81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven, and Prince, Alan. 1988. On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition 28. 73–193.10.1016/0010-0277(88)90032-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plag, Ingo. 2003. Word formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511841323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 2004 [1993]. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2009. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Online: http://www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Reiss, Charles. 2004. Constraining the learning path without constraints, or the OCP and NoBanana. Rules, constraints, and phonological phenomena, ed. by Vaux, Bert and Nevins, Andrew, 252–301. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, Timothy T., and McClelland, James L.. 2004. Semantic cognition: A parallel distributed processing approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6161.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubino, Rejane B., and Pine, Julian Μ.. 1998. Subject-verb agreement in Brazilian Portuguese: What low error rates hide. Journal of Child Language 25. 35–59.10.1017/S0305000997003310CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rumelhart, David E., and McClelland, James L.. 1986. On learning the past tenses of English verbs. Parallel distributed processing, vol. 2: Psychological and biological models, ed. by Rumelhart, David E. and McClelland, James L., 216–71. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5236.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, Richard G., and Leonard, Lawrence. 1982. Do children pick and choose? An examination of phonological selection and avoidance in early lexical acquisition. Journal of Child Language 9. 319–36.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Richard G., Leonard, Lawrence, Loeb, Diane Μ. Frome; and Swanson, Lori A.. 1987. Attempted sounds are sometimes not: An expanded view of phonological selection and avoidance. Journal of Child Language 14. 411–18.Google Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie, and Klatt, Dennis H.. 1979. The limited use of distinctive features and markedness in phonological speech errors. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18. 41–55.10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90554-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shvachkin, N. Kh. 1973 [1948]. The development of phonemic speech perception in early childhood. Studies of child language development, ed. by Ferguson, Charles A. and Slobin, Dan I., 91–127. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Simons, Daniel J. 1996. In sight, out of mind: When object representations fail. Psychological Science 7. 301–5.10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00378.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Linda b., Thelen, Esther, Titzer, Robert; and McLin, Dewey. 1999. Knowing in the context of acting: The task dynamics of the A-not-B error. Psychological Review 106. 235–60.10.1037/0033-295X.106.2.235CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smolensky, Paul, and Legendre, Geraldine. 2006. The harmonic mind: From neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stager, Christine L., and Werker, Janet F.. 1997. Infants listen for more phonetic detail in speech perception than in word-learning tasks. Nature 388. 381–82.10.1038/41102CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stemberger, Joseph Paul. 1981. Morphological haplology. Language 57. 791–817.10.2307/414242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stemberger, Joseph Paul. 1982. The nature of segments in the lexicon: Evidence from speech errors. Lingua 56. 235–59.10.1016/0024-3841(82)90012-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stemberger, Joseph Paul. 1991. Apparent anti-frequency effects in language production: The addition bias and phonological underspecification. Journal of Memory and Language 30. 161–85.10.1016/0749-596X(91)90002-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storkel, Holly L. 2001. Learning new words: Phonotactic probability in language development. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 44. 1321–37.10.1044/1092-4388(2001/103)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strobl, Carolin, Malley, James; and Tutz, Gerhard. 2009. An introduction to recursive partitioning: Rationale, application and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging and random forests. Psychological Methods 14. 323–48.10.1037/a0016973CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swingley, Daniel. 2007. Lexical exposure and word-form encoding in 1.5-year-olds. Developmental Science 43. 454–64.Google ScholarPubMed
Swingley, Daniel, and Aslin, Richard N.. 2007. Lexical competition in young children's word learning. Cognitive Psychology 54. 99–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valían, Virginia, and Coulson, Shawna. 1988. Anchor points in language learning: The role of marker frequency. Journal of Memory and Language 27. 71–86.10.1016/0749-596X(88)90049-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, H. Samuel, and Derwing, Bruce L.. 1994. Some vowel schemas in three English morphological classes: Experimental evidence. In honor of Professor William S.-Y. Wang: Interdisciplinary studies on language and language change, ed. by Chen, Matthew Y. and Tseng, Ovid C. L., 561–75. Taipei: Pyramid.Google Scholar
Warrington, Elizabeth K. 1975. Selective impairment of semantic memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 27. 635–57.10.1080/14640747508400525CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weinert, Sabine. 2009. Implicit and explicit modes of learning: Similarities and differences from a developmental perspective. Linguistics 47. 241–71.10.1515/LING.2009.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, John N. 2003. Inducing abstract linguistic representations: Human and connectionist learning of noun classes. The lexicon-syntax interface in second language acquisition, ed. by Hout, Roeland van, Hulk, Aafke, Kuiken, Folkert, and Towell, Richard J., 151–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wilson, Colin. 2006. Learning phonology with substantive bias: An experimental and computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science 30. 945–82.10.1207/s15516709cog0000_89CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xu, Fei, and Tenenbaum, Joshua B.. 2007. Word learning as Bayesian inference. Psychological Review 114. 245–72.10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.245CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zuraw, Kie. 2000. Patterned exceptions in phonology. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar