Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-w5hgh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T13:26:06.892Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Learning Bias for Cross-Category Harmony is Sensitive to Semantic Similarity: Evidence from Artificial Language Learning Experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Fang Wang,
Simon Kirby and
Jennifer Culbertson
Fang Wang*
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Simon Kirby*
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Jennifer Culbertson*
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
*
Centre for Language Evolution, University of Edinburgh, 3 Charles St, Edinburgh EH8 9AD, UK, [fang.wang@ed.ac.uk]
[simon.kirby@ed.ac.uk]
[jennifer.culbertson@ed.ac.uk]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cross-category harmony is one of the most well-known typological universals. It describes a trend of consistent alignment of different syntactic categories across phrases within a language. Explanations for this universal vary as to whether cognitive factors play a role or the tendency is instead due to mechanisms of language change alone. In this article we report a series of artificial language learning experiments that aim to test a hypothesized link between cognition and cross-category harmony. As with the typological tendency itself, we find mixed evidence for harmony across different types of phrases. Specifically, learners are biased in favor of consistent alignment of the verb in the verb phrase and the adposition in the adpositional phrase. However, the bias for consistent alignment of the verb in the verb phrase and the adjective in the noun phrase depends on the semantic similarity between adjectives and verbs. When adjectives are active and therefore more verb-like (e.g. broken), we find harmony; when they are stative and therefore less verb-like (e.g. blue), we do not. These results suggest that the bias for cross-category harmony is not purely based on the syntactic notions of head and dependent, but reflects the interaction between a general cognitive bias favoring consistent order and cross-category similarity.

Keywords

word-order universalscross-category harmonylearning biasessimplicitysemantic similarity

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 101 , Issue 1 , March 2025, pp. 109 - 150
Copyright
Copyright © 2025 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

Abney, Steven P. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/14638.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2006. Serial verb constructions in typological perspective. Serial verb constructions: A cross-linguistic typology, ed. by Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and Dixon, R. M. W., 1–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199279159.003.0001.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 2016. Synchronic versus diachronic explanation and the nature of the language faculty. Annual Review of Linguistics 2. 11–31. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aristar, Anthony Rodrigues. 1991. On diachronic sources and synchronic pattern: An investigation into the origin of linguistic universals. Language 67. 1–33. DOI: 10.2307/415537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2001. The atoms of language: The mind's hidden rules of grammar. New York: Basic Books.
Bakker, Dik, and Siewierska, Anna. 2002. Adpositions, the lexicon and expression rules. New perspectives on argument structure in functional grammar, ed. by Usón, Ricardo Mairal and Quintero, María Jesús Pérez, 125–78. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110895872-004.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Mächler, Martin, Bolker, Ben; and Walker, Steve. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67. 1–48. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Thomas. 1998. Linguistic structure and change: An explanation from language processing. Oxford: Clarendon. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198236726.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, Holmberg, Anders; and Roberts, Ian. 2014. A syntactic universal and its consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 45. 169–225. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanchette, Isabelle, and Dunbar, Kevin. 2000. How analogies are generated: The roles of structural and superficial similarity. Memory & Cognition 28. 108–24. DOI: 10.3758/BF03211580.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bürkner, Paul-Christian. 2017. brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software 80. 1–28. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v080.i01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1988. The diachronic dimension in explanation. Explaining language universals, ed. by Hawkins, John A., 350–79. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511750526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, Bob, Gelman, Andrew, Hoffman, Matthew D., Lee, Daniel, Goodrich, Ben, Betancourt, Michael, Brubaker, Marcus, Guo, Jiqiang, Li, Peter; and Riddell, Allen. 2017. Stan: A probabilistic programming language. Journal of Statistical Software 76. 1–32. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v076.i01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chater, Nick, Reali, Florencia; and Christiansen, Morten H.. 2009. Restrictions on biological adaptation in language evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106. 1015–52. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0807191106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chater, Nick, and Vitányi, Paul. 2003. Simplicity: A unifying principle in cognitive science? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7. 19–22. DOI: 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00005-0.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christiansen, Morten H., and Devlin, Joseph T.. 1997. Recursive inconsistencies are hard to learn: A connectionist perspective on universal word order correlations. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of Cognitive Science Society 19. 113–18. Online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/45j9924c.Google Scholar
Collins, Jeremy. 2019. Some language universals are historical accidents. Explanation in typology: Diachronic sources, functional motivations and the nature of the evidence, ed. by Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten, Levshina, Natalia, Michaelis, Susanne Maria, and Seržant, Ilja, 47–61. Berlin: Language Science. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.2583808.Google Scholar
Cook, Vivian J. 1988. Language learners' extrapolation of word order in micro-artificial languages. Language Learning 38. 497–529. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1988.tb00165.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2002. Typology and universals. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511840579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culbertson, Jennifer. 2023. Artificial language learning. The Oxford handbook of experimental syntax, ed. by Sprouse, Jon, 271–300. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198797722.013.9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culbertson, Jennifer, and Adger, David. 2014. Language learners privilege structured meaning over surface frequency. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111. 5842–24. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1320525111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Culbertson, Jennifer, Franck, Julie, Braquet, Guillaume, Navarro, Magda Barrera; and Arnon, Inbal. 2020. A learning bias for word order harmony: Evidence from speakers of non-harmonic languages. Cognition 204:104392. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Culbertson, Jennifer, and Kirby, Simon. 2016. Simplicity and specificity in language: Domain-general biases have domain-specific effects. Frontiers in Psychology 6:1964. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01964.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Culbertson, Jennifer, and Kirby, Simon. 2022. Syntactic harmony arises from a domain-general learning bias. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 44. 1519–92. Online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8ht6c0hm.Google Scholar
Culbertson, Jennifer, Smolensky, Paul; and Legendre, Géraldine. 2012. Learning biases predict a word order universal. Cognition 122. 306–29. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.017.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Culbertson, Jennifer, Smolensky, Paul; and Wilson, Colin. 2013. Cognitive biases, linguistic universals, and constraint-based grammar learning. Topics in Cognitive Science 5. 392–424. DOI: 10.1111/tops.12027.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cysouw, Michael. 2005. Quantitative methods in typology. Quantitative linguistik/Quantitative linguistics: Ein internationales handbuch/An international handbook, ed. by Köhler, Reinhard, Altmann, Gabriel, and Piotrowski, Rajmund G., 554–78. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
de Leeuw, Joshua R. 2015. jsPsych: A JavaScript library for creating behavioral experiments in a Web browser. Behavior Research Methods 47. 1–12. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-014-0458-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delsing, Lars-Olof. 1993. On attributive adjectives in Scandinavian and other languages. Studia Linguistica 47. 105–25. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9582.1993.tb00841.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1982. Where have all the adjectives gone? Where have all the adjectives gone? And other essays in semantics and syntax, ed. by Dixon, R. M. W., 1–62. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110822939.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djamouri, Redouane, Paul, Waltraud; and Whitman, John. 2013. Postpositions vs prepositions in Mandarin Chinese: The articulation of disharmony. Theoretical approaches to disharmonic word order, ed. by Biberauer, Theresa and Sheehan, Michelle, 74–105. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199684359.003.0003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68. 81–138. DOI: 10.1353/lan.1992.0028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2009. The branching direction theory of word order correlations revisited. Universals of language today, ed. by Scalise, Sergio, Magni, Elisabetta, and Bisetto, Antonietta, 185–207. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-8825-4_10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2013a. Order of adjective and noun (v2020.3). In Dryer & Haspelmath. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7385533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2013b. Order of numeral and noun (v2020.3). In Dryer & Haspelmath. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7385533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2013c. Order of subject, object and verb (v2020.3). In Dryer & Haspelmath. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7385533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2013d. Relationship between the order of object and verb and the order of adjective and noun (v2020.3). In Dryer & Haspelmath. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7385533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2013e. Relationship between the order of object and verb and the order of adposition and noun phrase (v2020.3). In Dryer & Haspelmath. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7385533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2019. Grammaticalization accounts of word order correlations. Explanation in typology: Diachronic sources, functional motivations and the nature of the evidence, ed. by Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten, Levshina, Natalia, Michaelis, Susanne Maria, and Seržant, Ilja, 63–95. Berlin: Language Science. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.2583810.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S., and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) 2013. The world atlas of language structures online (v2020.3). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7385533.Google Scholar
Dunn, Michael, Greenhill, Simon J., Levinson, Stephen C.; and Gray, Russell D.. 2011. Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals. Nature 473. 79–82. DOI: 10.1038/nature09923.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fedzechkina, Masha, Newport, Elissa L.; and Jaeger, T. Florian. 2016. Miniature artificial language learning as a complement to typological data. The usage-based study of language learning and multilingualism, ed. by Ortega, Lourdes, Tyler, Andrea E., Park, Hae In, and Uno, Mariko, 211–34. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2011. Grammaticalization as analogically driven change? The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, ed. by Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd, 31–42. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0003.Google Scholar
Futrell, Richard, Hickey, Tina, Lee, Aldrin, Lim, Eunice, Luchkina, Elena; and Gibson, Edward. 2015. Cross-linguistic gestures reflect typological universals: A subject-initial, verb-final bias in speakers of diverse languages. Cognition 136. 215–21. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.022.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Futrell, Richard, Mahowald, Kyle; and Gibson, Edward. 2015. Large-scale evidence of dependency length minimization in 37 languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112. 10336–341. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1502134112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentner, Dedre, and Kurtz, Kenneth J.. 2006. Relations, objects, and the composition of analogies. Cognitive Science 30. 609–42. DOI: 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentner, Dedre, and Maravilla, Francisco. 2017. Analogical reasoning. International handbook of thinking and reasoning, ed. by Ball, Linden J. and Thompson, Valerie A., 186–203. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1970. Notes on the semantic structure of English adjectives. Language 46. 816–37. DOI: 10.2307/412258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1975. Serial verbs and syntactic change: Niger-Congo. Word order and word order change, ed. by Li, Charles N., 47–112. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. From discourse to syntax: Grammar as a processing strategy. Discourse and syntax (Syntax and semantics 12), ed. by Givón, Talmy, 81–112. New York: Academic Press. DOI: 10.1163/9789004368897_005.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, Susan, So, Wing Chee, Özyürek, Asli; and Mylander, Carolyn. 2008. The natural order of events: How speakers of different languages represent events nonverbally. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105. 9163–36. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0710060105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gong, Tao, Lam, Yau W.; and Shuai, Lan. 2016. Influence of perceptual saliency hierarchy on learning of language structures: An artificial language learning experiment. Frontiers in Psychology 7:1952. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01952.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universals of language, vol. 2, ed. by Greenberg, Joseph H., 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hahn, Michael, Jurafsky, Dan; and Futrell, Richard. 2020. Universals of word order reflect optimization of grammars for efficient communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117. 2347–75. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1910923117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanske, Theresa. 2013. Serial verbs and change of location constructions in Vietnamese. Linguistics of Vietnamese: An international survey, ed. by Hole, Daniel and Löbel, Elisabeth, 185–214. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110289411.185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Parametric versus functional explanations of syntactic universals. The limits of syntactic variation, ed. by Biberauer, Theresa, 75–107. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1980. On implicational and distributional universals of word order. Journal of Linguistics 16. 193–235. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226700006551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1982. Cross-category harmony, X-bar and the predictions of markedness. Journal of Linguistics 18. 1–35. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226700007210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1983. Word order universals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511554285.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, and Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume. 2013. Harmonization and disharmonization of affix ordering and basic word order. Linguistic Typology 17. 187–217. DOI: 10.1515/lity-2013-0009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard, and Wahle, Johannes. 2021. Phylogenetic typology. Frontiers in Psychology 12:682132. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.682132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jing, Yingqi, Blasi, Damián E.; and Bickel, Balthasar. 2022. Dependency-length minimization and its limits: A possible role for a probabilistic version of the final-over-final condition. Language 98. 397–418. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2022.0013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, Simon, Cornish, Hannah; and Smith, Kenny. 2008. Cumulative cultural evolution in the laboratory: An experimental approach to the origins of structure in human language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105. 10681–686. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0707835105.Google Scholar
Kirby, Simon, Dowman, Mike; and Griffiths, Thomas L.. 2007. Innateness and culture in the evolution of language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104. 5241–14. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0608222104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirby, Simon, Tamariz, Monica, Cornish, Hannah; and Smith, Kenny. 2015. Compression and communication in the cultural evolution of linguistic structure. Cognition 141. 87–102. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.03.016.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ladd, D. Robert, Roberts, Seán G.; and Dediu, Dan. 2015. Correlational studies in typological and historical linguistics. Annual Review of Linguistics 1. 221–41. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1966. Stative adjectives and verbs in English. Mathematical linguistics and automatic translation (Report to the National Science Foundation 17). Cambridge, MA: Computation Laboratory, Harvard University. Online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3qk519qr.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 2002. Problems of methodology and explanation in word order universals research. Dongfang yuyan yu wenhua [Languages and cultures of the East], ed. by Pan, Wuyun, 204–37. Shanghai: Dongfang Chuban Zhongxin.Google Scholar
Liu, Danqing. 2003. Yuxu leixingxue yu jieci lilun [Word order typology and the theory of adpositions]. Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan.Google Scholar
Maldonado, Mora, and Culbertson, Jennifer. 2022. Person of interest: Experimental investigations into the learnability of person systems. Linguistic Inquiry 53. 295–336. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith A. 2013. Introducing language typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511978876.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe. 2012. Emergent systemic simplicity (and complexity). McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 22.Google Scholar
Paul, Waltraud. 2014. New perspectives on Chinese syntax. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110338775.Google Scholar
Peirce, Jonathan, Gray, Jeremy R., Simpson, Sol, MacAskill, Michael, Höchenberger, Richard, Sogo, Hiroyuki, Kastman, Erik; and Lindeløv, Jonas Kristoffer. 2019. PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods 51. 195–203. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peng, Siyao, Liu, Yang, Zhu, Yilun, Blodgett, Austin, Zhao, Yushi; and Schneider, Nathan. 2020. A corpus of adpositional supersenses for Mandarin Chinese. Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC 2020), 5986–69. Online: https://aclanthology.org/2020.lrec-1.0.pdf.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2018. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Online: https://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Reali, Florencia, and Griffiths, Thomas L.. 2009. The evolution of frequency distributions: Relating regularization to inductive biases through iterated learning. Cognition 111. 317–28. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.02.012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schachter, Paul, and Shopen, Timothy. 2010. Parts-of-speech systems. Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 1: Clause structure, 2nd edn., ed. by Shopen, Timothy, 1–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511619427.001.Google Scholar
Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2014. Cognitive processing, language typology, and variation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 5. 477–87. DOI: 10.1002/wcs.1294.Google ScholarPubMed
Smith, Kenny, Tamariz, Monica; and Kirby, Simon. 2013. Linguistic structure is an evolutionary trade-off between simplicity and expressivity. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 35. 1348–85. Online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8j64g39c.Google Scholar
Smith, Kenny, and Wonnacott, Elizabeth. 2010. Eliminating unpredictable variation through iterated learning. Cognition 116. 444–49. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.06.004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Svenonius, Peter. 1994. The structural location of the attributive adjective. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 12. 438–54.Google Scholar
Tarenskeen, Sammie, Broersma, Mirjam; and Geurts, Bart. 2015. Overspecification of color, pattern, and size: Salience, absoluteness, and consistency. Frontiers in Psychology 6:1703. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01703.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, Bill, Kirby, Simon; and Smith, Kenny. 2016. Culture shapes the evolution of cognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113. 4530–03. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1523631113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tily, Harry, and Jaeger, T. Florian. 2011. Complementing quantitative typology with behavioral approaches: Evidence for typological universals. Linguistic Typology 15. 497–508. DOI: 10.1515/lity.2011.033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. Grammaticalization. Historical pragmatics, ed. by Jucker, Andreas H. and Taavitsainen, Irma, 97–126. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110214284.3.97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, Lisa deMena. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/15211.Google Scholar
Truswell, Robert. 2005. Adjectives and headedness. Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology, and Phonetics 10. 1–19. Online: https://www.ling-phil.ox.ac.uk/files/owp2005.pdf.Google Scholar
Valois, Daniel. 1991. The internal syntax of DP. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
Velupillai, Viveka. 2012. An introduction to linguistic typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1974. Analogy in generative grammar: The origin of word order. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Linguists, vol. 2, 79–83. Bologna: Societa editrice il Mulino.Google Scholar
Westerbeek, Hans, Koolen, Ruud; and Maes, Alfons. 2015. Stored object knowledge and the production of referring expressions: The case of color typicality. Frontiers in Psychology 6:935. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00935.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wetzer, Harrie. 1992. ‘Nouny’ and ‘verby’ adjectivals: A typology of predicative adjectival constructions. Meaning and grammar: Cross-linguistic perspectives, ed. by Kefer, Michel and van, Johan Auwera, der, 223–62. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110851656.223.Google Scholar
Wetzer, Harrie. 2013. The typology of adjectival predication. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110813586.Google Scholar
Wilson, Colin. 2006. Learning phonology with substantive bias: An experimental and computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science 30. 945–82. DOI: 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhao, Yiyun, and Fedzechkina, Masha. 2020. Learners' harmonic preferences are modulated by lexical retrieval difficulty. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 5. 708–21. DOI: 10.3765/plsa.v5i1.4758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Wang et al. supplementary material

Wang et al. supplementary material
Download Wang et al. supplementary material(File)
File 4.9 MB