Advertisement

Introduction to Artificial Goals and Challenges

  • Yu-Leng LinEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Frontiers in Chinese Linguistics book series (FiCL, volume 8)

Abstract

This chapter introduces the literature on artificial grammar that forms the foundation for this study.

References

  1. Albright, Adam, and Young Ah Do. 2013. Biased learning of phonological alternations. The 21th Manchester Phonology Meeting, May 23–25, Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, Stephen R. 1985. Phonology in the twentieth Century: Theories of rules and theories of representations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Archangeli, Diana, and Douglas Pulleyblank. 1994. Grounded phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baković, Eric, and Colin Wilson. 2000. Transparency, strict locality, and targeted constraints. Proceedings of WCCFL 19: 43–56.Google Scholar
  5. Bateman, Nicoleta. 2007. A Crosslinguistic Investigation of Palatalization. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
  6. Bennett, Ryan. 2012. Foot-conditioned phonotactics and prosodic constituency. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
  7. Berent, Iris. 2013. The phonological mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Berent, Iris, Tracy Lennertz, Jongho Jun, Moreno A. Miguel, and Paul Smolensky. 2008. Language universals in human brains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 5321–5325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berent, Iris, Donca Steriade, Tracy Lennertz, and Vered Vaknin. 2007. What we know about what we have never heard: Evidence from perceptual illusions. Cognition 104: 591–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blevins, Juliette. 1995. The syllable in phonological theory. In Handbook of phonological theory, ed. John Goldsmith, 206–244. Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Boersma, Paul, Kateřina Chladkova, and Titia Benders. 2013. Learning phonological structures from sound-meaning pairs. The 21th Manchester Phonology Meeting, May 23–25, Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
  12. Bruce, Hayes, Kie Zuraw, Péter Siptár, and Zsuzsa Londe. 2009. Natural and unnatural constraints in Hungarian vowel harmony. Language 85 (4): 822–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Butcher, Andrew, and Marija Tabain. 2004. On the back of the tongue: Dorsal sounds in Australian languages. Phonetica 61: 22–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chambers, Kyle, Kristine H. Onishi, and Cynthia Fisher. 2010. A vowel is a vowel: Generalization to newly learned phonotactic constraints to new contexts. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition 36 (3): 821–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chomsky, Noam. 1972. Language and mind, English ed. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: New York.Google Scholar
  17. Chomsky, Noam. 2007. Review of Margaret Boden’s mind as machine: A History of Cognitive Science. Artificial Intelligence 171: 1094–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound patterns of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  19. Chomsky, Noam. 1980. On cognitive structures and their development: A reply to Piaget. In Language and learning: The debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky, ed. Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA. 35–52.Google Scholar
  20. Clements, George N. 1990. The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In Papers in laboratory phonology: Between the grammar and physics of speech, ed. John Kingston and Mary Beckman, 1838–1865. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Clements, George N. & Elizabeth Hume V. (1995). The internal organization of speech sounds. In The handbook of phonological theory, ed. Goldsmith, 245–306. Cambridge, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  22. Cole, Jennifer, and Loren Trigo. 1988. Parasitic harmony. Features, segmental structure, and harmony processes. In Features, segmental structure and harmony processes, ed. Harry van der Hulst and Norval Smith, 19–39. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  23. Cristiá, Alejandrina, and Amanda Seidl. 2008. Is infants’ learning of sound patterns constrained by phonological features? Language Learning and Development 4 (3): 203–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cser, András. 2003. The typology and modelling of obstruent lenition and fortition processes. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
  25. Daland, Robert, Bruce Hayes, James White, Marc Garellek, Andrea Davis, and Ingrid Norrmann. 2011. Explaining sonority projection effect. Phonology 28: 197–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Davidson, Lisa, Peter Jusczyk, and Paul Smolensky. 2004. The initial and final states: Theoretical implications and experimental explorations of Richness of the Base. In Constraints in phonological acquisition, ed. Rene Kager, Joe Pater, and Wim Zonneveld, 321–368. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. de Lacy, Paul. 2000. Markedness in prominent positions. In HUMIT 2000, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 40, ed. Ora Matushansky, Albert Costa, Javier Martin-Gonzalez, Lance Nathan, and Adam Szczegielniak, 53–66. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
  28. de Lacy, Paul. 2006. Markedness: Reduction and preservation in phonology. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 112. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Evans, Nicolas, and Stephen C. Levinson. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Science 32: 429–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Feldman, Jacob. 2000. Minimization of Boolean complexity in human concept learning. Nature 407: 630–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Finley, Sara. 2011a. The privileged status of locality in consonant harmony. Journal of Memory and Language 65: 74–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Finley, Sara. 2011b. Generalizing to novel consonants in artificial grammar learning. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 33 (33): 3268–3273.Google Scholar
  33. Finley, Sara. 2012. Typological asymmetries in round vowel harmony: Support from artificial grammar learning. Language and Cognitive Processes 27 (10): 1550–1562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Finley, Sara. 2015. Learning non-adjacent dependencies in phonology: Transparent vowels in vowel harmony. Language 91: 48–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Finley, Sara, and William Badecker. 2009. Artificial language learning and feature-based generalization. Journal of Memory and Language 61: 423–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Finley, Sara, and William Badecker. 2010. In Linguistic and non-linguistic influences on learning biases for vowel harmony, ed. Ohlsson Stellan and Richard Catrambone, 706–711. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  37. Finley, Sara. 2008. Formal and cognitive restrictions on vowel harmony. Doctoral dissertation, John Hopkins University.Google Scholar
  38. Finley, Sara. 2013. Generalization to unfamiliar talkers in artificial grammar learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.Google Scholar
  39. Fodor, Jerry A., and Merrill F Garrett. 1966. Some reflections on competence and performance. In Psycholinguistics papers, ed. John Lyons & Roger Wales. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Frisch, Stephan, Pierrehumbert B. Janet, and Broe B. Michael. 2004. Similarity avoidance and the OCP. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22 (1): 179–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gafos, Adamantios I. 1996. The articulatory basis of locality in phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Johns Hopkins University. Published 1999, New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  42. Gerken, LouAnn, and Alex Bollt. 2008. Three exemplars allow at least some linguistic generalizations: Implications for generalization mechanisms and constraints. Language Leanring and Development 4 (3): 228–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gordon, Mathew. 1999. Syllable weight: Phonetics, phonology and typology. Doctoral dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
  44. Guion, Susan G. 1998. The role of perception in the sound change of velar palatalization. Phonetica 55: 18–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Guion, Susan G. 1996. Velar palatalization: Coarticulation, perception, and sound change. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  46. Gómez, Rebecca L., and Roger W. Schvaneveldt. 1994. What is learned from artificial grammars? Transfer tests of simple association. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20 (2): 396–410.Google Scholar
  47. Gómez, Rebecca L., and LouAnn Gerken. 1999. Artificial grammar learning by 1-year-olds leads to specific and abstract knowledge. Cognition 70: 109–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur. 2001. Theoretical and typological issues in consonant harmony. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  49. Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur. 2010. Consonant harmony: Long-distance interactions in phonology. Vol. 145. University of California Press.Google Scholar
  50. Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur. 2004. Long-distance voicing agreement: An evolutionary perspective. Berkeley Linguistics Society 30. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. Marc Ettlinger, Nicholas Fleischer, and Mischa Park-Doob, 130–141. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hayes, Bruce, and Donca Steriade. 2004. The phonetic bases of phonological markedness. In Phonologically based phonology, ed. Bruce Hayes, Robert Kirchner, and Donca Steriade, 1–33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Heinz, Jeffery. 2010. Learning long-distance phonotactics. Linguistic Inquiry 41 (4): 623–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Henke, Eric, Ellen M. Kaisse, and Richard Wright. 2012. Is the sonority sequencing principle an epiphenomenon? In The sonority controversy (Phonology and Phonetics 18), ed. Steven Parker, 65–100. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
  54. Honeybone, Patrick. 2008. Lenition, weakening and consonantal strength: Tracing concepts through the history of phonology. In Lenition and Fortition, ed. J. Brandão de Carvalho, T. Scheer, and P. Ségéral, 9–93. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  55. Hooper, Joan B. 1976. Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. In Current progress in historical linguistics, ed. William M. Christie, 96–105. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  56. Hume, Elizabeth, and Keith Johnson. 2001. A model of the interplay of speech perception and phonology. In The role of speech perception in phonology, ed. Elizabeth Hume and Keith Johnson, 3–26. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  57. Jensen, John T. 1974. A constraint on variables in phonology. Language 50(4, Part 1): 675–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kaun, Abigail R. 2004. The typology of rounding harmony. In Phonetics in phonology, ed. B. Hayes and Donca Steriade, 87–116. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Kaun, Abigail R. 1995. The typology of rounding harmony: An optimality theoretic approach. Doctoral dissertation, Los Angeles, CA: UCLA.Google Scholar
  60. Keating, Patricia, and Aditi Lahiri. 1993. Fronted velars, palatalized velars, and palatals. Phonetica 50: 73–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kochetov, Alexei. 2011. Palatalisation. In The Blackwell companion to phonology, ed. Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume, and Keren Rice, 1666–1690. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  62. Koo, Hahn, and Lydia Callahan. 2011. Tier adjacency is not a necessary condition for learning non-adjacent dependencies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1425–1432.Google Scholar
  63. Kuhl, Patricia K., Williams A. Karen, Francisco Lacerda, Steven F. Kenneth, and Björn Lindblom. 1992. Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. Science 255: 606–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Kuhl, Patricia K. 2001. Language, mind and brain: Experience alters perception. In Handbook of developmental cognitive neuroscience, ed. Charles A. Nelson and Monica Luciana, 99–115. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  65. Kuo, Li-Jen. 2009. The role of natural class features in the acquisition of phonotactic regularities. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 38 (2): 129–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ladefoged, Peter. 2001. A course in phonetics. San Diego: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  67. Lin, Yu-Leng. 2012. Nasal harmony with opaque segments: Evidence from wug tests. Generals paper: University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  68. Lin, Yu-Leng. 2009. Tests of analytic bias in native mandarin and native southern min speakers. In Proceedings of the 21st North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-21), 81–92. 2 Volumes. Bryant University, Smithfield, Rhode Island, ed. Yun Xiao. Distributed by NACCL Proceedings Online, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  69. Lin, Yu-Leng. 2010. Testing Universal Grammar in phonological artificial grammar learning. Master’s thesis. National Chung Cheng University, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  70. Lin, Yu-Leng. 2011. Tests of analytic bias in native Mandarin and native Southern Min Speakers. In Current issues in Chinese Linguistics, ed. Yun Xiao, Liang Tao & Hooi ling Soh . Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  71. Lin, Yu-Leng. 2013. Nasal harmony with opaque segments and learnability: Evidence from wug tests. Presented at 21st Manchester Phonology Meeting. 23–25 May, 2013, University of Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
  72. Lin, Yu-Leng. 2014. The ambiguous status of laryngeals in nasal vowel-consonant harmony. Poster presented at Workshop on Learning Biases in Natural and Artificial Language at 2014 Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain (2014 LAGB). 1–5 Sept, 2014. University of Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  73. Lin, Yu-Leng. 2016a. What matters in artificial grammar learning, sonority hierarchy or natural classes? In Proceedings of 2015 Annual Meeting on Phonology (AMP 2015). University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  74. Lobina, David. 2011. Recursion and competence/performance distinction in AGL tasks. Langauge and Cognitive Processes 26 (10): 1563–1586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Love, Bradley C. 2002. Comparing supervised and unsupervised category learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 9 (4): 829–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Majerus, Steve, Martial Van der Linden, Ludivine Mulder, Thierry Meulmans, and Frédéric Peters. 2004. Verbal short-term memory reflects the sublexical organization of the phonological language network: Evidence from an incidental phonotactic learning paradigm. Journal of Memory and Language 51: 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. McCarthy, John. J. 1981. A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 373–418.Google Scholar
  78. McMullin, Kevin, and Gunnar Ólafur Hansson. 2014. Locality in long-distance phonotactics: Evidence for modular learning. In Proceedings of NELS 44, Vol. 2, ed. Leland Kusmer & Jyoti Iyer, 1–14. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  79. Moreton, Elliott. 2008. Analytic bias and phonological typology. Phonology 25 (1): 83–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Moreton, Elliott. 2012. Inter- and intra-dimensional dependencies in implicit phonotactic learning. Journal of Memory and Language 67 (1): 165–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Moreton, Elliott. 2010. Underphonologization and modularity bias. In Phonological argumentation: Essays on evidence and motivation, ed. Steve Parker, 79–101. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
  82. Moreton, Elliott, and Joe Pater. 2012a. Structure and substance in artificial-phonology learning, Part I: Structure. Language and Linguistics Compact 686–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Moreton, Elliott, and Joe Pater. 2012b. Structure and substance in artificial-phonology learning, Part I: Substance. Language and Linguistics Compact 702–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Neisser, Ulric, and Paul Weene. 1962. Hierarchies in concept attainment. Journal of Experimental Psychology 64 (6): 640–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Nevins, Andrew. 2009. On formal universals in phonology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32: 461–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Nevins, Andrew. 2010. Two case studies in phonological universals: A view from artificial grammars. Biolinguistics 4: 217–232.Google Scholar
  87. Nevins, Andrew. 2013. Restrictive theories of harmony. The 21th Manchester Phonology Meeting, May 23–25, Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
  88. Newton, Ashley M., and G. Jill de Villiers. 2007. Thinking while talking: Adults fail nonverbal false-belief reasoning. Psychological Science 18 (7): 574–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Nosofsky, Robert M., Gluck A. Mark, Palmeri J. Thomas, McKinley C. Stephen, and Paul Gauthier. 1994a. Comparing models of rulebased classification learning: A replication and extension of Shepard, Hovland, and Jenkins 1961. Memory and Cognition 22 (3): 352–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Nosofsky, Robert M., Palmeri J. Thomas, and McKinley C. Stephen. 1994b. Rule-plus-exception model of classification learning. Psychological Review 101 (1): 53–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Odden, David. 1995. Adjacency parameters in phonology. Language 70 (2): 289–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Ohala, John J. 1992. What’s cognitive, what’s not, in sound change. In Diachrony within synchrony: Language history and cognition. Duisberger Arbeiten zur Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft 14, ed. Günter Kellermann and Michael D. Morrissey, 309–355. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  93. Parker, Steve. 2011. Sonority. In The Blackwell companion to phonology, ed. Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume, and Keren Rice, 1160–1184. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  94. Parker, Steve. 2002. Quantifying the sonority hierarchy. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  95. Peperkamp, Sharon, and Dupoux, Emmanuel. 2007. Learning the mapping from surface to underlying representations in artificial language. In Laboratory Phonology, vol. 9, ed. Jennifer Cole, and José Ignacio Hualde, 315–338.Google Scholar
  96. Peperkamp, Sharon, Le Calvez, Rozenn, Nadal, Jean-Pierre, and Dupoux, Emmanuael. 2006. The acquisition of allophonic rules: Statistical learning with linguistic constraints. Cognition 31–41.Google Scholar
  97. Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 1993. Dissimilarity in the Arabic verbal roots. In Proceedings of the Northeast linguistics society, vol. 23, ed. A. Schafer, 367–381. Graduate Linguistics Students Association, Amherst, Mass.Google Scholar
  98. Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2002. An unnatural process. The 8th Meeting on Laboratory Phonology.Google Scholar
  99. Pothos, Emmanuel M. 2007. Theories of artificial grammar learning. Psychological Bulletin 133: 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Rutgers Technical Report TR-2. New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science [also Rutgers Optimality Archive 537]. Published in 2004 by Blackwell.Google Scholar
  101. Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 2004. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Blackwell.Google Scholar
  102. Pycha, Anne, Pawel Nowak, Eurie Shin, and Ryan Shosted. 2003. Phonological rule-learning and its implications for a theory of vowel harmony. In Proceedings of the 22nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 22), ed. Mimu Tsujimura, and Gina Garding, 101–114. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla PressGoogle Scholar
  103. Reber, Arthur S. 1976. Implicit learning of synthetic languages: The role of instructional set. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 2: 88–94.Google Scholar
  104. Reber, Arthur S. 1989. Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 118: 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Reber, Arthur S. 1967. Implicit learning of artificial grammars. Journal of Verbal Learning 855–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Ren, Jie, Liqun Gao, and James L. Morgan. 2010. Mandarin speakers’ knowledge of the sonority sequencing principle. Paper presented at the 20th Colloquium of Generative Grammar. University of Pompeu Fabra, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  107. Rice, Karen. 2007. Markedness in phonology. In The Cambridge handbook of phonology, ed. Paul de Lacy, 79–97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Rose, Sharon, and Rachel Walker. 2004. A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence. Language 80 (3): 475–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Rose, Sharon, and Rachel Walker. 2002. A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence. Submitted. /ROA-458-0801/.Google Scholar
  110. Saffran, Jenny R., and Thiessen D. Erik. 2003. Pattern induction by infant language learners. Developmental Psychology 39 (3): 484–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Seidl, Amanda, and Eugene Buckley. 2005. On the learning of arbitrary phonological rules. Language Learning and Development 1 (3 & 4): 289–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Shepard, Roger N., C.L. Hovland, and H.M. Jenkins. 1961. Learning and memorization of classifications. Psychological Monographs 75 (13, Whole No. 517): 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Skoruppa, Katrin, and Sharon Peperkamp. 2011. Adaptation to novel accents: Feature-based learning in context-sensitive phonological regularities. Cognitive Science 35 (2): 348–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Smith, David J., Minda J. Paul, and Washburn A. David. 2004. Category learning in rhesus monkeys: A study of the Shepard, Hovland, and Jenkins (1961) tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 133 (3): 398–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Smith, Jennifer. 2002. Phonological augmentation in prominent positions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  116. Steriade, Donca. 2001. Directional asymmetries in place assimilation: A perceptual account. In The role of speech perception in phonology, ed. Elizabeth Hume and Keith Johnson, 219–250. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  117. Terbeek, Dale. 1977. A cross-language multidimensional scaling study of vowel perception. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, 37: 1271.Google Scholar
  118. Toro, Juan M., Marina Nespor, Jacques Mehler, and Bonatti L. Luca. 2008a. Finding words and rules in a speech stream. Psychological Science 19 (2): 137–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Toro, Juan. M., Mohinish Shukla, Marina Nespor, and Ansgar Endress D. 2008b. The quest for generalizations over consonants: Asymmetries between consonants and vowels are not the by-product of acoustic differences. Perception and Psychophysics 70(8): 1515–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Warker, Jill A., and Dell S. Gary. 2006. Speech errors reflect newly learned phonotactic constraints. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition 32: 387–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Warker, Jill A., Christine A. Whalen, and Samantha Gereg. 2008. Limits on learning phonotactic constraints from recent production experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition 34 (5): 1209–1295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. White, James. 2013. Bias in phonological learning: Evidence from saltation. Doctoral dissertation. UCLA.Google Scholar
  123. Wilson, Colin. 2003. Experimental investigation of phonological naturalness. WCCFL 22: 533–546.Google Scholar
  124. Wilson, Colin. 2006. Learning phonology with substantive bias: An experimental and computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science 30: 945–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Zec, Draga. 2007. The syllable. In The Cambridge handbook of phonology, ed. Paul de Lacy, 161–193. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  126. Zhao, Xu, and Iris Berent. 2011. Are markedness constraints universal? Evidence from Mandarin Chinese speakers. Paper presented at the Boston University Conference on Language Development. Boston, MA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Peking University Press and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Foreign Languages and LiteraturesFeng Chia UniversityTaichungTaiwan

Personalised recommendations