Home Evidence against a link between learning phonotactics and learning phonological alternations
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Evidence against a link between learning phonotactics and learning phonological alternations

  • Youngah Do EMAIL logo and Ping Hei Yeung
Published/Copyright: August 2, 2021
Linguistics Vanguard
From the journal Linguistics Vanguard Volume 7 Issue 1

Abstract

Phonological alternations often happen to conform to phonotactic regularities, from which a single mechanism for phonotactics and alternations has been claimed. We note, however, that empirical evidence supporting the link between phonotactics and alternations comes only from English native speakers whose first language (L1) does exhibit phonotactically motivated alternation patterns. This article examines whether the link between phonotactics and alternations is universally available. To do so, we test learning of phonotactics and alternations with Cantonese native speakers, whose L1 provides no evidence for or against the link. We address learning of a vowel harmony pattern through the use of three artificial languages; one with a harmony pattern both within and across stems, another with a harmony pattern only across stems; and the other with a disharmony pattern within stems but harmony across stems. Learners successfully acquired harmony phonotactics according to input patterns, but they showed no difference in learning alternation patterns across the three languages. Our results suggest that the link between phonotactics and alternations might be language-specific: Only upon receiving L1 evidence, learners can use a unified mechanism to encode phonotactics and alternations.

Keywords: acquisition; artificial language learning; phonological alternations; phonotactics
Corresponding author: Youngah Do, Department of Linguistics, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, E-mail:

Funding source: University of Hong Kong doi.org/10.13039/501100003803

Award Identifier / Grant number: TDG 101001907

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Jonathan Havenhill and Arthur Lewis Thompson for their feedback on this research. Thanks also to members of The University of Hong Kong’s Language Development Lab for their advice on the design of this research. We are also grateful to the associate editor Jason Shaw and two anonymous reviewers for Linguistics Vanguard for their guidance and helpful comments. Thanks also to Aaron Wing Cheung Chik for technical assistance.

  1. Research funding: This work was supported by University of Hong Kong (TDG 101001907).

Appendix A

Table 5:

Items for pretest.

Harmonic Disharmonic
1 kʰɛnɛ kʰɛnɔ
2 mɛpʰeɪ mɛpʰoʊ
3 pʰeɪkʰɛ pʰoʊkʰɛ
4 teɪkeɪ toʊkeɪ
5 kɔmɔ kɔmɛ
6 tʰɔpoʊ tʰɔpeɪ
7 poʊtɔ peɪtɔ
8 noʊtʰoʊ neɪtʰoʊ
Table 6:

Training items of Language A.

Singular Plural Singular Plural
1 kɛkʰeɪ kɛkʰeɪmɛ 17 pɛkʰɛ pɛkʰɛmɛ
2 koʊmoʊ koʊmoʊmɔ 18 peɪneɪ peɪneɪmɛ
3 kɛnɛ kɛnɛmɛ 19 peɪpʰeɪ peɪpʰeɪmɛ
4 keɪpʰɛ keɪpʰɛmɛ 20 pɔtoʊ pɔtoʊmɔ
5 kʰɛkʰeɪ kʰɛkʰeɪmɛ 21 pʰoʊkoʊ pʰoʊkoʊmɔ
6 kʰɛmɛ kʰɛmɛmɛ 22 pʰeɪkʰeɪ pʰeɪkʰeɪmɛ
7 kʰeɪnɛ kʰeɪnɛmɛ 23 pʰɔtoʊ pʰɔtoʊmɔ
8 kʰeɪpeɪ kʰeɪpeɪmɛ 24 pʰoʊtʰɔ pʰoʊtʰɔmɔ
9 mɛkeɪ mɛkeɪmɛ 25 tɛkɛ tɛkɛmɛ
10 moʊnɔ moʊnɔmɔ 26 teɪpɛ teɪpɛmɛ
11 moʊpoʊ moʊpoʊmɔ 27 tɔpʰɔ tɔpʰɔmɔ
12 mɔtʰoʊ mɔtʰoʊmɔ 28 tɛteɪ tɛteɪmɛ
13 neɪmɛ neɪmɛmɛ 29 tʰoʊkoʊ tʰoʊkoʊmɔ
14 nɔpoʊ nɔpoʊmɔ 30 tʰɔmɔ tʰɔmɔmɔ
15 nɔtɔ nɔtɔmɔ 31 tʰoʊpʰɔ tʰoʊpʰɔmɔ
16 nɔtʰɔ nɔtʰɔmɔ 32 tʰoʊtʰɔ tʰoʊtʰɔmɔ
Table 7:

Training items of Language B.

Singular Plural Singular Plural
1 kɔkʰeɪ kɔkʰeɪmɛ 17 pɛkʰɛ pɛkʰɛmɛ
2 keɪmoʊ keɪmoʊmɔ 18 peɪnoʊ peɪnoʊmɔ
3 kɔnɛ kɔnɛmɛ 19 poʊpʰeɪ poʊpʰeɪmɛ
4 keɪpʰɔ keɪpʰɔmɔ 20 pɛtoʊ pɛtoʊmɔ
5 kʰɛkʰeɪ kʰɛkʰeɪmɛ 21 pʰoʊkeɪ pʰoʊkeɪmɛ
6 kʰɛmɔ kʰɛmɔmɔ 22 pʰeɪkʰeɪ pʰeɪkʰeɪmɛ
7 kʰeɪnɛ kʰeɪnɛmɛ 23 pʰɔteɪ pʰɔteɪmɛ
8 kʰeɪpeɪ kʰeɪpeɪmɛ 24 pʰoʊtʰɔ pʰoʊtʰɔmɔ
9 mɛkoʊ mɛkoʊmɔ 25 tɛkɛ tɛkɛmɛ
10 meɪnɔ meɪnɔmɔ 26 teɪpɛ teɪpɛmɛ
11 moʊpoʊ moʊpoʊmɔ 27 tɔpʰɔ tɔpʰɔmɔ
12 mɔtʰoʊ mɔtʰoʊmɔ 28 tɛteɪ tɛteɪmɛ
13 noʊmɛ noʊmɛmɛ 29 tʰoʊkoʊ tʰoʊkoʊmɔ
14 nɔpoʊ nɔpoʊmɔ 30 tʰɔmɛ tʰɔmɛmɛ
15 nɛtɔ nɛtɔmɔ 31 tʰoʊpʰɛ tʰoʊpʰɛmɛ
16 nɔtʰɔ nɔtʰɔmɔ 32 tʰoʊtʰɔ tʰoʊtʰɔmɔ
Table 8:

Training items of Language C.

Singular Plural Singular Plural
1 kɔnɛ kɔnɛmɛ 17 pɔkʰɛ pɔkʰɛmɛ
2 kɔkʰeɪ kɔkʰeɪmɛ 18 poʊpʰeɪ poʊpʰeɪmɛ
3 keɪpʰɔ keɪpʰɔmɔ 19 pɛtoʊ pɛtoʊmɔ
4 keɪmoʊ keɪmoʊmɔ 20 peɪnoʊ peɪnoʊmɔ
5 kʰɔkʰeɪ kʰɔkʰeɪmɛ 21 pʰɔteɪ pʰɔteɪmɛ
6 kʰɛmɔ kʰɛmɔmɔ 22 pʰoʊkʰeɪ pʰoʊkʰeɪmɛ
7 kʰeɪnɔ kʰeɪnɔmɔ 23 pʰoʊkeɪ pʰoʊkeɪmɛ
8 kʰeɪpoʊ kʰeɪpoʊmɔ 24 pʰeɪtʰɔ pʰeɪtʰɔmɔ
9 meɪnɔ meɪnɔmɔ 25 tɔpʰɛ tɔpʰɛmɛ
10 mɛkoʊ mɛkoʊmɔ 26 toʊpɛ toʊpɛmɛ
11 mɛtʰoʊ mɛtʰoʊmɔ 27 tɛkɔ tɛkɔmɔ
12 meɪpoʊ meɪpoʊmɔ 28 tɛtoʊ tɛtoʊmɔ
13 noʊmɛ noʊmɛmɛ 29 tʰɔmɛ tʰɔmɛmɛ
14 nɔpeɪ nɔpeɪmɛ 30 tʰoʊpʰɛ tʰoʊpʰɛmɛ
15 nɛtɔ nɛtɔmɔ 31 tʰoʊtʰɛ tʰoʊtʰɛmɛ
16 nɛtʰɔ nɛtʰɔmɔ 32 tʰoʊkeɪ tʰoʊkeɪmɛ
Table 9:

Testing items for the first testing block.

Harmonic Disharmonic
1 kɛpɛ kɛpɔ
2 pʰɛkʰɛ pʰɔkʰɛ
3 nɛneɪ nɔneɪ
4 kʰɛkeɪ kʰɛkoʊ
5 kʰeɪpʰɛ kʰeɪpʰɔ
6 neɪkʰɛ noʊkʰɛ
7 meɪmeɪ moʊmeɪ
8 meɪteɪ meɪtoʊ
9 kɔtʰɔ kɛtʰɔ
10 tʰɔpʰɔ tʰɔpʰɛ
11 pʰɔnoʊ pʰɛnoʊ
12 pɔkoʊ pɔkeɪ
13 toʊtʰɔ teɪtʰɔ
14 tʰoʊtɔ tʰoʊtɛ
15 toʊmoʊ teɪmoʊ
16 poʊpoʊ poʊpeɪ
Table 10:

Testing items for the second testing block – harmonic stem (Condition 1).

Singular [-mɛ] plural [-mɔ] plural Wrong plural
1 keɪkɛ keɪkɛmɛ keɪkɛmɔ keɪkɛsa
2 koʊtoʊ koʊtoʊmɛ koʊtoʊmɔ koʊtoʊsa
3 kʰeɪteɪ kʰeɪteɪmɛ kʰeɪteɪmɔ kʰeɪteɪsa
4 kʰɛpʰeɪ kʰɛpʰeɪmɛ kʰɛpʰeɪmɔ kʰɛpʰeɪsa
5 mɛkʰɛ mɛkʰɛmɛ mɛkʰɛmɔ mɛkʰɛsa
6 moʊtʰoʊ moʊtʰoʊmɛ moʊtʰoʊmɔ moʊtʰoʊsa
7 neɪkeɪ neɪkeɪmɛ neɪkeɪmɔ neɪkeɪsa
8 nɔpʰoʊ nɔpʰoʊmɛ nɔpʰoʊmɔ nɔpʰoʊsa
9 peɪmɛ peɪmɛmɛ peɪmɛmɔ peɪmɛsa
10 pɔtʰɔ pɔtʰɔmɛ pɔtʰɔmɔ pɔtʰɔsa
11 pʰɔmoʊ pʰɔmoʊmɛ pʰɔmoʊmɔ pʰɔmoʊsa
12 pʰoʊpɔ pʰoʊpɔmɛ pʰoʊpɔmɔ pʰoʊpɔsa
13 tɛkʰeɪ tɛkʰeɪmɛ tɛkʰeɪmɔ tɛkʰeɪsa
14 tɛnɛ tɛnɛmɛ tɛnɛmɔ tɛnɛsa
15 tʰoʊnɔ tʰoʊnɔmɛ tʰoʊnɔmɔ tʰoʊnɔsa
16 tʰɔpɔ tʰɔpɔmɛ tʰɔpɔmɔ tʰɔpɔsa
Table 11:

Testing items for the second testing block – disharmonic stem (Condition 2).

Singular [-mɛ] plural [-mɔ] plural Wrong plural
1 koʊkɛ koʊkɛmɛ koʊkɛmɔ koʊkɛsa
2 koʊteɪ koʊteɪmɛ koʊteɪmɔ koʊteɪsa
3 kʰɛpʰoʊ kʰɛpʰoʊmɛ kʰɛpʰoʊmɔ kʰɛpʰoʊsa
4 kʰeɪtoʊ kʰeɪtoʊmɛ kʰeɪtoʊmɔ kʰeɪtoʊsa
5 meɪtʰoʊ meɪtʰoʊmɛ meɪtʰoʊmɔ meɪtʰoʊsa
6 mɔkʰɛ mɔkʰɛmɛ mɔkʰɛmɔ mɔkʰɛsa
7 nɛpʰoʊ nɛpʰoʊmɛ nɛpʰoʊmɔ nɛpʰoʊsa
8 noʊkeɪ noʊkeɪmɛ noʊkeɪmɔ noʊkeɪsa
9 pɛtʰɔ pɛtʰɔmɛ pɛtʰɔmɔ pɛtʰɔsa
10 peɪmɔ peɪmɔmɛ peɪmɔmɔ peɪmɔsa
11 pʰeɪpɔ pʰeɪpɔmɛ pʰeɪpɔmɔ pʰeɪpɔsa
12 pʰɔmeɪ pʰɔmeɪmɛ pʰɔmeɪmɔ pʰɔmeɪsa
13 tɛnɔ tɛnɔmɛ tɛnɔmɔ tɛnɔsa
14 tɔkʰeɪ tɔkʰeɪmɛ tɔkʰeɪmɔ tɔkʰeɪsa
15 tʰɔpɛ tʰɔpɛmɛ tʰɔpɛmɔ tʰɔpɛsa
16 tʰoʊnɛ tʰoʊnɛmɛ tʰoʊnɛmɔ tʰoʊnɛsa

References

Aksu-Koç, Ayhan A. & Dan Isaac Slobin. 1985. The acquisition of Turkish. In Dan Isaac Slobin (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition volume 1: The data, 839–878. London: L. Erlbaum.10.4324/9781315802541-10Search in Google Scholar

Anttila, Arto. 2009. Derived environment effects in Colloquial Helsinki Finnish. In Kristin Hanson & Sharon Inkelas (eds.), The nature of the word: Studies in honor of Paul Kiparsky (Current Studies in Linguistics 47), 433–460. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262083799.003.0018Search in Google Scholar

Barrie, Mike. 2003. Contrast in Cantonese vowels. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 20. 1–19.Search in Google Scholar

Bauer, Robert S. 1985. The expanding syllabary of Hong Kong Cantonese. Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 14(1). 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1163/19606028_014_01-05.Search in Google Scholar

Bauer, Robert S. & Paul K. Benedict. 1997. Modern Cantonese phonology (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 102). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110823707Search in Google Scholar

Bauer, Robert S. & Stephen Matthews. 2003. Cantonese. In Thurgood Graham & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages (Routledge Language Family Series), 146–155. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Berko, Jean. 1958. The child’s learning of English morphology. WORD 14(2–3). 150–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1958.11659661.Search in Google Scholar

Berman, Ruth A. 1985. The acquisition of Hebrew. In Dan Isaac Slobin (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition volume 1: The data, 255–372. London: L. Erlbaum.10.4324/9781315802541-4Search in Google Scholar

Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2019. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (version 6.0.49). Available at: http://www.praat.org.Search in Google Scholar

Burzio, Luigi. 2011. Derived environment effects. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology volume IV: Phonological interfaces (Blackwell Companions to Linguistics Series), 2089–2114. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0088Search in Google Scholar

Cho, Taehong. 2001. Effects of morpheme boundaries on intergestural timing: Evidence from Korean. Phonetica 58(3). 129–162. https://doi.org/10.1159/000056196.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English (Studies in Language). New York, Evanston & London: Harper & Row.Search in Google Scholar

Chong, Adam J. 2016. Learning consequences of derived-environment effects. Linguistic Society of America (LSA) 1(11). 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v1i0.3709.Search in Google Scholar

Chong, Adam J. 2017. On the relation between phonotactic learning and alternation learning. Los Angeles: University of California PhD Dissertation. Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7235q340.Search in Google Scholar

Do, Youngah. 2018. Paradigm uniformity bias in the learning of Korean verbal inflections. Phonology 35(4). 547–575. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952675718000209.Search in Google Scholar

Do, Youngah & Ryan Ka Yau Lai. 2020. Incorporating tone in the modelling of wordlikeness judgements. Phonology 37(4). 577–615. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952675720000287.Search in Google Scholar

Friederici, Angela D. & Jeanine M. I. Wessels. 1993. Phonotactic knowledge of word boundaries and its use in infant speech perception. Perception & Psychophysics 54(3). 287–295. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03205263.Search in Google Scholar

Hale, Mark & Charles Reiss. 2008. The phonological enterprise (Oxford Linguistics). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199533961.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Hall, Tracy Alan. 2006. Derived environment blocking effects in optimality theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24(3). 803–856. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-0003-5.Search in Google Scholar

Halle, Morris. 1959. The sound pattern of Russian: A linguistic and acoustical investigation. The Hague: Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

Hayes, Bruce. 2004. Phonological acquisition in optimality theory: The early stages. In René Kager, Pater Joe & Wim Zonneveld (eds.), Constraints in phonological acquisition, 158–203. Cambridge & Madrid: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486418.006Search in Google Scholar

Hayes, Bruce & Colin Wilson. 2008. A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry 39(3). 379–440. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2008.39.3.379.Search in Google Scholar

Iverson, Gregory K. & Deirdre W. Wheeler. 1988. Blocking and the elsewhere condition. In Michael Hammond & Michael Noonan (eds.), Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics, 325–338. San Diego: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004454101_021Search in Google Scholar

Jarosz, Gaja. 2006. Rich lexicons and restrictive grammars: Maximum likelihood learning in optimality theory. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University PhD Dissertation. Available at: https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/37916/.Search in Google Scholar

Jarosz, Gaja. 2011. The roles of phonotactics and frequency in the learning of alternations. In Nick Danis, Kate Mesh & Hyunsuk Sung (eds.), Proceedings of the 35th annual Boston University conference on language development (BUCLD), vol. 2, 321–333. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Search in Google Scholar

Jusczyk, Peter W., Angela D. Friederici, Jeanine M. Wessels, Vigdis Y. Svenkerud & Ann Marie Jusczyk. 1993. Infants’ sensitivity to the sound patterns of native language words. Journal of Memory and Language 32(3). 402–420. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1993.1022.Search in Google Scholar

Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. 2013. Conspiring to mean: Experimental and computational evidence for a usage-based harmonic approach to morphophonology. Language 89(1). 110–148. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0003.Search in Google Scholar

Kazazis, Kostas. 1969. Possible evidence for (near-) underlying forms in the speech of a child. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 5. 382–388.Search in Google Scholar

Kenstowicz, Michael John & Charles Wayne Kisseberth. 1977. Topics in phonological theory. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kerkhoff, Annemarie Odilia. 2007. Acquisition of morpho-phonology: The Dutch voicing alternation. Utrecht: Utrecht University, LOT PhD Dissertation. Available at: https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/22598.Search in Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1993. Blocking in nonderived environments. In Sharon Hargus & Ellen M. Kaisse (eds.), Studies in lexical phonology (Phonetics and Phonology 4), 277–313. San Diego: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-325071-1.50016-9Search in Google Scholar

Kirby, James P. & Alan C. L. Yu. 2007. Lexical and phonotactic effects on wordlikeness judgments in Cantonese. In William J. Barry & Jürgen Trouvain (eds.), 16th international congress of phonetic sciences (ICPhS), 1389–1392. Saarbrücken: Univ. des Saarlandes.Search in Google Scholar

Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per B. Brockhoff & Rune H. B. Christensen. 2017. lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software 82(13). 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13.Search in Google Scholar

Lee, Kit-mei Gloria. 2003. Syllable fusion in Cantonese connected speech. Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR: University of Hong Kong MPhil thesis.10.5353/th_b3025349Search in Google Scholar

Matthews, Peter Hugoe. 1972. Inflectional morphology: A theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 6). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Matthews, Stephen & Virginia Yip. 2011. Unbalanced bilingual acquisition as a mechanism of grammatical change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14(2). 159–161. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728910000593.Search in Google Scholar

Matthews, Stephen & Virginia Yip. 2014. Cantonese: A comprehensive grammar, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203835012Search in Google Scholar

McCarthy, John J. 1998. Morpheme structure constraints and paradigm occultation. Chicago Linguistic Society 32(2). 123–150.Search in Google Scholar

Oh, Mira. 1995. A prosodic analysis of nonderived-environment blocking. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4(4). 261–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01440729.Search in Google Scholar

Paster, Mary. 2013. Rethinking the ‘duplication problem’. Lingua 126. 78–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.11.015.Search in Google Scholar

Pater, Joe & Anne-Michelle Tessier. 2005. Phonotactics and alternations: Testing the connection with artificial language learning. In Shigeto Kawahara & Kathryn Flack (eds.), UMOP 31 (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics), papers in experimental phonetics and phonology, 1–16. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Search in Google Scholar

Pater, Joe & Anne-Michelle Tessier. 2006. L1 phonotactic knowledge and the L2 acquisition of alternations. In Roumyana Slabakova, Silvina Montrul & Philippe Prévost (eds.), Inquiries in linguistic development: In honor of Lydia White, 115–134. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.133.07patSearch in Google Scholar

Pavlovia. 2020. https://pavlovia.org/ (accessed 24 January 2020).Search in Google Scholar

Pizzo, Presley & Joe Pater. 2016. Does learning alternations affect phonotactic judgments? 2015 Annual Meeting on Phonology (AMP) 3. https://doi.org/10.3765/amp.v3i0.3694.Search in Google Scholar

Prince, Alan & Bruce Tesar. 2004. Learning phonotactic distributions. In René Kager, Pater Joe & Wim Zonneveld (eds.), Constraints in phonological acquisition, 245–291. Cambridge & Madrid: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486418.009Search in Google Scholar

Skoruppa, Katrin, Nivedita Mani, Plunkett Kim, Dominique Cabrol & Sharon Peperkamp. 2013. Early word recognition in sentence context: French and English 24-month-olds’ sensitivity to sentence-medial mispronunciations and assimilations. Infancy 18. 1007–1029. https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.12020.Search in Google Scholar

Smith, Neilson V. 1973. The acquisition of phonology: A case study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Sommerstein, Alan H. 1974. On phonotactically motivated rules. Journal of Linguistics 10(1). 71–94. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226700004011.Search in Google Scholar

Stanley, Richard. 1967. Redundancy rules in phonology. Language 43(2). 393–436. https://doi.org/10.2307/411542.Search in Google Scholar

Sundara, Megha, James White, Yun Jung Kim & Adam J. Chong. 2021. Stem similarity modulates infants’ acquisition of phonological alternations. Cognition 209. 104573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104573.Search in Google Scholar

Tesar, Bruce. 1997. Multi-recursive constraint demotion. Manuscript, ROA-197. New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University.Search in Google Scholar

Tesar, Bruce & Alan Prince. 2003. Using phonotactics to learn phonological alternations. In Proceedings from the annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 39. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Search in Google Scholar

Tesar, Bruce & Paul Smolensky. 1993. The learnability of optimality theory: An algorithm and some basic complexity results; CU-CS-678-93. Boulder, CO: Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado Boulder. Technical Report. Available at: https://scholar.colorado.edu/concern/reports/zw12z6295.Search in Google Scholar

Tesar, Bruce & Paul Smolensky. 1998. Learnability in optimality theory. Linguistic Inquiry 29(2). 229–268. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438998553734.Search in Google Scholar

Tessier, Anne-Michelle. 2012. Testing for OO-faithfulness in the acquisition of consonant clusters. Language Acquisition 19(2). 144–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2012.660552.Search in Google Scholar

Wee, Lian-Hee. 2019. Phonological tone. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316410912Search in Google Scholar

Wong, Wai Yi Peggy. 2006. Syllable fusion in Hong Kong Cantonese connected speech. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University PhD Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Łubowicz, Anna. 2002. Derived environment effects in optimality theory. Lingua 112(4). 243–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(01)00043-2.Search in Google Scholar
Received: 2020-11-15
Accepted: 2021-03-11
Published Online: 2021-08-02

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Editorial Note
  2. Editorial note
  3. Phonetics & Phonology
  4. Fast Track: fast (nearly) automatic formant-tracking using Praat
  5. Acoustic investigation of anticipatory vowel nasalization in a Caribbean and a non-Caribbean dialect of Spanish
  6. Evidence against a link between learning phonotactics and learning phonological alternations
  7. The extent and degree of utterance-final word lengthening in spontaneous speech from 10 languages
  8. Morphology & Syntax
  9. Brand names as multimodal constructions
  10. NP-internal structure and the distribution of adjectives in Mə̀dʉ́mbὰ
  11. A quantitative investigation of the ellipsis of English relativizers
  12. Positional dependency in Murrinhpatha: expanding the typology of non-canonical morphotactics
  13. Semantics & Pragmatics
  14. Multifactorial Information Management (MIM): summing up the emerging alternative to Information Structure
  15. Language Documentation & Typology
  16. Current trends in grammar writing
  17. Psycholinguistics & Neurolinguistics
  18. Experimental filler design influences error correction rates in a word restoration paradigm
  19. Phonological and morphological roles modulate the perception of consonant variants
  20. Language Acquisition and Language Learning
  21. Sounds like a dynamic system: a unifying approach to Language
  22. Sociolinguistics and Anthropological Linguistics
  23. Using hidden Markov models to find discrete targets in continuous sociophonetic data
  24. “It’s a Whole Vibe”: testing evaluations of grammatical and ungrammatical AAE on Twitter
  25. The sociolinguistics of /l/ in Manchester
  26. Computational & Corpus Linguistics
  27. An empirical study on the contribution of formal and semantic features to the grammatical gender of nouns
  28. A computational construction grammar approach to semantic frame extraction
  29. The “negative end” of change in grammar: terminology, concepts and causes
  30. In order that – a data-driven study of symptoms and causes of obsolescence
  31. Cognitive Linguistics
  32. Iconicity ratings really do measure iconicity, and they open a new window onto the nature of language
  33. Iconicity ratings really do measure iconicity, and they open a new window onto the nature of language
  34. Repetition in Mandarin-speaking children’s dialogs: its distribution and structural dimensions
https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2020-0127
Keywords for this article
acquisition; artificial language learning; phonological alternations; phonotactics

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Editorial Note
  2. Editorial note
  3. Phonetics & Phonology
  4. Fast Track: fast (nearly) automatic formant-tracking using Praat
  5. Acoustic investigation of anticipatory vowel nasalization in a Caribbean and a non-Caribbean dialect of Spanish
  6. Evidence against a link between learning phonotactics and learning phonological alternations
  7. The extent and degree of utterance-final word lengthening in spontaneous speech from 10 languages
  8. Morphology & Syntax
  9. Brand names as multimodal constructions
  10. NP-internal structure and the distribution of adjectives in Mə̀dʉ́mbὰ
  11. A quantitative investigation of the ellipsis of English relativizers
  12. Positional dependency in Murrinhpatha: expanding the typology of non-canonical morphotactics
  13. Semantics & Pragmatics
  14. Multifactorial Information Management (MIM): summing up the emerging alternative to Information Structure
  15. Language Documentation & Typology
  16. Current trends in grammar writing
  17. Psycholinguistics & Neurolinguistics
  18. Experimental filler design influences error correction rates in a word restoration paradigm
  19. Phonological and morphological roles modulate the perception of consonant variants
  20. Language Acquisition and Language Learning
  21. Sounds like a dynamic system: a unifying approach to Language
  22. Sociolinguistics and Anthropological Linguistics
  23. Using hidden Markov models to find discrete targets in continuous sociophonetic data
  24. “It’s a Whole Vibe”: testing evaluations of grammatical and ungrammatical AAE on Twitter
  25. The sociolinguistics of /l/ in Manchester
  26. Computational & Corpus Linguistics
  27. An empirical study on the contribution of formal and semantic features to the grammatical gender of nouns
  28. A computational construction grammar approach to semantic frame extraction
  29. The “negative end” of change in grammar: terminology, concepts and causes
  30. In order that – a data-driven study of symptoms and causes of obsolescence
  31. Cognitive Linguistics
  32. Iconicity ratings really do measure iconicity, and they open a new window onto the nature of language
  33. Iconicity ratings really do measure iconicity, and they open a new window onto the nature of language
  34. Repetition in Mandarin-speaking children’s dialogs: its distribution and structural dimensions
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 5.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/lingvan-2020-0127/html?lang=en
Scroll to top button