1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Linguistics
  4. Volume 5, 2019
  5. Article

Annual Review of Linguistics

Volume 5, 2019

Computational Modeling of Phonological Learning

Abstract

Recent advances in computational modeling have led to significant discoveries about the representation and acquisition of phonological knowledge and the limits on language learning and variation. These discoveries are the result of applying computational learning models to increasingly rich and complex natural language data while making increasingly realistic assumptions about the learning task. This article reviews the recent developments in computational modeling that have made connections between fully explicit theories of learning, naturally occurring corpus data, and the richness of psycholinguistic and typological data possible. These advances fall into two broad research areas: () the development of models capable of learning the quantitative, noisy, and inconsistent patterns that are characteristic of naturalistic data and () the development of models with the capacity to learn hidden phonological structure from unlabeled data. After reviewing these advances, the article summarizes some of the most significant consequent discoveries.

Keyword(s): computational linguistics, hidden structure, learning, phonology, statistical learning
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-011832
2019-01-14
2024-04-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/5/1/annurev-linguistics-011718-011832.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-011832&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Akers C 2012. Commitment-based learning of hidden linguistic structures PhD thesis, Rutgers Univ New Brunswick, NJ:
  2. Albright A 2009. Feature-based generalisation as a source of gradient acceptability. Phonology 26:9–41
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Albright A, Hayes B 2003. Rules versus analogy in English past tenses: a computational/experimental study. Cognition 90:119–61
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Alderete J, Tesar B 2002. Learning covert phonological interaction: an analysis of the problem posed by the interaction of stress and epenthesis RuCCS tech. rep. TR-72, Rutgers Univ New Brunswick, NJ:
  5. Allen B, Becker M 2015. Learning alternations from surface forms with sublexical phonology Unpubl. ms., Univ. B. C., Vancouver, Can./Stony Brook Univ Stony Brook, NY: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002503
  6. Anttila A 2007. Variation and optionality. The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology P de Lacy 519–36 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Apoussidou D 2007. The Learnability of Metrical Phonology Utrecht, Neth.: LOT
  8. Apoussidou D, Boersma P 2003. The learnability of Latin stress. Proceedings from the Institute of Phonetic Sciences 25101–48 Amsterdam: Univ. Amsterdam
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bailey TM, Hahn U 2001. Determinants of wordlikeness: phonotactics or lexical neighborhoods?. J. Mem. Lang. 44:568–91
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Becker M 2009. Phonological trends in the lexicon: the role of constraints PhD thesis, Univ. Mass Amherst:
  11. Becker M, Gouskova M 2016. Source-oriented generalizations as grammar inference in Russian vowel deletion. Linguist. Inq. 47:391–425
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Becker M, Nevins A, Ketrez N 2011. The surfeit of the stimulus: Analytic biases filter lexical statistics in Turkish laryngeal alternations. Language 87:84–125
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Berent I, Steriade D, Lennertz T, Vaknin V 2007. What we know about what we have never heard: evidence from perceptual illusions. Cognition 104:591–630
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Berger AL, Della Pietra VJ, Della Pietra SA 1996. A maximum entropy approach to natural language processing. Comput. Linguist. 22:39–71
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Berko J 1958. The child's learning of English morphology. Word 14:150–77
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Bermúdez-Otero R 1999. Constraint interaction in language change: quantity in English and Germanic PhD thesis, Univ Manchester, UK:
  17. Berwick RC 1985. The Acquisition of Syntactic Knowledge Artif. Intell. Ser. 16 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  18. Blanchard D, Heinz J, Golinkoff R 2010. Modeling the contribution of phonotactic cues to the problem of word segmentation. J. Child Lang. 37:487–511
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Blevins J 2004. Evolutionary Phonology: The Emergence of Sound Patterns. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  20. Boersma P 1997. How we learn variation, optionality, and probability. IFA Proc 21:43–58
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Boersma P 2003. Review of Tesar & Smolensky (2000): Learnability in Optimality Theory. Phonology 20:436–46
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Boersma P 2011. A programme for bidirectional phonology and phonetics and their acquisition and evolution. Bidirectional Optimality Theory A Benz, J Mattausch 33–72 Amsterdam: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Boersma P, Hayes B 2001. Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguist. Inq. 32:45–86
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Boersma P, Levelt C 2000. Gradual constraint-ranking learning algorithm predicts acquisition order. Proceedings of the 30th Child Language Research Forum229–37 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Boersma P, Pater J 2016. Convergence properties of a gradual learning algorithm for harmonic grammar. Harmonic Grammar and Harmonic Serialism J McCarthy, J Pater 389–484 London: Equinox
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Breteler J 2018. A Foot-Based Typology of Tonal Reassociation: Perspectives from Synchrony and Learnability Utrecht, Neth: LOT
  27. Calamaro S, Jarosz G 2015. Learning general phonological rules from distributional information: a computational model. Cogn. Sci. 39:647–66
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Chandlee J, Eyraud R, Heinz J 2014. Learning strictly local subsequential functions. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguist. 2:491–503
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Chandlee J, Heinz J 2018. Strict locality and phonological maps. Linguist. Inq. 49:23–60
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Chomsky N 1981. Principles and parameters in syntactic theory. Explanations in Linguistics N Hornstein, D Lightfoot 32–75 London: Longman
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Clements G 1990. The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: Between the Grammar and the Physics of Speech J Kingston, M Beckmann 283–333 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Coetzee AW 2009. Learning lexical indexation. Phonology 26:109–45
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Coetzee AW, Pater J 2008. Weighted constraints and gradient restrictions on place co-occurrence in Muna and Arabic. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 26:289–337
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Coetzee AW, Pater J 2011. The place of variation in phonological theory. The Handbook of Phonological Theory J Goldsmith, J Riggle, A Yu 401–31 London: Blackwell. , 2nd ed..
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Coleman J, Pierrehumbert J 1997. Stochastic phonological grammars and acceptability. arXiv:cmp-lg/9707017
  36. Cotterell R, Peng N, Eisner J 2015. Modeling word forms using latent underlying morphs and phonology. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguist. 3:443–47
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Daland R, Hayes B, White J, Garellek M, Davis A, Norrmann I 2011. Explaining sonority projection effects. Phonology 28:197–234
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Daland R, Pierrehumbert JB 2011. Learning diphone-based segmentation. Cogn. Sci. 35:119–55
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Davidson L 2006. Phonology, phonetics, or frequency: influences on the production of non-native sequences. J. Phon. 34:104–37
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Della Pietra SA, Della Pietra VJ, Lafferty J 1997. Inducing features of random fields. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 19:380–93
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Dempster AP, Laird NM, Rubin DB 1977. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 39:1–38
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Dillon B, Dunbar E, Idsardi W 2013. A single‐stage approach to learning phonological categories: insights from Inuktitut. Cogn. Sci. 37:344–77
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Dresher BE 1999. Charting the learning path: cues to parameter setting. Linguist. Inq. 30:27–67
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Dresher BE 2016. Covert representations, contrast, and the acquisition of lexical accent. Dimensions of Phonological Stress J Heinz, R Goedemans, H van der Hulst 231–62 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Dresher BE, Kaye JD 1990. A computational learning model for metrical phonology. Cognition 34:137–95
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Eisner J 2002. Parameter estimation for probabilistic finite-state transducers. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics1–8 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Ernestus M, Baayen RH 2003. Predicting the unpredictable: interpreting neutralized segments in Dutch. Language 79:5–38
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Feldman NH, Griffiths TL, Morgan JL 2009. Learning phonetic categories by learning a lexicon. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society2208–13 Austin, TX: Cogn. Sci. Soc.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Finley S, Badecker W 2009. Artificial language learning and feature-based generalization. J. Mem. Lang. 61:423–37
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Frisch SA, Large NR, Pisoni DB 2000. Perception of wordlikeness: effects of segment probability and length on the processing of nonwords. J. Mem. Lang. 42:481–96
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Gibson E, Wexler K 1994. Triggers. Linguist. Inq. 25:407–54
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Gildea D, Jurafsky D 1996. Learning bias and phonological-rule induction. Comput. Linguist. 22:497–530
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Goldwater S, Griffiths TL, Johnson M 2009. A Bayesian framework for word segmentation: exploring the effects of context. Cognition 112:21–54
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Goldwater S, Johnson M 2003. Learning OT constraint rankings using a Maximum Entropy model. Proceedings of the Workshop on Variation Within Optimality Theory113–22 Stockholm: Stockholm Univ.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Gouskova M, Becker M 2013. Nonce words show that Russian yer alternations are governed by the grammar. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 31:735–65
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Hayes B 1999. Phonetically driven phonology: the role of Optimality Theory and inductive grounding. Formalism and Functionalism in Linguistics 1 General Papers, ed. M Darnell, E Moravcsik, F Newmeyer, M Noonan, KM Wheatley 243–85 Amsterdam: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Hayes B 2004. Phonological acquisition in Optimality Theory: the early stages. Fixing Priorities: Constraints in Phonological Acquisition R Kager, J Pater, W Zonneveld 245–91 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Hayes B 2011. Interpreting sonority-projection experiments: the role of phonotactic modeling. Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XVII)835–38 London: Int. Phon. Assoc.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Hayes B 2017. Varieties of Noisy Harmonic Grammar. Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Meeting on Phonology Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc Am. 17 pp.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Hayes B, Londe ZC 2006. Stochastic phonological knowledge: the case of Hungarian vowel harmony. Phonology 23:59–104
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Hayes B, White J 2013. Phonological naturalness and phonotactic learning. Linguist. Inq. 44:45–75
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Hayes B, Wilson C 2008. A Maximum Entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. Linguist. Inq. 39:379–440
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Hayes B, Zuraw K, Siptár P, Londe Z 2009. Natural and unnatural constraints in Hungarian vowel harmony. Language 85:822–63
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Heinz J 2018. The computational nature of phonological generalizations. Phonological Typology L Hyman, F Plank 1–61 Berlin: Mouton
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Hughto C 2018. Investigating the consequences of iterated learning in phonological typology. Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics (SCiL) 2018182–85 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Inkelas S, Orgun O, Zoll C 1997. The implications of lexical exceptions for the nature of grammar. Optimality Theory in Phonology: A Reader JJ McCarthy 542–51 New York: Wiley
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Itô J, Mester A 1999. The phonological lexicon. The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics N Tsujimura 62–100 Malden, MA: Blackwell
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Jäger G 2007. Maximum Entropy models and stochastic Optimality Theory. Architectures, Rules, and Preferences: Variation on Themes by Joan Bresnan A Zaenen, J Simpson, T Holloway King, J Grimshaw, J Maling, C Manning 467–79 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Jarosz G 2006. Rich lexicons and restrictive grammars—maximum likelihood learning in Optimality Theory PhD thesis, Johns Hopkins Univ Baltimore:
  70. Jarosz G 2009. Restrictiveness and phonological grammar and lexicon learning. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society M Elliot, J Kirby, O Sawada, E Staraki, S Yoon 125–34 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Jarosz G 2010. Implicational markedness and frequency in constraint-based computational models of phonological learning. J. Child Lang. 37:spec. issue565–606
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Jarosz G 2013. Learning with hidden structure in Optimality Theory and Harmonic Grammar: beyond robust interpretive parsing. Phonology 30:27–71
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Jarosz G 2015. Expectation driven learning of phonology Work. pap., Univ. Mass Amherst:
  74. Jarosz G 2016.a Learning with violable constraints. The Oxford Handbook of Developmental Linguistics J Lidz, W Snyder, J Pater Oxford, UK: Oxford Handb. Online
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Jarosz G 2016.b Learning opaque and transparent interactions in Harmonic Serialism. Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Meeting on Phonology Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am 12 pp.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Jarosz G 2017. Defying the stimulus: acquisition of complex onsets in Polish. Phonology 34:269–98
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Jarosz G, Calamaro S, Zentz J 2017. Input frequency and the acquisition of syllable structure in Polish. Lang. Acquis. 24:361–99
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Jarosz G, Johnson JA 2013. The richness of distributional cues to word boundaries in speech to young children. Lang. Learn. Dev. 9:175–210
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Jarosz G, Rysling A 2017. Sonority sequencing in Polish: the combined roles of prior bias & experience. Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Meeting on Phonology Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am12 pp.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Jesney K, Tessier A-M 2011. Biases in Harmonic Grammar: the road to restrictive learning. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 29:251–90
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Johnson M 1984. A discovery procedure for certain phonological rules. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics344–47 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Johnson M 2002. Optimality-Theoretic lexical functional grammar. The Lexical Basis of Syntactic Processing: Formal, Computational and Experimental Issues S Stevenson, P Merlo 59–73 Amsterdam: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Johnson M 2008.a Unsupervised word segmentation for Sesotho using adaptor grammars. Proceedings of the 10th Meeting of the ACL Special Interest Group on Computational Morphology and Phonology (ACL SIGMORPHON)20–27 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Johnson M 2008.b Using adaptor grammars to identify synergies in the unsupervised acquisition of linguistic structure. Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics398–406 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Kiparsky P 1968. Linguistic universals and linguistic change. Universals in Linguistic Theory B Emmon, RT Harms 170–202 New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Kiparsky P 1971. Historical linguistics. A Survey of Linguistic Science WO Dingwall 576–642 College Park: Univ. Md. Linguist. Program
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Kiparsky P 2000. Opacity and cyclicity. Linguist. Rev. 17:351–66
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Kirby S, Smith K, Brighton H 2004. From UG to universals: linguistic adaptation through iterated learning. Stud. Lang. 28:587–607
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Kisseberth LM, Kenstowicz M 1977. Topics in Phonological Theory New York: Academic
  90. Lamont A 2018. Decomposing phonological transformations in serial derivations. Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics (SCiL) 201891–101 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Le Calvez R, Peperkamp S, Dupoux E 2007. Bottom-up learning of phonemes: a computational study. Proceedings of the 2nd European Cognitive Science Conference167–72 New York: Taylor & Francis
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Legendre G, Miyata Y, Smolensky P 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 Society388–95 Cambridge, MA: Erlbaum
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Legendre G, Sorace A, Smolensky P 2006. The Optimality Theory Harmonic Grammar connection. See Smolensky & Legendre 2006 339–402
  94. Magri G 2012. Convergence of error-driven ranking algorithms. Phonology 29:213–69
     [Google Scholar]
  95. McCarthy JJ 2000. Harmonic serialism and parallelism. Proceedings of the 30th Meeting of the North East Linguistics Society M Hirotani 501–24 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Merchant N 2008. Discovering underlying forms: contrast pairs and ranking PhD thesis, Rutgers Univ New Brunswick, NJ:
  97. Mohri M 1997. Finite-state transducers in language and speech processing. Comput. Linguist. 23:269–311
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Moore-Cantwell C, Pater J 2016. Gradient exceptionality in Maximum Entropy grammar with lexically specific constraints. Catalan J. Linguist. 15:53–66
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Moore-Cantwell C, Staubs RD 2014. Modeling morphological subgeneralizations. Proceedings of the 2013 Annual Meeting on Phonology Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am11 pp.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Moreton E 2008. Analytic bias and phonological typology. Phonology 25:83–127
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Moreton E, Pater J 2012.a Structure and substance in artificial-phonology learning. Part II: Substance. Lang. Linguist. Compass 6:686–701
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Moreton E, Pater J 2012.b Structure and substance in artificial-phonology learning. Part I: Structure. Lang. Linguist. Compass 6:702–18
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Moreton E, Pater J, Pertsova K 2015. Phonological concept learning. Cogn. Sci. 2015:1–66
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Nazarov A, Jarosz G 2017. Learning parametric stress without domain-specific mechanisms. Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Meeting on Phonology Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am12 pp.
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Nazarov AI 2016. Extending hidden structure learning: features, opacity, and exceptions PhD thesis, Univ. Mass Amherst:
  106. Nazarov AI 2018. Learning within- and between-word variation in probabilistic OT grammars. Proceedings of the 2017 Annual Meeting on Phonology Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am12 pp.
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Nazarov AI, Pater J 2017. Learning opacity in stratal Maximum Entropy grammar. Phonology 34:299–324
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Ohala JJ 1993. The phonetics of sound change. Historical Linguistics: Problems and Perspectives C Jones 237–78 London: Longman
     [Google Scholar]
  109. O'Hara C 2017. How abstract is more abstract? Learning abstract underlying representations. Phonology 34:325–45
     [Google Scholar]
  110. O'Hara C 2018. Emergent learning bias and the underattestation of simple patterns Work. pap., Univ. South. Calif., Pasadena
  111. Oncina J, García P, Vidal E 1993. Learning subsequential transducers for pattern recognition interpretation tasks. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 15:448–58
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Pater J 2008. Gradual learning and convergence. Linguist. Inq. 39:334–45
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Pater J 2010. Morpheme-specific phonology: constraint indexation and inconsistency resolution. Phonological Argumentation: Essays on Evidence and Motivation S Parker 123–54 London: Equinox
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Pater J 2012. Emergent systemic simplicity (and complexity). McGill Univ. Work. Pap. Linguist 22:1
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Pater J, Jesney K, Staubs RD, Smith B 2012. Learning probabilities over underlying representations. Proceedings of the 12th Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Computational Morphology and Phonology (SIGMORPHON2012)62–71 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Pearl LS 2011. When unbiased probabilistic learning is not enough: acquiring a parametric system of metrical phonology. Lang. Acquis. 18:87–120
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Peperkamp S, Le Calvez R, Nadal JP, Dupoux E 2006. The acquisition of allophonic rules: statistical learning with linguistic constraints. Cognition 101:B31–41
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Pierrehumbert JB 2001. Exemplar dynamics: word frequency, lenition and contrast. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure JL Bybee, PJ Hopper 137–57 Amsterdam: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Prickett B 2018.a Experimental evidence for biases in phonological rule interaction Poster presented at the 16th Conference on Laboratory Phonology Lisbon:
  120. Prickett B 2018.b Similarity-based phonological generalization. Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics (SCiL) 2018193–96 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Prickett B 2018.c Complexity and naturalness biases in phonotactics: Hayes and White (2013) revisited. Proceedings of the 2017 Annual Meeting on Phonology Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am6 pp.
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Prince A 2010. Counting parses Work. pap., Rutgers Univ New Brunswick, NJ:
  123. Prince A, Smolensky P 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar New York: Wiley
  124. Prince A, Tesar B 2004. Learning phonotactic distributions. Fixing Priorities: Constraints in Phonological Acquisition R Kager, J Pater, W Zonneveld 245–91 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  125. Rasin E, Berger I, Katzir R 2015. Learning rule-based morpho-phonology Work. pap., MIT Cambridge, MA:
  126. Rasin E, Katzir R 2016. On evaluation metrics in Optimality Theory. Linguist. Inq. 47:235–82
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Rosenblatt F 1958. The perceptron: a probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain. Psychol. Rev. 65:386–408
     [Google Scholar]
  128. Selkirk E 1982. The syllable. The Structure of Phonological Representations H van der Hulst, N Smith 337–84 Dordrecht, Neth: Foris
     [Google Scholar]
  129. Shih SS 2018. Learning lexical classes from variable phonology. Proceedings of the 2nd Asian Junior Linguists Conference Tokyo: Int. Christ. Univ15 pp.
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Smith BW 2015. Phonologically conditioned allomorphy and UR constraints PhD thesis, Univ. Mass Amherst:
  131. Smith BW, Pater J 2017. French schwa and gradient cumulativity Work. pap., Univ. Calif., Berkeley/Univ. Mass Amherst:
  132. Smolensky P, Goldrick M 2016. Gradient symbolic representations in grammar: the case of French liaison Work, pap., Johns Hopkins Univ., Baltimore/Northwest. Univ., Evanston, IL:
  133. Smolensky P, Legendre G 2006. The Harmonic Mind: From Neural Computation to Optimality-Theoretic Grammar Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  134. Soderstrom M, Mathis D, Smolensky P 2006. Abstract genomic encoding of Universal Grammar in Optimality Theory. See Smolensky & Legendre 2006 403–71
  135. Solomonoff RJ 1964. A formal theory of inductive inference. Parts I and II. Inf. Control 7:1–22224–54
     [Google Scholar]
  136. Stanton J 2016. Learnability shapes typology: the case of the midpoint pathology. Language 92:753–91
     [Google Scholar]
  137. Staubs RD 2014. Computational modeling of learning biases in stress typology PhD thesis, Univ. Mass. Amherst:
  138. Staubs RD, Pater J 2016. Learning serial constraint-based grammars. Harmonic Grammar and Harmonic Serialism JJ McCarthy, J Pater 369–88 London: Equinox
     [Google Scholar]
  139. Steriade D 2008. The phonology of perceptibility effects: the P-map and its consequences for constraint organization. The Nature of the Word: Studies in Honor of Paul Kiparsky K Hanson, S Inkelas, chapter 7 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  140. Tesar BB 1995. Computational optimality theory PhD thesis, Univ. Colo Boulder:
  141. Tesar BB 2006. Faithful contrastive features in learning. Cogn. Sci. 30:863–903
     [Google Scholar]
  142. Tesar BB 2013. Output-Driven Phonology: Theory and Learning Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  143. Tesar BB, Prince A 2007. Using phonotactics to learn phonological alternations. Proceedings of the 39th Conference of the Chicago Linguistics Society209–37 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc.
     [Google Scholar]
  144. Tesar BB, Smolensky P 1998. Learnability in Optimality Theory. Linguist. Inq. 29:229–68
     [Google Scholar]
  145. Tesar BB, Smolensky P 2000. Learnability in Optimality Theory Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  146. Tessier A-M 2009. Frequency of violation and constraint-based phonological learning. Lingua 119:6–38
     [Google Scholar]
  147. Vitevitch MS, Luce PA 2004. A Web-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 36:481–87
     [Google Scholar]
  148. Wexler K, Culicover P 1980. Formal Principles of Language Acquisition Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  149. White J 2017. Accounting for the learnability of saltation in phonological theory: a maximum entropy model with a P-map bias. Language 93:1–36
     [Google Scholar]
  150. Wilson C 2006. Learning phonology with substantive bias: an experimental and computational study of velar palatalization. Cogn. Sci 30:945–82
     [Google Scholar]
  151. Wilson C, Gallagher G 2018. Accidental gaps and surface-based phonotactic learning: a case study of South Bolivian Quechua. Linguist. Inq. 49:610–23
     [Google Scholar]
  152. Yang CD 2002. Knowledge and Learning in Natural Language Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  153. Yu KM 2017. Advantages of constituency: computational perspectives on Samoan word prosody. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Formal Grammar105–24 Berlin: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  154. Zuraw K 2000. Patterned exceptions in phonology PhD thesis, Univ. Calif Los Angel.:
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-011832
Loading
Computational Modeling of Phonological Learning
Annual Review of Linguistics 5, 67 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-011832
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-011832
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-011832
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

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