Bibliography

Babineau, M., Emond, E., & Shi, R. (2023). When language-general and language-specific processes are in conflict: The case of sub-syllabic word segmentation in toddlers. Infancy, 28(2), 301–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.12510

Babineau, M., Legrand, C., & Shi, R. (2021). Variable forms in French-learning toddlers’ lexical representations. Developmental Psychology, 57(4), 457–470. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001157

Babineau, M., & Shi, R. (2014). Distributional cues and the onset bias in early word segmentation. Developmental Psychology, 50(12), 2666–2674. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038105

Baer-Henney, D., Kügler, F., & Van De Vijver, R. (2015). The Interaction of Language-Specific and Universal Factors During the Acquisition of Morphophonemic Alternations with Exceptions. Cognitive Science, 39(7), 1537–1569. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12209

Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01

Berko, J. (1958). The Child’s Learning of English Morphology. Word, 14(2–3), 150–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1958.11659661

Boersma, P., & Weenik, D. (2024). Praat (Version 6.1.42) [Computer software]. http://www.praat.org/

Buerkin-Pontrelli, A., Culbertson, J., Legendre, G., & Nazzi, T. (2017). Competing models of liaison acquisition: Evidence from corpus and experimental data. Language, 93(1), 189–219. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2017.0006

Chevrot, J.-P., Dugua, C., & Fayol, M. (2009). liaison acquisition, word segmentation and construction in French: A usage-based account. Journal of Child Language, 36(3), 557–596. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000908009124

Chevrot, J.-P., & Fayol, M. (2001). Acquisition of French liaison and Related Child Errors. In M. Almgren, A. Barreña, M. J. Ezeizabarrena, I. Idiazabal, & B. MacWhinney (Eds.), Research on Child Language Acquisition (Vol. 2, pp. 761–775). Cascadilla Press. https://hal.science/hal-00706711

Chong, A. J. (2021). The effect of phonotactics on alternation learning. Language, 97(2), 213–244.

Coetzee, A. W. (2009). Learning lexical indexation. Phonology, 26(1), 109–145. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675709001730

Content, A., Dumay, N., & Frauenfelder, U. (2000). The role of syllable structure in lexical segmentation: Helping listeners avoid mondegreens. In Spoken Word Access Processes. pp. 39-42. Max-Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen.

Cǒté, M. (2011). French liaison. In M. Oostendorp, C. J. Ewen, E. Hume, & K. Rice (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology: Vol. Volume V. Phonology across Languages (1st ed., pp. 1–26). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0112

Culbertson, J. (2024). Order shaped by cognition. Evidence for (and against) the effect of domain-general biases on word and morpheme order. Zeitschrift Für Sprachwissenschaft, 43(2), 357–378. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2024-2014

Davidson, L., Jusczyk, P. W., & Smolensky, P. (2004). The initial and final states: Theoretical implications and experimental explorations of Richness of the Base. In R. Kager, J. Pater, & W. Zonneveld (Eds.), Constraints in Phonological Acquisition (pp. 321–365). Cambridge University Press.

de Leeuw, J. R. (2015). jsPsych: A JavaScript library for creating behavioral experiments in a Web browser. Behavior Research Methods, 47(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0458-y

Demuth, K., & Tremblay, A. (2008). Prosodically-conditioned variability in children’s production of French determiners. Journal of Child Language, 35(1), 99–127. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000907008276

Dugua, C. (2006). liaison, segmentation lexicale et schémas syntaxiques entre 2 et 6 ans: Un modèle développemental basé sur l’usage [Ph.D. Dissertation]. Université Stendhal, Grenoble.

Durand, J., & Lyche, C. (2008). French liaison in the light of corpus data. Journal of French Language Studies, 18(1), 33–66. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269507003158

Embick, D. (2010). Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology. MIT press.

Finn, A.S., and Hudson Kam, C.L. (2015). Why segmentation matters: experience-driven segmentation errors impair “morpheme” learning. JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(5), 1560-1569

Finley, S. (2021). Learning Exceptions in Phonological Alternations. Language and Speech, 64(4), 991–1017. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830920978679

Finley, S. (2023). Modeling harmony biases in learning exceptions to vowel harmony. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, 8(1), 5530. https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v8i1.5530

Friederici, A. D., & Wessels, J. M. I. (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

Fukazawa, H. (1999). Theoretical implications of OCP effects on features in optimality theory [Ph.D. Dissertation]. University of Maryland.

Glewwe, E. (2022). Substantive bias and the positional extension of major place contrasts. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 7(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.6537

Gnanadesikan, A. (2004). Markedness and faithfulness constraints in child phonology. In R. Kager, J. Pater, & W. Zonneveld (Eds.), Constraints in Phonological Acquisition (pp. 73–107). Cambridge University Press.

Gouskova, M. (2003). Deriving Economy: Syncope in Optimality Theory [Ph.D. Dissertation]. University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Hale, M., & Reiss, C. (1998). Formal and Empirical Arguments concerning Phonological Acquisition. Linguistic Inquiry, 29(4), 656–683. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438998553914

Hannahs, S. J. (2011). Celtic Mutations. In M. Oostendorp, C. J. Ewen, E. Hume, & K. Rice (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology (1st ed., pp. 1–24). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0117

Hayes, B., & White, J. (2013). Phonological naturalness and phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry, 44(1), 45–75.

Hsu, A. S., & Chater, N. (2010). The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition: A Probabilistic Perspective. Cognitive Science, 34(6), 972–1016. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01117.x

Inkelas, S., & Zoll, C. (2007). Is grammar dependence real? A comparison between cophonological and indexed constraint approaches to morphologically conditioned phonology. Linguistics, 45(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2007.004

Ito, J., & Mester, A. (1995). The core-periphery structure of the lexicon and constraints on reranking. In J. Beckman, L. Dickey, & S. Urbanczyk (Eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics (Vol. 18, pp. 181–209). GLSA.

Ito, J., & Mester, A. (2001). Covert generalizations in Optimality Theory: The role of stratal faithfulness constraints. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology, and Morphology, 7, 273–299.

Jusczyk, P. W. (2000). The Discovery of Spoken Language. MIT Press.

Kager, R. (2004). Optimality Theory. Cambridge University Press.

Kerkhoff, A. (2007). The phonology–morphology interface: Acquisition of alternations [Ph.D. Dissertation]. Utrecht University.

Kim, Y. J., & Sundara, M. (2021). 6–month–olds are sensitive to English morphology. Developmental Science, 24(4), e13089. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13089

Lenth, R., Singmann, H., Love, J., Buerkner, P., & Herve, M. (2018). Emmeans: Estimated marginal means [Computer software]. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/emmeans/index.html

Linzen, T., & Gallagher, G. (2017). Rapid generalization in phonotactic learning. Laboratory Phonology, 8(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.5334/labphon.44

Lüdecke, D. (2018). ggeffects: Tidy Data Frames of Marginal Effects from Regression Models. Journal of Open Source Software, 3(26), 772. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00772

Łukaszewicz, B. (2006). Extrasyllabicity, transparency and prosodic constituency in the acquisition of Polish. Lingua, 116(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.03.002

MacWhinney, B. (2014). The Childes Project (3rd ed., Vol. 1). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315805672

Marquis, A., & Shi, R. (2012). Initial morphological learning in preverbal infants. Cognition, 122(1), 61–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.07.004

Martin, A., & White, J. (2021). Vowel harmony and disharmony are not equivalent in learning. Linguistic Inquiry, 52(1), 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00375

Mascaró, J. (2004). External allomorphy as emergence of the unmarked. In J. J. McCarthy (Ed.), Optimality Theory in Phonology (pp. 513–522). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756171.ch28

Mattys, S. L., & Jusczyk, P. W. (2001). Phonotactic cues for segmentation of fluent speech by infants. Cognition, 78(2), 91–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00109-8

McAuliffe, M., Socolof, M., Mihuc, S., Wagner, M., & Sonderegger, M. (2017). Montreal Forced Aligner: Trainable text-speech alignment using kaldi. Interspeech 2017, 498–502. https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2017-1386

McCarthy, J. J. (2005). Taking a free ride in morphophonemic learning. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 4(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.112

McCarthy, J. J., & Prince, A. (1993). Generalized alignment. In G. Booij & J. Van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology (pp. 79–153). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3712-8_4

McMullin, K. J. (2016). Tier-based locality in long-distance phonotactics: Learnability and typology [Ph.D. Dissertation, University of British Columbia]. https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0228114

Meinschaefer, J., Bonifer, S., & Frisch, C. (2015). Variable and invariable liaison in a corpus of spoken French. Journal of French Language Studies, 25(3), 367–396. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269515000186

Mintz, T. H. (2013). The segmentation of sub-lexical morphemes in English-learning 15-month-olds. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00024

Morel, E. (1994). Le traitement de la liaison chez l’enfant: Études expérimentales. Travaux neuchâtelois de linguistique, 21, Article 21. https://doi.org/10.26034/tranel.1994.2371

Moreton, E., & Pater, J. (2012a). Structure and Substance in Artificial‐phonology Learning, Part I: Structure. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(11), 686–701. https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.363

Moreton, E., & Pater, J. (2012b). Structure and Substance in Artificial‐Phonology Learning, Part II: Substance. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(11), 702–718. https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.366

Moreton, E., & Pertsova, K. (2023). Implicit and explicit processes in phonological concept learning. Phonology, 40(1–2), 101–153. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675724000034

Moreton, E., Prickett, B., Pertsova, K., Fennell, J., Pater, J., & Sanders, L. (2021). Learning Repetition, but not Syllable Reversal. Proceedings of the Annual Meetings on Phonology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3765/amp.v9i0.4912

Morin, Y. C. (2005). La liaison relève-t-elle d’une tendance à éviter les hiatus ? Réflexions sur son évolution historique. Langages, 158, 8–23.

Morrison, A. (1986). A critical bibliography of studies of liaison in French speech since 1800 [Ph.D. Dissertation]. Columbia University.

Nevins, A. (2011). Phonologically Conditioned Allomorph Selection: Phonologically Conditioned Allomorph Selection. In M. Van Oostendorp, C. J. Ewen, E. Hume, & K. Rice (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology: Vol. Volume IV. Phonological Interfaces (pp. 1–26). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0099

Norris, D., & McQueen, J. M. (2008). Shortlist B: A Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. Psychological Review, 115(2), 357–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.357

Oetting, J. B., & Horohov, J. E. (1997). Past-Tense Marking by Children With and Without Specific Language Impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40(1), 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1044/jslhr.4001.62

Paster, M. (2006). Phonological Conditions on Affixation [Ph.D. Dissertation]. University of California, Berkeley.

Pater, J. (2007). The Locus of Exceptionality: Morpheme-Specific Phonology as Constraint Indexation. In L. Bateman, M. O’Keefe, E. Reilly, & A. Werle (Eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics (Vol. 32, pp. 259–296). GLSA. https://doi.org/doi:10.7282/T38C9TB6

Pater, J. (2010). Morpheme-specific phonology: Constraint indexation and inconsistency resolution. In Phonological Argumentation (pp. 123–154). University of Toronto Press. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781845532215.005

Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science, Technical Report no. RuCCS-TR-2.

Prince, A., & Tesar, B. (2004). Learning phonotactic distributions. In R. Kager, J. Pater, & W. Zonneveld (Eds.), Constraints in Phonological Acquisition (1st ed., pp. 245–291). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486418.009

Rosen, E. (2003). Systematic Irregularity in Japanese Rendaku: How the grammar mediates patterned lexical exceptions. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique, 48(1–2), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100003261

Selkirk, E. (1974). French liaison and the X̄ Notation. Linguistic Inquiry, 5(4), 573–590.

Smith, B. W. (2015). Phonologically Conditioned Allomorphy and UR Constraints [Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst]. https://doi.org/10.7275/7540198.0

Smolensky, P. (1996a). On the comprehension/production dilemma in child language. Linguistic Inquiry, 27(4), 720–731.

Smolensky, P. (1996b). The Initial State and Richness of the Base in Optimality Theory. John Hopkins Cognitive Science Technical Report, 4.

Smolensky, P., & Goldrick, M. A. (2016). Gradient Symbolic Representations in Grammar: The case of French liaison. Ms., Johns Hopkins University and Northwestern University. (ROA-1552)

Soderstrom, M., White, K. S., Conwell, E., & Morgan, J. L. (2007). Receptive Grammatical Knowledge of Familiar Content Words and Inflection in 16‐Month‐Olds. Infancy, 12(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7078.2007.tb00231.x

Southworth, M.-J. (1970). French Words in H-. The French Review, 44(1), 63–71.

Storme, B. (2024). Paradigm uniformity effects on French liaison. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 42(3), 1307–1352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-023-09596-z

Sundara, M., Zhou, Z. L., Breiss, C., Katsuda, H., & Steffman, J. (2022). Infants’ developing sensitivity to native language phonotactics: A meta-analysis. Cognition, 221, 104993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104993

Tang, K., & Baer-Henney, D. (2023). Modelling L1 and the artificial language during artificial language learning. Laboratory Phonology, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.16995/labphon.6460

Tesar, B. (2014). Output-driven Phonology. Cambridge University Press.

Tesar, B., & Smolensky, P. (2000). Learnability in Optimality Theory. MIT Press.

Tessier, A.-M. (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

Tessier, A.-M. (2016). Morpho-phonological Acquisition. In J. L. Lidz, W. Snyder, & J. Pater (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Developmental Linguistics (Vol. 1, pp. 111–132). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199601264.013.7

Tessier, A.-M., Jesney, K., Vesik, K., Lo, R., & Bouchard, M.-E. (2023). The Productive Status of Laurentian French liaison: Variation across Words and Grammar. Proceedings of the Annual Meetings on Phonology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3765/amp.v10i0.5447

Tomas, E., Demuth, K., & Petocz, P. (2017). The Role of Frequency in Learning Morphophonological Alternations: Implications for Children With Specific Language Impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60(5), 1316–1329. https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_JSLHR-L-16-0138

Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.

Tranel, B. (1995a). Current issues in French phonology: liaison and position theories. In J. A. Goldsmith (Ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory (pp. 798–816). Blackwell.

Tranel, B. (1995b). French final consonants and nonlinear phonology. Lingua, 95(1), 131–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(95)90104-3

Tranel, B. (2000). Aspects De La Phonologie Du Français Et La Théorie De L’optimalité. Langue Française, 126, 39–72.

Wauquier-Gravelines, S., & Braud, V. (2005). Proto-déterminant et acquisition de la liaison obligatoire en français. Langages, 158(2), 53–65. https://doi.org/10.3917/lang.158.0053

White, J., & Sundara, M. (2014). Biased generalization of newly learned phonological alternations by 12-month-old infants. Cognition, 133(1), 85–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.05.020

White, K. S., Peperkamp, S., Kirk, C., & Morgan, J. L. (2008). Rapid acquisition of phonological alternations by infants. Cognition, 107(1), 238–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.11.012

Wolf, M. A. (2008). Optimal Interleaving: Serial Phonology-Morphology Interaction in a Constraint-Based Model [Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst].

Wonnacott, E., Brown, H., & Nation, K. (2017). Skewing the evidence: The effect of input structure on child and adult learning of lexically based patterns in an artificial language. Journal of Memory and Language, 95, 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.005

Woods, K. J. P., Siegel, M. H., Traer, J., & McDermott, J. H. (2017). Headphone screening to facilitate web-based auditory experiments. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79(7), 2064–2072. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1361-2

Zamuner, T. S., Kerkhoff, A., & Fikkert, P. (2012). Phonotactics and morphophonology in early child language: Evidence from Dutch. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33(3), 481–499. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000440