MPhil Seminar: Evaluating OT

1
MPhil Seminar Evaluating OT

• Constraint

2
Overview

• Two attacks on constraints
• OTROTB-LO no constraints on URs
• Reiss, NoBanana no surface (or other)
  constraints
• Basic problem
• Can one extract generalizations from surface
  (especially static/non-alternating) patterns?
• Evidence for extraction of generalizations from
  the lexicon
• Best-known case goed stage of L1 acquisition
• Also Ohala, Pierrehumbert, Hayes, etc. on
  statistical knowledge
• Marcus et al. 1999, Guasti 2002, Kuhl 2004 on
  child language infants are able to perform
  statistical analysis over pre-lexical
  representations, e.g. compute distributional
  regularities and find the most frequent word
  shapes.
• Claims
• Humans form phonological generalizations over
  their lexicons, often best modelled as MSCs or
  surface constraints
• Often statistical in origin, but may be
  deterministic
• OTROTB-LO wrongly predicts this to be impossible
  and creates other problems

3
Where are linguistic generalizations captured?
lexicon/underlying representation
Hale and Reiss only here (no constraints)
MSCs
OT
rules
DP
transformations
(GEN no generalizations) constraints on GEN?
constraints
Control constraints (? ineffability, Tonkawa
CCC...)
surface representation
4
Morpheme Structure Constraints

• Initially employed to capture static phonological
  generalizations about morpheme structure, as
  opposed to alternations being captured by rules
• Root Harmony (Kiparsky 1968)
• C0 V?atr C0 V?atr C0 (Akan and Wolof, K
  1994351)
• Japanese all post-nasal obstruents must be
  voiced in native words
• tombo dragonfly (tompo)
• mi-te seeing vs. šin-de dying
• Can be modeled as an OT output constraint NT
• (though Ito, Mester, and Padgett 1995819 call it
  an MSC)

See Kenstowicz and Kisseberth 1979425-433,
Kenstowicz 1994351-3, 524-8 for discussion
5
Early arguments for MSCs

• Halle 1959, 1962, Chomsky and Halle 1968, etc.
• account for native speakers intuitions of what
  constitutes a well-formed word in their language

6
Esper 1925

• Method
• Ss learn names of 16 objects, each having one of
  four different shapes and one of four different
  colors
• Ss trained on 14 object-name associations but
  tested on 16 to see if they generalize what they
  learned
• 3 experimental conditions
• names presented to Group 1
• naslig, sownlig, nasdeg, sowndeg, where nas- and
  sown- coded color and -lig and -deg coded shape
• Since these names consisted of two phonologically
  legal morphemes, this group could simplify their
  task by learning not 16 names but 8 morphemes (if
  they could discover them) plus the simple rule
  that the color morpheme preceded the shape
  morpheme in each name.
• Names presented to Group 2
• bi-morphemic names, as with Group 1
• unlike group 1, the morphemes were not
  phonologically legal for English, e.g., nulgen,
  nuzgub, pelgen, pezgub (where nu- and pe- were
  color morphemes and -lgen and -zgub were shape
  morphemes, the latter two violating English
  morpheme structure constraints)
• Names presented to Group 3 (a control group)
• names with no morphemic structure
• no recourse but to learn 16 idiosyncratic names
• Results
• As expected, group 1 learned their names much
  faster and more accurately than group 3.
• Performance of Group 2 was similar to (and
  marginally worse than) that of group 3
• Analysis of the errors of group 2, including how
  they generalized what theyd learned to the two
  object-name associations excluded from the
  training session, revealed that they tried to
  make phonologically legal morphemes from the
  ill-formed ones. 
• Demonstrates (i) psychological reality of MSCs
  (ii) ability to conduct morphological analysis
• Problems

7
Arguments against MSCs

• Duplication Problem (Kisseberth 1970 et seqq.)
• Japanese MSC NT for tompo and rule for šin-de
  vs. mi-te
• there is good reason to doubt the basic
  assumptionthat the harmony found in roots and
  affixes is the product of two separate
  grammatical mechanisms a morpheme structure
  condition and a feature-changing ruleit implies
  the existence of i languages in which all the
  suffixes systematically harmonize to the root but
  the roots show no restrictions on vowel
  combinations or in which the opposite state of
  affairs holds (i.e. ii the root vowels
  harmonize but affixes fail to alternate). (K
  1994353)
• this formal similarity and functional redundancy
  between MSCs and rules is a significant liability
  of the classic theory. If MSCs and rules really
  are distinct components of linguistic theory,
  then they should be cleanly differentiated in
  form and function, but they are not. (McCarthy
  1998)
• This stance makes maximal use of theoretical
  resources already required, avoiding the loss of
  generalization entailed by adding further
  language-particular apparatus devoted to input
  selection. (In this we pursue ideas implicit in
  Stampe 1969, 1973/79, and deal with Kisseberths
  grammar/lexicon duplication problem by having
  no duplication.) (P and S 1993/2002209)
• Wellformedness judgements
• MSCs predict that speakers can only make ternary
  distinctions in well-formedness, whereas speakers
  in fact make scalar judgements (Greenberg and
  Jenkins 1964, Ohala Ohala 1986242 see
  Pierrehumbert 2003 for literature review).

(i) ? Turkish (Kaun and Harrison 1999)
(ii) ? Marash (Vaux 1998)
8
Faulty conception of MSCs I

• Kie Zuraw presents typical OT misconception that
  MSCs are required to capture any surface-true
  generalization
• http//www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/zuraw/200A_
  2004/11SurfaceConstraints.pdf

• Zuraws take on DP analysis of these data
• MSC for green etc.
• rule for old man etc.
• She sees this as Duplication Problem (!)

• Actual DP analysis (assuming new loans are
  exempt)
• Single rule for both green and old man etc.
• Not subject to DEC

9
Faulty conception of MSCs II

• McCarthy 1998
• According to the premises of classic generative
  phonology, final devoicing in L is a result of a
  phonological rule. In L, though, devoicing is
  attributed to a morpheme structure constraint
  (MSC), the name given to restrictions on
  underlying representations.
• BV in the absence of evidence from loanwords,
  language games, etc. showing that the lack of
  final D in URs is the product of an active MSC
  (which McCarthy doesnt provide), such cases
  actually involve Stampean Occultation
• Suppose some rule consistently replaces the
  structure /A/ by B. Finding no surface As,
  language learners will not be tempted to set up
  underlying /A/s in the lexicon, positing only
  underlying /B/s instead. In this way, /B/ hides
  or occults /A/, obtaining the same descriptive
  effect as an anti-/A/ MSC without invoking any
  actual restrictions on the lexicon. McCarthy
  19981

• Here
• A voiced stop
• B voiceless stop

10
Faulty conception of MSCs III

• Under the thesis of richness of the base, OT
  does not countenance morpheme structure
  constraints. This paper shows that some phenomena
  that have been attributed to morpheme structure
  constraints can be analyzed with constraints that
  forbid alternations within paradigms.

Given what Ive already proposed, how do you
think we should deal with Dialect B?
11
ROTB and Lexicon Optimization

• OT attributes linguistic generalizations to the
  grammar, not the lexicon...this thesis is called
  richness of the base inputs are unrestricted,
  but the grammar is responsible for mapping all
  inputs onto pronounceable forms of the language.
  (McCarthy 200353)
• if the grammar yields an inventory with only
  unvoiced obstruents, no segments in lexical forms
  will contain voice without sonorant even
  though all feature combinations are universally
  available as inputs. (Smolensky 1996)
• Lexicon Optimization (Inkelas 1994, based on PS
  1993/2002209)
• Given a grammar G and a set S S1, S2, ... Si
  of surface phonetic forms for a morpheme M,
  suppose that there is a set of inputs I I1,
  I2, ... Ij, each of whose members has a set of
  surface realizations equivalent to S. There is
  some Ii ? I such that the mapping between Ii and
  the members of S is the most harmonic with
  respect to G, i.e. incurs the fewest marks for
  the highest ranked constraints. The learner
  should choose Ii as the underlying representation
  for M. (Inkelas 1994)

12
ROTB and Lexicon Optimization

• Turkish final devoicing (to be discussed in more
  detail later)
• v?th watt v?th? watt-accusative
• th?th taste th?d? taste-accusative
• One can force UR ? SR by having alternations in
  the paradigm (PS 1993/2002210, Inkelas 19947),
  but if there is no evidence for alternations
  (e.g. with a nonce word), ROTB-LO (wrongly)
  predicts UR SR.

LO cases
/v?th/ Voice ? ?Coda MaxF DepF
?v?th v?th?
v?th v?d? !
v?d v?d? !
guruph Voice ? ?Coda MaxF DepF
? /gruph/
/grub/ !
/th?d/ Voice ? ?Coda MaxF DepF
th?th th?th? !
?th?th th?d?
th?d th?d? !
thjub Voice ? ?Coda MaxF DepF
/thyph/ !
? /thyb/
13
Response to response to MSCs

• The duplication argument, which is the heart of
  the attack on MSCs, only holds ceteris paribus,
  but in fact all else is not equal
• ROTB-LO incorrectly predicts the nonexistence of
  productive lexical generalizations utilized by
  speakers in constructing underlying
  representations.
• ROTB-LO incorrectly predicts (assuming universal
  markedness constraint hierarchies cf. Prince and
  Smolensky 1993, Steriade 199942, Lombardi 2003)
  the absence of languages containing the marked
  but not the unmarked member of a phonemic
  opposition
• Cf. Russian has palatalized /cj/ but not plain
  /c/
• ROTB-LO incorrectly predicts conformity of URs to
  surface phonotactics
• ROTB-LO incorrectly requires full spec. in
  non-alternating cases
• ROTB-LO requires stipulation that certain GEN
  alterations (e.g. syllabification) are invisible
  to Faith and Ident constraints

14
Deneutralization

• Predictions for picking UR from ambiguous input
• OTROTB-LO pick transparent UR
• Hayes 1995 pick base form as UR whether or not
  there are alternations
• Gallistel 2003 When animals and humans have to
  solve problems with incomplete knowledge, they
  use stochastic/probabilistic models
• NB deterministic generalization may be spawned
  from statistical knowledge
• In a language with 60 s and 40 t, s may be
  picked 60 or 100 of the time choice may be
  arbitrary with insufficiently skewed statistics,
  e.g. with pigeons
• Type 1 (structure-preserving)
• English final /r/
• Several nonrhotic Englishes productively assign
  final /r/ to all low-vowel-final roots (Mohanan
  1985, Stampe 1991, Harris 1994)
• English backformation wrt Velar Softening
  (Pierrehumbert 2002)
• 2 subjects backformed e.g. hovacity ? hovak,
  33 and 75 of the time
• Devoicing languages (German, Russian, Polish
  Turkish, Lac Simon, Dutch)
• Korean word-final t ? /s/
• Japanese ? ? /g/ (Ito, McCarthy)
• Type 2 (non-structure-preserving)
• English flapping
• sporadic for some antidote for anecdote,
  calisthentics, etc.
• systematic SNs flap ? /t/

15
Korean borrowing of Coda t

• Korean word-final t ? /t, th, t, c, ch, c,
  s, s/
• Surface word-final postvocalic t in loans and
  nonce words invariably assigned to /s/ (Martin
  1992, Kang 1998, Hayes 1998, Iverson Lee 2004)
• supermarket ? nom. sup?makhet, dat.
  sup?makhese
• OTROTB-LO wrongly predicts assignment to /t/
• basic problem OTROTB-LO does not allow for
  statistical generalizing over the lexicon to play
  a role in the construction of URs
• What appears to be involved in the Korean case is
  that speakers know that surface word-final ts
  most often come from underlying /s/ in their
  native lexicon, and they therefore assign new
  words to the same pattern.

16
Turkish final voice
source voiced UR hits voiceless UR hits
E tube tübü 147 tüpü 6330
E club kulübü 145,000 kulüpü 7
klübü 35,300 klüpü 4
E/F group(e) gurubu 18,000 gurupu 17 (0.1)
grubu 327,000 grupu 448 (0.1)
F principe prensibi 16,600 prensipi 76
NB these override voice specification in source
language

• All polysyllabic forms that have a voiceless
  obstruent when final have a voiced one when
  suffixed (Lewis 196711)
• The converse has now developed for monosyllables
  (Inkelas, Pycha, and Sprouse 2004)
• TELL 19 monosylls with final voiced stop 145
  with voiceless current MSC plausibly extracted
  from this

17
Lac Simon Algonquian

• underlying voicing contrast
• rule of initial obstruent devoicing
• all new stem-initial obstruents ? underlyingly
  voiced (Nykiel and Nykiel 1979, Kaye 1979,
  Iverson 1983).
• French banane banan ? LSA panan banana,
  but n?banan?m my banana
• English coffee ? LSA kofike he makes
  coffee, but nigofike I make coffee

segment UR SR w/ devoicing SR w/o devoicing
a. /g/ /gazot?m/ kazot?m he hides n?-gazot?m I hide
b. /k/ /kat/ n?-kat my leg
not n?-gat note that the same 1st person
prefix conditions the voiced allophone in (a)
NB the relevant frequency facts for Lac Simon are
not known.
18
Statistical knowledge

• The basic problem
• OTROTB-LO does not allow for generalizations
  extracted from statistical properties of the
  lexicon to play a role in the grammar
• Counterevidence (cf. Skousen 1989)
• Greenberg and Jenkins 1964, Ohala and Ohala 1986,
  Frisch, Large, and Pisoni 2000, Hay,
  Pierrehumbert, and Beckman 2004, etc. etc. on the
  well-formedness of English nonce words
• Hayes 1995 on Turkish
• Pierrehumbert 2002 on English velar softening
• Polish speakers assign masculine gender to all
  consonant-final words and feminine gender to all
  a-final words (Baran 2000)
• Statistical knowledge ? (categorical?) linguistic
  generalizations
• All other things being equal, the cognitive
  system prefers generalizations which yield more
  information about the outcome over those which
  yield less. (Pierrehumbert 2002)
• speakers extend morphological patterns based on
  abstract structural properties, of a kind
  appropriately described with rules (Albright and
  Hayes 2003)

19
More deterministic

• German chooses -s as its productive plural,
  though it isnt most frequent (though frequency
  does affect its productivityBybee 1995)
• Moreton 1999
• English speakers aware of MSC banning final lax
  vowels
• phonotactic knowledge consists of categorical,
  rule-like prohibitions, rather than emerging from
  statistical properties of the lexicon
• Inkelas, Pycha, and Sprouse 2004 on Turkish voice
  alternations not conditioned by lexical
  neighborhood density or frequency
• mono- vs. polysyllabicity is best predictor of
  (non-)alternation

20
Underlying ?-structure

• CV-language learners will never insert into the
  lexicon any underlying forms that violate the
  (surface) syllable structure constraints of their
  language (PS 2002210)
• Problem Turkish and other languages that do not
  postulate underlying epenthesis, even though
  doing so does not conform to their surface
  syllable canon
• vakith time acc. vakth-i (lt Arabic wakt)
• istop stop acc. istop-u
• (not istob-u, the expected polysyllabic
  treatment)

21
ROTB-LO requires full specification in
non-alternating cases

• OTROTB-LO requires that all non-alternating
  surface forms have fully specified lexical
  entries
• Disproven by Kaun and Harrison 1999 with respect
  to root-internal harmony in Tuvan, Finnish, and
  Turkish
• After application of relevant language games,
  harmonic roots re-harmonize but disharmonic roots
  dont
• Cf. Krämer 2004 for German glottal stop insertion
  and English laxing
• (He argues that LO actually cant decide between
  fully specified and underspecified form as UR,
  since identity constraints are stipulated to not
  penalize underspecified URs)

22
Stipulation

• Incorporating ROTB into OT requires stipulating
  that GEN be able to alter inputs in ways that are
  invisible to faithfulness constraints (McCarthy
  200238) and Ident constraints (Krämer 2004).
• McCarthy 200238 this is the only way to account
  for the universal non-contrastiveness of certain
  phonological distinctions
• syllabification of tautomorphemic sequences is
  never contrastive, e.g. hab.la vs. ha.bla
• A necessary condition for ensuring that
  syllabification is never contrastive is that
  syllabification is faithfulness-free, so an
  unsyllabified input like /maba/ or a syllabified
  input like /mab.a/ will be associated by GEN with
  all of the following fully faithful and fully
  syllabified candidates m.a.b.a, ma.b.a, m.a.ba,
  m.aba, m.ab.a, ma.ba, mab.a, maba. Many of these
  candidates are sure losers for markedness
  reasons, such as the absurd monosyllable maba.
  But they are still fully faithful in the sense
  that they incur no faithfulness violations.

23
ROTB doesnt follow from OT architecture

• IO constraints allow reference to input forms
• ? OT has the power to evaluate I constraints
  (constraints on inputs without reference to
  corresponding outputs)
• in fact, these are less computationally complex
  than IO constraints
• DsI no monosyllabic URs ending in
  voiced obstruent
• NB I constraints dont do any work in IO
  mappings only involved in UR construction

thjub DsI Voice ? ?Coda MaxF DepF
? /thyph/
/thyb/ !
24
Summary of OTROTB-LO problems

1. Incorrectly predicts the nonexistence of MSCs
2. Incorrectly predicts the absence of languages
   containing the marked but not the unmarked member
   of a phonemic opposition
3. Incorrectly predicts conformity of URs to surface
   phonotactics
4. Incorrectly requires full specification in
   non-alternating cases
5. Stipulates invisibility to Faith and Ident
   constraints

25
Solution

• The problems presented here are resolved
  straightforwardly by assuming that humans can
  extract generalizations from the structure of
  their lexicon.
• NB generalizations can be extracted in the
  absence of alternations (cf. Dell et al. 2000),
  e.g. from statistical knowledge
• This move is consistent with what we know about
  human and primate cognition
• Pierrehumbert 2002, 2003, etc. on statistical
  knowledge in phonology
• Marcus et al. 1999, Guasti 2002, etc. on child
  language
• Kirkham et al. 2002 on vision in infants
• Ramus et al. 2000 and Hauser et al. 2002 on
  primates
• Grounded in the fundamental linguistic tenet that
  extracting generalizations is the heart of
  grammar construction.

26
Surface constraints

• Dell et al. and Goldrick 2004 on speech errors
  (as we saw in the speech errors lecture)
• NB implies that humans can learn constraints on
  representations in the absence of alternations
  (cf. English learning of h and engma distribution)

27
Identity constraints and ineffability (Control
constraints)

• schm reduplication
• Q19 Schmuck
• Ø (70), shluck (8), schnuck (5), schmuck (4),
  fluck (3), shpuck (1), fuck, smuck, shfuck,
  shvuck, schmluck, shnook
• Q20 Schmooze
• Ø (59), shnooze (10), shmooze (4), flooze (4),
  shpooze (4), shlooze (3), shm?mooze, commooze,
  shplooze, mooze, wooze
• Q22 Schmidt
• Ø (66), shlidt (4), shpidt (4), shmidt (3),
  shnidt (3), flidt (2), vlidt, smidt, midt
• morpheme sequencing
• lightninging
• German Berlin-er person from Berlin vs.
  Münster-aner (Münster-er)
• Lenin-akan-yan vs. Lenin-akan-akan

28
Conclusions

• Humans can and do extract constraints (both
  surface and underlying) from phonological and
  morphological data (both alternating and static)
• Important component of animal cognition cf.
  conditioning studies
• NB at least some constraints are inviolable
• Theories attacking such constraints (especially
  OT) misunderstand use of MSCs and ignore much of
  the relevant data.

29
References I

• Booij, Geert. 1999. Morpheme structure
  constraints and the phonotactics of Dutch. In
  Harry van der Hulst Nancy Ritter (eds.) The
  Syllable. Views and Facts. Berlin/New York
  Mouton de Gruyter, 53-68.
• Christdas, P. 1986. Morpheme Structure
  Constraints and Underspecification. Paper
  presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic
  Society of America, New York, NY.
• Dell, Gary, K. Reed, D. Adams, and A. Mejer.
  2000. Speech errors, phonotactic constraints, and
  implicit learning a study of the role of
  experience in language production. Journal of
  Experimental Psychology (LMC) 26.61355-1367.
• Dinnsen, Daniel and Laura McGarrity. 2004. On the
  nature of alternations in phonological
  acquisition. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology,
  Morphology 1123-42.
• Esper, Erwin. 1925. A technique for the
  experimental investigation of associative
  interference in artificial linguistic material.
  Language Monographs, no. 1.
• Goldrick, Matthew. 2004. Phonological features
  and phonotactic constraints in speech production.
  Journal of Memory Language 51.4586.
• Greenberg and Jenkins 1964. they derive
  well-formedness judgements from comparison to
  forms in the lexicon, not MSCs
• Halle, Morris. 1959. The Sound Pattern of
  Russian. The Hague Mouton.
• Hauser, Marc, Daniel Weiss, and Gary Marcus.
  2002. Rule learning by cotton-top tamarins.
  Cognition 86B15-22.
• Hayes, Bruce. 1998. On the Richness of Paradigms,
  and the Insufficiency of Underlying
  Representations in Accounting for them. Lecture
  presented at Stanford University.
  http//www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/talks
  /RichnessOfParadigms.pdf
• Inkelas, Sharon. 1994. The Consequences of
  Optimization for Underspecification. In NELS 25.
  287-302.
• Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 1999. On the
  Sources of Opacity in German. Coda Processes in
  German. Manuscript, UCSC and responded to in van
  Oostendorp paper
• Iverson, Greg. 1983. Voice Alternations in Lac
  Simon Algonquin. Journal of Linguistics
  19161-164.
• Iverson, Greg. 2004. Deriving the Derived
  Environment Constraint in Non-Derivational
  Phonology. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and
  Morphology 111-23.
• Katamba, Francis and Larry Hyman. 1991. Nasality
  and morpheme structure constraints in Luganda.
  Africanistische Arbeitspapiere 25. 175-211.
• Kaun, Abigail. 1998. Input constraints in Tamil.
  Paper presented at CLS 34, April 17, 1998.
• Kaun, Abigail and David Harrison. 1999.
  Pattern-Responsive underspecification. In
  Proceedings of the 30th Conference of the North
  Eastern Linguistics Society.
• Kawasaki, H. 1982. An acoustical basis for
  universal constraints on sound sequences.
  Doctoral dissertation, University of California,
  Berkeley.
• Kaye, Jonathan. 1979. On the alleged correlation
  of markedness and rule function. In D. Dinnsen
  (ed.) Current Approaches to Phonological Theory,
  pp. 272-280, Indiana University Press,
  Bloomington.

30
References II

• McCarthy, John. 1998. Morpheme structure
  constraints and paradigm occultation. In M.
  Catherine Gruber, Derrick Higgins, Kenneth Olson
  and Tamra Wysocki (eds.) CLS 32, Part 2 The
  Panels. Chicago, IL Chicago Linguistic Society.
  123-150.
• McCarthy, John. 2003. Comparative markedness
  short version. Theoretical Linguistics (to
  appear).
• McCarthy, John. 2003. Richness of the Base and
  the determination of underlying representations.
  Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
• Mester, Armin. 1992. Morpheme structure
  constraints. Topic article in International
  Encyclopedia of Linguistics, by W. Bright, Oxford
  University Press, Vol. 3, pp. 3-4.
• Moreton, Elliott. 1999. Evidence for Phonotactic
  Grammar in Speech Perception. Proceedings of the
  14th Annual International Congress of Phonetic
  Sciences, San Francisco.
• Napoli, Donna Jo and Jeff Wu. 2003. Morpheme
  structure constraints on two-handed signs in
  American Sign Language Notions of symmetry. Sign
  Language Linguistics 6.2123205.
• Nykiel, J. and B. Nykiel. 1979. Loan words and
  abstract phonotactic constraints. Canadian
  Journal of Linguistics 2471-93.
• Ohala, John, and Manjari Ohala. 1986. Testing
  hypotheses regarding the psychological
  manifestation of morpheme structure constraints.
  In J. J. Ohala, J. J. Jaeger (eds.),
  Experimental phonology, 239-52. San Diego
  Academic Press.
• Paradis, Carole Jean Franois Prunet (1993). On
  the validity of morpheme structure constraints.
  In Carole Paradis Darlene LaCharit (1993).
  235-256.
• Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2003. Probabilistic
  phonology discrimation and robustness. In R.
  Bod, J. Hay and S. Jannedy (eds.), 2002.
  Probability Theory in Linguistics. Cambridge MIT
  Press.
• Port, Robert. 1981. Linguistic timing factors
  in combination. Journal of the Acoustical
  Society of America 69262-74.
• Port, Robert and Penny Crawford. 1989.
  Incomplete neutralization and pragmatics in
  German. Journal of Phonetics 17257-82.
• Ramus, Frank, Marc Hauser, Cory Miller, Dylan
  Morris, and Jacques Mehler. 2000. Language
  discrimination by human newborns and by
  cotton-top tamarin monkeys. Science 288349-51.
• Redford, Michael. 2000. The question of Inputs in
  OT A constraint-based, computational model of
  English meter. Manuscript, Leiden University.
• Reiss, Charles. 2000. Optimality Theory from a
  Cognitive Science Perspective. The Linguistic
  Review.
• Saffran, Jenny, Richard Aslin, and Elissa
  Newport. 1996. Statistical learning by
  8-month-old infants. Science 2741926-28.
• Scobbie, J., John Coleman, and S. Bird. 1996. Key
  Aspects of Declarative Phonology.
• Skousen, Royal. 1989. Analogical modeling of
  language. Dordrecht Kluwer.
• Smolensky, Paul. 1996. The Initial State and
  Richness of the Base in Optimality Theory.
  Technical Report, JHU CogSci 96 4.

31
Ambiguity and animal wug tests
Gallistel, C. 2003. Conditioning from an
information processing perspective. Behavioural
Processes 61.31234 1-13.
32
(No Transcript)