No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Implicit and explicit processes in phonological concept learning
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 March 2024
Abstract
Non-linguistic pattern learning uses distinct implicit and explicit processes, which differ in behavioural signatures, inductive biases and proposed model architectures. This study asked whether both processes are available in phonotactic learning in the lab. Five Internet experiments collected generalisation, learning curves, response times and detailed debriefings from 671 valid participants. Implicit and explicit learners were found in all conditions and experiments. Objective measures of implicit vs. explicit learning were correlated with introspective self-report. Participants spontaneously discovered and named phonetic features. These findings contradict the common (usually tacit) assumption that ‘artificial-language’ participants learn only implicitly. Learning mode also affected inductive bias: Implicit learning improved performance on family-resemblance patterns relative to biconditionals (if-and-only-if, exclusive-or) in two experiments. The direction of this effect is unexpected under many current theories of how implicit and explicit concept learning differ, and is consistent with models of explicit learning which take pattern-irrelevant features into account.
Keywords
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Anderson, John R. (1991). The adaptive nature of human categorization. Psychological Review 98, 409–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Nathaniel D. & Dell, Gary S. (2018). The role of consolidation in learning context-dependent phonotactic patterns in speech and digital sequence production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 3617–3622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Archer, E. James, Bourne, Lyle E. & Brown, Frederick G. (1955). Concept identification as a function of irrelevant information and instructions. Journal of Experimental Psychology 49, 153–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ashby, F. Gregory, Alfonso-Reese, Leola A., Turken, And U. & Waldron, Elliott M. (1998). A neuropsychological theory of multiple systems in category learning. Psychological Review 105, 442–481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ashby, F. Gregory, Paul, Erick J. & Todd Maddox, W. (2011). COVIS. In Pothos, Emmanuel M. & Willis, Andy J. (eds.)
Formal approaches in categorization, chapter 4
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Emmon & Harms, Robert T. (1972). How do languages get crazy rules? In Stockwell, R. P. & Macaulay, R. K. S. (eds.)
Linguistic change and generative theory, chapter 1
. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1–21.Google Scholar
Baer-Henney, Dinah, Kügler, Frank & van de Vijver, Ruben (2015). The interaction of language-specific and universal factors during the acquisition of morphophonemic alternations with exceptions. Cognitive Science 39, 1537–1569.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Batterink, Laura J., Paller, Ken A. & Reber, Paul J. (2019). Understanding the neural bases of implicit and statistical learning. Topics in Cognitive Science 11, 482–503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Batterink, Laura J., Reber, Paul J., Neville, Helen J. & Paller, Ken A. (2015). Implicit and explicit contributions to statistical learning. Journal of Memory and Language 82, 62–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, Diane C. & Broadbent, Donald E. (1984). On the relationship between task performance and associated verbalizable knowledge. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 36A, 209–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bieler, Gayle S. & Williams, Rick L. (1995). Cluster sampling techniques in quantal response teratology and developmental toxicity studies. Biometrics 51, 754–776.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blevins, Juliette (2004). Evolutionary phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vrooman, Robert (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis 20, 3–49.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David (2013). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Software]. Version 5.3.14. https://www.praat.org.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David (2021). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Software]. Version 6.2.04. https://www.praat.org.Google Scholar
Bower, Gordon H. & Trabasso, Thomas R. (1964). Concept identification. In Atkinson, Richard C. (ed.)
Studies in mathematical psychology, chapter 2
. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 32–74.Google Scholar
Bradmetz, Joël & Mathy, Fabien (2008). Response times seen as decompression times in Boolean concept use. Psychological Research 72, 211–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breen, Gavan & Pensalfini, Rob (1999). Arrernde: a language with no syllable onsets. LI 30, 1–25.Google Scholar
Brohan, Andrew & Mielke, Jeff (2018). Frequent segmental alternations in P-Base 3. In Hyman, Larry M. & Plank, Frans (eds.) Phonological typology. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 196–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Janessa L. (2009). A brief sketch of Urama grammar with special consideration of particles marking agency, aspect, and modality. Master’s thesis, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks.Google Scholar
Brown, Jason, Muir, Alex, Craig, Kimberly & Anea, Karika (2016). A short grammar of Urama, number 32 in Asia-Pacific Linguistics. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Bruner, Jerome S., Goodnow, Jacqueline J. & Austin, George A. (1956). A study of thinking. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Buckley, Eugene (2000). On the naturalness of unnatural rules. UCSB Working Paper in Linguistics 9, 1–14.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Angela C. (2005). Acquisition of a natural vs. an unnatural stress system. In Brugos, Allejna, Clark-Cotton, Manuella R. & Han, Seungwan (eds.) Papers from the 29th Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD 29). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 134–143.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Angela C. (2006). Acquisition of a natural versus an unnatural stress system. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Angela C. (2010). A naturalness bias in learning stress. Phonology 27, 345–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, Angela C. (2016). Learning natural and unnatural phonological stress by 9- and 10-year-olds: a preliminary report. Journal of Child Language Acquisition and Development 4, 62–77.Google Scholar
Chen, Matthew (1973). On the formal expression of natural rules in phonology. JL 9, 223–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Tsung-Ying (2020). An inductive learning bias toward phonetically driven tonal phonotactics. Language Acquisition 27, 331–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Tsung-Ying (2021). On the learnability of level-based and unit-based OCP generalizations: an artificial grammar learning study. Glossa 7, 1–45.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Chong, Adam J. (2021). The effect of phonotactics on alternation learning. Lg 97, 213–244.Google Scholar
Ciborowski, Tom & Cole, Michael (1972). A cross-cultural study of conjunctive and disjunctive concept learning. Child Development 43, 774–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciborowski, Tom & Cole, Michael (1973). A developmental and cross-cultural study of the influences of rule structure and problem composition on the learning of conceptual classifications. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 15, 193–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, George N. (1985). The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 2, 225–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, George N. (2003). Feature economy in sound systems. Phonology 20, 287–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Jacob (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational Psychology and Measurement 20, 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, Jennifer S. & Iskarous, Khalil (2001). Effects of vowel context on consonant place identification: implications for a theory of phonologization. In Hume, Elizabeth & Johnson, Keith (eds.) The role of speech perception in phonology. San Diego: Academic Press, 103–122.Google Scholar
Cristiá, Alejandrina, Mielke, Jeff, Daland, Robert & Peperkamp, Sharon (2013). Similarity in the generalization of implicitly learned sound patterns. Laboratory Phonology 4, 259–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, Robert (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In Doughty, Catherine J. & Long, Michael H. (eds.) The handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, 312–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dell, Gary S., Adams, David R. & Meyer, Antje S. (2000). Speech errors, phonotactic constraints, and implicit learning: a study of the role of experience in language production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 26, 1355–1367.Google ScholarPubMed
Dell, Gary S., Kelley, Amanda C., Hwang, Suyeon & Bian, Yuan (2021). The adaptable speaker: a theory of implicit learning in language production. Psychological Review 128, 446–487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Do, Youngah, Zsiga, Elizabeth & Havenhill, Jonathan (2016). Naturalness and frequency in implicit phonological learning. Slides from a talk at the 90th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Durvasula, Karthik & Liter, Adam (2020). There is a simplicity bias when generalising from ambiguous data. Phonology 37, 177–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. (1994). Implicit and explicit learning of languages. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. Anders & Simon, Herbert A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review 87, 215–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Jonathan St. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 49, 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Jacob (2000). Minimization of Boolean complexity in human concept learning. Nature 407, 630–633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feldman, Jacob (2006). An algebra of human concept learning. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 50, 339–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finley, Sara (2011). Generalization to novel consonants in artificial grammar learning. In Carlson, Laura, Hoeschler, Christoph & Shipley, Thomas F. (eds.) Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Merced, CA: University of California, 318–23.Google Scholar
Finley, Sara (2017). Learning metathesis: evidence for syllable structure constraints. Journal of Memory and Language 92, 142–157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finley, Sara & Badecker, William (2010). Linguistic and non-linguistic influences on learning biases for vowel harmony. In Ohlsson, S. & Catrambone, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Merced, CA: University of California, 706–711.Google Scholar
Firth, David (1993). Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika 80, 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franco, Karlien, Zenner, Eline & Speelman, Dirk (2018). Let’s agree to disagree: (variation in) the assignment of gender to nominal anglicisms in Dutch. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 30, 43–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamer, Matthias, Lemon, Jim, Fellows, Ian & Singh, Puspendra (2019). irr: various coefficients of interrater reliability and agreement [R package]. Version 0.84.1. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/irr/.Google Scholar
Gerken, LouAnn, Quam, Carolyn & Goffman, Lisa (2019). Adults fail to learn a type of linguistic pattern that is readily learned by infants. Language Learning and Development 15, 279–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glewwe, Eleanor (2019). Bias in phonotactic learning: experimental study of phonotactic implicationals. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Glewwe, Eleanor (2022). Substantive bias and the positional extension of major place contrasts. Glossa 7, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gluck, Mark A. & Bower, Gordon H. (1988). From conditioning to category learning: an adaptive network model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 117, 227–247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goddard, Ives (1979). Delaware verbal morphology: a descriptive and comparative study. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Goodman, Noah, Tenenbaum, Joshua B., Feldman, Jacob & Griffiths, Thomas L. (2008). A rational analysis of rule-based concept learning. Cognitive Science 32, 108–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodwin, Geoffrey P. & Johnson-Laird, Philip N. (2011). Mental models of Boolean concepts. Cognitive Psychology 63, 34–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodwin, Geoffrey P. & Johnson-Laird, Philip N. (2013). The acquisition of Boolean concepts. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17, 128–133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gordon, Matthew (2004). Syllable weight. In Hayes, Bruce, Kirchner, Robert & Steriade, Donca (eds.) Phonetically-based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 277–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Peter S & Hecht, Karlheinz (1992). Implicit and explicit grammar: an empirical study. Applied Linguistics 13, 168–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, Anna (2016). An experimental investigation of phonetic naturalness. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Greer, G. Brian (1979). A study of rule-learning in children using set operations. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 28, 174–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hilde & Rose, Michael (2007). How to investigate insight: a proposal. Methods 42, 49–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halle, Morris (1961). On the role of simplicity in linguistic description. In Jakobson, Roman (ed.) Structure of language and its mathematical aspects, number 12 in Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 89–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1999). Phonetically driven phonology: the role of optimality in inductive grounding. In Darnell, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith, Noonan, Michael, Newmeyer, Frederick & Wheatly, Kathleen (eds.) Functionalism and formalism in linguistics. Volume 1: general papers. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 243–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & White, James (2013). Phonological naturalness and phonotactic learning. LI 44, 45–75.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & Wilson, Colin (2008). A Maximum Entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. LI 39, 379–440.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Zuraw, Kie, Siptár, Péter & Londe, Zsuzsa (2009). Natural and unnatural constraints in Hungarian vowel harmony. Lg 85, 822–863.Google Scholar
Haygood, R. C. & Bourne, L. E. (1965). Attribute- and rule-learning aspects of conceptual behavior. Psychological Review 72, 175–195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hebert, Raymond & Poppe, Nicholas (1963). Kirghiz manual, number 33 in the Uralic and Altaic Series. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Heinze, Georg & Ploner, Meinhard (2018). logistf: Firth’s bias-reduced logistic regression [R package]. Version 1.23. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/logistf/.Google Scholar
Høiland-Jørgensen, Toke, Ahlgren, Bengt, Hurtig, Per & Brunstrom, Anna (2016). Measuring latency variation in the Internet. In Markopoulou, Athina, Faloutsos, Michalis, Sekar, Vyas & Kostic, Dejan (eds.) CoNEXT ’16: proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 473–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hombert, Jean-Marie, Ohala, John J. & Ewan, William G. (1979). Phonetic explanations for the development of tones. Lg 55, 37–58.Google Scholar
Huang, Tingyu & Do, Youngah (2022). Substantive bias and variation in the acquisition of /n/
$\sim $
/l/ alternation. In Jurgec, Peter, Duncan, Liisa, Elfner, Emily, Kang, Yoonjung, Kochetov, Alexei, O’Neill, Brittney K., Ozburn, Avery, Rice, Keren, Sanders, Nathan, Schertz, Jessamyn, Shaftoe, Nate & Sullivan, Lisa (eds.) Proceedings of the 2021 Annual Meeting on Phonology. Washington, DC: Linguistic Society of America, 12 pp.Google Scholar
$\sim $
/l/ alternation. In Jurgec, Peter, Duncan, Liisa, Elfner, Emily, Kang, Yoonjung, Kochetov, Alexei, O’Neill, Brittney K., Ozburn, Avery, Rice, Keren, Sanders, Nathan, Schertz, Jessamyn, Shaftoe, Nate & Sullivan, Lisa (eds.) Proceedings of the 2021 Annual Meeting on Phonology. Washington, DC: Linguistic Society of America, 12 pp.Google ScholarHyman, Larry M. (1976). Phonologization. In Juilland, Alphonse (ed.) Linguistic studies offered to Joseph Greenberg, volume 2. Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri, 407–418.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, Gunnar, C., Fant, M. & Halle, Morris (1952). Preliminaries to speech analysis: the distinctive features and their correlates. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keele, Steven W. & James Archer, E. (1967). A comparison of two types of information in concept identification. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 6, 185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellogg, Ronald T. (1982). When can we introspect accurately about mental processes? Memory and Cognition 10, 141–144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelly, John (1969). Vowel patterns in the Urhobo noun. Journal of West African Languages 6, 21–26.Google Scholar
Kepros, Peter C. & Bourne, Lyle E. (1966). Identification of biconditional concepts: effect of number of relevant and irrelevant dimensions. Canadian Journal of Psychology 20, 198–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keren, Gideon & Schul, Yaacov (2009). Two is not always better than one: a critical evaluation of two-systems theories. Perspectives on psychological science 4, 533–550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, Robyn, Seitz, Aaron, Feenstra, Heather & Shams, Ladan (2009). Testing assumptions of statistical learning: is it long-term and implicit? Neuroscience Letters 461, 145–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kimper, Wendell (2016). Asymmetric generalisation of harmony triggers. In Hansson, Gunnar, Farris-Trimble, Ashley, McMullin, Kevin & Pulleyblank, Douglas (eds.) Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Meeting on Phonology. Washington, DC: Linguistic Society of America, 10 pp.Google Scholar
King, Robert D. (1969). Historical linguistics and generative grammar. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1982). Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In Explanation in phonology. Dordrecht: Foris, 13–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, Stephen (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Kruschke, John K. (1992). ALCOVE: an exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review 99, 22–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuo, Li-Jen (2009). The role of natural class features in the acquisition of phonotactic regularities. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 38, 129–150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kurtz, Kenneth J., Levering, Kimery R., Stanton, Roger D., Romero, Joshua & Morris, Steven N. (2013). Human learning of elemental category structures: revising the classic result of Shepard, Hovland, and Jenkins (1961). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 39, 552–572.Google ScholarPubMed
Lafond, Daniel, Lacouture, Yves & Mineau, Guy (2007). Complexity minimization in rule-based category learning: revising the catalog of Boolean concepts and evidence for non-minimal rules. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 51, 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lai, Yeeking Regine (2012). Domain specificity in learning phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Landis, J. Richard & Koch, Gary G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, Yuh-Show (1995). Effects of learning contexts on implicit and explicit learning. Memory and Cognition 23, 723–734.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewandowsky, Stephan (2011). Working memory capacity and categorization: individual differences and modelling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 37, 720–738.Google Scholar
Lichtman, Karen M. (2013). Developmental comparisons of implicit and explicit language learning. Language Acquisition 20, 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichtman, Karen Melissa (2012). Child-adult differences in implicit and explicit second language learning. PhD dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Lin, Yu-Leng (2023). Are human learners capable of learning arbitrary language structures. Brain Sciences 13, 181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindahl, Maj-Britt (1964). The importance of strategy in a complex learning task. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 5, 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linzen, Tal & Gallagher, Gillian (2014). The timecourse of generalization in phonotactic learning. In Kingston, John, Moore-Cantwell, Claire, Pater, Joe & Staubs, Robert (eds.) Proceedings of the 2013 Annual Meeting on Phonology. Washington, DC: Linguistic Society of America, 12 pp.Google Scholar
Love, Bradley C. (2002). Comparing supervised and unsupervised category learning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 9, 829–835.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Love, Bradley C. & Markman, Arthur B. (2003). The nonindependence of stimulus properties in human category learning. Memory and Cognition 31, 790–799.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Love, Bradley C., Medin, Douglas L. & Gureckis, Todd M. (2004). SUSTAIN: a network model of category learning. Psychological Review 111, 309–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lumley, Thomas (2004). Analysis of complex survey samples. Journal of Statistical Software 9, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lumley, Thomas (2019). survey: analysis of complex survey samples [R package]. Version 3.35-1. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/survey/.Google Scholar
Lumley, Thomas & Scott, Alastair (2017). Fitting regression models to survey data. Statistical Science 32, 265–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddox, W. Todd & Gregory Ashby, F. (2004). Dissociating explicit and procedural-learning based systems of perceptual category learning. Behavioural Processes 66, 309–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maddox, W. Todd, Filoteo, J. Vincent & Lauritzen, J. Scott (2007). Within-category discontinuity interacts with verbal rule complexity in perceptual category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 33, 197–218.Google ScholarPubMed
Martin, Alexander & Peperkamp, Sharon (2020). Phonetically natural rules benefit from a learning bias: a re-examination of vowel harmony and disharmony. Phonology 37, 65–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathews, Robert C., Buss, Ray R., Stanley, William B., Blanchard-Fields, Fredda, Cho, Jeung Ryeul & Druhan, Barry (1989). Role of implicit and explicit processes in learning from examples: a synergistic effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology 15, 1083–1100.Google Scholar
Mathy, Fabien & Bradmetz, Joel (2004). A theory of the graceful complexification of concepts and their learnability. Current Psychology of Cognition/Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive 22, 41–82.Google Scholar
McHugh, Mary L. (2012). Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica 22, 276–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Medin, Douglas L. & Schwanenflugel, Paula J. (1981). Linear separability in classification learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 7, 355–368.Google Scholar
Mielke, Jeff (2004). The emergence of distinctive features. PhD dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Mielke, Jeff (2008). The emergence of distinctive features. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minda, John Paul, Desroches, Amy S. & Church, Barbara A. (2008). Learning rule-described and non-rule-described categories: a comparison of children and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 34, 1518–1533.Google ScholarPubMed
Moore-Cantwell, Claire, Pater, Joe, Staubs, Robert, Zobel, Benjamin & Sanders, Lisa (2017). Event-related potential evidence of abstract phonological learning in the laboratory. Ms, Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Moreton, Elliott (2008). Analytic bias and phonological typology. Phonology 25, 83–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreton, Elliott (2012). Inter- and intra-dimensional dependencies in implicit phonotactic learning. Journal of Memory and Language 67, 165–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreton, Elliott & Pater, Joe (2012a). Structure and substance in artificial-phonology learning, part I: structure. Language and Linguistics Compass 6, 686–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreton, Elliott & Pater, Joe (2012b). Structure and substance in artificial-phonology learning, part II: substance. Language and Linguistics Compass 6, 702–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreton, Elliott, Pater, Joe & Pertsova, Katya (2017). Phonological concept learning. Cognitive Science 41, 4–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moreton, Elliott & Pertsova, Katya (2014). Pastry phonotactics: is phonological learning special? NELS 43, 1–14.Google Scholar
Moreton, Elliott & Pertsova, Katya (2016). Implicit and explicit processes in phonotactic learning. In Scott, Jennifer & Waughtal, Deb (eds.) Proceedings of the 40th Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, 277–290.Google Scholar
Moreton, Elliott, Prickett, Brandon, Pertsova, Katya, Fennell, Josh, Pater, Joe & Sanders, Lisa (2021). Learning reduplication, but not syllable reversal. In Bennett, Ryan, Bibbs, Richard, Brinkerhoff, Mykel Loren, Kaplan, Max J., Rich, Stephanie, Van Handel, Nicholas & Cavallaro, Maya Wax (eds.) Supplemental proceedings of the 2020 Annual Meeting on Phonology. Washington, DC: Linguistic Society of America, 12 pp.Google Scholar
Morris, Peter E. (1981). The cognitive psychology of self-reports. In Antaki, Charles (ed.)
The psychology of ordinary explanations of social behavior, chapter 8
. London: Academic Press, 183–204.Google Scholar
Munoz, Sergio R. & Bangdiwala, Shrikant I. (1997). Interpretation of kappa and B statistics measures of agreement. Journal of Applied Statistics 24, 105–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muylle, Merel, Smalle, Eleonore H. M. & Hartsuiker, Robert J. (2021). Rapid phonotactic constraint learning in ageing: evidence from speech errors. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 36, 746–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, Scott & Padgett, Jaye (2014). Domain generalisation in artificial language learning. Phonology 31, 399–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neisser, Ulrich & Weene, Paul (1962). Hierarchies in concept attainment. Journal of Experimental Psychology 64, 640–645.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newell, Allen & Rosenbloom, Paul S. (1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. In Anderson, J. R. (ed.) Cognitive skills and their acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1–55.Google Scholar
Newell, Ben R., Dunn, John C. & Kalish, Michael (2011). Systems of category learning: fact or fantasy? In Ross, Brian H. (ed.) Advances in research and theory, number 54 in Psychology of Learning and Motivation. San Diego: Academic Press, 167–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newport, Elissa & Aslin, Richard N. (2004). Learning at a distance I: statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies. Cognitive Psychology 48, 127–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nisbett, Richard E. & Wilson, Timothy D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review 84, 231–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosofsky, Robert M., Gluck, Mark A., Palmeri, Thomas J., McKinley, Stephen C. & Gauthier, Paul (1994a). Comparing models of rule-based classification learning: a replication and extension of Shepard, Hovland, and Jenkins (1961). Memory and Cognition 22, 352–369.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nosofsky, Robert M. & Palmeri, Thomas J. (1996). Learning to classify integral-dimension stimuli. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 3. 222–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nosofsky, Robert M., Palmeri, Thomas J. & McKinley, Stephen C. (1994b). Rule-plus-exception model of classification learning. Psychological Review 101, 53–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ohala, John J. (1993). The phonetics of sound change. In Jones, Charles (ed.) Historical linguistics: problems and perspectives. Harlow: Longman, 237–278.Google Scholar
Ọmọruyi, Thomas O. (1986). Adjectives and adjectivalization processes in Ẹdo. Studies in African Linguistics 17, 283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onysko, Alexander, Callies, Marcus & Ogiermann, Eva (2013). Gender variation of anglicisms in German: the influence of cognitive factors and regional varieties. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 49, 103–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osman, M. (2004). An evaluation of dual-process theories of reasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 11, 988–1010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paradis, Michel (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pater, Joe & Moreton, Elliott (2012). Structurally biased phonology: complexity in learning and typology. Journal of the English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad 3, 1–44.Google Scholar
Pertsova, Katya (2012). Logical complexity in morphological learning: effects of structure and null/overt affixation on learning paradigms. BLS 38, 401–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pertsova, Katya & Becker, Misha (2021). In support of phonological bias in implicit learning. Language Learning and Development 17, 128–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, Margaret (1962). Some effects of the percentage of relevant cues and presentation methods on concept identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology 64, 623–627.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pycha, Anne, Nowak, Pawel, Shin, Eurie & Shosted, Ryan (2003). Phonological rule-learing and its implications for a theory of vowel harmony. WCCFL 22, 101–114.Google Scholar
Rabi, Rahel & Minda, John Paul (2016). Category learning in older adulthood: a study of the Shepard, Hovland, and Jenkins (1961) tasks. Psychology and Aging 31, 185–197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rebei, Adnan, Anderson, Nathaniel D. & Dell, Gary S. (2019). Learning the phonotactics of button pushing: consolidation, retention, and syllable structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 45, 2072.Google ScholarPubMed
Reber, Arthur S. (1989). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 118, 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rebuschat, Patrick (2013). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge in second language research. Language Learning 63, 595–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescorla, Robert A. & Wagner, Allan R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement. In Black, Abraham H. & Prokasy, Willaim F. (eds.) Classical conditioning II: current theory and research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 64–69.Google Scholar
Saffran, Jenny R., Newport, Elissa L. & Aslin, Richard N. (1996). Word segmentation: the role of distributional cues. Journal of Memory and Language 35, 606–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagey, Elizabeth (1990). The representation of features in non-linear phonology: the Articulator Node Hierarchy. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Shepard, Roger N., Hovland, Carl I. & Jenkins, Herbert M. (1961). Learning and memorization of classifications. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 75, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skoruppa, Katrin & Peperkamp, Sharon (2011). Adaptation to novel accents: feature-based learning of context-sensitive phonological regularities. Cognitive Science 35, 348–366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smalle, Eleonore H. M., Muylle, Merel, Szmalec, Arnaud & Duyck, Wouter (2017). The different time course of phonotactic constraint learning in children and adults: evidence from speech errors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 43, 1821.Google ScholarPubMed
Smith, J. David, Berg, Mark E., Cook, Robert G., Murphy, Matthew S., Crossley, Matthew J., Boomer, Joe, Spiering, Brian, Beran, Michael J., Church, Barbara A., Gregory Ashby, F. & Grace, Randolph C. (2012). Implicit and explicit categorization: a tale of four species. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 36, 2355–2369.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, J. David, Minda, John Paul & Washburn, David A. (2004). Category learning in rhesus monkeys: a study of the Shepard, Hovland, and Jenkins (1961) tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 133, 398–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, J. David, Zakrzewski, Alexandrial, Herberger, Eric R., Boomer, Joseph, Roeder, Jessica L., Gregory Ashby, F. & Church, Barbara A. (2015). The time course of explicit and implicit categorization. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 77, 2476–2490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, Nielson V. (1973). The acquisition of phonology: a case study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sprouse, Jon (2011). A validation of Amazon Mechanical Turk for the collection of acceptability judgements in linguistic theory. Behavior Research Methods 43, 155–167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, Conrad F. & Houghton, George (2005). Learning artificial phonotactic constraints: time course, durability, and relationship to natural constraints. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 31, 1398–1416.Google ScholarPubMed
Thaker, Pratiksha, Tenenbaum, Joshua B. & Gershman, Samuel J. (2017). Online learning of symbolic concepts. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 77, 10–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, Ron I. & Derwing, Tracey M. (2015). The effectiveness of L2 pronunciation instruction: a narrative review. Applied Linguistics 36, 326–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trapman, Mirjam & Kager, René (2009). The acquisition of subset and superset phonotactic knowledge in a second language. Language Acquisition 16, 178–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tunney, Richard J. & Shanks, David R. (2003). Subjective measures of awareness and implicit cognition. Memory & Cognition 31, 1060–1071.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turk-Browne, Nicholas B., Isola, Phillip J., Scholl, Brian J. & Treat, Teresa A. (2008). The automaticity of visual statistical learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 34, 399–407.Google ScholarPubMed
Utulu, Don Chukwuemeka (2020). A description of some structures of (un)derived tones in Èwùlù nouns. European Journal of Literature, Language and Linguistics Studies 4, 36–51.Google Scholar
Vigo, Ronaldo (2009). Categorical invariance and structural complexity in human concept learning. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 50, 203–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wattenmaker, William D., McQuaid, Heather L. & Schwertz, Stephanie J. (1995). Analogical versus rule-based classification. Memory and Cognition 23, 495–509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wegscheid, Douglas E., Schertler, Roderick, Hietaniemi, Jarkko & Aas, Gisle (2015). Time::HiRes: high resolution alarm, sleep, gettimeofday, interval timers. Perl module. Published online at https://metacpan.org/pod/Time::HiRes.Google Scholar
White, Peter A. (1988). Knowing more about what we can tell: ‘introspective access’ and causal report accuracy 10 years later. British Journal of Psychology 79, 13–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Rick L. (2000). A note on robust variance estimation for cluster-correlated data. Biometrics 56, 645–646.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zager, Laura A. & Verghese, George C. (2007). Caps and robbers: what can you expect? The College Mathematics Journal 38, 185–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zellers, Margaret, Post, Brechtje & Williams, John (2011). Implicit learning of lexical stress patterns. In Online proceedings of the ICPhS XVII. London: International Phonetic Association, 2260–2263.Google Scholar
Zettersten, Martin & Lupyan, Gary (2020). Finding categories through words: more nameable features improve category learning. Cognition 196, 104–135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, Jie & Lai, Yuwen (2010). Testing the role of phonetic knowledge in Mandarin tone sandhi. Phonology 27, 153–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zubin, David A. & Köpcke, Klaus-Michael (1984). Sechs Prinzipien für die Genuszuweisung im Deutschen: ein Beitrag zur natürlichen Klassifikation. Linguistische Berichte 93, 26–50.Google Scholar