Aalberse, Suzanne. 2009. Inflectional economy and politeness: Morphology-internal and morphology-external factors in the loss of second person marking in Dutch. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar

Abner, Natasha, Flaherty, Molly, Stangl, Katelyn, Coppola, Marie, and Brentari, Diane. 2019. The noun-verb distinction in established and emergent sign languages. Language 95(2): 230–267.Google Scholar

Ackerman, Farrell, Blevins, James P., and Malouf, Robert. 2009. Parts and wholes: Implicative patterns in inflectional paradigms. In Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition, edited by Blevins, James P. and Blevins, Juliette, 54–81. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ackerman, Farrell and Malouf, Robert. 2013. Morphological organization: The low conditional entropy conjecture. Language 89: 429–464.Google Scholar

Ackerman, Farrell, Malouf, Robert, and Blevins, James P.. 2016. Patterns and discriminability in language analysis. Word Structure 9: 132–155.Google Scholar

Ackerman, Farrell and Nikolaeva, Irina. 2014. Descriptive typology and linguistic theory: A study in the morphosyntax of relative clauses. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar

Adelman, James S., Brown, Gordon D.A., and Quesada, José F.. 2006. Contextual diversity, not word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision times. Psychological Science 17(9): 814–823.Google Scholar

Albright, Adam and Hayes, Bruce. 2002. Modeling English past tense intuitions with minimal generalization. In Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics Special Interest Group in Computational Morphology and Phonology, edited by Maxwell, Michael, 58–69. Cambridge, MA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Albright, Adam and Hayes, Bruce. 2006. Modeling productivity with the gradual learning algorithm: The problem of accidentally exceptionless generalizations. In Gradience in grammar: Generative perspectives, edited by Fanselow, Gisbert, Féry, Caroline, Vogel, Ralf, and Schlesewsky, Matthias, 185–204. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Allopenna, Paul D., Magnuson, James S., and Tanenhaus, Michael K.. 1998. Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language 38(4): 419–439.Google Scholar

Ambridge, Ben, Pine, Julian M., and Lieven, Elena. 2014. Child language acquisition: Why universal grammar doesn’t help. Language 90(3): e53–e90.Google Scholar

Amenta, Simona and Crepaldi, Davide. 2012. Morphological processing as we know it: An analytical review of morphological effects in visual word identification. Frontiers in Psychology 3(232): 1–12. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00232Google Scholar

Amenta, Simona, Crepaldi, Davide, and Marelli, Marco. 2020. Consistency measures individuate dissociating semantic modulations in priming paradigms: A new look on semantics in the processing of (complex) words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 73(10): 1546–1563.Google Scholar

Amundson, Ron. 1996. Historical development of the concept of adaptation. In Adaptation, edited by Rose, Michael R. and Lauder, George V., 11–53. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Amundson, Ron. 2005. The changing role of the embryo in evolutionary thought: Roots of evo-devo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andrews, Sally. 2013. Is morphological priming stronger for transparent than opaque words? It depends on individual differences in spelling and vocabulary. Journal of Memory and Language 68(3): 279–296.Google Scholar

Andrews, Sally and Davis, Colin. 1999. Interactive activation accounts of morphological decomposition: Finding the trap in mousetrap? Brain and Language 68(1): 355–361.Google Scholar

Anshen, Frank and Aronoff, Mark. 1981. Morphological productivity and phonological transparency. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique 26(1): 63–72.Google Scholar

Aquilina, Joseph. 1990. Maltese–English dictionary. Valletta, Malta: Midsea Books.Google Scholar

Arnold, Denis, Tomaschek, Fabian, Sering, Konstantin, Lopez, Florence, and Baayen, R. Harald. 2017. Words from spontaneous conversational speech can be recognized with human-like accuracy by an error-driven learning algorithm that discriminates between meanings straight from smart acoustic features, bypassing the phoneme as recognition unit. PloS ONE 12(4): Article e0174623.Google Scholar

Arnon, Inbal and Ramscar, Michael. 2012. Granularity and the acquisition of grammatical gender: How order-of-acquisition affects what gets learned. Cognition 122(3): 292–305.Google Scholar

Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Arppe, Antti, Hendrix, Peter, Milin, Petar, Baayen, R. Harald, Sering, Tino, and Shaoul, Cyrus. 2015. ndl: Naive discriminative learning. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ndlGoogle Scholar

Arthur, Wallace. 2004. Biased embryos and evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Aylett, Matthew and Turk, Alice. 2004. The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech 47(1): 31–56.Google Scholar

Aylett, Matthew and Turk, Alice. 2006. Language redundancy predicts syllabic duration and the spectral characteristics of vocalic syllable nuclei. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119(5): 3048–3058.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Baayen, R. Harald. 1993. On frequency, transparency and productivity. In Yearbook of morphology 1992, edited by Booij, Geert and van Marle, Jaap, 181–208. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald. 2001. Word frequency distributions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald. 2009. Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In Corpus linguistics: An international handbook, vol. 2, edited by Lüdeling, Anke and Kytö, Merja, 899–919. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald, Chuang, Yu-Ying, Shafaei-Bajestan, Elnaz, and Blevins, James P.. 2019. The discriminative lexicon: A unified computational model for the lexicon and lexical processing in comprehension and production grounded not in (de)composition but in linear discriminative learning. Complexity (2019): 1–39.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald, Dijkstra, Ton, and Schreuder, Robert. 1997. Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual route model. Journal of Memory and Language 36: 94–117.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald and Hendrix, Peter. 2016. Two-layer networks, non-linear separation, and human learning. In From semantics to dialectometry, edited by Wieling, Martijn, Bouma, Gosse, and van Noord, Gertjan, 1–11. Groningen: University of Groningen.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald, Milin, Petar, Filipović Đurđević, Dušica, Hendrix, Peter, and Marelli, Marco. 2011. An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological Review 118(3): 438–481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Baayen, R. Harald, Piepenbrock, Richard, and Gulikers, Leon. 1995. The CELEX Lexical Database (Release 2) [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium; distr., University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald and Ramscar, Michael. 2015. Abstraction, storage and naive discriminative learning. In Handbook of cognitive linguistics, edited by Dąbrowska, Ewa and Divjak, Dagmar, 100–119. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald and Schreuder, Robert. 1999. War and peace: Morphemes and full forms in a noninteractive activation parallel dual-route model. Brain and Language 68(1–2): 27–32.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald, Wurm, Lee H., and Aycock, Joanna. 2007. Lexical dynamics for low-frequency complex words: A regression study across tasks and modalities. The Mental Lexicon 2(3): 419–463.Google Scholar

Baerman, Matthew. 2016. Seri verb classes: Morphosyntactic motivation and morphological autonomy. Language 92(4): 792–823.Google Scholar

Baerman, Matthew, Brown, Dunstan, and Corbett, Greville G.. 2005. The syntax-morphology interface: A study of syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Baerman, Matthew, Brown, Dunstan, and Corbett, Greville G.. 2017. Morphological complexity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bailey, Todd M. and Hahn, Ulrike. 2001. Determinants of wordlikeness: Phonotactics or lexical neighborhoods? Journal of Memory and Language 44(4): 568–591.Google Scholar

Baker, C.L. 1979. Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry 10(4): 533–581.Google Scholar

Baker, Mark. 2001. Atoms of language: The mind’s hidden rules of grammar. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Baker, Mark. 2008. The macroparameter in a microparametric world. In The limits of syntactic variation, edited by Biberauer, Theresa, 351–373. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Baker, Mark and McCloskey, Jim. 2007. On the relationship of typology to theoretical syntax. Linguistic Typology 11(1): 285–296.Google Scholar

Balling, Laura Winther and Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Morphological effects in auditory word recognition: Evidence from Danish. Language and Cognitive Processes 23(7–8): 1159–1190.Google Scholar

Balota, David A. and Chumbley, James I.. 1984. Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 10(3): 340–357.Google Scholar

Barr, Dale J., Levy, Roger, Scheepers, Christoph, and Tily, Harry J.. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68(3): 255–278.Google Scholar

Bat-El, Outi. 1994. Stem modification and cluster transfer in Modern Hebrew. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 12(4): 571–596.Google Scholar

Bat-El, Outi. 2003a. The fate of the consonantal root and the binyan Optimality Theory. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes 32(1): 31–60.Google Scholar

Bat-El, Outi. 2003b. Semitic verb structure within a universal perspective. Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 28: 29–60.Google Scholar

Bates, Douglas, Mächler, Martin, Bolker, Benjamin M., and Walker, Steve C.. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1): 1–48.Google Scholar

Bates, Elizabeth, Devescovi, Antonella, and Wulfeck, Beverly. 2001. Psycholinguistics: A cross-language perspective. Annual Review of Psychology 52: 369–396.Google Scholar

Bates, Elizabeth and MacWhinney, Brian. 1987. Competition, variation, and language learning. In Mechanisms of language acquisition, edited by MacWhinney, Brian, 157–194. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English word formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bauer, Laurie. 1988. A descriptive gap in morphology. In Yearbook of morphology 1998, edited by Booij, Geert and van Marle, Jaap, 17–27. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Bauer, Laurie. 2001. Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bauer, Laurie, Lieber, Rochelle, and Plag, Ingo. 2013. The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Beckner, Clay and Bybee, Joan L.. 2009. A usage-based account of constituency and reanalysis. Language Learning 59(1): 27–46.Google Scholar

Beniamine, Sacha, Bonami, Olivier, and Sagot, Benoît. 2018. Inferring inflection classes with description length. Journal of Language Modelling 5(3): 465–525.Google Scholar

Bentz, Christian. 2018. Adaptive languages: An information-theoretic account of linguistic diversity. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Berent, Iris, Vaknin, Vered, and Marcus, Gary F.. 2007. Roots, stems, and the universality of lexical representations: Evidence from Hebrew. Cognition 104(2): 254–286.Google Scholar

Bergen, Benjamin K. 2004. The psychological reality of phonaesthemes. Language 80(2): 290–311.Google Scholar

Berrebi, Si. 2017. The roots of consonant bias: A psycholinguistic study of phonological facilitation in Hebrew. M.A. thesis, Tel-Aviv University.Google Scholar

Bertram, Raymond, Baayen, R. Harald, and Schreuder, Robert. 2000a. Effects of family size for complex words. Journal of Memory and Language 42(3): 390–405.Google Scholar

Bertram, Raymond, Hyönä, Jukka, and Laine, Matti. 2000b. The role of context in morphological processing: Evidence from Finnish. Language and Cognitive Processes 15(4–5): 367–388.Google Scholar

Bertram, Raymond, Laine, Matti, and Karvinen, Katja. 1999. The interplay of word formation type, affixal homonymy, and productivity in lexical processing: Evidence from a morphologically rich language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28(3): 213–226.Google Scholar

Bertram, Raymond, Pollatsek, Alexander, and Hyönä, Jukka. 2004. Morphological parsing and the use of segmentation cues in reading Finnish compounds. Journal of Memory and Language 51(3): 325–345.Google Scholar

Bertram, Raymond, Schreuder, Robert, and Baayen, R. Harald. 2000c. The balance of storage and computation in morphological processing: The role of word formation type, affixal homonymy and productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 26(2): 489–511.Google Scholar

Beyersmann, Elisabeth, Casalis, Séverine, Ziegler, Johannes C., and Grainger, Jonathan. 2015. Language proficiency and morpho-orthographic segmentation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 22(4): 1054–1061.Google Scholar

Beyersmann, Elisabeth, Cavalli, Eddy, Casalis, Séverine, and Colé, Pascale. 2016. Embedded stem priming effects in prefixed and suffixed pseudowords. Scientific Studies of Reading 20(3): 220–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bick, Atira S., Goelman, Gadi, and Frost, Ram. 2011. Hebrew brain vs. English brain: Language modulates the way it is processed. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 23(9): 2280–2290.Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar. 2007. Typology in the 21st century: Major current developments. Linguistic Typology 11(1): 239–251.Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar. 2015. Distributional typology: Statistical inquiries into the dynamics of linguistic diversity. In Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, edited by Heine, Bernd and Narrog, Heiko, 901–924. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar and Nichols, Johanna. 2007. Inflectional morphology. In Language typology and syntactic description, 2nd ed., edited by Shopen, Timothy, 169–240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bilgin, Orhan. 2016. Frequency effects in the processing of morphologically complex Turkish words. M.A. thesis, Boğaziçi University.Google Scholar

Bird, Steven, Klein, Ewan, and Loper, Edward. 2009. Natural language processing with Python. Beijing: O’Reilly Media Inc.Google Scholar

Blevins, James P. 2016. Word and paradigm morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Blevins, James P., Ackerman, Farrell, Malouf, Rob, and Ramscar, Michael. 2016. Morphology as an adaptive discriminative system. In Morphological metatheory, edited by Siddiqi, Daniel and Harley, Heidi, 271–302. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Blythe, Richard A. and Croft, William. 2012. S-curves and the mechanisms of propagation in language change. Language 88(2): 269–304.Google Scholar

Blythe, Richard A. and Croft, William. 2021. How individuals change language. PLoS ONE 16(6): Article e0252582. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252582Google Scholar

Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. Missing persons: A case study in morphological universals. Linguistic Review 25(1–2): 203–230.Google Scholar

Bochner, Harry. 1992. Simplicity in generative morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Boersma, Paul and Weenink, David. 2017. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [computer program]. Available online: http://www.praat.org/Google Scholar

Bolozky, Shmuel. 1999. Measuring productivity in word formation: The case of Israeli Hebrew. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Bonami, Olivier and Beniamine, Sacha. 2016. Joint predictiveness in inflectional paradigms. Word Structure 9(2): 156–182.Google Scholar

Bonami, Olivier and Henri, Fabiola. 2010. Assessing empirically the inflectional complexity of Mauritian Creole. Paper presented at Formal Aspects of Creole Studies II, Berlin, November 9, 2010.Google Scholar

Bonami, Olivier, McDonough, Joyce, and Beniamine, Sacha. 2019. When segmentation helps: Implicative structure and morph boundaries in the Navajo verb. MS, Université de Paris and Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History.Google Scholar

Bonami, Olivier and Strnadová, Jana. 2019. Paradigm structure and predictability in derivational morphology. Morphology 29: 167–197.Google Scholar

Booij, Geert. 2005. The grammar of words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Boudelaa, Sami and Marslen-Wilson, William D.. 2000. Non-concatenative morphemes in language processing: Evidence from Modern Standard Arabic. In Proceedings of the workshop on spoken word access processes, edited by Cutler, Anne, McQueen, James M., and Zondervan, Rian, 23–26. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar

Boudelaa, Sami and Marslen-Wilson, William D.. 2004. Allomorphic variation in Arabic: Implications for lexical processing and representation. Brain and Language 90(1): 106–116.Google Scholar

Boudelaa, Sami and Marslen-Wilson, William D.. 2005. Discontinuous morphology in time: Incremental masked priming in Arabic. Language and Cognitive Processes 20(1–2): 207–260.Google Scholar

Boudelaa, Sami and Marslen-Wilson, William D.. 2011. Productivity and priming: Morphemic decomposition in Arabic. Language and Cognitive Processes 26(4–6): 624–652.Google Scholar

Boudelaa, Sami and Marslen-Wilson, William D.. 2015. Structure, form, and meaning in the mental lexicon: Evidence from Arabic. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30(8): 955–992.Google Scholar

Bouton, Mark E. 2007. Learning and behavior: A contemporary synthesis. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar

Bozic, Mirjana and Marslen-Wilson, William D.. 2010. Neurocognitive contexts for morphological complexity: Dissociating inflection and derivation. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(11): 1063–1073.Google Scholar

Bozic, Mirjana, Szlachta, Zanna, and Marslen-Wilson, William D.. 2013. Cross-linguistic parallels in processing derivational morphology: Evidence from Polish. Brain and Language 127(3): 533–538.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bradley, Dianne. 1980. Lexical representation of derivational relation. In Juncture: A collection of original papers, edited by Aronoff, Mark and Kean, Mary-Louise, 37–55. Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri.Google Scholar

Braine, Martin D.S. 1987. What is learned in acquiring word classes – a step toward an acquisition theory. In Mechanisms of language acquisition, edited by MacWhinney, Brian, 65–87. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Brincat, Joseph M. 1996. Maltese words. An etymological analysis of the Maltese lexicon. In Romania Arabica: Festschrift für Reinhold Kontzi zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by Lüdke, Jens, 111–116. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar

Brooks, Patricia J., Braine, Martin D.S., Catalano, Lisa, and Brody, Ruth E.. 1993. Acquisition of gender-like noun subclasses in an artificial language: The contribution of phonological markers to learning. Journal of Memory and Language 32: 76–95.Google Scholar

Brooks, Patricia J., Kwoka, Nicole, and Kempe, Vera. 2017. Distributional effects and individual differences in L2 morphology learning. Language Learning 67: 171–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, Dunstan and Hippisley, Andrew. 2012. Network morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brown, Roger and Hanlon, Camille. 1970. Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In Cognition and the development of language, edited by Hayes, John R., 11–53. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Burani, Cristina and Caramazza, Alfonso. 1987. Representation and processing of derived words. Language and Cognitive Processes 2(3–4): 217–227.Google Scholar

Burani, Cristina, Salmaso, Dario, and Caramazza, Alfonso. 1984. Morphological structure and lexical access. Visible Language 18(4): 342–352.Google Scholar

Burkett, David and Griffiths, Thomas L.. 2010. Iterated learning of multiple languages from multiple teachers. In The evolution of language: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference (EVOLANG8), Utrecht, Netherlands, 14–17 April 2010, edited by Smith, Andrew D.M., Schouwstra, Marieke, de Boer, Bart, and Smith, Kenny, 58–65. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 1988a. Morphology as lexical organization. In Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics, edited by Hammond, Michael and Noonan, Michael, 119–141. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 1988b. Semantic substance vs. contrast in the development of grammatical meaning. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, edited by Axmaker, Shelley, Jaisser, Annie, and Singmaster, Helen, 247–264. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 1995a. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10(5): 425–455.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 1995b. Diachronic and typological properties of morphology and their implications for representation. In Morphological aspects of language processing, edited by Feldman, Laurie Beth, 225–246. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2003. Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In The new psychology of language, vol. 2, edited by Tomasello, Michael, 159–182. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4): 711–733.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2008. Formal universals as emergent phenomena: The origins of structure preservation. In Linguistic universals and language change, edited by Good, Jeff, 108–121. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan and Hopper, Paul J., eds. 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan and Newman, Jean E.. 1995. Are stem changes as natural as affixes? Linguistics 33: 633–654.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan and Pagliuca, William. 1987. The evolution of future meaning. In Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, edited by Giacalone Ramat, Anna, Carruba, Onofrio, and Bernini, Giuliano, 109–122. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere, and Pagliuca, William. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan and Slobin, Dan I.. 1982. Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language 58(2): 265–289.Google Scholar

Caballero, Gabriela. 2008. Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara) phonology and morphology. Ph.D. thesis, University of California Berkeley.Google Scholar

Caballero, Gabriela. 2009. Choguita Rarámuri description and documentation. London: SOAS, Endangered Languages Archive. Available online: http://elar.soas.ac.uk/deposit/0056Google Scholar

Caballero, Gabriela. 2017. Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara) language description and documentation: A guide to the deposited collection and associated materials. Language Documentation and Conservation 11: 224–255.Google Scholar

Caballero, Gabriela and Inkelas, Sharon. 2013. Word construction: Tracing an optimal path through the lexicon. Morphology 23(2): 103–143.Google Scholar

Caballero, Gabriela and Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. 2015. Perceptual functionality of morphological redundancy in Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara). Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30: 1134–1143.Google Scholar

Cantineau, Jean. 1950. La notion de “scheme” et son altération dans diverses langues sémitiques. Semitica 3: 73–83.Google Scholar

Caramazza, Alfonso, Laudanna, Alessandro, and Romani, Cristina. 1988. Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition 28(3): 297–332.Google Scholar

Carstairs, Andrew. 1983. Paradigm economy. Journal of Linguistics 19: 115–125.Google Scholar

Casaus, Michael. 2008. Quantitative ethnobotany and acculturation among the Rarámuri of Choguita, Chihuahua, México. MS.Google Scholar

Chaparro Gardea, Rosa Isela, Holguín, Sebastián Fuentes, Loya, Bertha Fuentes, Moreno, Guillermina Fuentes, Palma, Giltro Fuentes, Ramírez, Luz Elena León, Caballero, Gabriela, and Carroll, Lucien. 2019. Materials of the Choguita Rarámuri Language Project, SCL 2019-01. In Survey of California and other Indian languages. Berkeley, CA: Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley. Available online: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.7297/X2HH6H70Google Scholar

Chialant, Doriana and Caramazza, Alfonso. 1995. Where is morphology and how is it processed? The case of written word recognition. In Morphological aspects of language processing, edited by Feldman, Laurie Beth, 55–76. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1980. Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2011. Language and other cognitive systems: What is special about language? Language Learning and Development 7(4): 263–278.Google Scholar

Chouinard, Michelle M. and Clark, Eve V.. 2003. Adult reformulations of child errors as negative evidence. Journal of Child Language 30(3): 637–669.Google Scholar

Cinque, Guglielmo. 2013. Cognition, universal grammar, and typological generalizations. Lingua 130: 50–65.Google Scholar

Clahsen, Harald. 1999. Lexical entries and rules of language: A multidisciplinary study of German inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(6): 991–1013.Google Scholar

Clahsen, Harald. 2006. Dual-mechanism morphology. In Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd ed., edited by Brown, Keith, 1–5. Oxford: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/04252-8Google Scholar

Cohen, Jonathan D., MacWhinney, Brian, Flatt, Matthew, and Provost, Jefferson. 1993. PsyScope: A new graphic interactive environment for designing psychology experiments. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 25: 257–271.Google Scholar

Cohen, Marcel. 1951. Langues chamito-sémitiques et linguistique historique. Scientia 86: 304–310.Google Scholar

Cohen Priva, Uriel. 2015. Informativity affects consonant duration and deletion rates. Laboratory Phonology 6(2): 243–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cohen Priva, Uriel. 2017. Informativity and the actuation of lenition. Language 93(3): 569–597.Google Scholar

Colé, Pascale, Beauvillain, Cécile, and Seguí, Juan Pacheco. 1989. On the representation and processing of prefixed and suffixed derived words: A differential frequency effect. Journal of Memory and Language 28(1): 1–13.Google Scholar

Coleman, John and Pierrehumbert, Janet B.. 1997. Stochastic phonological grammars and acceptability. In Computational phonology: 3rd Meeting of the ACL Special Interest Group in Computational Phonology: Proceedings of a workshop sponsored by the Association for Computational Linguistics, edited by Coleman, John, 49–56. Somerset, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Coltheart, Max, Davelaar, Eileen, Jonasson, Jon Torfi, and Besner, Derek. 1977. Access to the internal lexicon. In Attention and performance VI: Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Attention and Performance, Stockholm, Sweden, July 28–August 1, 1975, edited by Dornič, Stanislav, 535–555. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Conklin, Kathy and Schmitt, Norbert. 2012. The processing of formulaic language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32: 45–61.Google Scholar

Connine, Cynthia M., Blasko, Dawn G., and Titone, Debra. 1993. Do the beginnings of spoken words have a special status in auditory word recognition? Journal of Memory and Language 32(2): 193–210.Google Scholar

Connine, Cynthia M., Mullennix, John, Shernoff, Eve, and Yelen, Jennifer. 1990. Word familiarity and frequency in visual and auditory word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 16(6): 1084–1096.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville G., Hippisley, Andrew, Brown, Dunstan, and Marriott, Paul. 2001. Frequency, regularity and the paradigm: A perspective from Russian on a complex relation. In Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, edited by Bybee, Joan and Hopper, Paul J., 201–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Corning, Peter. 2018. Synergistic selection: How cooperation has shaped evolution and the rise of humankind. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific.Google Scholar

Cotterell, Ryan, Kirov, Christo, Hulden, Mans, and Eisner, Jason. 2018. On the diachronic stability of irregularity in inflectional morphology. MS, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich and Johns Hopkins University. Available online: https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.08262Google Scholar

Cover, Thomas M. and Thomas, Joy A.. 2006. Elements of information theory, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar

Crepaldi, Davide, Rastle, Kathleen, Coltheart, Max, and Nickels, Lyndsey. 2010. ‘Fell’ primes ‘fall’, but does ‘bell’ prime ‘ball’? Masked priming with irregularly-inflected primes. Journal of Memory and Language 63(1): 83–99.Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2002. Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Culbertson, Jennifer. 2012. Typological universals as reflections of biased learning: Evidence from artificial language learning. Language and Linguistics Compass 6: 310–329.Google Scholar

Culbertson, Jennifer, Gagliardi, Annie, and Smith, Kenny. 2017. Competition between phonological and semantic cues in noun class learning. Journal of Memory and Language 92: 343–358.Google Scholar

Culbertson, Jennifer and Newport, Elissa L.. 2015. Harmonic biases in child learners: In support of language universals. Cognition 139: 71–82.Google Scholar

Culbertson, Jennifer, Smolensky, Paul, and Legendre, Géraldine. 2012. Learning biases predict a word order universal. Cognition 122: 306–329.Google Scholar

Cutler, Anne. 2009. Psycholinguistics in our time. In Inside psychology: A science over 50 years, edited by Rabbitt, Pat, 91–101. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cutler, Anne, Mehler, Jacques, Norris, Dennis, and Segui, Juan. 1983. A language-specific comprehension strategy. Nature 304 (5922): 159–160.Google Scholar

Cysouw, Michael. 2011a. Quantitative explorations of the worldwide distribution of rare characteristics, or: the exceptionality of northwestern European languages. In Expecting the unexpected: Exceptions in grammar, edited by Simon, Horst J. and Wiese, Heike, 411–432. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Cysouw, Michael. 2011b. Some more details about the definition of rarity. In Expecting the unexpected: Exceptions in grammar, edited by Simon, Horst J. and Wiese, Heike, 437–442. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Cysouw, Michael and Wohlgemuth, Jan. 2010. The other end of universals: Theory and typology of rara. In Rethinking universals: How rarities affect linguistic theory, edited by Wohlgemuth, Jan and Cysouw, Michael, 1–10. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Dahl, Östen. 2011. Remarks on rarity. In Expecting the unexpected: Exceptions in grammar, edited by Simon, Horst J. and Wiese, Heike, 433–436. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Daland, Robert. 2015. Long words in maximum entropy phonotactic grammars. Phonology 32(3): 353–383.Google Scholar

Daland, Robert, Sims, Andrea D., and Pierrehumbert, Janet B.. 2007. Much ado about nothing: A social network model of Russian paradigmatic gaps. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics in Prague, Czech Republic, June 24th–29th, 2007, edited by Zaenen, Annie and van den Bosch, Antal, 936–943. Prague: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Dale, Rick and Lupyan, Gary. 2011. Understanding the origins of morphological diversity: The Linguistic Niche Hypothesis. Advances in Complex Systems 15(3–4): Article 1150017. doi: 10.1142/S0219525911500172Google Scholar

Dangerfield, Karl. 2011. Iterated learning of language distributions. M.A. thesis, The University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar

Danks, David. 2003. Equilibria of the Rescorla-Wagner model. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 47(2): 109–121.Google Scholar

Darcy, Isabelle, Peperkamp, Sharon, and Dupoux, Emmanuel. 2007. Bilinguals play by the rules: Perceptual compensation for assimilation in late L2-learners. Laboratory Phonology 9: 411–442.Google Scholar

Davies, Mark. 2008. The corpus of contemporary American English (COCA): 600 million words, 1990-present. Available online: http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/Google Scholar

Davis, Matthew H. and Rastle, Kathleen. 2010. Form and meaning in early morphological processing: Comment on Feldman, O’Connor and Moscoso del Prado Martín. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 17: 749–755.Google Scholar

Davis, Stuart and Zawaydeh, Bushra Adnan. 2001. Arabic hypocoristics and the status of the consonantal root. Linguistic Inquiry 32(3): 512–520.Google Scholar

Dawson, Michael R.W. 2008. Connectionism and classical conditioning. Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews 3: 1–115.Google Scholar

De Jong, Nivja H., Schreuder, Robert, and Baayen, R. Harald. 2000. The morphological family size effect and morphology. Language and Cognitive Processes 15(4–5): 329–365.Google Scholar

de Smet, Hendrik. 2016. The root of ruthless: Individual variation as a window on mental representation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 21(2): 250–271.Google Scholar

Demetras, M.J., Post, Kathryn Nolan, and Snow, Catherine E.. 1986. Feedback to first language learners: The role of repetitions and clarification questions. Journal of Child Language 13(2): 275–292.Google Scholar

Deutsch, Avital, Frost, Ram, and Forster, Kenneth. 1998. Verbs and nouns are organized and accessed differently in the mental lexicon: Evidence from Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 24(5): 1238–1255.Google Scholar

Deutsch, Avital, Frost, Ram, Pelleg, Sharon, Pollatsek, Alexander, and Rayner, Keith. 2003. Early morphological effects in reading: Evidence from parafoveal preview benefit in Hebrew. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 10: 415–422.Google Scholar

Deutsch, Avital, Frost, Ram, Pollatsek, Alexander, and Rayner, Keith. 2005. Morphological parafoveal preview benefit effects in reading: Evidence from Hebrew. Language and Cognitive Processes 20(1): 341–371.Google Scholar

Deutsch, Avital and Kuperman, Victor. 2019. Formal and semantic effects of morphological families on word recognition in Hebrew. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 34(1): 87–100.Google Scholar

Deutsch, Avital, Velan, Hadas, Merzbach, Yiska, and Michaly, Tamar. 2021. The dependence of root extraction in a non-concatenated morphology on the word-specific orthographic context. Journal of Memory and Language 116: Article 104182. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2020.104182Google Scholar

Dixon, R.M.W. 2014. Making new words: Morphological derivation in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dominguez, Alberto, Segui, Juan, and Cuetos, Fernando. 2002. The time-course of inflexional morphological priming. Linguistics 40(2): 235–259.Google Scholar

Dowman, Mike, Kirby, Simon, and Griffiths, Thomas L.. 2006. Innateness and culture in the evolution of language. In The evolution of language: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on the Evolution of Language, edited by Cangelosi, Angelo, Smith, Andrew D.M., and Smith, Kenny, 230–238. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific.Google Scholar

Drake, Shiloh. 2018. The form and productivity of the Maltese morphological diminutive. Morphology 28: 297–323.Google Scholar

Driem, George van. 1987. A grammar of Limbu. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Dryer, Matthew S. 1998. Why statistical universals are better than absolute universals. In Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 33: The panels, edited by Singer, Kora, Eggert, Randall, and Anderson, Gregory D.S., 123–145. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin. 2013. The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online: https://wals.info/Google Scholar

Durrant, Philip. 2013. Formulaicity in an agglutinating language: The case of Turkish. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 9(1): 1–38.Google Scholar

Duval, Sue. 2005. The trim and fill method. In Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments, edited by Rothstein, Hannah R., Sutton, Alexander J., and Borenstein, Michael, 127–144. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar

Duval, Sue and Tweedie, Richard. 2000a. Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 56(2): 455–463.Google Scholar

Duval, Sue and Tweedie, Richard. 2000b. A nonparametric “trim and fill” method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association 95: 89–98.Google Scholar

Dye, Melody, Milin, Petar, Futrell, Richard, and Ramscar, Michael. 2017. A functional theory of gender paradigms. In Perspectives on morphological organization: Data and analyses, edited by Kiefer, Ferenc, Blevins, James P., and Bartos, Huba, 212–239. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Edwards, Jan, Beckman, Mary E., and Munson, Benjamin. 2004. The interaction between vocabulary size and phonotactic probability effects on children’s production accuracy and fluency in nonword repetition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47(2): 421–436.Google Scholar

Ehala, Martin. 1996. Self-organisation and language change. Diachronica 13(1): 1–28.Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 1996. Working memory in the acquisition of vocabulary and syntax: Putting language in good order. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 49(1): 234–250.Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. and Sagarra, Nuria. 2010. Learned attention effects in L2 temporal reference: The first hour and the next eight semesters. Language Learning 60: 85–108.Google Scholar

Elman, Jeffrey L., Bates, Elizabeth A., Johnson, Mark, Karmiloff-Smith, Annette, Parisi, Domenico, and Plunkett, Kim. 1996. Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Elsner, Micha, Sims, Andrea D., Erdmann, Alex, Hernandez, Antonio, Jaffe, Evan, Jin, Lifeng, Johnson, Martha Booker, Karim, Shuan, King, David, Lamberti Nunes, Luana, Oh, Byung-Doh, Rasmussen, Nathan, Shain, Cory, Antetomaso, Stephanie, Dickinson, Kendra, Diewald, Noah, McKenzie, Michelle, and Stevens-Guille, Symon. 2019. Modeling morphological learning, typology, and change: What can the neural sequence-to-sequence framework contribute? Journal of Language Modelling 7(1): 125–170.Google Scholar

Embick, David. 2015. The morpheme: A theoretical introduction. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Emmorey, Karen D. 1989. Auditory morphological priming in the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 4(2): 73–92.Google Scholar

Esper, Erwin A. 1925. A technique for the experimental investigation of associative interference in artificial linguistic material. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar

Esper, Erwin A. 1966. Social transmission of an artificial language. Language 42: 575–580.Google Scholar

Evans, Nicholas and Levinson, Stephen C.. 2009a. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(5): 429–448.Google Scholar

Evans, Nicholas and Levinson, Stephen C.. 2009b. With diversity in mind: Freeing the language sciences from Universal Grammar. Behavior and Brain Sciences 32(5): 472–484.Google Scholar

Ez-Zizi, Adnane, Divjak, Dagmar, and Milin, Petar. 2021. Error-correction mechanisms in language learning: Tracking individual differences. Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Error-Driven Learning in Language, Tübingen, Germany.Google Scholar

Fabb, Nigel. 1988. English suffixation is constrained only by selectional restrictions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6(4): 527–539.Google Scholar

Fabri, Ray. 2009. Stem allomorphy in the Maltese verb. Ilsienna-Our Language 1(2009): 1–20.Google Scholar

Farhy, Yael and Veríssimo, João. 2019. Semantic effects in morphological priming: The case of Hebrew stems. Language and Speech 62: 737–750.Google Scholar

Farhy, Yael, Veríssimo, João, and Clahsen, Harald. 2018. Universal and particular in morphological processing: Evidence from Hebrew. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 71(5): 1125–1133.Google Scholar

Faruqui, Manaal, Tsvetkov, Yulia, Neubig, Graham, and Dyer, Chris. 2016. Morphological inflection generation using character sequence to sequence learning. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL HLT 2016), edited by Knight, Kevin, 634–643. Cambridge, MA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Fedzechkina, Maryia, Jaeger, T. Florian, and Newport, Elissa L.. 2012. Language learners restructure their input to facilitate efficient communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(44): 17897–17902.Google Scholar

Fedzechkina, Maryia, Newport, Elissa L., and Jaeger, T. Florian. 2016. The miniature artificial language learning paradigm as a complement to typological data. In The usage-based study of language learning and multilingualism, edited by Ortega, Lourdes, Tyler, Andrea, Park, Hae In, and Uno, Marika, 211–232. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Fedzechkina, Maryia, Newport, Elissa L., and Jaeger, T. Florian. 2017. Balancing effort and information transmission during language acquisition: Evidence from word order and case marking. Cognitive Science 41(2): 416–446.Google Scholar

Feldman, Laurie Beth. 2000. Are morphological effects distinguishable from the effects of shared meaning and shared form? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 26: 1431–1444.Google Scholar

Feldman, Laurie Beth, Barac-Cikoja, Dragana, and Kostić, Aleksandar. 2002. Semantic aspects of morphological processing: Transparency effects in Serbian. Memory and Cognition 30(4): 629–636.Google Scholar

Feldman, Laurie Beth, Kostić, Aleksandar, Gvozdenović, Vasilije, O’Connor, Patrick A., and Moscoso del Prado Martín, Fermín. 2010. Semantic similarity influences early morphological priming in Serbian: A challenge to form-then-meaning accounts of word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 19: 668–676.Google Scholar

Feldman, Laurie Beth and Larabee, Jeannine. 2001. Morphological facilitation following prefixed but not suffixed primes: Lexical architecture or modality-specific processes? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 27: 680–691.Google Scholar

Feldman, Laurie Beth, Milin, Petar, Cho, Kit W., Moscoso del Prado Martín, Fermín, and O’Connor, Patrick A.. 2015. Must analysis of meaning follow analysis of form? A time course analysis. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 9: Article 111. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00111Google Scholar

Feldman, Laurie Beth, O’Connor, Patrick A., and Moscoso del Prado Martín, Fermín. 2009. Early morphological processing is morpho-semantic and not simply morpho-orthographic: A violation of form-then-meaning accounts of word recognition. Psychological Bulletin and Review 16: 684–691.Google Scholar

Feldman, Laurie Beth and Pastizzo, Matthew J.. 2003. Morphological facilitation: The role of semantic transparency and family size. In Morphological structure in language processing, edited by Baayen, R. Harald and Schreuder, Robert, 233–258. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Feldman, Laurie Beth and Raveh, Michal. 2003. When degree of semantic similarity influences morphological processing. In Language processing and acquisition in languages of Semitic, root-based, morphology, edited by Shimron, Joseph, 187–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Feldman, Laurie Beth and Soltano, Emily G.. 1999. Morphological priming: The role of prime duration, semantic transparency and affix position. Brain and Language 68: 33–39.Google Scholar

Feldman, Laurie Beth, Soltano, Emily G., Pastizzo, Matthew J., and Francis, Sarah E.. 2004. What do graded effects of semantic transparency reveal about morphological processing? Brain and Language 90(1–3): 17–30.Google Scholar

Feller, William. 1950. An introduction to probability theory and its applications, vol. 2. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Ferrer i Cancho, Ramon and Solé, Ricard V.. 2003. Least effort and the origins of scaling in human language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100(3): 788–791.Google Scholar

Filipović Đurđević, Dušica, and Milin, Petar. 2019. Information and learning in processing adjective inflection. Cortex 116: 209–227.Google Scholar

FindingFive Team. 2019. FindingFive: A web platform for creating, running, and managing your studies in one place. FindingFive Corporation. Available online: www.findingfive.comGoogle Scholar

Finley, Sara. 2013. The effect of non-linguistic patterns on linguistic biases. In Cooperative minds: Social interaction and group dynamics: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, edited by Knauff, Markus, Pauen, Michael, Sebanz, Natalie, and Wachsmuth, Ipke, 2291–2296. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Finley, Sara. 2015. Learning nonadjacent dependencies in phonology: Transparent vowels in vowel harmony. Language 91: 48–72.Google Scholar

Finley, Sara and Badecker, William. 2007. Towards a substantively biased theory of learning. In Proceedings of the Thirty-third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session, edited by Crane, Thera, David, Oana, Fenton, Donna, Haynie, Hannah J., Katseff, Shira, Lee-Goldman, Russell, Fouvier, Ruth, and Yu, Dominic, 142–154. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

Finley, Sara and Badecker, William. 2009. Artificial language learning and feature-based generalization. Journal of Memory and Language 61: 423–437.Google Scholar

Finley, Sara and Christiansen, Morten H.. 2011. Multimodal transfer of repetition patterns in artificial grammar learning. In Expanding the space of cognitive science: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, edited by Carlson, Laura, Hoelscher, Christoph, and Shipley, Thomas F., 330–335. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Finley, Sara and Wiemers, Elizabeth. 2013. Rapid learning of morphological paradigms. In Cooperative minds: Social interaction and group dynamics: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, edited by Knauff, Markus, Pauen, Michael, Sebanz, Natalie, and Wachsmuth, Ipke, 442–447. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Finley, Sara and Wiemers, Elizabeth. 2015. Phonological and semantic consistency as cues for learning morphological systems. In Proceedings of the 32nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited by Steindl, Ulrike, 11–20. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar

Fitch, W. Tecumseh, Hauser, Marc D., and Chomsky, Noam. 2005. The evolution of the language faculty: Clarifications and implications. Cognition 97(2): 179–210.Google Scholar

Fodor, Janet D. and Crowther, Carrie. 2002. Understanding stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review 19(1–2): 105–145.Google Scholar

Folia, Vasiliki, Uddén, Julia, De Vries, Meinou, Forkstam, Christian, and Petersson, Karl Magnus. 2010. Artificial language learning in adults and children. Language Learning 60(2): 188–220.Google Scholar

Ford, M.A., Davis, M.H., and Marslen-Wilson, W.D.. 2010. Derivational morphology and base morpheme frequency. Journal of Memory and Language 63(1): 117–130.Google Scholar

Forster, Kenneth I. 1976. Accessing the mental lexicon. In New approaches to language mechanisms, edited by Wales, R.J. and Walker, Edward, 257–287. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Forster, Kenneth I. and Forster, Jonathan C.. 2003. DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 35(1): 116–124.Google Scholar

Forster, Kenneth I., Mohan, Kathleen, and Hector, Jo. 2003. The mechanics of masked priming. In Masked priming: The state of the art, edited by Kinoshita, Sachiko and Lupker, Stephen J., 3–37. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Forster, Kenneth I. and Taft, Marcus. 1994. Bodies, antibodies, and neighborhood-density effects in masked form priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20(4): 844–863.Google Scholar

Francom, Jerid, Woudstra, Dainon, and Ussishkin, Adam. 2009. Creating a web-based lexical corpus and information-extraction tools for the Semitic language Maltese. In Proceedings of the SEPLN-SALTMIL 2009 Workshop: Information Retrieval and Information Extraction for Less Resourced Languages, 9–16. Bilbao: University of the Basque Country.Google Scholar

Frauenfelder, Ulrich Hans and Schreuder, Robert. 1992. Constraining psycholinguistic models of morphological processing and representation: The role of productivity. In Yearbook of morphology 1991, edited by Booij, Geert and van Marle, Jaap, 165–183. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Frigo, Lenore and McDonald, Janet L.. 1998. Properties of phonological markers that affect the acquisition of gender-like subclasss. Journal of Memory and Language 39: 218–245.Google Scholar

Frisch, Stefan A. and Brea-Spahn, Maria R.. 2010. Metalinguistic judgments of phonotactics by monolinguals and bilinguals. Laboratory Phonology 1(2): 345–360.Google Scholar

Frisch, Stefan A., Large, Nathan R., and Pisoni, David B.. 2000. Perception of wordlikeness: Effects of segment probability and length on the processing of nonwords. Journal of Memory and Language 42(4): 481–496.Google Scholar

Frisch, Stefan A., Large, Nathan R., Zawaydeh, Bushra, and Pisoni, David B.. 2001. Emergent phonotactic generalizations in English and Arabic. Typological Studies in Language 45: 159–180.Google Scholar

Frisch, Stefan A., Pierrehumbert, Janet B., and Broe, Michael B.. 2004. Similarity avoidance and the OCP. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22(1): 179–228.Google Scholar

Frost, Ram, Deutsch, Avital, Gilboa, Orna, Tannenbaum, Michal, and Marslen-Wilson, William. 2000. Morphological priming: Dissociation of phonological, semantic, and morphological factors. Memory and Cognition 28(8): 1277–1288.Google Scholar

Frost, Ram, Forster, Kenneth I., and Deutsch, Avital. 1997. What can we learn from the morphology of Hebrew? A masked priming investigation of morphological representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 23(4): 829–856.Google Scholar

Frost, Ram and Grainger, Jonathan. 2000. Cross-linguistic perspectives on morphological processing: An introduction. Language and Cognitive Processes 15(4–5): 321–328.Google Scholar

Frost, Ram, Kugler, Tamar, Deutsch, Avital, and Forster, Kenneth I.. 2005. Orthographic structure versus morphological structure: Principles of lexical organization in a given language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 31(6): 1293–1326.Google Scholar

Futrell, Richard, Mahowald, Kyle, and Gibson, Edward. 2015. Large-scale evidence of dependency length minimization in 37 languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(33): 10336–10341.Google Scholar

Gahl, Susanne. 2008. Time and thyme are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language 84(3): 474–496.Google Scholar

Gaskell, M. Gareth and Marslen-Wilson, William D.. 1996. Phonological variation and inference in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 22(1): 144–158.Google Scholar

Gaskell, M. Gareth and Marslen-Wilson, William D.. 1997. Integrating form and meaning: A distributed model of speech perception. Language and Cognitive Processes 12(5–6): 613–656.Google Scholar

Geary, Jonathan and Ussishkin, Adam. 2018. Root-letter priming in Maltese visual word recognition. The Mental Lexicon 13: 1–25.Google Scholar

Geary, Jonathan and Ussishkin, Adam. 2019. Morphological priming without semantic relationship in Hebrew spoken word recognition. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 4(1): 1–10.Google Scholar

Genzel, Dmitriy and Charniak, Eugene. 2002. Entropy rate constancy in text. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Philadelphia, July 2002, edited by Isabelle, Pierre, Charniak, Eugene, and Lin, Dekang, 199–206. Philadelphia: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Giraudo, Hélène and Dal Maso, Serena. 2016. The salience of complex words and their parts: Which comes first? Frontiers in Psychology 7: Article 1778. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01778Google Scholar

Gobet, Fernand, Lane, Peter C.R., Croker, Steve, Cheng, Peter C.-H., Jones, Gary, Oliver, Iain, and Pine, Julian M.. 2001. Chunking mechanisms in human learning. Trends in Cognitive Science 5(6): 236–243.Google Scholar

Goh, Winston D., Suárez, Lidia, Yap, Melvin J., and Hui Tan, Seok. 2009. Distributional analyses in auditory lexical decision: Neighborhood density and word-frequency effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 16(5): 882–887.Google Scholar

Goldwater, Sharon, Griffiths, Thomas L., and Johnson, Mark. 2011. Producing power-law distributions and damping word frequencies with two-stage language models. Journal of Machine Learning Research 12: 2335–2382.Google Scholar

Gonnerman, Laura M. and Andersen, Elaine S.. 2002. Graded semantic and phonological similarity effects in morphologically complex words. In Morphology 2000: Selected Papers from the 9th Morphology Meeting, Vienna, 24–28 February 2000, edited by Bendjaballah, Sabrina, Dressler, Wolfgang U., Pfeiffer, Oskar E., and Voeikova, Maria D., 137–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Gonnerman, Laura M., Seidenberg, Mark S., and Andersen, Elaine S.. 2007. Graded semantic and phonological similarity effects in priming: Evidence for a distributed connectionist approach to morphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 136(2): 323–345.Google Scholar

Gosling, Samuel D., Sandy, Carson J., John, Oliver P., and Potter, Jeff. 2010. Wired but not weird: The promise of the Internet in reaching more diverse samples. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33(2–3): 94–95.Google Scholar

Gould, Stephen Jay and Lewontin, Richard R.C.. 1979. The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist program. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 205(1161): 581–598.Google Scholar

Grainger, Jonathan. 1990. Word frequency and neighborhood frequency effects in lexical decision and naming. Journal of Memory and Language 29(2): 228–244.Google Scholar

Grainger, Jonathan and Beyersmann, Elisabeth. 2017. Edge-aligned embedded word activation initiates morpho-orthographic segmentation. Psychology of Learning and Motivation 67: 285–317.Google Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Universals of language, edited by Greenberg, Joseph H., 73–113. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Language universals. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978. Diachrony, synchrony, and language universals. In Universals of human language: Methods and theory, vol. 1, edited by Greenberg, Joseph H., Ferguson, Charles A., and Moravcsik, Edith, 61–91. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Griffiths, Thomas L. and Kalish, Michael L.. 2007. Language evolution by iterated learning with Bayesian agents. Cognitive Science 31(3): 441–480.Google Scholar

Grosjean, François. 1996. Gating. Language and Cognitive Processes 11(6): 597–604.Google Scholar

Günther, Fritz, Smolka, Eva, and Marelli, Marco. 2019. “Understanding” differs between English and German: Capturing systematic language differences of complex words. Cortex 116: 168–175.Google Scholar

Gwilliams, Laura and Marantz, Alec. 2015. Non-linear processing of a linear speech stream: The influence of morphological structure on the recognition of spoken Arabic words. Brain and Language 147: 1–13.Google Scholar

Hahn, Stefan, Vozila, Paul, and Bisani, Maximilian. 2012. Comparison of grapheme-to-phoneme methods on large pronunciation dictionaries and LVCSR tasks. In Thirteenth Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (INTERSPEECH 2012), Portland, Oregon, USA, 9–13 September 2012, 2537–2540. Portland, OR: International Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar

Hahn, Ulrike and Bailey, Todd M.. 2005. What makes words sound similar? Cognition 97(3): 227–267.Google Scholar

Hale, John. 2003. The information conveyed by words in sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32(2): 101–123.Google Scholar

Hale, John. 2006. Uncertainty about the rest of the sentence. Cognitive Science 30(4): 643–672.Google Scholar

Hall, Kathleen Currie, Allen, Blake, Fry, Michael, Mackie, Scott, and McAuliffe, Michael. 2016a. Phonological CorpusTools, version 1.2. Available online: https://github.com/PhonologicalCorpusTools/CorpusTools/releasesGoogle Scholar

Hall, Kathleen Currie, Hume, Elizabeth, Jaeger, T. Florian, and Wedel, Andrew. 2016b. The message shapes phonology. MS, University of British Columbia, University of Canterbury, University of Rochester, and University of Arizona.Google Scholar

Halle, Morris and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from Building 20, edited by Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Steven H., 111–176. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Halle, Morris and Marantz, Alec. 1994. Some key features of Distributed Morphology. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21: Papers on phonology and morphology, edited by Carnie, Andrew and Harley, Heidi, 275–288. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hare, Mary and Elman, Jeffrey L.. 1995. Learning and morphological change. Cognition 56(1): 61–98.Google Scholar

Harmon, Zara and Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. 2017. Putting old tools to novel uses: The role of form accessibility in semantic extension. Cognitive Psychology 98: 22–44.Google Scholar

Harris, Alice C. 2008. On the explanation of typologically unusual structures. In Linguistic universals and language change, edited by Good, Jeff, 54–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Harris, Alice C. 2017. Multiple exponence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Harris, Zellig S. 1970. Papers in structural and transformational linguistics. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Hartl, Daniel L. and Clark, Andrew G.. 1997. Principles of population genetics, 3rd ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar

Hasenäcker, Jana, Beyersmann, Elisabeth, and Schroeder, Sascha. 2016. Masked morphological priming in German-speaking adults and children: Evidence from response time distributions. Frontiers in Psychology 7: Article 929.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 1995. The growth of affixes in morphological reanalysis. In Yearbook of morphology 1994, edited by Booij, Geert and van Marle, Jaap, 1–29. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42: 25–70.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Parametric versus functional explanations of syntactic universals. In The limits of syntactic variation, edited by Biberauer, Theresa, 75–108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin and Sims, Andrea D.. 2010. Understanding morphology, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hauser, Marc D., Chomsky, Noam, and Fitch, W. Tecumseh. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298(5598): 1569–1579.Google Scholar

Havas, Viktória, Waris, Otto, Vaquero, Lucía, Rodríguez-Fornells, Antoni, and Laine, Matti. 2015. Morphological learning in a novel language: A cross-language comparison. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 68(7): 1426–1441.Google Scholar

Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hay, Jennifer. 2002. From speech perception to morphology: Affix ordering revisited. Language 78(3): 527–555.Google Scholar

Hay, Jennifer. 2003. Causes and consequences of word structure. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hay, Jennifer and Baayen, R. Harald. 2005. Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Science 9: 342–348.Google Scholar

Hay, Jennifer, Pierrehumbert, Janet B., and Beckman, Mary. 2003. Speech perception, well-formedness, and the statistics of the lexicon. In Phonetic interpretation: Papers in laboratory phonology VI, edited by Local, John, Ogden, Richard, and Temple, Rosalind, 58–74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hay, Jennifer and Plag, Ingo. 2004. What constrains possible suffix combinations? On the interaction of grammatical and processing restrictions in derivational morphology. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22(3): 565–596.Google Scholar

Heitmeier, Maria, Chuang, Yu-Ying, and Baayen, R. Harald. 2021. Modeling morphology with Linear Discriminative Learning: Considerations and design choices. MS, Eberhard-Karls Universität Tübingen. Available online: https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.07936Google Scholar

Heller, Jordana. 2014. Contextual constraints on phonological activation during sentence production. Ph.D. thesis, Northwestern University.Google Scholar

Henrich, Joseph, Heine, Steven J., and Norenzayan, Ara. 2010. The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33: 61–83.Google Scholar

Hilaal, Y. 1990. Deriving from roots and word patterns. Linguistica Communicatio 1: 77–80.Google Scholar

Hirsh-Pasek, Kathy, Treiman, Rebecca, and Schneiderman, Maita. 1984. Brown & Hanlon revisited: Mother’s sensitivity to ungrammatical forms. Journal of Child Language 11: 81–88.Google Scholar

Hoffman, Paul and Woollams, Anna M.. 2015. Opposing effects of semantic diversity in lexical and semantic relatedness decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 41(2): 385–402.Google Scholar

Hood, Kathryn E., Halpern, Carolyn Tucker, Greenberg, Gary, and Lerner, Richard M., eds. 2010. Handbook of developmental science, behavior, and genetics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Hooper, Joan. 1976. Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. In Current progress in historical linguistics: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Historical Linguistics, edited by Christie Jr., William M., 96–105. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Hull, David L. and Michael, Ruse, eds. 2008. The Cambridge companion to the philosophy of biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hupp, Julie M., Sloutsky, Vladimir M., and Culicover, Peter W.. 2009. Evidence for a domain-general mechanism underlying the suffixation preference in language. Language and Cognitive Processes 24: 876–909.Google Scholar

Iggesen, Oliver A. 2013. Number of cases. In The world atlas of language structures online, edited by Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online: http://wals.info/chapter/49Google Scholar

Inkelas, Sharon and Orgun, Cemil Orhan. 2003. Turkish stress: A review. Phonology 20(1): 139–161.Google Scholar

Irvine, Liz, Roberts, Séan G., and Kirby, Simon. 2013. A robustness approach to theory building: A case study of language evolution. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2009), edited by Taatgen, Niels and van Rijn, Hedderik, 2614–2619. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Isbilen, Erin S., McCauley, Stewart M., Kidd, Evan, and Christiansen, Morten. 2017. Testing statistical learning implicitly: A novel chunk-based measure of statistical learning. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, edited by Gunzelmann, Glenn, Howes, Andrew, Tenbrink, Thora, and Davelaar, Eddy, 564–569. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Jablonka, Eva and Lamb, Marion J.. 2014. Evolution in four dimensions: Genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic variation in the history of life, Rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray and Audring, Jenny. 2020. The texture of the lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Jaeger, T. Florian. 2010. Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 61(1): 23–62.Google Scholar

Janack, Tracy, Pastizzo, Matthew J., and Feldman, Laurie Beth. 2004. When orthographic neighbors fail to facilitate. Brain and Language 90(1–3): 441–452.Google Scholar

Janda, Laura. 2007. Aspectual clusters of Russian verbs. Studies in Language 31(3): 607–648.Google Scholar

Janda, Laura and Tyers, M. Francis. 2021. Less is more: Why all paradigms are defective, and why that is a good thing. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 17(1): 109–141. doi: 10.1515/cllt-2018-0031Google Scholar

Janda, Richard D. 1984. Why morphological metathesis rules are rare: On the possibility of historical explanation in linguistics. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 10: 87–103.Google Scholar

Jared, Debra, Jouravlev, Olessia, and Joanisse, Marc F.. 2017. The effect of semantic transparency on the processing of morphologically derived words: Evidence from decision latencies and event-related potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 43: 422–450.Google Scholar

Joanisse, Marc F. and Seidenberg, Mark S.. 1999. Impairments in verb morphology after brain injury: A connectionist model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96(13): 7592–7597.Google Scholar

Johnson, Keith. 1997. Speech perception without speaker normalization: An exemplar model. In Talker variability in speech processing, edited by Johnson, Keith and Mullenix, John W., 145–165. San Diego, CA: Morgan Kauffman.Google Scholar

Joseph, Brian D. 1997. How general are our generalizations? What speakers actually know and what they actually do. In ESCOL ’96: Proceedings of the 13th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, edited by Green, Anthony D. and Motopanyane, Virginia, 148–160. Ithaca, NY: Cascadilla.Google Scholar

Joseph, Brian D. 2011. A localistic approach to universals and variation. In Linguistic universals and language variation, edited by Siemund, Peter, 394–414. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Jurafsky, Daniel and Martin, James H.. 2000. Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Kager, René and Pater, Joe. 2012. Phonotactics as phonology: Knowledge of a complex restriction in Dutch. Phonology 29(1): 81–111.Google Scholar

Kamin, Lawrence J. 1969. Predictability, surprise, attention, and conditioning. In Punishment and aversive behavior, edited by Campbell, Byron A. and Church, Russell M., 279–296. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar

Kann, Katharina, Cotterell, Ryan, and Schütze, Hinrich. 2017. Neural multi-source morphological reinflection. In Proceedings of the 15th European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL) 2017, vol. 1: Long papers, edited by Lapata, Mirella, 514–524. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Kann, Katharina and Schütze, Hinrich. 2016. MED: The LMU system for the SIGMORPHON 2016 shared task on morphological reinflection. In Proceedings of the 14th SIGMORPHON Workshop on Computational Research in Phonetics, Phonology, and Morphology, edited by Elsner, Micha and Kübler, Sandra, 62–70. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. 2006. Sound similarity relations in the mental lexicon: Modeling the lexicon as a complex network. Speech Research Lab Progress Report 27: 133–152.Google Scholar

Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. 2013. Conspiring to mean: Experimental and computational evidence for a usage-based harmonic approach to morphophonology. Language 89: 110–148.Google Scholar

Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. 2017. Learning a subtractive morphological system: Statistics and representations. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, vol. 1, edited by LaMendola, Maria and Scoot, Jennifer, 357–372. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar

Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. 2018a. Words versus rules (storage versus on-line production/processing) in morphology. In Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics, edited by Aronoff, Mark. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.598Google Scholar

Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. 2018b. Changing minds changing tools: From learning theory to language acquisition to language change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. 2018c. Learning morphological constructions. The construction of words: Advances in construction morphology, edited by Booij, Geert, 547–581. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. 2021a. Learning fast while avoiding spurious excitement and overcoming cue competition requires setting unachievable goals: Reasons for using the logistic activation function in learning to predict categorical outcomes. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. Available online ahead of print: https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2021.1927120Google Scholar

Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. 2021b. What are constructions, and what else is out there? An associationist perspective. Frontiers in Communication 5: Article 575242.Google Scholar

Kapatsinski, Vsevolod and Harmon, Zara. 2017. A Hebbian account of entrenchment and (over)-extension in language learning. In CogSci 2017: Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, edited by Gunzelmann, Glenn, Howes, Andrew, Tenbrink, Thora, and Davelaar, Eddy, 2366–2371. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Kapatsinski, Vsevolod and Johnston, Lamia. 2010. Investigating phonotactics using xenolinguistics: A novel word-picture matching paradigm. In Cognition in flux: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, edited by Ohlsson, Stellan and Catrambone, Richard, 2010–2015. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Kauhanen, Henri. 2017. Neutral change. Journal of Linguistics 53(2): 327–358.Google Scholar

Kayne, Richard. 1996. Microparametric syntax: Some introductory remarks. In Microparametric syntax and dialect variation, edited by Black, James R. and Montapanyane, Virginia, ix–xvii. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Kempley, S.T. and Morton, John. 1982. The effects of priming with regularly and irregularly related words in auditory word recognition. British Journal of Psychology 73(4): 441–454.Google Scholar

Kimura, Motoo. 1983. The neutral theory of molecular evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical morphology and phonology. In Linguistics in the morning calm: Selected papers from SICOL-1981, edited by Linguistic Society of Korea, 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 2018. Affix bundling and introfixation. Paper presented at the 18th International Morphology Meeting, Budapest, May 13, 2018.Google Scholar

Kirby, Simon. 2001. Spontaneous evolution of linguistic structure – An iterated learning model of the emergence of regularity and irregularity. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 5(2): 102–110.Google Scholar

Kirby, Simon, Griffiths, Thomas L., and Smith, Kenny. 2014. Iterated learning and the evolution of language. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 28: 108–114.Google Scholar

Kirby, Simon and Hurford, James R.. 2002. The emergence of linguistic structure: An overview of the iterated learning model. In Simulating the evolution of language, edited by Cangelosi, Angelo and Parisi, Domenico, 121–147. London: Springer.Google Scholar

Kloehn, Nick. 2018. Towards a unified theory of morphological productivity in the Bantu languages: A corpus analysis of nominalization patterns in Swahili. In African linguistics on the prairie: Selected papers from the 45th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, edited by Kandybowicz, Jason, Major, Travis, Torrence, Harold, and Duncan, Philip T., 175–190. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar

Kocab, Annemarie, Ziegler, Jayden, and Snedeker, Jesse. 2019. It takes a village: The role of community size in linguistic regularization. Cognitive Psychology 114: Article 101227.Google Scholar

Korpus Malti 3.0 – Maltese Language Resource Server. 2016. Available online: http://mlrs.research.um.edu.mtGoogle Scholar

Kouider, Sid and Dupoux, Emmanuel. 2005. Subliminal speech priming. Psychological Science 16(8): 617–625.Google Scholar

Kruschke, John K. 1992. ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review 99(1): 22–44.Google Scholar

Kruszewski, Mikołaj. 1995. Outline of linguistic science. In Writings in general linguistics: On sound alternation (1881) and Outline of linguistic science (1883), edited by Koerner, E.F. Konrad, 37–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [translated by Gregory M. Eramian]Google Scholar

Kuperman, Victor, Bertram, Raymond, and Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Morphological dynamics in compound processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 23(7–8): 1089–1132.Google Scholar

Kuperman, Victor, Bertram, Raymond, and Baayen, R. Harald. 2010. Processing trade-offs in the reading of Dutch derived words. Journal of Memory and Language 62(2): 83–97.Google Scholar

Kusters, Christiaan Wouter. 2003. Linguistic complexity: The influence of social change on verbal inflection. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar

Ladefoged, Peter, Chochran, Anne, and Disner, Sandra. 1977. Laterals and trills. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 7(2): 46–54.Google Scholar

Lai, Regine. 2015. Learnable vs unlearnable vowel harmony patterns. Linguistic Inquiry 46: 425–451.Google Scholar

Laland, Kevin N. 2018. Darwin’s unfinished symphony: How culture made the human mind. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Landauer, Thomas K. and Dumais, Susan T.. 1997. A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review 104: 211–240.Google Scholar

Landauer, Thomas K., Foltz, Peter W., and Laham, Darrell. 1998. An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes 25: 259–284.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1977. Studies in Uto-Aztecan grammar, vol. 1: An overview of Uto-Aztecan grammar. Dallas: The Summer Institute of Linguistics and The University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 2003. Explanation in cognitive linguistics and cognitive grammar. In The nature of explanation in linguistic theory, edited by Moore, John and Polinsky, Maria, 239–261. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Lass, Roger. 1997. Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Laufer, Batia and Eliasson, Stig. 1993. What causes avoidance in L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15: 35–48.Google Scholar

Lázaro, Miguel López-Villaseñor. 2012. The effects of base frequency and affix productivity in Spanish. The Spanish Journal of Psychology 15(2): 505–512.Google Scholar

LeFevre, Grace, Elsner, Micha, and Sims, Andrea D.. 2021. Formalizing inflectional paradigm shape with information theory. Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics 4: Article 11, 102–115. doi: 10.7275/jz7z-j842Google Scholar

Legate, Julie Anne and Yang, Charles D.. 2002. Empirical re-assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review 19(1–2): 151–162.Google Scholar

Lepic, Ryan. 2019. A usage-based alternative to ‘lexicalization’ in sign language linguistics. Glossa 4(1): 1–30.Google Scholar

Levy, Roger. 2005. Probabilistic models of word order and syntactic discontinuity. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar

Levy, Roger. 2008. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106(3): 1126–1177.Google Scholar

Levy, Roger and Jaeger, T. Florian. 2007. Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 19 (NIPS 2006), edited by Schölkopf, Bernard, Platt, John C., and Hoffman, T., 849–856. San Diego, CA: Neural Information Processing Systems Foundation.Google Scholar

Lewis, Geoffrey. L. 1967. Turkish grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Lewontin, Richard C. 1970. The units of selection. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1: 1–18.Google Scholar

Lewontin, Richard C. 1978. Adaptation. Scientific American 239(3): 212–230.Google Scholar

Libben, Gary, Derwing, Bruce L., and De Almeida, Roberto G.. 1999. Ambiguous novel compounds and models of morphological parsing. Brain and Language 68: 378–386.Google Scholar

Libben, Gary, Gibson, Martha, Yoon, Yeo Bom, and Sandra, Dominiek. 2003. Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language 84: 50–64.Google Scholar

Liberman, Mark. 2003. Egg corns: Folk etymology, malapropism, mondegreen. Language Log. Available online: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000018.htmlGoogle Scholar

Lieven, Elena and Behrens, Heike. 2012. Dense sampling. In Research methods in child language: A practical guide, edited by Hoff, Erika, 226–239. Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar

Lignos, Constantine and Yang, Charles. 2016. Morphology and language acquisition. In The Cambridge handbook of morphology, edited by Hippisley, Andrew and Stump, Gregory, 765–791. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Limpert, Eckhard, Stahel, Werner A., and Abbt, Markus. 2001. Log-normal distributions across the sciences: Keys and clues. Bioscience 51: 341–352.Google Scholar

Lin, Candise Y., Wang, Min, and Ko, In Yeong. 2018. The time course of activation of semantic and orthographic information in morphological decomposition by Korean adults and developing readers. Frontiers in Communication 3: Article 51. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2018.00051Google Scholar

Lin, Francis Y. 2017. A refutation of universal grammar. Lingua 193: 1–22.Google Scholar

Lindblom, B. 1990. Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H&H theory. In Speech production and speech modelling, edited by Hardcastle, William J. and Marchal, Alain, 403–439. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Lindsay, Mark and Aronoff, Mark. 2013. Natural selection in self-organizing morphological systems. In Morphology in Toulouse: Selected proceedings of Décembrettes 7, edited by Montermini, Fabio, Boyé, Gilles, and Tseng, Jesse, 133–153. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar

Longtin, Catherine-Marie, Segui, Juan, and Hallé, Pierre A.. 2003. Morphological priming without morphological relationship. Language and Cognitive Processes 18(3): 313–334.Google Scholar

Loper, Edward and Bird, Steven. 2002. NLTK: The natural language toolkit. In ETMTNLP ’02: Proceedings of the ACL-02 Workshop on Effective Tools and Methodologies for Teaching Natural Language Processing and Computational Linguistics, vol. 1, edited by Brew, Chris and Rosner, Michael, 63–70, Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Lovibond, Peter F., Been, Sara-Lee, Mitchell, Chris J., Bouton, Mark E., and Frohardt, Russell. 2003. Forward and backward blocking of causal judgment is enhanced by additivity of effect magnitude. Memory & Cognition 31(1): 133–142.Google Scholar

Luce, Paul. 1986. A computational analysis of uniqueness points in auditory word processing. Perception and Psychophysics 39(3): 155–158.Google Scholar

Luce, Paul A. and Pisoni, David B.. 1998. Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing 19(1): 1–36.Google Scholar