Previous research exploring the learnability of vowel harmony (a phonetically natural pattern) and vowel disharmony (a phonetically unnatural pattern) has shown mixed evidence for a naturalness bias. This study aims to clarify these mixed results by introducing a more sensitive and indirect measure of learning—a modified phoneme monitoring task. Participants listened to CV-me/CV-mo words and pressed a button to indicate the final vowel (either [e] or [o]). In the first set of trials, participants responded to words that either always obeyed harmony (HarmonyFirst) or always obeyed disharmony (DisharmonyFirst). In the second set of trials, the rule switched. Results from two studies support a learning bias for vowel harmony; participants generally showed greater decreases in response times for harmonic blocks, and greater increases in response time when the rule switched from vowel harmony to disharmony.
ArchangeliD.PulleyblankD. (1994). Grounded phonology. MIT Press.
2.
BaayenR. H.MilinP. (2010). Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(2), 12–28.
3.
Baer-HenneyD.van de VijverR. (2012). On the role of substance, locality, and amount of exposure in the acquisition of morphophonemic alternations. Laboratory Phonology, 3(2), 221–249.
4.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using {lme4}. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
5.
BeierE. J.FerreiraF. (2022). Replication of Cutler, A., & Fodor, JA (1979). Semantic focus and sentence comprehension. Cognition, 7 (1), 49–59. Journal of Memory and Language, 126, 104339.
6.
BenusS.GafosA. I. (2007). Articulatory characteristics of Hungarian “transparent” vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 35(3), 271–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2006.11.002
7.
BoersmaP. (1998). Functional phonology: Formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. University of Amsterdam.
CulbertsonJ. (2012). Typological universals as reflections of biased learning: Evidence from artificial language learning. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(5), 310–329. https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.338
11.
CutlerA. (1976). Phoneme-monitoring reaction time as a function of preceding intonation contour. Perception & Psychophysics, 20(1), 55–60. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198706
12.
DoY.HavenhillJ. (2021). Production and substantive bias in phonological learning. Proceedings of the Annual Meetings on Phonology, 9, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3765/amp.v9i0.4925
13.
DoY.MooneyS. (2022). Variation awaiting bias: Substantively biased learning of vowel harmony variation. Journal of Child Language, 49(2), 397–407.
14.
FinleyS. (2008). Formal and cognitive restrictions on vowel harmony [PhD dissertation]. Johns Hopkins University.
15.
FinleyS. (2011). The privileged status of locality in consonant harmony. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(1), 74–83.
16.
FinleyS. (2012). Typological asymmetries in round vowel harmony: Support from artificial grammar learning. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(10), 1550–1562. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.660168
17.
FinleyS. (2017). Learning metathesis: Evidence for syllable structure constraints. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 142–157.
FinleyS.BadeckerW. (2009). Artificial language learning and feature-based generalization. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(3), 423–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.05.002
20.
GlewweE. (2019). Bias in phonotactic learning: Experimental studies of phonotactic implicationals [PhD Dissertation]. UCLA.
HaxbyJ. V.ParasuramanR.LalondeF.AbboudH. (1993). SuperLab: General-purpose Macintosh software for human experimental psychology and psychological testing. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 25(3), 400–405. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204531
23.
HuangT.DoY. (2023). Substantive bias and variation in the acquisition of vowel harmony. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 8, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.9313
KimperW. A. (2011). Competing triggers: Transparency and opacity in vowel harmony [PhD dissertation]. University of Massachusetts.
26.
KimperW. A. (2017). Not crazy after all these years? Perceptual grounding for long-distance vowel harmony. Laboratory Phonology, 8(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.5334/labphon.47
LaCrossA. (2015). Khalkha Mongolian speakers’ vowel bias: L1 influences on the acquisition of non-adjacent vocalic dependencies. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(9), 1033–1047.
29.
MartinA.PeperkampS. (2020). Phonetically natural rules benefit from a learning bias: A re-examination of vowel harmony and disharmony. Phonology, 37(1), 65–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675720000044
30.
MartinA.WhiteJ. (2021). Vowel harmony and disharmony are not equivalent in learning. Linguistic Inquiry, 52(1), 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00375
31.
McCollumA. G.EssegbeyJ. (2020). Initial prominence and progressive vowel harmony in Tutrugbu. Phonological Data and Analysis, 2(3), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.3765/pda.v2art3.14
32.
MintzT. H.WalkerR. L.WeldayA.KiddC. (2018). Infants’ sensitivity to vowel harmony and its role in segmenting speech. Cognition, 171, 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.10.020
MoretonE.PaterJ. (2012a). Structure and substance in artificial-phonology learning, Part I: Structure. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(11), 686–701. https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.363
35.
MoretonE.PaterJ. (2012b). Structure and substance in artificial-phonology learning, Part II: Substance. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(11), 702–718. https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.366
36.
MoretonE.PertsovaK. (2017). Implicit and explicit processes in phonotactic learning. Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD), 40, 277–290.
Morís FernándezL.VadilloM. A. (2020). Flexibility in reaction time analysis: Many roads to a false positive?Royal Society Open Science, 7(2), 190831. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190831
39.
Ní ChiosáinM.PadgettJ. (2001). Markedness, segment realization, and locality in spreading. In LombardiL (Ed.), Segmental Phonology in Optimality Theory: Constraints and representations (pp. 118–156). Cambridge University Press.
40.
NissenM. J.BullemerP. (1987). Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence from performance measures. Cognitive Psychology, 19(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(87)90002-8
41.
OhalaJ. J. (1994). Towards a universal, phonetically-based, theory of vowel harmony. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on spoken language processing (ISCLP) (pp. 491–494). https://doi.org/10.21437/ICSLP.1994-113
42.
OmaneP. O.BendersT.Boll-AvetisyanN. (2024). Vowel harmony preferences in infants growing up in multilingual Ghana (Africa). Developmental Psychology, 60, 1372–1383. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001776
43.
PychaA.NowakP.ShinE.ShostedR. (2003). Phonological rule-learning and its implications for a theory of vowel harmony. West Coast Conference of Formal Linguistics (WCCFL), 22, 101–113.
44.
RStudio Team. (2020). RStudio: Integrated development for R [Computer software]. http://www.rstudio.com/
45.
RyslingA.BishopJ.Clifton JrC.YacovoneA. (2020). Preceding syllables are necessary for the accent advantage effect. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 148(3), EL285–EL288.
46.
SeidlA.BuckleyE. (2005). On the learning of arbitrary phonological rules. Language Learning and Development, 1, 289–316.
47.
SkoruppaK.PeperkampS. (2011). Adaptation to novel accents: Feature-based learning in context-sensitive phonological regularities. Cognitive Science, 35(2), 348–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01152.x
48.
SmithC. (2016). A gestural account of neutral segment asymmetries in harmony. Annual Meeting on Phonology (AMP), 3, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3765/amp.v3i0.3663
49.
SmithC. (2018). Harmony in gestural phonology [PhD dissertation]. University of Southern California.
50.
SondereggerM. (2023). Regression modeling for linguistic data. MIT Press.
51.
SuomiK.McQueenJ. M.CutlerA. (1997). Vowel harmony and speech segmentation in Finnish. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(36), 422–444. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.2495
52.
TörkenczyM. (2011). Hungarian vowel harmony. The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, 5, 2963–2990.
53.
Van der HulstH.SmithN. (1982). An overview of autosegmental and metrical phonology. The Structure of Phonological Representations, 2, 1–46.
54.
Van KampenA.ParmaksizG.van de VijverR.HöhleB.GavarróA.FreitasM. J. (2008). Metrical and statistical cues for word segmentation: The use of vowel harmony and word stress as cues to word boundaries by 6-and 9-month-old Turkish learners. In GavarróA.FreitasM.J. (Eds.), Language acquisition and development: Proceedings of GALA 2007 (pp. 313–324). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
55.
WalkerR. (2001). Round licensing, harmony, and bisyllabic triggers in Altaic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 19, 827–878.
WilsonC. (2006). Learning phonology with substantive bias: An experimental and computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science, 30, 945–982. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_89
60.
YuB.DoY. (2022). The transmission of vowel harmony and vowel disharmony: An iterated learning study. In ElkinsN.HayesB.JoJ.SiahJ. L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the annual meetings on phonology. Linguistic Society of America. https://doi.org/10.3765/amp.v10i0.5439
61.
ZhengS.DoY. (2025). Substantive bias in artificial phonology learning. Language and Linguistics Compass, 19(1), Article e70005.
