Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:39:22.213Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part III - Experimental Studies of Specific Populations and Language Families

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2021

Edited by
Grant Goodall
Grant Goodall
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax , pp. 371 - 584
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Abrahamsson, N. & Hyltenstam, K. (2008). The robustness of aptitude effects in near-native second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 481–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrahamsson, N. & Hyltenstam, K. (2009). Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second language: Listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning, 59(2), 249–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bard, E. G., Robertson, D., & Sorace, A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72, 32–68.Google Scholar
Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language, 68, 706–755.Google Scholar
Birdsong, D. & Molis, M. (2001). On the evidence for maturational constraints in second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(2), 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, A. & Bates, E. (1995). Inducing agrammatic profiles in normals: Evidence for the selective vulnerability of morphology under cognitive resource limitation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7(2), 228–257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blackwell, A., Bates, E., & Fisher, D. (1996). The time course of grammaticality judgment. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 337–406.Google Scholar
Bowles, M. A. (2011). Measuring implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 247–271.Google Scholar
Bruhn de Garavito, J. (2011). Subject/object asymmetries in the grammar of bilingual and monolingual Spanish speakers: Evidence against connectionism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 111–148.Google Scholar
Christensen, R. H. B. (2018). ordinal – Regression Models for Ordinal Data. R package version 2018.4–19. www.cran.r-project.org/package=ordinal/Google Scholar
Coppieters, R. (1987). Competence differences between native and near-native speakers. Language, 63, 544–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental Syntax. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–533.Google Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L. & Hathorn, J. (2005). Quelque chose … de remarquable in English–French acquisition: Mandatory, informationally encapsulated computations in second language interpretation. Second Language Research, 21, 291–323.Google Scholar
Dick, F., Bates, E., Wulfeck, B., Utman, J. A., Dronkers, N., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (2001). Language deficits, localization, and grammar: Evidence for a distributive model of language breakdown in aphasic patients and neurologically intact individuals. Psychological Review, 108(4), 759–788.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 141–172.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. & Loewen, S. (2007). Confirming the operational definitions of explicit and implicit knowledge in Ellis (2005): Responding to Isemonger. Second Language Research, 29, 119–126.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philip, J., & Reinders, H. (2009). Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing, and Teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Falk, Y. & Bardel, C. (2011). Object pronouns in German L3 syntax: Evidence for the L2 status factor. Second Language Research, 27, 59–82.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., Yeni-Komshian, G. H., & Liu, S. (1999). Age constraints on second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(1), 78–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabriele, A. (2009). Transfer and transition in the SLA of aspect: A bidirectional study of learners of English and Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 371–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. & Alvarez Torres, M. J. (2005). Attention when? An investigation of the ordering effect of input and interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfroid, A., Loewen, S., Jung, S., Park, J.-H., Gass, S., & Ellis, R. (2015). Timed and untimed grammaticality judgments measure distinct types of knowledge: Evidence from eye-movement patterns. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37(2), 269–297.Google Scholar
Grier, J. B. (1971). Non-parametric indexes for sensitivity and bias: Computing formulas. Psychological Bulletin, 75(6), 424–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez, X. (2013). The construct validity of grammaticality judgment tests as measures of implicit and explicit knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 423–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. & Ellis, R., eds. (2005). Implicit and Explicit Second-Language Learning (Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2) (special issue)).Google Scholar
Ionin, T. (2012). Formal theory-based methodologies. In Mackey, A. & Gass, S., eds., Research Methods in Second Language Acquisition: A Practical Guide. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 30–52.Google Scholar
Ionin, T., Montrul, S., & Crivos, M. (2013). A bidirectional study on the acquisition of plural noun phrase interpretation in English and Spanish. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 483–518.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. & Zyzik, E. (2014). Judgment and interpretation tasks in second language research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34, 1–28. DOI:10.1017/S0267190514000026Google Scholar
Johnson, J. & Newport, E. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, J. & Newport, E. (1991). Critical period effects on universal properties of languages: The status of subjacency in the acquisition of a second language. Cognition, 39, 215–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, B. (2015). Sensitivity to islands in Korean-English bilinguals. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego,Google Scholar
Loewen, S. (2009). Grammaticality judgment tests and the measurement of implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. In Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philip, J., & Reinders, H., eds., Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing, and Teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 65–93.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. L. (2000). Grammaticality judgments in a second language: Influences of age of acquisition and native language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21(3), 395–423.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. L. (2006). Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(3), 381–401.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. A. (2005). On knowledge and development of unaccusativity in Spanish L2-acquisition. Linguistics, 43(6), 1153–1190.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. A. (2008). Incomplete Acquisition in Bilingualism: Re-examining the Age Factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. A., Bhatt, R., & Girju, R. (2015). Differential object marking in Spanish, Hindi, and Romanian as heritage languages. Language, 91(3), 564–610.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. A., Dias, R., & Santos, H. (2011). Clitics and object expression in the L3 acquisition of Brazilian Portuguese: Structural similarity matters for transfer. Second Language Research, 27, 21–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. A., Foote, R., & Perpiñán, S. (2008). Gender agreement in adult second language learners and Spanish heritage speakers: The effects of age and context of acquisition. Language Learning, 58, 503–553.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. A. & Slabakova, R. (2003). Competence similarities between native and near-native speakers: An investigation of the preterite-imperfect contrast in Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 351–398.Google Scholar
Murphy, V. A. (1997). The effect of modality on a grammaticality judgement task. Second Language Research, 13(1), 34–65.Google Scholar
Orfitelli, R. & Grüter, T. (2014). Do null subjects really transfer? In Cabrelli-Amaro, J., Judy, T., & y Cabo, D. Pascual, eds., Proceedings of the 12th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Orfitelli, R. & Polinsky, M. (2017). When performance masquerades as comprehension: Grammaticality judgments in non-native speakers. In Kopotev, M., Lyashevskaya, O., & Mustajoki, A., eds., Quantitative Approaches to the Russian Language. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 197–214.Google Scholar
Pollack, I. & Norman, D. A. (1964). A nonparametric analysis of signal detection experiments. Psychonomic Science, 1, 125–126.Google Scholar
Prévost, P. & White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 16, 103–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, L. (2012). Review article: Psycholinguistic techniques and resources in second language acquisition research. Second Language Research, 28, 113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütze, C. (1996). The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. & Sprouse, R. A. (2000). When syntactic theories evolve: Consequences for L2 acquisition research. In Archibald, J., ed., Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 156–186.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. (1999). The parameter of aspect in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 15(3), 283–317.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2010). Using Magnitude Estimation in developmental linguistic research. In Blom, E. & Unsworth, S., eds., Experimental Methods in Language Acquisition Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spinner, P. & Gass, S. M. (2019). Using Judgments In Second Language Acquisition Research. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2011). A test of the cognitive assumptions of magnitude estimation: Commutativity does not hold for acceptability judgments. Language, 87, 274–288.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Wagers, M., & Phillips, C. (2012). A test of the relation between working-memory capacity and syntactic island effects. Language, 88, 82–123.Google Scholar
Steinhauer, K. (2014). Event-related potentials (ERPs) in second language research: A brief introduction to the technique, a selected review, and an invitation to reconsider critical periods in L2. Applied Linguistics, 35(4), 393–417.Google Scholar
Tokowicz, N. & MacWhinney, B. (2005). Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar: An event-related potential investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 173–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tremblay, A. (2005). Theoretical and methodological perspectives on the use of grammaticality judgment tasks in linguistic theory. Second Language Studies, 24, 129–167.Google Scholar
Waters, G., Caplan, D., & Rochon, E. (1995). Processing capacity and sentence comprehension in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 12(1), 1–30. DOI:10.1080/02643299508251990Google Scholar
Waters, G., Caplan, D., & Yampolsky, S. (2003). On-line syntactic processing under concurrent memory load. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(1), 88–95.Google Scholar
Westcott, T. & Fanselow, G. (2011). On the informativity of different measures of linguistic acceptability. Language, 87(2), 249–273.Google Scholar
White, L. & Genesee, F. (1996). How native is near-native? The issue of ultimate attainment in adult second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 12, 233–265.Google Scholar
Whong-Barr, M. & Schwartz, B. D. (2002). Morphological and syntactic transfer in child L2 acquisition of the English dative alternation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 579–616.Google Scholar

References

Ambridge, B., Pine, J., Rowland, C., & Young, C. R. (2008). The effect of verb semantic class and verb frequency (entrenchment) on children’s and adults’ graded judgments of argument structure overgeneralization errors. Cognition, 106, 87–129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barner, D., Brooks, N., & Bale, A. (2011). Accessing the unsaid: The role of scalar alternatives in children’s pragmatic inference. Cognition, 118, 84–93.Google Scholar
Borer, H. & Wexler, K. (1987). The maturation of syntax. In Roeper, T. & Williams, E., eds., Parameter Setting. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 123–172.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1982). Evaluating competing linguistic models with language acquisition data: Implications of developmental errors with causative verbs. Quaderni di Semantica, 3, 5–66.Google Scholar
Brown, R., Fraser, C., & Bellugi, U. (1964). Explorations in grammar evaluation. In. Bellugi, U. & Brown, R., eds., The Acquisition of Language (Monograph of the Society of Research in Child Development, 29). Lafayette, IN: Society for Research in Child Development, pp. 79–92.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G., Crain, S., Guasti, M. T., Gualmini, A., & Meroni, L. (2001). The acquisition of disjunction: Evidence for a grammatical view of scalar implicatures. In Do, A. H.-J., Domínguez, L., & Johansen, A., eds., Proceedings of the 25th Boston University Conference on Child Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 157–168.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Crain, S. (1982). Temporal terms: Mastery by age five. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 21, 33–38.Google Scholar
Crain, S. (1991). Language acquisition in the absence of experience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 597–612.Google Scholar
Crain, S., Koring, L., & Thornton, R. (2017). Language acquisition from a biolinguistic perspective. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 81, 120–149.Google Scholar
Crain, S. & McKee, C. (1985). Acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora. In Berman, S., McDonough, J., & Choe, J.-W., eds., Proceedings of the 16th North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA, pp. 94–110.Google Scholar
Crain, S. & Thornton, R. (1998). Investigations in Universal Grammar: A Guide to Experiments on the Acquisition of Syntax and Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Crawford, J. (2012). Developmental perspectives on the acquisition of the passive. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1984). Radical translation. In Davidson, D., ed., Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 125–139.Google Scholar
De Villiers, J. & de Villiers, P. (1974). Competence and performance in child language: Are children really competent to judge? Journal of Child Language, 1, 11–22.Google Scholar
Foppolo, F., Guasti, M. T., & Chierchia, G. (2012). Scalar implicatures in child language: Give children a chance. Language Learning and Development, 8, 365–394.Google Scholar
Fukuda, S., Goodall, G., Michel, D., & Beecher, H. (2012). Is magnitude estimation worth the trouble? In Choi, J., Hogue, E. A., Punske, J., Tat, D., Schertz, J., & Trueman, A., eds., Proceedings of the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 328–336.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. R., Gleitman, H., & Shipley, E. (1972). The emergence of the child as grammarian. Cognition, 1, 137–164.Google Scholar
Hamburger, H. & Crain, S. (1982). Relative acquisition. In Kuczaj, Stan A. II, ed., Language Development, Syntax and Semantics, vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 245–274.Google Scholar
Hochberg, J. (1986). Children’s judgements of transitivity errors. Journal of Child Language, 13, 317–334.Google Scholar
Katsos, N. & Bishop, D. V. M. (2011). Pragmatic tolerance: Implications for the acquisition of informativeness and implicature. Cognition, 120, 67–81.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. & Crain, S. (1985). On the acquisition of pronominal reference. Lingua, 65, 135–154.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
McDaniel, D. & Cairns, H. S. (1990). The child as informant: Eliciting linguistic intuitions from young children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19, 331–344.Google Scholar
McDaniel, D. & Cairns, H. S. (1996). Eliciting judgments of grammaticality and reference. In McDaniel, D., McKee, C., & Cairns, H. S., eds., Methods for Assessing Children’s Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 233–254.Google Scholar
McDaniel, D., Cairns, H. S., & Hsu, J. R. (1990). Binding principles in the grammars of young children. Language Acquisition, 1, 121–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, D., Cairns, H. S., & Hsu, J. R. (1990/1991). Control principles in the grammars of young children. Language Acquisition, 1, 297–335.Google Scholar
McDaniel, D. & Maxfield, T. (1992). The nature of the anti-c-command requirement: Evidence from young children. Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 667–671.Google Scholar
Noveck, I. A. (2001). When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition, 78, 165–188.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1984). Language Learnability and Language Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Renans, A., Romoli, J., Makri, M. M., Tieu, L., de Vries, H., Folli, R., & Tsoulas, G. (2018). The abundance inference of pluralised mass nouns is an implicature: Evidence from Greek. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 103. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.531Google Scholar
Skordos, D. & Pappafragou, A. (2016). Children’s derivation of scalar implicatures: Alternatives and relevance. Cognition, 153, 6–18.Google Scholar
Smith, C. L. (1980). Quantifiers and question answering in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 30, 191–205.Google Scholar
Theakston, A. (2004). The role of entrenchment in children’s and adults’ performance on grammaticality judgment tasks. Cognitive Development, 19, 15–34.Google Scholar
Thornton, R. (2017). The truth value judgment task: An update. In Nakayama, M., Su, Y. C., & Huang, A., eds., Studies in Chinese and Japanese Language Acquisition: In Honor of Stephen Crain. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–39.Google Scholar

References

Ahn, S.-H. (1990). Korean quantification and Universal Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Almeida, D. (2014). Subliminal wh-islands in Brazilian Portuguese and the consequences for syntactic theory. Revista da ABRALIN, 13, 55–93.Google Scholar
Anderson, C. (2004). The structure and real-time comprehension of quantifier scope ambiguity. Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Aoun, J. & Li, Y.-H. A. (1993). Syntax of Scope. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bard, E. G., Robertson, D., & Sorace, A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72, 32–68.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (1981). Intransitive verbs and Italian auxiliaries. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (1986). Italian Syntax: A Government and Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Chen, Y. (2019). The acquisition of Japanese relative clauses by L1 Chinese learners. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.Google Scholar
Choe, J. W. (1987). LF movement and pied-piping. Linguistic Inquiry, 18, 348–353.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. (1979). Variable binding and relative clauses. In Guenthner, F. & Schmidt, S. J., eds., Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 131–169.Google Scholar
Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. (1978). The verbal complex V′-V in French. Linguistic Inquiry, 9, 151–175.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2005a). That-trace in German. Lingua, 115, 1277–1302.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2005b). Magnitude estimation and what it can do for your syntax: Some wh-constraints in German. Lingua, 115, 1525–1550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. & Sag, I. (1982). Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy, 5, 355–398.Google Scholar
Fukuda, S. (2017). Split intransitivity in Japanese is syntactic: Evidence for the Unaccusative Hypothesis from sentence acceptability and truth value judgment experiments. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1), 83. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.268Google Scholar
Fukuda, S, Nakao, C., Omaki, A., & Polinsky, M.. (2016). Japanese subjects and objects are equally open to subextraction. Why? In Sugawara, A., Hayashi, S., & Ito, S., eds., Proceedings of the Eighth Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics (FAJL8). Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, pp. 13–29.Google Scholar
Fukuda, S. & Sprouse, J. (2019). Islandhood of Japanese complex NPs and the factorial definition of island effects. Manuscript, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa and University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Fukui, N. (1988). LF extraction of naze: Some theoretical implications. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6, 503–526.Google Scholar
Fukushima, K. (2003). Verb-raising and numeral classifiers in Japanese: Incompatible bedfellows. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 12, 313–347.Google Scholar
Gerdts, D. (1987). Surface case and grammatical relations in Korean: The evidence from quantifier float. Studies in Language, 11, 181–197.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. & Fedorenko, E. (2013). The need for quantitative methods in syntax and semantics research. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 88–124.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S. T., & Fedorenko, E. (2013). Quantitative methods in syntax/semantics research: A response to Sprouse and Almeida (2013). Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 229–240.Google Scholar
Han, C.-H. (2013). On the syntax of relative clauses in Korean. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 58, 319–347.Google Scholar
Han, C.-H., Lidz, J., & Musolino, J. (2007). Verb-raising and grammar competition in Korean: Evidence from negation and quantifier scope. Linguistic Inquiry, 38, 1–47.Google Scholar
Han, C.-H., Storoshenko, D. R., & Sakurai, Y. (2009a). An experimental investigation into scope rigidity in Japanese. Current Issues in Unity and Diversity of Languages: Collection of the Papers Selected from the 18th International Congress of Linguistics. Seoul: The Linguistic Society of Korea.Google Scholar
Han, C.-H., Storoshenko, D. R., & Sakurai, Y. (2009b). An experimental investigation into the placement of the verb in the clause structure of Japanese. Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Linguistics in Korea (ICLK-2007). Seoul: The Linguistic Society of Korea.Google Scholar
Han, C.-H., Storoshenko, D. R., & Walshe, R. C. (2010). An experimental study of the grammatical status of caki in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 19, 81–94.Google Scholar
Hirakawa, M. (1999). L2 acquisition of Japanese unaccusative verbs by speakers of English and Chinese. In Kanno, K., ed., The Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 89–113.Google Scholar
Hirakawa, M. (2001). L2 acquisition of Japanese unaccusative verbs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 221–245.Google Scholar
Hoji, H. (1985). Logical Form constraints and configurational structures in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Hong, S. & Nakayama, N. (2017). Kare and the acquisition of bound variable interpretations by Korean speaking learners of Japanese. In Nakayama, M., Su, Y.-C., & Huang, A., eds., Studies in Chinese and Japanese Language Acquisition: In Honor of Stephen Crain. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 85–106.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. (1987). Existential sentences in Chinese and (in)definiteness. In Reuland, E. J. & ter Meulen, A. G. B., eds., The Representation of (In)definiteness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 226–253.Google Scholar
Jiang, L. (2012). Nominal arguments and language variation. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Joo, K.-J. (2014). Children’s interpretation of the Korean reflexive pronouns caki and caki-casin. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.Google Scholar
Jurka, J. (2010). The importance of being a complement: the CED effects revisited. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Jurka, J., Nakao, C., & Omaki, A. (2011). It’s not the end of the CED as we know it: Revisiting German and Japanese subject islands. In Washburn, M. B., McKinney-Bock, K., Varis, E., Sawyer, A., & Tomaszewicz, B., eds., Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 124–132.Google Scholar
Kang, B.-M. (2002). Categories and meanings of Korean floating quantifiers: With some reference to Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 1, 375–398.Google Scholar
Kanno, K. (1997). The acquisition of null and overt pronominals in Japanese by English speakers. Second Language Research, 13(3), 265–287.Google Scholar
Keller, F. (2000). Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Keller, F. & Sorace, A. (2003). Gradient auxiliary selection and impersonal passivization in German: An experimental investigation. Journal of Linguistics, 39, 57–108.Google Scholar
Keshev, K. & Meltzer-Asscher, A. (2019). A processing-based account of subliminal wh-island effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 37, 621–57.Google Scholar
Kim, B. (2015). Sensitivity to islands in Korean–English bilinguals. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Kim, B. & Goodall, G. (2016). Islands and non-islands in native and heritage Korean. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 134. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00134Google Scholar
Kim, J.-H., Montrul, S., & Yoon, J.-H. (2009). Binding interpretations of anaphors by Korean heritage speakers. Language Acquisition, 16, 3–35.Google Scholar
Kim, J.-H. & Yoon, J.-H. (2009). Long-distance bound local anaphors in Korean: An empirical study of the Korean anaphor caki-casin. Lingua, 119, 733–755.Google Scholar
Kim, K.-M. (2019). The syntax of Korean anaphora: An experimental investigation. Doctoral dissertation, Simon Frazer University.Google Scholar
Kim, K.-M. & Han, C.-H. (2016). Inter-speaker variation in Korean pronouns. In Grosz, P. & Patel-Grosz, P., eds., The Impact of Pronominal Form on Interpretation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 347–372.Google Scholar
Kishimoto, H. (2005). Wh-in-situ and movement in Sinhala questions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 23, 1–51.Google Scholar
Ko, H. (2005). Syntax of why-in-situ: Merge into [Spec, CP] in the overt syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 23, 867–916.Google Scholar
Ko, H. (2007). Asymmetries in scrambling and cyclic linearization. Linguistic Inquiry, 38, 49–83.Google Scholar
Ko, H. & Oh, E. (2010). A hybrid approach to floating quantifiers: Experimental evidence. Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 19, 171–184.Google Scholar
Ko, H. & Oh, E. (2012). A hybrid approach to floating quantifiers: Some experimental evidence. Linguistic Research, 29, 69–106.Google Scholar
Koizumi, M. (2000). String vacuous overt verb-raising. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 9, 227–285.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1994). On external arguments. In Benedicto, E. & Runner, J., eds., Functional Projections: University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 17, Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, GLSA, pp.103–130.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1996). Severing the external argument from the verb. In Rooryck, J. & Zariing, L., eds., Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 109–137.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1998). Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide scope indefinites? In Rothstein, S., ed., Events and Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 163–196.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1973). The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965). Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Reprinted, New York: Garland, 1979.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1970). Remarks on the notion of subject with reference to words like also, even, or only, part 2. Annual Bulletin – Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics, Tokyo University. Tokyo: Tokyo University, vol. 4, pp. 127–152.Google Scholar
Kush, D., Lohndal, T., & Sprouse, J. (2018). Investigating variation in island effects: A case study of Norwegian wh-extraction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 36, 743–779.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. & Saito, M. (1992). Move α: Conditions on Its Application and Output. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Laws, J. & Yuen, B. (2010). Is the core-peripheral distinction for unaccusative verbs cross-linguistically consistent? Empirical evidence from Mandarin. Chinese Language and Discourse, 1, 220–263.Google Scholar
Lee, C.-M. (1989). (In-)definites, case-markers, classifiers and quantifiers in Korean. In Kuno, S., Lee, I.-H., Whitman, J., Bak, S.-Y., Kang, Y.-S. & Kim, Y.-J., eds., Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics, 3, 469–487.Google Scholar
Lee, H. (1990). Logical relations in the child’s grammar: Relative scope, bound variables, and long-distance binding in Korean. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
Lee, S. (2009). Interpreting scope ambiguity in first and second language processing: Universal quantifier and negation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.Google Scholar
Lee, T. (2011). Grammatical knowledge of Korean heritage speakers. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 149–174.Google Scholar
Lee, T. H.-T. (1986). Studies on quantification in Chinese. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Li, Y.-H. A. (1998). Argument determiner phrases and number phrases. Linguistic Inquiry, 29(4), 693–702.Google Scholar
Linzen, T. & Oseki, Y. (2018). The reliability of acceptability judgments across languages. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 100. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.528Google Scholar
Liu, F.-H. (1997). Scope and Specificity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Liu, F.-H. (2007). Auxiliary selection in Chinese. In Aranovich, R., ed., Split Auxiliary Systems. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 181–205.Google Scholar
Lu, J., Thompson, C. K., & Yoshida, M. (2020). Chinese wh-in-situ and islands: A formal judgment study. Linguistic Inquiry, 51(3), 611–623.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S. (1989). Structure and Case Marking in Japanese. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S. (2006). Locality in syntax and floated numeral quantifiers in Japanese and Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 14, 270–282.Google Scholar
Myers, J. (2009). The design and analysis of small-scale syntactic judgment experiments. Lingua, 119, 425–444.Google Scholar
Myers, J. (2012). Testing adjunct and conjunct island constraints in Chinese. Language and Linguistics, 13, 437–470.Google Scholar
Nishigauchi, T. (1990). Quantification in the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W. (1991). Categories and Case: The Sentence Structure of Korean. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Omaki, A., Fukuda, S., Nakao, C., & Polinsky, M. (2020). Subextraction in Japanese and subject–object symmetry. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 38, 627–669.Google Scholar
Otani, K. & Whitman, J. (1991). V-raising and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 345–358.Google Scholar
Pan, H. (1996). Imperfective aspect zhe, agent deletion, and locative inversion in Mandarin Chinese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 14, 409–432.Google Scholar
Park, K. (1992). Light verb constructions in Korean and Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Park, M.-K. (1998). Negation and the placement of verb in Korean. Language Research, 34, 709–736.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 157–185.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. (1989). Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 365–424.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1976). The syntactic domain of anaphora. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1997). Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 335–397.Google Scholar
Richards, N. (2008). Wh-questions. In Miyagawa, S. & Saito, M., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 348–371.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1987). Infinite Syntax! Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Ruys, E. G. (1992). The scope of indefinites. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. T. (1996). The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Scontras, G., Polinsky, M., Tsai, C.-Y. E., & Mai, K. (2017). Cross-linguistic scope ambiguity: When two systems meet. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2 (1), 36. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scontras, G., Tsai, C.-Y. E., Mai, K., & Polinsky, M. (2014). Chinese scope: An experimental investigation. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 18, 396–414.Google Scholar
Sohn, K.-W. (1995). Negative polarity items, scope and economy. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (1993). Incomplete vs. divergent representation of unaccusativity in non-native grammars of Italian. Second Language Research, 9, 22–47.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (1995). Acquiring linking rules and argument structures in a second language: The unaccusative/unergative distinction. In Eubank, L., Selinker, L., & Sharwood Smith, M., eds., The Current State of Interlanguage: Studies in Honor of William E. Rutherford. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 153–175.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2000). Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language, 76, 859–890.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. & Shomura, Y. (2001). Lexical constraints on the acquisition of split intransitivity. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 247–278.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2007). A program for experimental syntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. & Almeida, D. (2012). Assessing the reliability of textbook data in syntax: Adger’s core syntax. Journal of Linguistics, 48, 609–652.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. & Almeida, D. (2013). The empirical status of data in syntax: A reply to Gibson and Fedorenko. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 222–228.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Fukuda, S., Ono, H., & Kluender, R. (2011). Reverse island effects and the backward search for a licensor in multiple wh-questions. Syntax, 14, 179–203.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. & Hornstein, N. (2013). Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Schütze, C. T., & Almeida, D. (2013). A comparison of informal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from Linguistic Inquiry 2001–2010. Lingua, 134, 219–248.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Wagers, M., & Phillips, C. (2012). A test of the relation between working memory capacity and syntactic island effects. Language, 88, 82–123.Google Scholar
Tanaka, N. & Schwartz, B. D. (2018). Investigating relative clause island effects in native and nonnative adult speakers of Japanese. In Bertolini, A. B. & Kaplan, M. J., eds., Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 750–763.Google Scholar
Tsai, W.-T. D. (1994). On nominal islands and LE extraction in Chinese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 12, 121–175.Google Scholar
Tsai, W.-T. D. (1997). On the absence of island effects. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies, New Series, 27, 125–149.Google Scholar
Tsai, W.-T. D. (1999). On lexical courtesy. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 8, 39–73.Google Scholar
Yoon, J.-H. (1994). Korean verbal inflection and Checking Theory. In Harley, H. & Phillips, C., eds., MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22: Morphology–Syntax Connection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 251–270.Google Scholar
Yuan, B. (1999). Acquiring the unaccusative/unergative distinction in a second language: Evidence from English-speaking learners of L2 Chinese. Linguistics, 37, 275–296.Google Scholar
Zenker, F. & Schwartz, B. D. (2017). Topicalization from adjuncts in English vs. Chinese vs. Chinese–English interlanguage. In LaMendola, M. & Scott, J., eds., Proceedings of the 41st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 806–819.Google Scholar
Zhou, P. & Gao, L. (2009). Scope processing in Chinese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38, 11–24.Google Scholar

References

Adger, D. (2006). Combinatorial variability. Journal of Linguistics, 42, 503–530.Google Scholar
Auger, J. (1994). Pronominal clitic in Québec colloquial French: A morphological analysis. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Bader, M. & Meng, M. (1999). Subject–object ambiguities in German embedded clauses: An across-the-board comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28(2), 121–143.Google Scholar
Bard, E., Robertson, D., & Sorace, A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72(1), 32–68.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. & Roberts, I. (2012). Towards a parameter hierarchy for auxiliaries: Diachronic considerations. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 6, 267–294.Google Scholar
Blom, E. & Unsworth, S., eds. (2010). Experimental Methods in Language Acquisition Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. & Hornstein, N. (2006). The virtues of control as movement. Syntax, 9, 118–130.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. & Hornstein, N. (2007). On (non-)obligatory control. In Davies, W. D. Dubinsky, & S., eds., New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 251–262.Google Scholar
Bosque, I. & Gutiérrez-Rexach, J. (2009). Fundamentos de sintaxis formal. Madrid: Ediciones Akal.Google Scholar
Boyd, C. O. (2001). Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. In Munhall, P. L., ed., Nursing Research: A Qualitative Perspective. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett, pp. 579–598.Google Scholar
Brandi, L. & Cordin, P. (1989). Two Italian dialects and the Null Subject Parameter. In Jaeggli, O. & Safir, K., eds., The Null Subject Parameter. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 111–142.Google Scholar
Büring, D. & Gutiérrez-Bravo, R. (2001.) Focus-related constituent order variation without the NSR: A prosody-based crosslinguistic analysis. In MacBhloscaidh, S., ed., Syntax at Santa Cruz, vol. 3. University of California, Santa Cruz, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. (2001). Frequency and the Emergence of Language Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. & Repetti, L. (2004). Clitics in Northern Italian dialects: Phonology, syntax and microvariation. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, 14, 7–106.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. & Repetti, L. (2010). Proclitic vs enclitic pronouns in northern Italian dialects and the null-subject parameter. In D’Alessandro, R., Ledgeway, A., & Roberts, I., eds., Syntactic Variation: The Dialects of Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 119–134.Google Scholar
Casey, D. & Murphy, K. (2009). Issues in using methodological triangulation in research. Nurse Researcher, 16(4), 40–55.Google Scholar
Casielles-Suárez, E. (2004). The Syntax–Information Structure Interface: Evidence from Spanish and English. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1977). On WH-movement. In Culicover, P., Wasow, T., & Akmajian, A., eds., Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 71–132.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Cowles, H. W. (2012.) The psychology of information structure. In Krifka, M. & Musan, R., eds., The Expression of Information Structure. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 287–318.Google Scholar
Culbertson, J. (2010). Convergent evidence for categorical change in French: From subject clitic to agreement marker. Language, 86(1) 85–132.Google Scholar
Culbertson, J. & Legendre, G. (2014). Prefixal agreement and impersonal ‘il’ in Spoken French: Experimental evidence. French Language Studies, 24, 83–105.Google Scholar
Davies, W. D. & Dubinsky, S., eds. (2004). The Grammar of Raising and Control: A Course in Syntactic Argumentation. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2016–). Corpus del Español: Two Billion Words, 21 Countries. Available online at www.corpusdelespanol.org/web-dial/Google Scholar
Denzin, N. (1978). The Research Act. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Denzin, N. (1989). The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
DeVicenzi, M. (1996). Syntactic analysis in sentence comprehension: Effects of dependency types and grammatical constraints. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25(1), 117–133.Google Scholar
Feldhausen, I. (2016). Inter-speaker variation, Optimality theory, and the prosody of clitic left-dislocations in Spanish. Probus, 28(2), 293–333.Google Scholar
Fernández-Rubiera, F. (2009). Clitics at the edge: clitic placement in Western Iberian Romance languages. Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. & Clifton, C. (2002). Processing ‘d-linked’ phrases. Journal of Psycholinguistics, 31(6), 633–659.Google Scholar
Gabriel, C. (2010). On focus, prosody, and word order in Argentinean Spanish: A Minimalist OT account. Revista Virtual de Estudos da Linguagem, 4, 183–222.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: a distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Miyashita, Y., Marantz, A., & O’Neil, W., eds., Image, Language, Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 95–126.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G. & Gries, S. T. (2009). Corpora and experimental methods: A state-of-the-art review. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Gonçalves, A., Santos, A. L., & Duarte, I. (2014). (Pseudo-)Inflected infinitives and control as Agree. In Lahousse, K. & Marzo, S., eds., Selected Papers from “Going Romance” Leuven 2012. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 161–180.Google Scholar
Goodall, G. (2010). Experimenting with wh-movement in Spanish. In Arregi, K., Fagyal, Z., Montrul, S., & Tremblay, A., eds., Romance Linguistics 2008: Interactions in Romance. Selected Papers from the 38th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Urbana-Champaign, April 2008. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 233–248.Google Scholar
Goodall, G. (2011). Syntactic satiation and the inversion effect in English and Spanish wh-questions. Syntax, 14, 29–47.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual’s language modes. In Nicol, J., ed., One Mind Two Languages. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
Gupton, T. (2014). The Syntax–Information Structure Interface: Clausal Word Order and the Left Periphery in Galician. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupton, T. (2017). Early minority language acquirers of Spanish exhibit focus-related interface asymmetries: Word order alternation and optionality in Spanish–Catalan, Spanish–Galician, and Spanish–English bilinguals. In Lauchlan, F. & Parafita-Couto, M. C., eds., Bilingualism and Minority Languages in Europe. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 214–241.Google Scholar
Gupton, T. & Leal-Méndez, T. (2013). Experimental methodologies: Two case studies investigating the syntax–discourse interface. Studies in Hispanic & Lusophone Linguistics, 6(1), 139–164.Google Scholar
Halcomb, E. & Andrew, S. (2005). Triangulation as a method for contemporary nursing research. Nurse Researcher, 13(2), 71–82.Google Scholar
Henríquez Ureña, P. (1940). El español en Santo Domingo. Buenos Aires: Coni.Google Scholar
Henry, A. (2005). Non-standard dialects and linguistic data. Lingua, 115(11), 1599–1617.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P. (2007). Representational complexity and memory retrieval in language comprehension. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P., Jaeger, T., Sag, I., Arnon, I., & Snider, I. (2007). Locality and accessibility in wh-questions. In Featherston, S. & Sternefeld, W., eds., Island Constraints: Theory, Acquisition and Processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 195–222.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P., Jaeger, T., Arnon, I., Sag, I., & Snider, I. (2013). The source ambiguity problem: Distinguishing the effects of grammar and processing on acceptability judgments. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1), 48–87.Google Scholar
Hoot, B. (2012). Presentational focus in heritage and monolingual Spanish. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Hoot, B. (2016). Narrow presentational focus in Mexican Spanish: Experimental evidence. Probus, 28(2), 335–365.Google Scholar
Hoot, B. & Leal, T. (2020). Native speaker processing of narrow focus in Spanish. Probus: International Journal of Romance Linguistics, 32(1), 93–127.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2009). The syntax–discourse interface in near-native L2 acquisition: Off-line and on-line performance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(4), 463–483.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1974). A deep structure projection rule. Linguistic Inquiry, 5(4), 481–505.Google Scholar
Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 603–611.Google Scholar
Jiménez-Fernández, A. L. (2015). Towards a typology of focus: Subject position and microvariation at the discourse–syntax interface. Ampersand, 2, 49–60.Google Scholar
Katz, J. & Selkirk, E. (2011). Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: Evidence from phonetic prominence in English. Language, 87(4), 771–816.Google Scholar
Kempchinsky, P. (2018). Generative linguistics: Syntax. In Geeslin, K., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Hispanic Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–30.Google Scholar
Kluender, R. (1998). On the distinction between strong and weak islands: A processing perspective. Culicover, P. & McNally, L., eds.,The Limits of Syntax (Syntax and Semantics, 29). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 241–279.Google Scholar
Knafl, K. A. & Breitmayer, B. J. (1991). Triangulation in qualitative research: Issues of conceptual clarity and purpose. In Morse, J. M., ed., Qualitative Nursing Research: A Contemporary Dialogue. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 226–239.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1996). When intuitions fail. In McNair, L., Singer, K., Dolbrin, L., & Aucon, M., eds., Papers from the Parasession on Theory and Data in Linguistics. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 77–106.Google Scholar
Landau, I. (2000). Elements of Control: Structure and Meaning in Infinitival Constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Landau, I. (2004). The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 22, 811–877.Google Scholar
Leal, T. (2016). Look before you move: Clitic left dislocation in combination with other elements at the Spanish left periphery. Spanish Review of Applied Linguistics, 29(2), 396–428.Google Scholar
Leal, T., Destruel, E., & Hoot, B. (2018). The realization of information focus in monolingual and bilingual native Spanish. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(2), 217–251.Google Scholar
Leal, T. & Slabakova, R. (2019). The relationship between L2 instruction, exposure, and the acquisition of a syntax–discourse property in L2 Spanish. Language Teaching Research, 23(2), 237–258.Google Scholar
Leal, T., Slabakova, R., & Rothman, J. (2014). A rare structure at the syntax–discourse interface: Heritage and Spanish-dominant native speakers weigh in. Language Acquisition, 21(4), 411–429.Google Scholar
Leal Méndez, T. & Slabakova, R. (2011). Pragmatic consequences of P-movement and focus fronting in L2 Spanish: Unraveling the syntax-discourse interface. In Herschensohn, J. & Tanner, D., eds., Proceedings of the 11th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2011). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 63–75.Google Scholar
Leal Méndez, T., Slabakova, R., & Rothman, J. (2015). Discourse-sensitive clitic-doubled dislocations in heritage Spanish. Lingua, 155, 85–97.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. (2015). Parallels in Romance nominal and clausal microvariation. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 60 (2–3) 105–127.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. & Gass, S. M. (2015). Second Language Research: Methodology and Design, 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Martins, A. M. (2011). Coordination, gapping, and the Portuguese inflected infinitive: The role of structural ambiguity in syntactic change. In Jones, D., Whitman, J., & Garrett, A., eds., Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 275–292.Google Scholar
Mayol, L. (2010). Refining salience and the position of antecedent hypothesis: A study of Catalan pronouns. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 16(1), 127–136.Google Scholar
Miller, K. & Schmitt, C. (2010). Effects of variable input in the acquisition of plural in two dialects of Spanish. Lingua, 120(5), 1178–1193.Google Scholar
Modesto, M. (2010). What Brazilian Portuguese says about control: Remarks on Boeckx & Hornstein. Syntax, 13(1), 78–96.Google Scholar
Modesto, M. & Maia, M. (2017). Representation and processing of the inflected infinitive in Brazilian Portuguese: An eye-tracking study. Revista de Estudos da Linguagem, 25(3), 1183–1224.Google Scholar
Molsing, K. (2010). On the L2 Acquisition of the Overt Pronoun Constraint in Brazilian Portuguese. In Guijarro-Fuentes, P. & Domínguez, L., eds., New Directions in Language Acquisition: Romance Languages in the Generative Perspective. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 267–298.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. & Rodr, íguez Louro, C. (2006). Beyond the syntax of the Null Subject Parameter: A look at the discourse-pragmatic distribution of null and overt subjects by L2 learners of Spanish. In Torrens, V. & Escobar, L., eds., The Acquisition of Syntax in Romance Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 401–418.Google Scholar
Muntendam, A. G. (2013). On the nature of cross-linguistic transfer: A case study of Andean Spanish. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(1), 111–131.Google Scholar
Ordóñez, F. & Olarrea, A. (2006). Microvariation in Caribbean/non Caribbean Spanish interrogatives. Probus, 18, 59–96.Google Scholar
Orozco, R. & Guy, G. (2008). El uso variable de los pronombres sujetos: ¿Qué pasa en la costa Caribe colombiana? In Westmoreland, M. & Thomas, J. A., eds., Selected Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 70–80.Google Scholar
Ortiz López, L. A. (2011). Spanish in contact with Haitian Creole. In Díaz-Campos, M., ed., The Handbook of Hispanic Sociolinguistics. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 418–445.Google Scholar
Otheguy, R. & Zentella, A. C. (2012). Spanish in New York. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Otheguy, R., Zentella, A. C., & Livert, D. (2007). Language and dialect contact in Spanish in New York: Toward the formation of a speech community. Language, 83, 770–802.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (1971). Deep and Surface Constraints in Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Pires, A. & Rothman, J. (2009). Disentangling sources of incomplete acquisition: An explanation for competence divergence across heritage grammars. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(2), 211–238.Google Scholar
Pires, A. & Rothman, J. (2010). Building bridges: Experimental L1 acquisition meets diachronic linguistics. In Guijarro-Fuentes, P. & Domínguez, L., eds., New Directions in Language Acquisition: Romance Languages in the Generative Perspective. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 357–385.Google Scholar
Pires, A., Rothman, J., & Santos, A.L. (2011). L1 acquisition across Portuguese dialects: Modular and interdisciplinary interfaces as sources of explanation. Lingua, 121, 605–622.Google Scholar
Poletto, C. (2000). The Higher Functional Field. Evidence from Northern Italian Dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poletto, C. & Pollock, J.-Y. (2005). On wh-clitics, wh-doubling and apparent wh-in-situ in French and some North Eastern Italian dialects. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes, 33, 135–156.Google Scholar
Poletto, C. & Tortora, C. (2016). Subject clitics: Syntax. In Ledgeway, A. & Maiden, M., eds., The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 772–785.Google Scholar
de Prada Pérez, A. (2009). Subject expression in Minorcan Spanish: Consequences of contact with Catalan. Doctoral dissertation, Penn State University.Google Scholar
Redfern, S. J. & Norman, I. J. (1994). Validity through triangulation. Nurse Researcher, 2, 41–56.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1986). Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 501–57.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1991). Residual Verb Second and the Wh- Criterion. Geneva: University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1996). Residual verb second and the Wh-Criterion. In Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L., eds., Parameters and Functional Heads: Essays in Comparative Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 63–90.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (2001). On the position “Int(errogative)” in the left periphery of the clause.” In Cinque, G. & Salvi, G., eds., Current Studies in Italian Syntax. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 287–296.Google Scholar
Roberge, Y. (1990). The Syntactic Recoverability of Null Arguments. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. (2014). Syntactic change. In Carnie, A., Siddiqi, D., & Sato, Y., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Syntax. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 391–408.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, C. A. N. (2004). Impoverished morphology and A-movement out of Case domains. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, C. & Hornstein, N. (2013). Epicene agreement and Inflected Infinitives when the data is “under control”: A reply to Modesto (2010). Syntax, 16(3), 217–309.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. (1967). The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rothman, J. (2007). Heritage speaker competence differences, language change, and input type: Inflected infinitives in Heritage Brazilian Portuguese. International Journal of Bilingualism, 11(4), 359–389.Google Scholar
Rothman, J. (2009). Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences? L2 pronominal subjects and the syntax–pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5) 951–973.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. & Sprouse, J. (2014). Judgment data. In Sharma, D. & Podesva, R., eds., Research Methods in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 27-50.Google Scholar
Sheehan, M. (2012). A new take on partial control: Defective thematic intervention. Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 6, 1–47.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2015). The effect of construction frequency and native transfer on second language knowledge of the syntax–discourse interface. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(3), 671–699.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R., Rothman, J., & Kempchinsky, P. (2011). Gradient competence and the syntax–discourse interface. EUROSLA Yearbook, 11, 218–243.Google Scholar
Snyder, W. (2000). An experimental investigation of syntactic satiation effects. Linguistic Inquiry, 31(3), 575–582.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2018). Acceptability judgments and grammaticality, prospects and challenges. In Hornstein, N., Yang, C., & Patel-Grosz, P., eds., Syntactic Structures after 60 Years: The Impact of the Chomskyan Revolution in Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 195–224.Google Scholar
Suñer, M. (1994). V-movement and the licensing of argumental wh-phrases in Spanish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 12, 335–372.Google Scholar
Toribio, A. J. (1993). Parametric variation in the licensing of nominals. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Torrego, E. (1984). On inversion in Spanish and some of its effects. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 103–129.Google Scholar
Travis, C. E. (2007). Genre effects on subject expression in Spanish: Priming in narrative and conversation. Language Variation and Change, 19(2), 101–135.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, E. (2005). L2 ultimate attainment and the syntax–discourse interface: The acquisition of topic constructions in non-native Spanish and English. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Vermès, G., Collet, S.-M., & Huet, E. (1999). Réflexion métalinguistique en langue minorisée: Le cas du créole pour les enfants réunionnais en France. Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée, 69(2), 73–86.Google Scholar
Warren, T. & Gibson, E. (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition, 85, 79–112.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1980). Predication. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 203–238.Google Scholar
Yang, C. (2002). Knowledge and Learning in Natural Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Young, R. (1995). Conversational styles in language proficiency interviews. Language Learning, 45(1), 3–42.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L. (1998). Prosody, Focus, and Word Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

References

Andersson, S.-G. & Kvam, S. (1984). Satzverschränkung im heutigen Deutsch. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Bader, M., Ellsiepen, E., Koukoulioti, V., & Portele, Y. (2017). Filling the prefield: Findings and challenges. In Freitag, C., Bott, O., & Schlotterbeck, F., eds., Two Perspectives on V2: The Invited Talks of the DGfS 2016 Workshop “V2 in Grammar and Processing: Its Causes and Its Consequences.” Konstanz: University of Konstanz, pp. 27–49.Google Scholar
Bader, M. & Häussler, J. (2010). Word order in German: A corpus study. Lingua, 120(3), 717–762.Google Scholar
Bader, M. & Schmid, T. (2009). Verb clusters in Colloquial German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 12(3), 175–228.Google Scholar
Barbiers, S., Bennis, H., & Dros-Hendriks, L. (2018). Merging verb cluster variation. Linguistic Variation, 18(1), 144–196.Google Scholar
Bard, E. G., Robertson, D., & Sorace, A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72(1), 32–68.Google Scholar
Bayer, J., Häussler, J., & Bader, M. (2016). A new diagnostic for cyclic Wh-movement: Discourse particles in German questions. Linguistic Inquiry, 47(4), 591–629.Google Scholar
Bayer, J. & Salzmann, M. (2013). That-trace effects and resumption: How improper movement can be repaired. In Brandt, P. & Fuß, E., eds., Repairs: The Added Value of Being Wrong. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 275–333.Google Scholar
Bennis, H. (1986). Gaps and Dummies. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Birner, B. J. & Ward, G. (1998). Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2007). Islands. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(1), 151–167.Google Scholar
Bornkessel, I. & Schlesewsky, M. (2009). Processing Syntax and Morphology: A Neurocognitive Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bouma, G. J. (2008). Starting a sentence in Dutch: A corpus study of subject- and object- fronting. Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, S. R. & Kiparsky, P., eds., A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, pp. 232–286.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Lasnik, H. (1977). Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 425–504.Google Scholar
Christensen, K. R., Kizach, J., & Nyvad, A. M. (2013). Escape from the island: Grammaticality and (reduced) acceptability of wh-island violations in Danish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42, 51–70.Google Scholar
Christensen, K. R. & Nyvad, A. M. (2014). On the nature of escapable relative islands. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 48(1), 37–65.Google Scholar
Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2003). Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. (1993). Evidence against ECP accounts of the that-t effect. Linguistic Inquiry, 24(3), 557–561.Google Scholar
Ellsiepen, E. & Bader, M. (2018). Constraints on argument linearization in German. Glossa: a Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 1–36. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.258Google Scholar
Engdahl, E. (1982). Restrictions on unbounded dependencies in Swedish. In Engdahl, E. & Ejerhed, E., eds., Readings on Unbounded Dependencies in Scandinavian Languages. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, pp. 151–174.Google Scholar
Engdahl, E. (1997). Relative clause extractions in context. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 60, 51–79.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N. (1973). On the nature of island constraints. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N. & Lappin, S. (1979). Dominance and the functional explanation of island phenomena. Theoretical Linguistics, 6(1–3), 41–86.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. (1987). Konfigurationalität: Untersuchungen zur Universalgrammatik am Beispiel des Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. (2006). On pure syntax (uncontaminated by information structure). In Brandt, P. & E. Fuss, , eds., Form, Structure and Grammar. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, pp. 137–158.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G., Lenertova, D., & Weskott, T. (2008). Studies on the acceptability of object movement to Spec, CP. In Steube, A., ed., The Discourse Potential of Underspecified Structures, vol. 8. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 413–438.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G., Schlesewsky, M., Vogel, R., & Weskott, T. (2011). Animacy effects on crossing wh-movement in German. Linguistics, 49(4), 657–683.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. & Weskott, T. (2010). A short note on long movement in German. Linguistische Berichte, 222, 129–140.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2005a). Magnitude estimation and what it can do for your syntax: Some wh-constraints in German. Lingua, 115(11), 1525–1550.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2005b). That-trace in German. Lingua, 115(9), 1277–1302.Google Scholar
Frey, W. (2004). A medial topic position for German. Linguistische Berichte, 198, 153–190.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Marantz, A., Miyashita, Y., & O’Neil, W., eds., Image, Language, Brain. Papers from the First Mind Articulation Project Symposium, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 95–126.Google Scholar
Goodall, G. (2015). The D-linking effect on extraction from islands and non-islands. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–11.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, G. (1988). Aspekte der deutschen Syntax: Eine Rektions-Bindungs-Analyse. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Haider, H. (1993). Deutsche Syntax – generativ. Vorstudien zu einer projektiven Theorie der Grammatik. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Haider, H. (2010). The Syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Häussler, J., Grant, M., Fanselow, G. & Frazier, L. (2015). Superiority in English and German: Cross-language grammatical differences? Syntax, 18(3), 235–265.Google Scholar
Heycock, C., Sorace, A., & Hansen, Z. S. (2010). V-to-I and V2 in subordinate clauses: An investigation of Faroese in relation to Icelandic and Danish. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 13(1), 61–97.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P. & Sag, I. A. (2010). Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language, 86(2), 366–415.Google Scholar
Hörberg, T. (2018). Functional motivations behind direct object fronting in written Swedish: A corpus-distributional account. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 81. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.502Google Scholar
Hörberg, T., Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M., & Kallioinen, P. (2013). The neurophysiological correlate to grammatical function reanalysis in Swedish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(3), 388–416.Google Scholar
Keller, F. (2000a). Evaluating competition-based models of word order. In Gleitman, L. R. & Joshi, A. K., eds., Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 747–752.Google Scholar
Keller, F. (2000b). Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Keller, F. (2006). Linear optimality theory as a model of gradience in grammar. In Fanselow, G., Féry, C., Vogel, R., & Schlesewsky, M., eds., Gradience in Grammar: Generative Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 270–287.Google Scholar
Keller, F. & Sorace, A. (2003). Gradient auxiliary selection and impersonal passivization in German: An experimental investigation. Journal of Linguistics, 39, 57–108.Google Scholar
Kempen, G. & Harbusch, K. (2004). Generating natural word orders in a semi-free word order language: Treebank-based linearization preferences for German. In Gelbukh, A., ed., Fifth International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics (CICLing2004), Seoul, South Korea (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2945). Berlin: Springer, pp. 350–354.Google Scholar
Kizach, J. & Balling, L. W. (2013). Givenness, complexity, and the Danish dative alternation. Memory & Cognition, 41(8), 1159–1171.Google Scholar
Kiziak, T. (2010). Extraction Asymmetries: Experimental Evidence from German. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kluender, R. (1998). On the distinction between strong and weak islands: A processing perspective. In Culicover, P. W. & McNally, L., eds., The Limits of Syntax (Syntax and Semantics, 29). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 241–279.Google Scholar
Kluender, R. & Kutas, M. (1993). Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 573–633.Google Scholar
Konieczny, L. (2000). Locality and parsing complexity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 627–645.Google Scholar
Kristensen, L. B., Engberg-Pedersen, E., & Poulsen, M. (2014). Context improves comprehension of fronted objects. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 43(2), 125–140.Google Scholar
Kristensen, L. B., Engberg-Pedersen, E., & Wallentin, M. (2014). Context predicts word order processing in Broca’s region. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(12), 2762–2777.Google Scholar
Kush, D., Lohndal, T., & Sprouse, J. (2018). Investigating variation in island effects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 36, 743–779.Google Scholar
Lenerz, J. (1977). Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Lohndal, T. (2007). That-t in Scandinavian and elsewhere: Variation in the position of C. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 79, 47–73.Google Scholar
Maling, J. & Zaenen, A. (1978). The nonuniversality of a surface filter. Linguistic Inquiry, 9(3), 475–497.Google Scholar
Meng, M., Bader, M., & Bayer, J. (1999). Die Verarbeitung von Subjekt-Objekt-Ambiguitäten im Kontext. In Wachsmuth, I. & Jung, B., eds., KogWiss99. Proceedings der 4. Fachtagung der Gesellschaft fur Kognitionswissenschaft. St. Augustin: Infix Verlag, pp. 244–249.Google Scholar
Nyvad, A. M., Christensen, K. R., & Vikner, S. (2017). CP-recursion in Danish: A cP/Cpanalysis. The Linguistic Review, 34(3), 449–477.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (1987). Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In Reuland, E. J. & ter Meulen, A. G. B., eds., The Representation of (In)definiteness, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 98–129.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (2017). Complementizer-trace effects. In Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H., eds., The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1–34.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (2013). Some arguments and nonarguments for reductionist accounts of syntactic phenomena. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1–2), 156–187.Google Scholar
Poulsen, M. (2008). Acceptability and processing of long-distance dependencies in Danish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 31(1), 73–107.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Cole, P., ed., Radical Pragmatic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 223–255.Google Scholar
Reis, M. (1995). Extractions from verb-second clauses in German? In Lutz, U. & Pafel, J., eds., On Extraction and Extraposition in German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 45–88.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L., ed., Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 281–337.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Salzmann, M., Häussler, J., Bader, M., & Bayer, J. (2013). That-trace effects without traces: An experimental investigation. In S. Kleine & S. Sloggett, eds., NELS 42: Proceedings of the 42nd Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, vol. 2. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, pp. 149–162.Google Scholar
Skopeteas, S. & Fanselow, G. (2009). Effects of givenness and constraints on free word order. In Zimmermann, M. & Féry, C., eds., Information Structure: Theoretical, Typological, and Experimental Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 307–331.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (1992). Conditions on syntactic knowledge: Auxiliary selection in native and non-native grammars of Italian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Speyer, A. (2008). German Vorfeld-filling as constraint interaction. In Benz, A. & Kühnlein, P., eds., Constraints in Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 267–290.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Caponigro, I., Greco, C., & Cecchetto, C. (2016). Experimental syntax and the variation of island effects in English and Italian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 34(1), 307–344.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. & Hornstein, N., eds. (2013). Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Schütze, C., & Almeida, D. (2013). A comparison of informal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from Linguistic Inquiry 2001–2010. Lingua, 134, 219–248.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Wagers, M., & Phillips, C. (2012). A test of the relation between working-memory capacity and syntactic island effects. Language, 88(1), 82–123.Google Scholar
Störzer, M. & Stolterfoht, B. (2018). Is German discourse-configurational? Experimental evidence for a topic position. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
Tutunjian, D., Heinat, F., Klingvall, E., & Wiklund, A.-L. (2017). Processing relative clause extractions in Swedish. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2118.Google Scholar
Uszkoreit, H., Brants, T., Duchier, D., Krenn, B., Konieczny, L., Oepen, S., & Skut, W. (1998). Studien zur performanzorientierten Linguistik Aspekte der Relativsatzextraposition im Deutschen. Kognitionswissenschaft, 7, 129–133.Google Scholar
Weskott, T., Hörnig, R., Fanselow, G., & Kliegl, R. (2011). Contextual licensing of marked OVS word order in German. Linguistische Berichte, 225, 3–18.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, M. (1997). D-Linking, scrambling und superiority in German. GAGL: Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik, 41, 107–142.Google Scholar

References

Ackerman, L., Frazier, M., & Yoshida, M. (2018). Resumptive pronouns can ameliorate illicit island extractions. Linguistic Inquiry, 49, 847–859.Google Scholar
Alexopoulou, T. & Keller, F. (2007). Locality, cyclicity, and resumption: At the interface between the grammar and the human sentence processor. Language, 83, 110–160.Google Scholar
Al-Horais, N. (2006). Arabic verbless sentences: Is there a null VP? Pragmalinguistica, 14, 101–116.Google Scholar
Almeida, D. (2014). Subliminal wh-islands in Brazilian Portuguese and the consequences for syntactic theory. Revista da ABRALIN, 13, 55–93.Google Scholar
Aoun, J. E., Benmamoun, E., & Choueiri, L. (2010). The Syntax of Arabic (Cambridge Syntax Guides). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aoun, J., Choueiri, L., & Hornstein, N. (2001). Resumption, movement, and derivational economy. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 371–403.Google Scholar
Ariel, M. (1999). Cognitive universals and linguistic conventions: The case of resumptive pronouns. Studies in Language, 23, 217–269.Google Scholar
Badecker, W. & Kuminiak, F. (2007). Morphology, agreement and working memory retrieval in sentence production: Evidence from gender and case in Slovak. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 65–85.Google Scholar
Bakir, M. (1979). Aspects of clause structure in Arabic. Doctoral dissertation. Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, E. (2000). The Feature Structure of Functional Categories: A Comparative Study of Arabic Dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, E. (2008). Clause structure and the syntax of verbless sentences. In Freidin, R., Otero, C. P., & Zubizarreta, M. L., eds., Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 105–131.Google Scholar
Bock, K. & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45–93.Google Scholar
Borer, H. (1984). Restrictive relatives in modern Hebrew. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 2, 219–260.Google Scholar
Borer, H. (1999). Deconstructing the construct. In Johnson, K. & Roberts, I. G., eds., Beyond Principles and Parameters. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 43–89.Google Scholar
Borer, H. & Grodzinsky, Y. (1986). Syntactic cliticization and lexical cliticization: The case of Hebrew dative clitics. In Borer, H., ed., The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics (Syntax and Semantics, 19). New York: Academic Press, pp. 175–217.Google Scholar
Borg, A. (1986). The Maintenance of Maltese as a Language: What Chances? Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Bornkessel, I., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Beyond syntax: Language-related positivities reflect the revision of hierarchies. NeuroReport, 13, 361–364.Google Scholar
Camilleri, M., ElSadek, S., & Sadler, L. (2014). A cross dialectal view of the Arabic dative alternation. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 61, 3–44.Google Scholar
Choueiri, L. (2017). Resumption in varieties of Arabic. In Benmamoun, E. & Bassiouney, R., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Arabic Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 131–154.Google Scholar
Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Danon, G. (2012). Nothing to agree on: Non-agreeing subjects of copular clauses in Hebrew. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 59, 85–108.Google Scholar
Danon, G. (2013a). Hebrew QNP agreement: Towards an empirically based analysis. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics, 15, 5–23.Google Scholar
Danon, G. (2013b). Agreement alternations with quantified nominals in Modern Hebrew. Journal of Linguistics, 49, 55–92.Google Scholar
Deutsch, A. & Dank, M. (2011). Symmetric and asymmetric patterns of attraction errors in producing subject–predicate agreement in Hebrew: An issue of morphological structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 24–46.Google Scholar
Eilam, A. (2008). Intervention effects: Why Amharic patterns differently. In Abner, N. & Bishop, J., eds., Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 141–149.Google Scholar
El-Yasin, M. K. (1985). Basic word order in classical Arabic and Jordanian Arabic. Lingua, 65, 107–122.Google Scholar
Engdahl, E. (1997). Relative clause extractions in context. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 60, 51–79.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N. (1973). On the nature of island constraints. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N. (1992). Resumptive pronouns in islands. In Goodluck, H. & Rochemont, M., eds., Island Constraints. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 89–108.Google Scholar
Fabri, R. & Borg, A. (2002). Topic, focus and word order in Maltese. In Abderrahim, Y., Benjelloun, F., Dahbi, M., & Iraqui-Sinaceur, Z., eds., Aspects of the Dialects of Arabic Today. Proceedings of the 4th Conference of the International Arabic Dialectology Association (AIDA). Rabat: Amapatril, pp. 354–363.Google Scholar
Fadlon, J., Keshev, M., & Meltzer-Asscher, A. (2018). A shift in gap manifestation incurs processing costs: Evidence from Hebrew. Poster presented at the 31st CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Davis, CA.Google Scholar
Fadlon, J., Sassoon, G. W., & Schumacher, P. B. (2018). Discrete dimension accessibility in multidimensional concepts. The Mental Lexicon, 13, 105–142.Google Scholar
Falk, Y. N. (2004). The Hebrew present-tense copula as a mixed category. In Proceedings of the Lexical Functional Grammar 04 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Farby, S., Danon, G., Walters, J., & Ben-Shachar, M. (2010). The acceptability of resumptive pronouns in Hebrew. In Falk, Y., ed., Proceedings of the Israeli Association for Theoretical Linguistics 26. Jerusalem: IATL.Google Scholar
Fassi-Fehri, A. (1993). Issues in the Structure of Arabic Clauses and Word Order. London: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. (2005). Psycholinguistics, formal grammars, and cognitive science. The Linguistic Review, 22, 365–380.Google Scholar
Ford, D. (2009). The influence of word order on Modern Standard Arabic information structure. GIALens (Special Electronic Publication of the Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics), 3(2). www.gial.eduGoogle Scholar
Gafter, R. J. (2014). The distribution of the Hebrew Possessive Dative construction: Guided by unaccusativity or prominence?. Linguistic Inquiry, 45, 482–500.Google Scholar
Gezmu, A. M., Seyoum, B. E., Gasser, M., & Nürnberger, A. (2018). Contemporary Amharic Corpus: Automatically morpho-syntactically tagged Amharic corpus. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Linguistic Resources for Natural Language Processing, 65–70.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S. T., & Fedorenko, E. (2013). Quantitative methods in syntax/semantics research: A response to Sprouse and Almeida (2013). Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 229–240.Google Scholar
Gollan, T. H., & Frost, R. (2001). Two routes to grammatical gender: Evidence from Hebrew. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 627–651.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Y. (2008). Predication and equation in Hebrew (nonpseudocleft) copular sentences. Current Issues in Generative Hebrew Linguistics, 1, 161–196.Google Scholar
Hazout, I. (1990). Verbal nouns: Theta-theoretical studies in Hebrew and Arabic. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Heestand, D., Xiang, M., & Polinsky, M. (2011). Resumption still does not rescue islands. Linguistic Inquiry, 42, 138–152.Google Scholar
Heller, D. (1999). The syntax and semantics of specificational pseudoclefts in Hebrew. MA thesis, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
Ibrahim, I. I. (2016). Gender assignment to lexical borrowings by heritage speakers of Arabic. Western Papers in Linguistics/Cahiers linguistiques de Western, 1, article 1.Google Scholar
Keshev, M. (2016). Active dependency formation in syntactic islands: Evidence from Hebrew sentence processing. MA thesis, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
Keshev, M. & Meltzer-Asscher, A. (2017). Active dependency formation in islands: How grammatical resumption affects sentence processing. Language, 93, 549–568.Google Scholar
Keshev, M. & Meltzer-Asscher, A. (2019). A processing-based account of subliminal wh-island effects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 37, 621–657.Google Scholar
Khamis-Dakwar, R., Froud, K., & Gordon, P. (2012). Acquiring diglossia: Mutual influences of formal and colloquial Arabic on children’s grammaticality judgments. Journal of Child Language, 39, 61–89.Google Scholar
Kluender, R. (1998). On the distinction between strong and weak islands: A processing perspective. In Culicover, P. W. & McNally, L., eds., The Limits of Syntax (Syntax and Semantics, 29). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 241–280.Google Scholar
Kramer, R. & Eilam, A. (2012). Verb-medial word orders in Amharic. Journal of Afroasiatic Languages, 5, 75–104.Google Scholar
Landau, I. (1999). Possessor raising and the structure of VP. Lingua, 107, 1–37.Google Scholar
Landau, I. (2010). The Locative Syntax of Experiencers (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph, 53). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lassadi, B. (2003). Optional wh-movement in French and Egyptian Arabic. Cahiers linguistiques d’Ottawa, 31, 67–93.Google Scholar
Linzen, T. & Oseki, Y. (2018). The reliability of acceptability judgments across languages. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 100. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.528Google Scholar
Malkawi, N. & Guilliot, N. (2007). Reconstruction & Islandhood in Jordanian Arabic. In Mughazy, M. A., ed., Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics, vol. XX. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 87–104.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. (2017). Resumption. In Everaert, M. & Van Riemsdijk, H. C., eds.,The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
Meltzer-Asscher, A. (2021). Resumptive pronouns in language comprehension and production. Annual Review of Linguistics, 7, 1.1–1.18.Google Scholar
Meltzer-Asscher, A., Fadlon, J., Goldstein, K., & Holan, A. (2015). Direct object resumption in Hebrew: How modality of presentation and relative clause position affect acceptability. Lingua, 166, 65–79.Google Scholar
Meltzer-Asscher, A. & Siloni, T. (2013). Unaccusative. In The Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Mohammad, M. (1988). On the parallelism between IP and DP. In Borer, H., ed., Proceedings of the 7th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 7). Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 241–254.Google Scholar
Ouhalla, J. (1991). Functional Categories and Parametric Variation. New York:Routledge.Google Scholar
Overfelt, J. D. (2009). The syntax of relative clause constructions in Tigrinya. Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 157–190.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (2010). Should we impeach armchair linguists? Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 17, 49–64.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (2013). On the nature of island constraints. I: Language processing and reductionist accounts. In Sprouse, J. & Hornstein, N., eds., Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 64–108.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. & Wagers, M. (2007). Relating structure and time in linguistics and psycholinguistics. In Gaskel, M. G., ed., Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 739–756.Google Scholar
Preminger, O. (2010). Nested interrogatives and the locus of wh. In Phoevos Panagiotidis, E., ed., The Complementizer Phase: Subjects and Operators. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 200–235.Google Scholar
Prunet, J. F. (2006). External evidence and the Semitic root. Morphology, 16, 41–67.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1981). A second COMP position. In Belletti, A., Brandi, L., & Rizzi, L., eds., Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore, pp. 517–557.Google Scholar
Ritter, E. (1991). Two functional categories in noun phrases. Rothstein, S., ed., Perspectives on Phrase Structure (Syntax and Semantics, 25). New York: Academic Press, pp. 37–62.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Rychlý, P. & Suchomel, V. (2016). Annotated Amharic Corpora. In Sojka, P., Horak, A., Kopachek, I., & Pala, K., eds., Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Text, Speech, and Dialogue. New York: Springer, pp. 295–302.Google Scholar
Ryding, K. C. (2011). Arabic datives, ditransitives, and the preposition li. In Orfali, B., ed., The Shadow of Arabic: The Centrality of Language to Arabic Culture. Leiden: Brill, pp. 283–299.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. (2016). The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Sells, P. (1984). Syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns. Linguistic Review, 4, 261–267.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, U. (1992). Resumptive pronouns as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 443–468.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, U. (1997). Clause Structure and Word Order in Hebrew and Arabic: An Essay in Comparative Semitic Syntax. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, U. (2004). The form of Semitic noun phrases. Lingua, 114, 1465–1526.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, U. & Ouhalla, J. (2002). Themes in Arabic and Hebrew Syntax. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Sichel, I. (2014). Resumptive pronouns and competition. Linguistic Inquiry, 45, 655–693.Google Scholar
Siloni, T. (2001). Construct states at the PF interface. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 1, 229–266.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2007). Continuous Acceptability, categorical grammaticality, and experimental syntax. Biolinguistics, 1, 118–129.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Caponigro, I., Greco, C., & Cecchetto, C. (2016). Experimental syntax and the variation of island effects in English and Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 34, 307–444.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Fukuda, S., Ono, H., & Kluender, R. (2011). Reverse island effects and the backward search for a licensor in multiple wh-questions. Syntax, 14, 179–203.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Schütze, C., & Almeida, D. (2013). A comparison of informal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from Linguistic Inquiry 2001–2010. Lingua, 134, 219–248.Google Scholar
Stowe, L. (1986). Parsing wh-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1, 227–245.Google Scholar
Tucker, M., Idrissi, A., & Almeida, D. (2015). Representing number in the real-time processing of agreement: self-paced reading evidence from Arabic. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 347.Google Scholar
Tucker, M., Idrissi, A., Sprouse, J., & Almeida, D. (2019). Resumption ameliorates different islands differentially: Acceptability data from Modern Standard Arabic. In Khalfaoui, A. & Tucker, M., eds., Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics, 30: Papers from the Annual Symposia on Arabic Linguistics, Stony Brook, New York, 2016, and Norman, Oklahoma, 2017. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 159–193.Google Scholar
Vella, A. (2013). Languages and language varieties in Malta. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16, 532–552.Google Scholar
Wagers, M. W., Lau, E. F., & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(2), 206–237.Google Scholar
Wahba, W. A. (1992). LF movement in Iraqi Arabic. In Huang, J. & May, R., eds., Logical Structure and Linguistic Structure. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 253–276.Google Scholar
Wasow, T. & Arnold, J. (2005). Intuitions in linguistic argumentation. Lingua, 115, 1481–1496.Google Scholar
Wilmsen, D. (2010). Dialects of written Arabic: Syntactic differences in the treatment of object pronouns in Egyptian and Levantine newspapers. Arabica, 57, 99–128.Google Scholar
Wilmsen, D. (2012). The ditransitive dative divide in Arabic: Grammaticality assessments and actuality. In Bassiouney, R. & Katz, E. G., eds., Arabic Language and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 215–232.Google Scholar
Yoshida, M., Kazanina, N., Pablos, L., & Sturt, P. (2014). On the origin of islands. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 761–770.Google Scholar

References

Anderson, C. (2004). The structure and real-time comprehension of quantifier scope ambiguity. Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Antonyuk, S. (2015). Quantifier scope and scope freezing in Russian. Doctoral dissertation, Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
Antonyuk-Yudina, S. & Mykhaylyk, R. (2013). Prosody of scrambling. In Kan, S., Moore-Cantwell, C., & Staubs, R., eds., Proceedings of NELS 40. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications, pp. 31–44.Google Scholar
Babby, L. (1987). Case, prequantifiers, and discontinous agreement in Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5, 91–138.Google Scholar
Bader, M. & Bayer, J. (2006). Case and Linking in Language Comprehension: Evidence from German. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Bailyn, J. F. (1995). A configurational approach to Russian “free” word order. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Bard, E. G., Robertson, D., & Sorace, A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72, 32–68.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, E., Bhatia, A., & Polinsky, M. (2010). Closest conjunct agreement in head final languages. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 9, 67–88.Google Scholar
Bhatt, R. & Walkow, M. (2013). Locating agreement in grammar: An argument from agreement in conjunctions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 31, 951–1013.Google Scholar
Bonet, E. (1991). Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Bogucka, J. (2012). Single conjunct agreement with coordinated subjects in Polish. Talk given at Young Linguists’ Meeting in Poznan.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. (2002). On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry, 33, 351–383.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. (2009). Unifying first and last conjunct agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 27, 455–496.Google Scholar
Büring, D. (2008). What’s new (and what’s given) in the theory of focus? In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 403–424.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1964). Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 1–22.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2008). On phases. In Freidin, R., Otero, C. P., & Zubizarreta, M.-L., eds., Foundational Issues in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 133–166.Google Scholar
Dočekal, M. & Dotlačil, J. (2016). Experimental evidence for Neg-raising in Slavic. Linguistica, 56(1), 93–109.Google Scholar
Dvořák, V. (2010). On the syntax of ditransitive verbs in Czech. In Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 18. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 161–177.Google Scholar
Dyakonova, M. (2007). Russian double object constructions. ACLC Working Papers, 2, 3–30. Available at http://home.hum.uva.nl/oz/hengeveldp/publications/2007_hengeveld.pdf#page=3Google Scholar
Fanselow, G., Schlesewsky, M., Vogel, R., & Weskott, T. (2011). Animacy effects on crossing wh-movement in German. Linguistics, 49(4), 657–683.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2005). That-trace in German. Lingua, 115(9), 1277–1302.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1974) The Psychology of Language. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Franks, S. (1995). Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Golden, M. (1995). Interrogative wh-movement in Slovene and English. Acta Analytica, 14, 145–187.Google Scholar
Golden, M. (1996). K-premik in skladenjski otoki v slovenski skladnji. Razprave SAZU, Razred II, vol. 15. Ljubljana: SAZU, pp. 237–253.Google Scholar
Golden, M. (1997). O jeziku in jezikoslovju. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta.Google Scholar
Hajičová, E. (1993). Issues of Sentence Structure and Discourse Patterns. Prague: Charles University Press.Google Scholar
Hajičová, E., Partee, B. H., & Sgall, P. (1998). Topic-Focus Articulation, Tripartite Structures, and Semantic Content. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Hladnik, M. (2015). Mind the gap: resumption in Slavic relative clauses. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. (2003). The one girl who was kissed by every boy: Scope, scrambling and discourse function in Russian. In M. van Koppen et al., eds., Proceedings of ConSole X. Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe, pp. 65–80.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. & Luchkina, T. (2015). One reading for every word order: Revisiting Russian scope. In Steindl, U. et al., eds., Proceedings of the 32nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 21–30.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. & Luchkina, T. (2018). Focus on Russian scope: An experimental investigation of the relationship between quantifier scope, prosody, and information structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 49 (4), 741–779.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. & Matushansky, O. (2006). The composition of complex cardinals. Journal of Semantics, 23, 315–360.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. & Matushansky, O. (2013). More than one comparative in more than one Slavic language: An experimental investigation. In Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 21: The Third Indiana Meeting. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 91–107.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. & Matushansky, O. (2018). Cardinals: The syntax and semantics of cardinal-containing expressions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 24(1) (2016).Google Scholar
Kallestinova, E. (2007). Aspects of word order in Russian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Kallestinova, E. & Slabakova, R. (2008). Does the verb move in Russian? In Antonenko, A., Bailyn, J., & Bethin, C., eds., Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 16: The Stony Brook Meeting. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 199–214.Google Scholar
King, T. (1995). Configuring Topic and Focus in Russian. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kiss, K., ed. (1995). Discourse Configurational Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Łęska, P. (2016). Agreement under Case Matching in Polish co and który relative clauses headed by numerically quantified nouns. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 24(1), 113–136.Google Scholar
Luchkina, T. & Ionin, T. (2015). The effect of prosody on availability of inverse scope in Russian. In Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 23: The Berkeley Meeting. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 418–437.Google Scholar
Marušič, F., Nevins, A., & Saksida, A. (2007). Last-conjunct agreement in Slovenian. In Compton, R., Goledzinowska, M., & Savchenko, U., eds., Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 15: The Toronto Meeting. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 210–227.Google Scholar
Marušič, F., Nevins, A., & Badecker, W. (2015). The Grammars of conjunction agreement in Slovenian. Syntax, 18(1), 39–77.Google Scholar
Marvin, T. & Stegovec, A. (2012). On the syntax of ditransitive sentences in Slovenian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 59 (1–2), 177–203.Google Scholar
Mathesius, V. (1947). Čeština a obecný jazykozpyt (‘Czech language and general linguistics’). Prague: Melantrich.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. (2005). Resumption. In Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H., eds., The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, vol. 4. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 94–117.Google Scholar
Meyer, R. (2004). Superiority effects in Russian, Polish and Czech: Judgments and grammar. Cahiers linguistiques d’Ottawa, 32, 44–65.Google Scholar
Meyer, R. & Mleinek, I. (2006). How prosody signals force and focus a study of pitch accents in Russian yes-no questions. Journal of Pragmatics, 38 (10), 1615–1635.Google Scholar
Mišmaš, P. (2015). On the optionality of wh-fronting in a multiple wh-fronting language. Doctoral dissertation, University of Nova Gorica.Google Scholar
Mitić, I. & Arsenijević, B. (2019). Plural conjuncts and syncretism facilitate gender agreement in Serbo-Croatian: Experimental evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 942. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00942Google Scholar
Murphy, A., Puškar, Z., & Naranjo, M. G. (2018). Gender encoding on hybrid nouns in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian: Experimental evidence from ellipsis. In Lenertová, D., Meyer, R., Šimík, R., & Szucsich, L., eds., Advances in Formal Slavic Linguistics 2016. Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 313–336.Google Scholar
Mykhaylyk, R., Rodina, Y., & Anderssen, M. (2013). Ditransitive constructions in Russian and Ukrainian: Effect of givenness on word order. Lingua, 137, 271–289.Google Scholar
Nevins, A. (2007). The representation of third person and its consequences for person–case effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25, 273–313.Google Scholar
Oliver, D. & Andreeva, B. (2004). Peak alignment in broad and narrow focus in Polish and Bulgarian: A cross-language study. In Zybatow, G., Szucsich, L., Junghanns, U., & Meyer, R., eds., Proceedings of Formal Description of Slavic Languages V. Berlin: Peter Lang, pp. 26–29.Google Scholar
Pancheva, R. (2006). Phrasal and clausal comparatives in Slavic. In Lavine, J., Franks, S., Tasseva-Kurktchieva, M., & Filip, H., eds., Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 14: The Princeton Meeting. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 236–257.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (1971). Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (1987). Wh-in situ: Movement and unselective binding. In Reuland, E. J. & ter Meulen, A. G. B., eds., The Representation of (In)definiteness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 98–129.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (2013). Russian Case Morphology and the Syntactic Categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (2006). The real-time status of island phenomena. Language, 82(4), 795–823.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M., Gallo, C. G., Graff, P., Kravtchenko, E., Morgan, A. M., & Sturgeon, A. (2013). Subject islands are different. In Sprouse, J., ed., Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 286–309.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. (1989). Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 365–424.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L., ed., Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 281–337.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (2007). On some properties of criterial freezing. In Moscati, V., ed., CISCL Working Papers on Language and Cognition, 1: StiL Studies in Linguistics. University of Siena, pp. 145–158.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Rudin, C. (1988). On multiple questions and multiple wh-fronting. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6, 445–501.Google Scholar
Runić, J. (2013). The Person–Case Constraint: A morphological consensus. Linguistics Society of America Annual Meeting Extended Abstracts 2013, 37, 1–5. Available at: https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/ExtendedAbs/issue/view/23Google Scholar
Schwarzchild, R. (1999). GIVENness, AvoidF, and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics, 7(2), 141–177.Google Scholar
Sekerina, I. (1997). The syntax and processing of scrambling constructions in Russian. Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York.Google Scholar
Sekerina, I. (2017). Slavic psycholinguistics in the 21st century. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 25(2), 465–489.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, U. (1992). Resumptive pronouns as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 443–468.Google Scholar
Šimík, R. & Wierzba, M. (2015). The role of givenness, presupposition, and prosody in Czech word order: An experimental study. Semantics and Pragmatics, 8(3), 1–103. DOI: 10.3765/sp.8.3Google Scholar
Šimík, R. & Wierzba, M. (2017). Expression of information structure in West Slavic: Modeling the impact of prosodic and word-order factors. Language, 93(3), 671–709.Google Scholar
Šimík, R., Wierzba, M., & Kamali, B. (2014). Givenness and the position of the direct object in the Czech clause. In Chapman, C., Kit, O., & Kučerová, I., eds., Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 22: The McMaster Meeting 2013. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 302–318.Google Scholar
Smiljanić, R. (2006). Early vs. late focus: Pitch-peak alignment in two dialects of Serbian and Croatian. In Goldstein, L., Whalen, D. H., & Best, C. T., eds., Laboratory Phonology 8. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 495–518.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Caponigro, I., Greco, C., & Cecchetto, C. (2016). Experimental syntax and the variation of island effects in English and Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 34, 307–344.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Wagers, M., & Phillips, C. (2012). A test of the relation between working-memory capacity and syntactic island effects. Language, 88(1), 82–123.Google Scholar
Stepanov, A. (2007). The end of CED? Minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax, 10, 80–126.Google Scholar
Stepanov, A., Mušič, M., & Stateva, P. (2016). Asymmetries in sub-extraction out of NP in Slovenian: A magnitude estimation study. Linguistica, 56 (1), 253–271.Google Scholar
Stepanov, A., Mušič, M., & Stateva, P. (2018). Two (non-)islands in Slovenian: A study in experimental syntax. Linguistics, 56(3), 435–476.Google Scholar
Stepanov, A. & Stateva, P. (2018). Countability, agreement and the loss of the dual in Russian. Journal of Linguistics, 54(4), 779–821.Google Scholar
Stoops, A. & Ionin, T. (2013). Quantifier scope and scrambling in Russian: An experimental study. In Proceedings of the Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Bloomington Meeting. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 344–358.Google Scholar
Stopar, A. (2017). The prosody of focus: Non-contrastive, contrastive and verum focus in Slovenian, English and Russian. Linguistica, 57(1), 293–312.Google Scholar
Sturgeon, A., Harizanov, B., Polinsky, M., Kravtchenko, E., Gallo, C. G., Medová, L., & Koula, V. (2012). Revisiting the Person Case Constraint in Czech. In Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 19. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 116–130.Google Scholar
Sturgeon, A., Polinsky, M., Kravtchenko, G., Gallo, C. E., Medová, L., & Koula, V. (2010). Subject islands in Slavic: The syntactic position matters! Paper presented at Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 19, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Takahashi, D. (1994). Minimality of movement. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. (1988). On government. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Vaiksnoraite, E. (2019). Russian is the new Czech? An experimental investigation of Genitive of Negation in Russian. Poster at Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 28, May 3–5, 2019, Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
Vakareliyska, C. M. (1996). Subject/topic slots in Bulgarian: Evidence from aphasia. In Toman, J., ed., Papers from the Third Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 273–290.Google Scholar
Vallduví, E. & Engdahl, E. (1996). The linguistic realization of information packaging. Linguistics 34(3), 459–519.Google Scholar
Wagner, M. (2012). Focus and givenness: A unified approach. In Kučerová, I. & Neeleman, A., eds., Contrasts and Positions in Information Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 102–148.Google Scholar
Willer-Gold, J., Arsenijević, B., Batinić, M., Čordalija, N., Kresić, M., Leko, N., Marušič, F. L., Milićev, T., Milićević, N., Mitić, I., Nevins, A., Peti-Stantić, A., Stanković, B., Šuligoj, T., & Tušek, J. (2016). Conjunct agreement and gender in South Slavic: From theory to experiments to theory. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 24(1), 187–224.Google Scholar
Willer-Gold, J., Arsenijević, B., Batinić, M., Becker, M., Čordalija, N., Kresić, M., Leko, N., Marušič, F. L., Milićev, T., Milićević, N., Mitić, I., Peti-Stantić, A., Stanković, B., Šuligoj, T., Tušek, J., & Nevins, A. (2018). When linearity prevails over hierarchy in syntax. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(3), 495–500.Google Scholar
Zybatow, G. & Mehlhorn, G. (2000). Experimental evidence for focus structure in Russian. In King, T. H. & Sekerina, I. A., eds., Proceedings of the Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 8. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 414–434.Google Scholar

References

Abner, N. (2013). Gettin’ together a posse: The primacy of predication in ASL possessives. Sign Language & Linguistics, 16(2), 125–156.Google Scholar
Adam, R. (2012). Language contact and borrowing. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Woll, B., eds., Sign Language: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 841–862.Google Scholar
Arendsen, J., Doorn, A. J. van, & Ridder, H. de. (2010). Acceptability of sign manipulations. Sign Language & Linguistics, 13(2), 101–155.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M., Meir, I., & Sandler, W. (2005). The paradox of sign language morphology. Language, 81(2), 301–344.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412.Google Scholar
Bavelier, D., Tomann, A., Hutton, C., … & Neville, H. (2000). Visual attention to the periphery is enhanced in congenitally deaf individuals. Journal of Neuroscience, 20(17), RC93–RC93.Google Scholar
Börstell, C. (2017). Object marking in the signed modality: Verbal and nominal strategies in Swedish Sign Language and other sign languages. Doctoral dissertation, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Bouchard, D. & Dubuisson, C. (1995). Grammar, order & position of wh-signs in Quebec Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 1087(1), 99–139.Google Scholar
Boudreault, P. & Mayberry, R. I. (2006). Grammatical processing in American Sign Language: Age of first-language acquisition effects in relation to syntactic structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(5), 608–635.Google Scholar
Boutla, M., Supalla, T., Newport, E. L., & Bavelier, D. (2004). Short-term memory span: Insights from sign language. Nature Neuroscience, 7(9), 997–1002.Google Scholar
Branchini, C., Cardinaletti, A., Cecchetto, C., Donati, C., & Geraci, C. (2013). Wh-duplication In Italian Sign Language (LIS). Sign Language & Linguistics, 16(2), 157–188.Google Scholar
Burkova, S. (2015). Russian Sign Language Corpus. Retrieved April 1, 2018, from http://rsl.nstu.ru/Google Scholar
Caponigro, I. & Davidson, K. (2011). Ask, and tell as well: Question–answer clauses in American Sign Language. Natural Language Semantics, 19(4), 323–371.Google Scholar
Cecchetto, C. (2012). Sentence types. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Woll, B., eds., Sign Language: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 292–315.Google Scholar
Cecchetto, C., Geraci, C., & Zucchi, S. (2009). Another way to mark syntactic dependencies: The case for right-peripheral specifiers in sign languages. Language, 85(2), 278–320.Google Scholar
Cormier, K., Schembri, A., Vinson, D., & Orfanidou, E. (2012). First language acquisition differs from second language acquisition in prelingually deaf signers: Evidence from sensitivity to grammaticality judgement in British Sign Language. Cognition, 124(1), 50–65.Google Scholar
Couvee, S. & Pfau, R. (2018). Structure and grammaticalization of serial verb constructions in Sign Language of the Netherlands: A corpus-based study. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00993Google Scholar
Crasborn, O., Zwitserlood, I., & Ros, J. (2008). Corpus NGT: An Open Access Digital Corpus of Movies with Annotations of Sign Language of the Netherlands. Retrieved from www.ru.nl/corpusngtuk/introduction/welcome/Google Scholar
Davidson, K. (2013). “And” or “or”: General use coordination in ASL. Semantics and Pragmatics, 6. DOI: 10.3765/sp.6.4Google Scholar
Davidson, K. (2014). Scalar implicatures in a signed language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 17(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
Davidson, K. (2015). Quotation, demonstration, and iconicity. Linguistics and Philosophy, 38(6), 477–520.Google Scholar
de Beuzeville, L., Johnston, T., & Schembri, A. C. (2009). The use of space with indicating verbs in Auslan: A corpus-based investigation. Sign Language & Linguistics, 12(1), 53–82.Google Scholar
Divjak, D. (2017). The role of lexical frequency in the acceptability of syntactic variants: Evidence from that-clauses in Polish. Cognitive Science, 41(2), 354–382.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K. & Herzig, M. (2003). Categorical versus gradient properties of classifier constructions in ASL. In Emmorey, K., ed., Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Signed Languages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 222–246.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2007). Data in generative grammar: The stick and the carrot. Theoretical Linguistics, 33(3). DOI: 10.1515/TL.2007.020Google Scholar
Fenlon, J., Schembri, A., & Cormier, K. (2018). Modification of indicating verbs in British Sign Language: A corpus-based study. Language, 94(1), 84–118.Google Scholar
Geraci, C., Battaglia, K., Cardinaletti, A., … & Mereghetti, E. (2011). The LIS Corpus project: A discussion of sociolinguistic variation in the lexicon. Sign Language Studies, 11(4), 528–574.Google Scholar
Geraci, C., Gozzi, M., Papagno, C., & Cecchetto, C. (2008). How grammar can cope with limited short-term memory: Simultaneity and seriality in sign languages. Cognition, 106(2), 780–804.Google Scholar
Gökgöz, K. (2013). The nature of object marking in American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette.Google Scholar
Henner, J., Caldwell-Harris, C. L., Novogrodsky, R., & Hoffmeister, R. (2016). American Sign Language syntax and analogical reasoning skills are influenced by early acquisition and age of entry to signing schools for the deaf. Frontiers in Psychology, 07. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01982Google Scholar
Hoza, J., Neidle, C., MacLaughlin, D., Kegl, J., & Bahan, B. (1997). A unified syntactic account of rhetorical questions in American Sign Language. In Neidle, C., MacLaughlin, D., & Lee, R. G., eds., Syntactic Structure and Discourse Function: An Examination of Two Constructions in American Sign Language. Boston, MA: ASLLRP Publications, pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. S. & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21(1), 60–99.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kimmelman, V. (2012). Word order in Russian Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 12(3), 414–445.Google Scholar
Kimmelman, V. (2018). Impersonal reference in Russian Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 21(2), 204–231.Google Scholar
Kimmelman, V., Klomp, U., & Oomen, M. (2018). Where methods meet: Combining corpus data and elicitation in sign language research. In Proceedings of 8th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Involving the Linguistic Community. Paris: ELRA, pp. 95–100.Google Scholar
Krebs, J., Wilbur, R. B., & Roehm, D. (2017). Two agreement markers in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS). Sign Language & Linguistics, 20(1), 27–54.Google Scholar
Kuhn, J. & Aristodemo, V. (2017). Pluractionality, iconicity, and scope in French Sign Language. Semantics and Pragmatics, 10(6). DOI: 10.3765/sp.10.6Google Scholar
Langsford, S., Perfors, A., Hendrickson, A. T., Kennedy, L. A., & Navarro, D. J. (2018). Quantifying sentence acceptability measures: Reliability, bias, and variability. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 37. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.396Google Scholar
Liddell, S. K. (2003). Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D., & Meier, R. P. (2011). On the linguistic status of “agreement” in sign languages. Theoretical Linguistics, 37(3–4). DOI: 10.1515/thli.2011.009Google Scholar
Loos, C. (2017). The syntax and semantics of resultative constructions in Deutsche Gebärdensprache (DGS) and American Sign Language (ASL). Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Meier, R. P. (2012). Language and modality. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Woll, B., eds., Sign Language: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 77–112.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. E. & Karchmer, M. A. (2004). Chasing the mythical ten percent: Parental hearing status of deaf and hard of hearing students in the United States. Sign Language Studies, 4(2), 138–163.Google Scholar
Myers, J. (2009). The design and analysis of small-scale syntactic judgment experiments. Lingua, 119(3), 425–444.Google Scholar
Napoli, D. J. & Sutton-Spence, R. (2014). Order of the major constituents in sign languages: Implications for all language. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00376Google Scholar
Neidle, C., Kegl, J., Bahan, B., Aarons, D., & MacLaughlin, D. (1997). Rightward wh-movement in American Sign Language. In Beerman, D., LeBlanc, D., & Van Riemsdijk, H., eds., Rightward Movement. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 247–278.Google Scholar
Neidle, C., Kegl, J., MacLaughlin, D., Bahan, B., & Lee, R. G. (2000). The Syntax of American Sign Language: Functional Categories and Hierarchical Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Neidle, C., MacLaughlin, D., Lee, R. G., Bahan, B., & Kegl, J. (1998). The rightward analysis of wh-movement in ASL: A reply to Petronio and Lillo-Martin. Language, 74(4), 819–831.Google Scholar
Neville, H. & Lawson, D. S. (1987). Attention to central and peripheral visual space in a movement detection task: An event-related potential and behavioral study (Parts I, II, III). Brain Research, 405, 253–294.Google Scholar
Novogrodsky, R., Henner, J., Caldwell-Harris, C., & Hoffmeister, R. (2017). The development of sensitivity to grammatical violations in American Sign Language: Native versus nonnative signers: Sensitivity to grammatical violations in ASL. Language Learning, 67(4), 791–818.Google Scholar
Oomen, M. & Pfau, R. (2017). Signing not (or not): A typological perspective on standard negation in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Linguistic Typology, 21(1), 1–51.Google Scholar
Orfanidou, E., Woll, B., & Morgan, G., eds. (2015). Research Methods in Sign Language Studies: A Practical Guide. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Perniss, P., Thompson, R. L., & Vigliocco, G. (2010). Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology, 1. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227Google Scholar
Petronio, K. & Lillo-Martin, D. (1997). WH-movement and the position of Spec-CP: Evidence from American Sign Language. Language, 73(1), 18–57.Google Scholar
Pfau, R. & Quer, J. (2010). Nonmanuals: their prosodic and grammatical roles. In Brentari, D., ed., Sign Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 381–402.Google Scholar
Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Woll, B., eds. (2012). Sign Language: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Quadros, R. M. de, Lillo-Martin, D., & Chen Pichler, D. (2016). Bimodal bilingualism: Sign language and spoken language. In Marschark, M. & Spencer, P. E., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 181–196.Google Scholar
Rietveld-van Wingerden, M. (2003). Educating the deaf in The Netherlands: A methodological controversy in historical perspective. History of Education, 32(4), 401–416.Google Scholar
Sandler, W. & Lillo-Martin, D. C. (2006). Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sandler, W., Meir, I., Padden, C., & Aronoff, M. (2005). The emergence of grammar: Systematic structure in a new language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(7), 2661–2665.Google Scholar
Schembri, A. & Johnston, T. (2012). Sociolinguistic aspects of variation and change. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Woll, B., eds., Sign Language: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 788–816.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. (2014). Iconic features. Natural Language Semantics, 22(4), 299–356.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. (2017). Super monsters I: Attitude and Action Role Shift in sign language. Semantics and Pragmatics, 10(9). DOI: 10.3765/sp.10.9Google Scholar
Schütze, C. T. & Sprouse, J. (2014). Judgment data. In Sharma, D. & Podesva, R., eds., Research Methods in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 27–50.Google Scholar
Sehyr, Z. S. & Cormier, K. (2015). Perceptual categorization of handling handshapes in British Sign Language. Language and Cognition, 8(4), 501–532.Google Scholar
Senghas, A., Kita, S., & Özyürek, A. (2004). Children creating core properties of language: Evidence from an emerging sign language in Nicaragua. Science, 305(5691), 1779–1782.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Schütze, C. T., & Almeida, D. (2013). A comparison of informal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from Linguistic Inquiry 2001–2010. Lingua, 134, 219–248.Google Scholar
Stamp, R., Schembri, A., Fenlon, J., & Rentelis, R. (2015). Sociolinguistic variation and change in British Sign Language number signs: Evidence of leveling? Sign Language Studies, 15(2), 151–181.Google Scholar
Styles, E. A. (2008). The Psychology of Attention. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Taub, S. F. (2012). Iconicity and metaphor. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Woll, B., eds., Sign Language: An International Handbook, Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 388–412.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. L., Vinson, D. P., Woll, B., & Vigliocco, G. (2012). The road to language learning is iconic: Evidence from British Sign Language. Psychological Science, 23(12), 1443–1448.Google Scholar
Van Gijn, I. (2004). The quest for sytactic dependency: Sentential complementation in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Van Herreweghe, M. & Vermeerbergen, M. (2012). Handling sign language data. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Woll, B., eds., Sign Language: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1023–1045.Google Scholar
Wheatley, M. & Pabsch, A. (2012). Sign Language Legislation in the European Union, 2nd ed. Brussels: European Union of the Deaf.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. (1996). Evidence for function and structure of wh-clefts in American Sign Language. In Edmondson, W. H. & Wilbur, R., eds., International Review of Sign Linguistics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 209–256.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. B. (2008). Complex predicates involving events, time, and aspect: Is this why sign languages look so similar? In Quer, J., ed., Signs of the Time: Selected Papers from TISLR 2004. Hamburg: Signum, pp. 217–250.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. B. & Schick, B. S. (1987). The effects of linguistic stress on ASL signs. Language and Speech, 30(4), 301–323.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. & Emmorey, K. (1997). A visuospatial “phonological loop” in working memory: Evidence from American Sign Language. Memory & Cognition, 25(3), 313–320.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. (1994). Describing Variation in American Sign Language: Implicational Lects on the Deaf Diglossic Continuum. Burtonsville, MD: Linstok Press.Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, I. (2012). Classifiers. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Woll, B., eds., Sign Language: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 158–186.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×