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-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T13:36:20.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part I - General Issues in Acceptability Experiments

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. 5 - 208
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

Alexopoulou, T. & Keller, F. (2007). Locality, cyclicity, and resumption: At the interface between the grammar and the human sentence processor. Language, 83(1), 110–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beltrama, A. & Xiang, M. (2016). Unacceptable but comprehensible: The facilitation effect of resumptive pronouns. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 1(1), 29. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.24Google Scholar
Bermel, N. & Knittl, L. (2012). Corpus frequency and acceptability judgments: A study of morphosyntactic variants in Czech. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8(2), 241–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bever, T. G., Carrithers, C., Cowart, W., & Townsend, D. J. (1989). Language processing and familial handedness. In Galaburda, A. M., ed., From Reading to Neurons. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 331–360.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1978). Asking more than one thing at a time. In Hiz, H., ed., Questions. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. & Ford, M. (2010). Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language, 86(1), 168–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsson, A. M. (1983). Assessment of chronic pain. I. Aspects of the reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale. Pain, 16(1), 87–101.Google Scholar
Chacón, D. A. (2015). Comparative psychosyntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1977). On Wh-movement. In Culicover, P., Akmajian, A., & Wasow, T., eds., Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 71–132.Google Scholar
Cole, P. & Hermon, G. (1998). The typology of wh‐movement and wh‐questions in Malay. Syntax, 1(3), 221–258.Google Scholar
Cole, P. & Hermon, G. (2000). Partial Wh-Movement: Evidence from Malay. In Lutz, U., Müller, G., & Von Stechow, A., eds., Wh-scope Marking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 101–130.Google Scholar
Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental Syntax. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. & Jackendoff, R. (2010). Quantitative methods alone are not enough: Response to Gibson and Fedorenko. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(6), 234–235.Google Scholar
Davidson, R. J. (1992). Anterior cerebral asymmetry and the nature of emotion. Brain and Cognition, 20, 125–151.Google Scholar
Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(3), 371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, R. H., Turk, D. C., Wyrwich, K. W., Beaton, D., Cleeland, C. S., Farrar, J. T., & Brandenburg, N. (2008). Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Journal of Pain, 9(2), 105–121.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. (2017). Partial wh‐movement. In Everaert, M. & Van Riemsdijk, H. C., eds., The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd edn. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2005). Universals and grammaticality: Wh-constraints in German and English. Linguistics, 43(4), 667–711.Google Scholar
Fedorenko, E. & Gibson, E. (2010). Adding a third wh‐phrase does not increase the acceptability of object‐initial multiple‐wh‐questions. Syntax, 13(3), 183–195.Google Scholar
Fiengo, R. & Higginbotham, J. (1981). Opacity in NP. Linguistic Analysis, 7, 347–373.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1935). The logic of inductive inference. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 98(1), 39–82.Google Scholar
Forouzanfar, T., Weber, W. E., Kemler, M., & van Kleef, M. (2003). What is a meaningful pain reduction in patients with complex regional pain syndrome type 1? Clinical Journal of Pain, 19(5), 281–285.Google Scholar
Fukuda, S. (2012). Aspectual verbs as functional heads: evidence from Japanese aspectual verbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 30(4), 965–1026.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), 28. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.268Google Scholar
Gallego, Á. (2009). On freezing effects. Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 1(1), 33–51.Google Scholar
Garrod, S. (2006). Psycholinguistic research methods. In Brown, K., ed., Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 251–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, E. & Fedorenko, E. (2010). Weak quantitative standards in linguistics research. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(6), 233.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. & Fedorenko, E. (2013). The need for quantitative methods in syntax and semantics research. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1–2), 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(3), 229–240.Google Scholar
Goodall, G. (2015). The D-linking effect on extraction from islands and non-islands. Frontiers in Psychology: Language Sciences, 5, 1493. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01493Google Scholar
Goodall, G. (2017). Referentiality and resumption in wh-dependencies. In Ostrove, J., Kramer, R., & Sabbagh, J., eds., Asking the Right Questions: Essays in Honor of Sandra Chun, pp. 65–80. eScholarship, University of California. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8255v8scGoogle Scholar
Grewendorf, G. (1988). Aspekte der deutschen Syntax. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Guajardo, G. & Goodall, G. (2019). On the status of Concordantia Temporum in Spanish: An experimental approach. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1), 116. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, B. M., Klein, B. P., Petridou, N., & Dumoulin, S. O. (2013) Topographic representation of numerosity in the human parietal cortex. Science, 341(6150), 1123–1126.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P., Culicover, P., & Winkler, S. (2015). Effects of processing on the acceptability of “frozen” extraposed constituents. Syntax, 18(4), 464–483.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P., Staum Casasanto, L., & Sag, I. A. (2014). Processing effects in linguistic judgment data: (Super-)additivity and reading span scores. Language and Cognition, 6(1), 111–145.Google Scholar
Householder, F. W. (1973). On arguments from asterisks. Foundations of Language, l0(3), 365–376.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1983). Connectedness. Linguistic Inquiry, 14, 223–249.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (1984). Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Keffala, B. (2011). Resumption and gaps in English relative clauses: Relative acceptability creates an illusion of “saving.” In Cathcart, C. et al., eds., Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 140–154.Google Scholar
Keffala, B. & Goodall, G. (2011). Do resumptive pronouns ever rescue illicit gaps in English? Poster presented at the 24th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Stanford, California.Google Scholar
Keffala, B. & Goodall, G. (2013). On processing difficulty and the acceptability of resumptive pronouns. Paper presented at Linguistic Evidence – Berlin Special, Humboldt-Universität, Berlin.Google Scholar
Kim, B. & Goodall, G. (2016). Islands and non-islands in native and heritage Korean. Frontiers in Psychology: Language Sciences, 7. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, D. & Goodall, G. (2018). Complexity effects in A- and A’-dependencies. Poster presented at 31st CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, UC Davis.Google 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.396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, H. & Saito, M. (1992). Move Alpha: Conditions on Its Application and Output. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, S. & Phillips, C. (2015). Aligning grammatical theories and language processing models. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44(1), 27–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahowald, K., Graff, P., Hartman, J., & Gibson, E. (2016). SNAP judgments: A small N acceptability paradigm (SNAP) for linguistic acceptability judgments. Language, 92(3), 619–635.Google Scholar
Michel, D. (2014). Individual cognitive measures and working memory accounts of syntactic island phenomena. Doctoral dissertation, University of Calfiornia, San Diego.Google Scholar
Müller, G. (2010). On deriving CED effects from the PIC. Linguistic Inquiry, 41(1), 35–82.Google Scholar
Myers, J. (2009). Syntactic judgment experiments. Language & Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 406–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, J. (2017). Acceptability judgments. In Aronoff, M., ed., Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.333Google Scholar
Namboodiripad, S. (2017). An experimental approach to variation and variability in constituent order. Doctoral dissertation, University of Calfiornia, San Diego.Google Scholar
Natale, M., Gur, R. E., & Gur, R. C. (1983). Hemispheric asymmetries in processing emotional expressions. Neuropsychologia, 19, 609–613.Google Scholar
Omaki, A., Fukuda, S., Nakao, C., & Polinsky, M. (2020). Subextraction in Japanese and subject–object symmetry. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 38, 627–669.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. (1971). Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (2017). Complementizer‐trace effects. In Everaert, M. & Van Riemsdijk, H. C., eds., The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (2009). Should we impeach armchair linguists? Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 17, 49–64.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. & Wagers, M. (2007). Relating structure and time in linguistics and psycholinguistics. In Levelt, P. & Caramazza, A., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 739–756.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M., Clemens, L. E., Morgan, A. M., Xiang, M., & Heestand, D. (2013). Resumption in English. In Sprouse, J. & Hornstein, N., eds., Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ritchart, A., Goodall, G., & Garellek, M. (2016). Prosody and the that-trace effect: An experimental study. In Kim, K. et al., eds., Proceedings of the 33rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 320–328.Google Scholar
Saddy, D. (1991). Wh-scope mechanisms in Bahasa Indonesia. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 15, 183–218.Google Scholar
Sag, I., Hofmeister, P., & Snider, N. (2007). Processing complexity in subjacency violations: the complex noun phrase constraint. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 215–229.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. T. (2016). The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. & Sprouse, J. (2014). Judgment data. In Podesva, R. & Sharma, D., eds., Research Methods in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 27–51.Google Scholar
Sedarous, Y. & Namboodiripad, S. (2020). Using audio stimuli in acceptability judgment experiments. Language and Linguistics Compass, 14:e12377. DOI: 10.1111/lnc3.12377Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. & Almeida, D. (2012). Assessing the reliability of textbook data in syntax: Adger’s Core Syntax. Journal of Linguistics, 48(3), 609–652.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. & Almeida, D. (2017). Design sensitivity and statistical power in acceptability judgment experiments. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1). DOI:10.5334/gjgl.236Google 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(1), 82–123.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., Fukuda, S., Ono, H., & Kluender, R. (2011). Reverse island effects and the backward search for a licensor in multiple wh-questions. Syntax, 14(2), 179–203.Google Scholar
Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the Theory of Scales of Measurement. Science, 103(2684), 677–680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Torrego, E. (1985). On empty categories in nominals. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Boston.Google Scholar
Zorzi, M., Priftis, K., & Umiltà, C. (2002). Brain damage: Neglect disrupts the mental number line. Nature, 417(6885), 138–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

References

Adli, A. (2004). Grammatische Variation und Sozialstruktur. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, N. (1989). Integration psychophysics. Behavioral Brain Science, 12, 268–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bader, M. & Bayer, J. (2006). Case and Linking in Language Comprehension. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Bader, M. & Häussler, J. (2010). Toward a model of grammaticality judgments. Journal of Linguistics, 46(2), 273–330.Google Scholar
Bard, E., Robertson, D., & Sorace, A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72(1), 32–68.Google Scholar
Birnbaum, M. (1980). Comparison of two theories of ‘difference’ and ‘ratio’ judgements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 304–319.Google Scholar
Boland, J., Tanenhaus, M., & Garnsey, S. (1990). Lexical structure and parsing: Evidence for the immediate use of verbal argument and control information in parsing. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 413–432.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1988). Punctuation and the prosody of written language. Written Communication, 5(4), 395–426.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clifton, C., Frazier, L., & Connine, C. (1984). Lexical expectations in sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23(6), 696–708.Google Scholar
Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
David, H. (1988). The Method of Paired Comparisons. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (2011). Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, 2nd ed. Oxford and New York: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Ellermeier, W. & Faulhammer, G. (2000). Empirical evaluation of axioms fundamental to Stevens’s ratio-scaling approach: I. Loudness production. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1505–1511.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2007). Data in generative grammar: The stick and the carrot. Theoretical Linguistics, 33(3), 269–318.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2009). Why linguistics needs boiling and freezing points. In Featherston, S. & Winkler, S., eds., The Fruits of Empirical Linguistics, vol. 1: Process. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 47–74.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. (2002). Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. In Hirotani, M., ed., Proceedings of NELS 32. Amherst, MA: GLSA, pp. 113–132.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1985). Modularity and the representational hypothesis. Proceedings of NELS 15. Amherst, MA: GLSA, pp. 131–145.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
Gerbrich, H., Schreier, V., & Featherston, S. (2019). Standard items for English judgement studies: Syntax and semantics. In Featherston, S., Hörnig, R., von Wietersheim, S., & Winkler, S., eds., Experiments in Focus: Information Structure and Semantic Processing. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 305–327.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
Hofmeister, P., Jaeger, T. F., Sag, I., Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2013). The source ambiguity problem: Distinguishing effects of grammar and processing on acceptability judgments. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 48–87.Google Scholar
Höhle, T. (1982). Markiertheit, Linking, Regelformat – Evidenz aus dem Deutschen. In Vennemann, T., ed., Silben, Segmente, Akzente (Linguistische Arbeiten 126). Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 99–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, D., Shen, W., Shriberg, E., Stolcke, A., Kamm, T., & Reynolds, D. (2005). Two experiments comparing reading with listening for human processing of conversational telephone speech. INTERSPEECH-2005, 1145–1148.Google Scholar
Keller, F. (2000). Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.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 32. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 77–106.Google Scholar
Laming, D. (1997). The Measurement of Sensation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McBride, R. (1993). Integration psychophysicon as: The use of functional measurement in the study of mixtures. Chemical Senses 18, 83–92.Google Scholar
McElree, B. (1993). The locus of lexical preference effects in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 536–571.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (2007). Should we impeach armchair linguists? In Iwasaki, S., Hoji, H., Clancy, P. M., & Sohn, S.-O., eds., Japanese/Korean Linguistics 17. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 49–64.Google Scholar
Poulton, E. C. (1989). Bias in Quantifying Judgments. Hove and London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Saaty, T. L. (2008). Relative measurement and its generalization in decision making: Why pairwise comparisons are central in mathematics for the measurement of intangible factors – the Analytic Hierarchy/Network Process. Review of the Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Series A: Mathematics (RACSAM), 102(2), 251–318.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. T. (1996). The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology: Grammaticality Judgements and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2007). A program for experimental syntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.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
Stevens, S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103(2684), 677–680.Google Scholar
Stevens, S. (1975). Psychophysics: Introduction to Its Perceptual, Neural and Social Prospects. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Stevens, S. & Galanter, E. (1957). Ratio scales and category scale for a dozen perceptual continua. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 377–411.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, M., Boland, J., Garnsey, S., & Carlson, G. (1989). Lexical structure in parsing long-distance dependencies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 37–49.Google Scholar
Wasow, T. (2002). Postverbal Behavior. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Weskott, T. & Fanselow, G. (2011). On the informativity of different measures of linguistic acceptability. Language, 87(2), 249–273.Google Scholar

References

Aarts, B. (2007). Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alexopoulou, T. & Keller, F. (2007). Locality, cyclicity, and resumption: At the interface between the grammar and the human sentence processor. Language, 83(1), 110–160.Google Scholar
Almeida, D. (2014). Subliminal wh-islands in Brazilian Portuguese and the consequences for syntactic theory. Revista da ABRALIN, 13(2), 55–91.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
Bader, M. & Häussler, J. (2010). Toward a model of grammaticality judgments. Journal of Linguistics, 46(2), 273–330.Google Scholar
Bard, E. G., Robertson, D., & Sorace, A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 71(2), 32–68.Google Scholar
Bock, K. & Middleton, E. L. (2011). Reaching agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 29(4), 1033–1069.Google Scholar
Bürkner, P. C. & Vuorre, M. (2019). Ordinal regression models in psychology: A tutorial. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(1), 77–101.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12(4), 335–359.Google Scholar
Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental Syntax. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
DeCarlo, L. T. (2002). Signal detection theory with finite mixture distributions: Theoretical developments with applications to recognition memory. Psychological Review, 109(4), 710.Google Scholar
DeLong, E. R., DeLong, D. M., & Clarke-Pearson, D. L. (1988). Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics, 44(3), 837–845.Google Scholar
Dillon, B., Andrews, C., Rotello, C. M., & Wagers, M. (2019). A new argument for co-active parses during language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(7), 1271.Google Scholar
Dillon, B., Staub, A., Levy, J., & Clifton, C. Jr. (2017). Which noun phrases is the verb supposed to agree with? Object agreement in American English. Language, 93(1), 65–96.Google Scholar
Drummond, A. (2013). Ibex farm. Online server: http://spellout.net/ibexfarm.Google Scholar
Dube, C., Rotello, C. M., & Heit, E. (2010). Assessing the belief bias effect with ROCs: It’s a response bias effect. Psychological Review, 117(3), 831.Google Scholar
Efron, B. & Tibshirani, R. (1993). An Introduction to the Bootstrap. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2008). Thermometer judgments as linguistic evidence. In Riehl, C. M. & Rothe, A. (eds.), Was ist linguistische Evidenz? Aachen: Shaker Verlag, pp. 69–90.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2009). Relax, lean back, and be a linguist. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 28(1), 127–32.Google Scholar
Franck, J. (2011). Reaching agreement as a core syntactic process. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 29(4), 1071–1086.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
Gahl, S., Jurafsky, D., & Roland, D. (2004). Verb subcategorization frequencies: American English corpus data, methodological studies, and cross-corpus comparisons. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 432–443.Google Scholar
Goodall, G. (2015). The D-linking effect on extraction from islands and non-islands. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1493.Google Scholar
Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2001). Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(6), 1411.Google Scholar
Hanley, J. A. & McNeil, B. J. (1983). A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology, 148(3), 839–843.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
Hautus, M. J. (1995). Corrections for extreme proportions and their biasing effects on estimated values of d′. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 27(1), 46–51.Google Scholar
Hautus, M. J. (1997). Calculating estimates of sensitivity from group data: Pooled versus averaged estimators. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 29(4), 556–562.Google Scholar
Heit, E. & Rotello, C. M. (2014). Traditional difference-score analyses of reasoning are flawed. Cognition, 131(1), 75–91.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434–446.Google Scholar
Keller, F. (2000). Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Kush, D., Lohndal, T., & Sprouse, J. (2018). Investigating variation in island effects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 36(3), 743–779.Google 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). DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.396Google Scholar
Lau, J. H., Clark, A., & Lappin, S. (2017). Grammaticality, acceptability, and probability: A probabilistic view of linguistic knowledge. Cognitive Science, 41(5), 1202–1241.Google Scholar
Liddell, T. M. & Kruschke, J. K. (2018). Analyzing ordinal data with metric models: What could possibly go wrong? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 328–348.Google Scholar
Liu, C. C. & Smith, P. L. (2009). Comparing time-accuracy curves: Beyond goodness-of-fit measures. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(1), 190–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loftus, G. R. (1978). On interpretation of interactions. Memory & Cognition, 6(3), 312–319.Google Scholar
Ma, H., Bandos, A. I., Rockette, H. E., & Gur, D. (2013). On use of partial area under the ROC curve for evaluation of diagnostic performance. Statistics in Medicine, 32(20), 3449–3458.Google Scholar
Macmillan, N. A. & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection Theory: A User’s Guide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Macmillan, N. A. & Kaplan, H. L. (1985). Detection theory analysis of group data: Estimating sensitivity from average hit and false-alarm rates. Psychological Bulletin, 98(1), 185.Google Scholar
Macmillan, N. A., Rotello, C. M., & Miller, J. O. (2004). The sampling distributions of Gaussian ROC statistics. Perception & Psychophysics, 66(3), 406–421.Google Scholar
Mauner, G. (1995). Examining the empirical and linguistic bases of current theories of agrammatism. Brain and Language, 50(3), 339–368.Google Scholar
McElree, B. (2000). Sentence comprehension is mediated by content-addressable memory structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 111–123.Google Scholar
McElree, B., Foraker, S., & Dyer, L. (2003). Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(1), 67–91.Google Scholar
Melo, F. (2013). Area under the ROC curve. In Dubitzky, W., Wolkenhauer, O., Cho, K. H., & Yokota, H., eds., Encyclopedia of Systems Biology. New York: Springer New York, pp. 38–39.Google Scholar
Pazzaglia, A. M., Dube, C., & Rotello, C. M. (2013). A critical comparison of discrete-state and continuous models of recognition memory: Implications for recognition and beyond. Psychological Bulletin, 139(6), 1173.Google Scholar
Ratcliff, R., McKoon, G., & Tindall, M. (1994). Empirical generality of data from recognition memory receiver-operating characteristic functions and implications for the global memory models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(4), 763.Google Scholar
Ratcliff, R., Sheu, C. F., & Gronlund, S. D. (1992). Testing global memory models using ROC curves. Psychological Review, 99(3), 518.Google Scholar
Robin, X., Turck, N., Hainard, A., Tiberti, N., Lisacek, F., Sanchez, J. C., & Müller, M. (2011). pROC: An open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics, 12(1), 77.Google Scholar
Rotello, C. M., Heit, E., & Dubé, C. (2015). When more data steer us wrong: Replications with the wrong dependent measure perpetuate erroneous conclusions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(4), 944–954.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. T. (1996). The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. T. & Sprouse, J. (2014). Judgment data. In Podesva, R. & Sharma, D., eds., Research Methods in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 27–50.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. & Keller, F. (2005). Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua, 115(11), 1497–1524.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2011). A test of the cognitive assumptions of magnitude estimation: Commutativity does not hold for acceptability judgments. Language 87(2), 274–288.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. (2017). Design sensitivity and statistical power in acceptability judgment experiments. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1), 1–32. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.236Google 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., 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
Sprouse, J., Yankama, B., Indurkhya, S., Fong, S., & Berwick, R. C. (2018). Colorless green ideas do sleep furiously: gradient acceptability and the nature of the grammar. Linguistic Review, 35(3), 575–599.Google Scholar
Stevens, S. S. (1956). The direct estimation of sensory magnitudes: Loudness. American Journal of Psychology, 69(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Stevens, S. S. (1960). The psychophysics of sensory function. American Scientist, 48(2), 226–253.Google Scholar
Theodoridis, S. & Koutroumbas, K. (2008). Pattern Recognition. Burlington, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Venkatraman, E. S. (2000). A permutation test to compare receiver operating characteristic curves. Biometrics, 56, 1134–1138.Google Scholar
Wagers, M. (2013). Memory mechanisms for wh-dependency formation and their implications for islandhood. In Sprouse, J. & Hornstein, N. (eds.), Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 161–185.Google Scholar
Wagers, M. & Dillon, B. (in prep). Which sentences do speakers favor? ROC analysis of d-linking in filler–gap integration.Google Scholar
Wagers, M. W. & Phillips, C. (2014). Going the distance: memory and control processes in active dependency construction. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(7), 1274–1304.Google Scholar
Warstadt, A., Singh, A., & Bowman, S. R. (2018). Neural network acceptability judgments. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.12471.Google Scholar
Weskott, T. & Fanselow, G. (2011). On the informativity of different measures of linguistic acceptability. Language, 87(2), 249–273.Google Scholar

References

Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., & Young, C. R. (2008). The effect of verb semantic class and verb frequency (entrenchment) on children’s and adults’ graded judgements of argument-structure overgeneralization errors. Cognition, 106, 87–129.Google Scholar
Andersson, S.-G. & Kvam, S. (1984). Satzverschränkung im heutigen Deutsch. Eine syntaktische und funktionale Studie unter Berücksichtigung alternativer Konstruktionen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing NP Antecedents. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. & Milin, P. (2010). Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(2), 12–28.Google Scholar
Bader, M. & Häussler, J. (2010). Toward a model of grammaticality judgments. Journal of Linguistics, 46(2), 273–330.Google Scholar
Bard, E. G., Robertson, D., & Sorace, A. (1996). Magnitude Estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72(1), 32–68.Google Scholar
Bayer, J. (1984). Comp in Bavarian syntax. The Linguistic Review, 3(3), 209–274.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1978). Asking more than one thing at a time. In Hiz, H., eds., Questions. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 97–106.Google Scholar
Brandner, E. (2012). Syntactic microvariation. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6, 113–130.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. & Ford, M. (2010). Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language, 86(1),168–213.Google Scholar
Buchholz, S. & Latorre, J. (2011). Crowdsourcing preference tests, and how to detect cheating. In P. Cosi, R. De Mori, G. Di Fabbrizio, & R. Pieraccini, eds., INTERSPEECH 2011: 12th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, pp. 3053–3056. ISCA Archive: www.isca-speech.org/archive/interspeech_2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, S. & Kiparsky, P., eds., A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, pp. 232–286.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and Representations (Woodbridge Lectures 11). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Clifton, C., Jr., Fanselow, G., & Frazier, L. (2006). Amnestying superiority violations: Processing multiple questions. Linguistic Inquiry, 37, 51–68.Google Scholar
Clifton, C. Jr., Frazier, L., & Connine, C. (1984). Lexical expectations in sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 23, 696–708.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46.Google Scholar
Conway, A., Kane, M., Bunting, M., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 769–86.Google Scholar
Cover, T. M. & Hart, P. E. (1967). Nearest neighbor pattern classification. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 13(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Cox, E. P (1980). The optimal number of response alternatives for a scale: A review. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 407–422.Google Scholar
Crawford, J. (2012). Using syntactic satiation to investigate subject islands. In J. Choi, E. Hogue, 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. 38–45.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. & Jackendoff, R. (2010). Quantitative methods alone are not enough: Response to Gibson and Fedorenko. Trends Cognitive Science, 14, 234–235.Google Scholar
Dandurand, F., Shultz, T. R., & Onishi, K. H. (2008). Comparing online and lab methods in a problem-solving experiment. Behavior Research Methods, 40(2), 428–434.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
Downs, J. S., Holbrook, M. B., Sheng, S., & Cranor, L. F. (2010). Are your participants gaming the system? Screening Mechanical Turk workers. In Mynatt, E., ed., CHI ʼ10: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Atlanta, GA: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 2399–2402.Google Scholar
Eickhoff, C. & de Vries, A. P. (2013). Increasing cheat robustness of crowdsourcing tasks. Information Retrieval, 16(2), 121–137.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. & Frisch, S. (2006). Effects of processing difficulty on judgments of acceptability. In Fanselow, G., Féry, C., Schlesewsky, M., & Vogel, R., eds., Gradience in Grammar: Generative Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 291–316.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G., Kliegl, R., & Schlesewsky, M. (2005). Syntactic variation in German wh-questions: Empirical investigations of weak crossover violations and long wh-movement. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 5, 37–63.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2007). Data in generative grammar: The stick and the carrot. Theoretical Linguistics, 33, 269–318.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2008). Thermometer judgments as linguistic evidence. In Riehl, C. M. & Rothe, A., eds., Was ist linguistische Evidenz? Aachen: Shaker Verlag, pp. 69–89.Google Scholar
Fedorenko, E. & Gibson, E. (2010). Adding a third wh-phrase does not increase the acceptability of object-initial multiple-wh-questions. Syntax, 13(3), 183–195.Google Scholar
Fine, A. B., Jaeger, T. F., Farmer, T. A., & Qian, T. (2013). Rapid expectation adaptation during syntactic comprehension. PLoS ONE, 8(10), e77661. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0077661Google Scholar
Fix, E. & Hodges, J. (1989). Discriminatory analysis. Nonparametric discrimination: Consistency properties. International Statistical Review / Revue internationale de statistique, 57(3), 238–247.Google Scholar
Forgy, E. W. (1965). Cluster analysis of multivariate data: Efficiency versus interpretability of classification. Biometrics, 21(3), 768–769.Google Scholar
Francom, J. (2009). Experimental syntax: Exploring the effect of repeated exposure to anomalous syntactic structure – evidence from rating and reading tasks. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Garland, R. (1991). The mid-point on a rating scale: Is it desirable? Marketing Bulletin, 2, 66–70.Google Scholar
Gerbrich, H., Schreier, V., & Featherston, S. (2019). Standard items for English judgment studies: Syntax and semantics. In Featherston, S., Hörnig, R., von Wietersheim, S., & Winkler, S. (eds.), Experiments in Focus: Information Structure and Semantic Processing. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 305–327.Google Scholar
Gervain, J. (2003). Syntactic microvariation and methodology: problems and perspectives. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 50(3–4), 405–434.Google Scholar
Ghiselli, E. E. (1939). All or none versus graded response questionnaires. Journal of Applied Psychology, 23, 405–415.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. & Fedorenko, E. (2010). Weak quantitative standards in linguistics research. Trends Cognitive Science, 14, 233–234.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S., & Fedorenko, K. (2011). Using Mechanical Turk to obtain and analyze English acceptability judgments. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5(8), 509–524.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1983). Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2013). Statistics for Linguistics with R. A Practical Introduction, 2nd, revised ed. Berlin and Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Guajardo, G. & Goodall, , G. (2019). On the status of Concordantia Temporum in Spanish: An experimental approach. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1), 116. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.749Google Scholar
Hancock, R. & Bever, T. G. (2013). Genetic factors and normal variation in the organization of language. Biolinguistics, 7, 75–95.Google Scholar
Harrington Stack, C. M., James, A. N., & Watson, D. G. (2018). A failure to replicate rapid syntactic adaptation in comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 46, 864–877.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., Bernolet, S., Schoonbaert, S., Speybroeck, S., & Vanderelst, D. (2008). Syntactic priming persists while the lexical boost decays: Evidence from written and spoken dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 214–238.Google Scholar
Häussler, J. & Juzek, T. S. (2017). Hot topics surrounding acceptability judgement tasks. In Featherston, S., Hörnig, R., Steinberg, R., Umbreit, B., & Wallis, J., eds., Proceedings of Linguistic Evidence 2016: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives. University of Tübingen, http://dx.doi.org/10.15496/publikation-19039Google Scholar
Hiramatsu, K. (2000). Accessing linguistic competence: Evidence from children’s and adults’ acceptability judgments. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P., Jaeger, T. F., Sag, I. A., Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2007). Locality and accessibility in wh-questions. In Featherston, S. & Sternefeld, W., eds., Roots: Linguistics in Search of Its Evidential Base. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 185–206.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P. & Sag, I. A. (2010). Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language, 86, 366–415.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P., Staum Casasanto, L., & Sag, I. A. (2012a). How do individual cognitive differences relate to acceptability judgments? A reply to Sprouse, Wagers, and Phillips. Language, 88, 390–400.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P., Staum, Casasanto, L., & Sag, I. A. (2012b). Misapplying working memory tests: A reductio ad absurdum. Language, 88(2), 408–409.Google Scholar
Jegerski, J. (2014). Self-paced reading. In Jegerski, J. & VanPatten, B., eds., Research Methods in Second Language Psycholinguistics. New York: Routledge, pp. 20–49.Google Scholar
Just, M. A. & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1), 122–149.Google Scholar
Kaan, E. & Chun, E. (2018). Priming and adaptation in native speakers and second-language learners. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21, 228–242.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1983). Connectedness. Linguistic Inquiry, 14, 223–249.Google Scholar
Kazai, G. (2011). In search of quality in crowdsourcing for search engine evaluation. In Clough, P., Foley, C., Gurrin, C., Jones, G., Kraaij, W., Lee, H., & Murdock, V., eds., Advances in Information Retrieval. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 165–176.Google Scholar
Kazai, G., Kamps, J., & Milic-Frayling, N. (2011). Worker types and personality traits in crowdsourcing relevance labels. In Berendt, B., de Vries, A., Fan, W., Macdonald, C., Ounis, I., & Ruthven, I., eds., Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM’11). New York: ACM, pp. 1941–1944.Google Scholar
Kilpatrick, F. P. & Cantril, H. (1960). Self-anchoring scaling: A measure of individuals’ unique reality worlds. Journal of Individual Psychology, 16, 158–173.Google Scholar
Klaus, J. & Schriefers, H. (2016). Measuring verbal working memory capacity: A reading span task for laboratory and web-based use. OSF Preprints. December 7. DOI:10.31219/osf.io/nj48xGoogle Scholar
Kluender, R. (1998). On the distinction between strong and weak islands: A processing perspective. In Culicover, P. & McNally, L., eds., The Limits of Syntax (Syntax and Semantics, 29). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 241–279.Google Scholar
Kluender, R. (2004). Are subject islands subject to a processing account? In Chand, V., Kelleher, A., Rodríguez, A. J., & Schmeiser, B., eds., Proceedings of the 23rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 101–125.Google Scholar
Krantz, J. H. & Dalal, R. (2000). Validity of Web-based psychological research. In Birnbaum, M., ed., Psychological Experiments on the Internet. New York: Academic Press, pp. 35–60.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. (1989). Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change, 1, 199–244.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. & Robinson, J. (1972). Multiple wh-questions. Linguistic Inquiry, 3, 463–487.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google 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
Levshina, N. (2015). How to Do Linguistics with R: Data Exploration and Statistical Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lloyd, S. P. (1982). Least squares quantization in pcm. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 28, 129–137.Google Scholar
Luce, R. D. (1986). Response Times: Their Role in Inferring Elementary Mental Organization. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lühr, R. (1988). Zur Satzverschränkung im heutigen Deutsch. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik, 29, 74–87.Google Scholar
Mason, W. & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazonʼs Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Mattel, M. & Jacoby, J. (1971). Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert scale items? Study I: Reliability and validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(6), 506–509.Google Scholar
Munro, R., Bethard, S., Kuperman, V., Lai, V. T., Melnick, R., Potts, C., Schnoebelen, T., & Tily, H. (2010). Crowdsourcing and language studies: the new generation of linguistic data. In NAACL HLT 2010 Workshop on Creating Speech and Language Data with Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, 122–130.Google Scholar
Pakulak, E. & Neville, H. J. (2010). Proficiency differences in syntactic processing of monolingual native speakers indexed by event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(12), 2728–2744.Google Scholar
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411–419.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (1982). Paths and categories. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.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)definitness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 98–129.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
Pickering, M. J. & Branigan, H. P. (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 633–651.Google Scholar
Preston, C. C. & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica, 104(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
Rayner, K. & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14, 191–201.Google Scholar
Ross, J. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Salzmann, M., Häussler, J., Bayer, J., & Bader, M. (2013). That-trace effects without traces. An experimental investigation. In Keine, S. & Sloggett, S., eds., Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA, vol. 2, pp. 149–162.Google Scholar
Schnoebelen, T. & Kuperman, V. (2010). Using Amazon Mechanical Turk for linguistic research. Psihologija, 43(4), 441–464.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. T. (1996). The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S. & MacDonald, M. C. (1999). A probabilistic constraints approach to language acquisition and processing. Cognitive Science, 23(4), 569–588.Google Scholar
Snyder, W. (2000). An experimental investigation of syntactic satiation effects. Linguistic Inquiry, 31(3), 575–582.Google Scholar
Soleymani, M. & Larson, M. (2010). Crowdsourcing for affective annotation of video: development of a viewer-reported boredom corpus. In ACM SIGIR 2010 Workshop on Crowdsourcing for Search Evaluation (CSE 2010), pp. 4–8.Google Scholar
Sorokin, A. & Forsyth, D. (2008). Utility data annotation with Amazon Mechanical Turk: Computer vision and pattern recognition workshops. In IEEE Computer Society Conference on IEEE (CVPRW’08), pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2009). Revisiting satiation: Evidence for an equalization response strategy. Linguistic Inquiry, 40, 329–341.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2011). A validation of Amazon Mechanical Turk for the collection of acceptability judgments in linguistic theory. Behavior Research Methods, 43(1), 155–167.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Wagers, M., & Phillips, C. (2012a). A test of the relation between working memory and syntactic island effects. Language, 88(1), 82–123.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Wagers, M., & Phillips, C. (2012b). Working-memory capacity and island effects: A reminder of the issues and the facts. Language, 88(2), 401–407.Google Scholar
Stevens, S. S (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103, 667–688.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tooley, K. M. & Bock, K. (2014). On the parity of structural persistence in language production and comprehension. Cognition, 132(2), 101–136.Google Scholar
Tooley, K. M. & Traxler, M. J. (2010). Syntactic priming effects in comprehension: A critical review. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(10), 925–937.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J. (2008). Lexically independent syntactic priming of adjunct relations in on-line sentence comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 149–155.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J., Tooley, K. M., & Pickering, M. J. (2014). Syntactic priming during sentence comprehension: Evidence for the lexical boost. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 40(4), 905–918.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.Google Scholar
Vogel, R. (2019). Grammatical taboos: An investigation on the impact of prescription in acceptability judgement experiments. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 38(1), 37–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, T. & Gibson, E. (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition, 85, 79–112.Google Scholar
Warren, T. & Gibson, E. (2005). Effects of NP type in reading cleft sentences in English. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 751–767.Google Scholar
Wasow, T. (2002). Postverbal Behavior. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Weijters, B., Cabooter, E., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). The effect of rating scale format on response styles: the number of response categories and response category labels. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27, 236–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weskott, T. & Fanselow, G. (2011). On the informativity of different measures of linguistic acceptability. Language, 87(2), 249–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, B. (2019). Statistics for Linguists: An Introduction Using R. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zhu, D. & Carterette, B. (2010). An analysis of assessor behavior in crowdsourced preference judgments. In SIGIR 2010 Workshop on Crowdsourcing for Search Evaluation (CSE 2010), pp. 17–20.Google Scholar

References

Abeillé, A., Hemforth, B., Winckel, E., & Gibson, E. (2018). A construction-conflict explanation of the subject-island constraint. Poster presented at the 31st Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
Acuña-Fariña, J. C. (2012). Agreement, attraction and architectural opportunism. Journal of Linguistics, 48, 257–295.Google Scholar
Aldosari, S. (2015). The role of individual differences in the acceptability of island violations in native and non-native speakers. Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas.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
Almeida, D. (2014). Subliminal wh-islands in Brazilian Portuguese and the consequences for syntactic theory. Revista da ABRALIN, 13(2), 55–93.Google Scholar
Arnold, J., Wasow, T., Losongo, A., & Ginstrom, R. (2000). Heavyness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76, 28–55.Google Scholar
Arnon, I., Snider, N., Hofmeister, P., Jaeger, T. F., & Sag, I. (2012). Cross-linguistic variation in a processing account: The case of multiple wh-questions. In Houser, M. J. et al., eds., Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 23–36.Google Scholar
Arregui, A., Clifton, C., Frazier, L. & Moulton, K. (2006). Processing elided verb phrases with flawed antecedents: The recycling hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language 55, 232–246.Google Scholar
Atkinson, E., Apple, A., Rawlins, K., & Omaki, A. (2016). Similarity of wh-phrases and acceptability variation in wh-islands. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 2048.Google Scholar
Badecker, W. & Straub, K. (2002). The processing role of structural constraints on interpretation of pronouns and anaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(4), 748–769.Google Scholar
Bader, M. (2016). The Limited Role of Number of Nested Syntactic Dependencies in Accounting for Processing Cost: Evidence from German Simplex and Complex Verbal Clusters. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2268.Google Scholar
Bader, M. & Bayer, J. (2006). Case and Linking in Language Comprehension. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Bader, M., Häussler, J., & Schmid, T. (2013). Constraints on intra- and extraposition. In Webelhuth, G., Sailer, M., & Walker, H., eds., Rightward Movement in a Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–60.Google Scholar
Bayer, J., Bader, M., & Meng, M. (2001). Morphological underspecification meets oblique case: syntactic and processing effects in German. Lingua, 111, 465–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, J., Schmid, T., & Bader, M. (2005). Clause union and clausal position. In Den Dikken, M., ed., The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 79–113.Google Scholar
Behaghel, O. (1909). Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Indogermanische Forschungen, 25, 110–142.Google Scholar
Behaghel, O. (1932). Deutsche Syntax, vol. IV: Wortstellung Periodenbau. Heidelberg: Carl Winters.Google Scholar
Beltrama, A. & Xiang, M. (2016). Unacceptable but comprehensible: The facilitation effects of resumptive pronouns. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 1(1), 29. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.24Google Scholar
Bever, T. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In Hayes, J. R., ed., Cognition and the Development of Language. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 279–362.Google Scholar
Bever, T. (1976). The influence of speech performance on linguistic structure. In Bever, T., Katz, J., & Langendoen, D., eds., An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Ability. New York: Crowell, pp. 65–88.Google Scholar
Charnavel, I. & Sportiche, D. (2016). Anaphor binding: What French inanimate anaphors show. Linguistic Inquiry, 47, 35–87.Google Scholar
Chaves, R. & Dery, J. (2014). Which subject islands will the acceptability of improve with repeated exposure? In Santana-La Barge, R., ed., Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 96–106.Google Scholar
Chaves, R. & Dery, J. (2018). Frequency effects in subject islands. Journal of Linguistics, 55, 1–47.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1955/1975). The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Christensen, K. (2010). Syntactic reconstruction and reanalysis, semantic dead ends, and prefrontal cortex. Brain and Cognition, 73(1), 41–50.Google Scholar
Christensen, K. (2016). The dead ends of language: The (mis)interpretation of a grammatical illusion. In Vikner, S., Jørgensen, H., & van Gelderen, E., eds., Let Us Have Articles Betwixt Us: Papers in Historical and Comparative Linguistics in Honour of Johanna L. Wood. Aarhus: Dept. of English, School of Communication & Culture, Aarhus University, pp. 129–160.Google Scholar
Christensen, K., Kizach, J., & Nyvad, A. (2013a). 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., Kizach, J., & Nyvad, A. (2013b). The processing of syntactic islands: An fMRI study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 26, 239–251.Google Scholar
Christiansen, M. & Chater, N. (1999). Toward a connectionist model of recursion in human linguistic performance. Cognitive Science, 23, 157–205.Google Scholar
Christiansen, M. & Macdonald, M. (1998). Processing of recursive sentence structure: Testing predictions from a connectionist model. Cognition, 45, 225–255.Google Scholar
Christianson, K., Williams, C., Zacks, R., & Ferreira, F. (2006). Younger and older adults’ “good-enough” interpretations of garden-path sentences. Discourse Processes, 42(2), 205–238.Google Scholar
Clausen, D. (2010). Processing factors influencing acceptability in extractions from complex subjects. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Clausen, D. (2011). Informativity and acceptability of complex subject islands. Poster presented at the 24th Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, Stanford.Google Scholar
Clifton, C., Fanselow, G., & Frazier, L. (2006). Amnestying superiority violations: Processing multiple questions. Linguistic Inquiry, 37, 51–68.Google Scholar
Clifton, C., Frazier, L., & Deevy, P. (1999). Feature manipulation in sentence comprehension. Rivista di Linguistica, 11(1), 11–39.Google Scholar
Crawford, J. (2012). Using Syntactic Satiation to Investigate Subject Islands. 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. 38–45.Google Scholar
Davies, W. D. & Dubinsky, S. (2009). On the existence (and distribution) of sentential subjects. In Gerdts, D., Moore, J., & Polinsky, M., eds., Hypothesis A/Hypothesis B: Linguistic Explorations in Honor of David M. Perlmutter. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 111–128.Google Scholar
De Vries, M., Christiansen, M. H., & Petersson, K. M. (2011). Learning recursion: Multiple nested and crossed dependencies. Biolinguistics, 5, 010–035.Google Scholar
Dillon, B., Mishler, A., Sloggett, S., & Phillips, C. (2013). Contrasting intrusion profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modeling evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 85–103.Google Scholar
Do, M. & Kaiser, E. (2017). A closer look: Investigating the mechanisms of syntactic satiation. In Kaplan, A. et al. eds., Proceedings of the 34th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 187–194.Google Scholar
Drenhaus, H., Saddy, D., & Frisch, S. (2005). Processing negative polarity items: when negation comes through the backdoor. In Kepser, S. & Reis, M., eds., Linguistic Evidence – Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 145–165.Google Scholar
Eberhard, M. K., Cooper Cutting, J., & Bock, K. (2005). Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review, 112(3), 531–559.Google Scholar
Erdmann, P. (1988). On the principle of “weight” in English. In Duncan-Rose, C. & Vennemann, T., eds., On Language. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 325–339.Google Scholar
Erteshik-Shir, N. (1973). On the nature of island constraints. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. & Féry, C. (2008): Missing superiority effects: Long movement in German (and other languages). In Witkos, J. & Fanselow, G., eds., Elements of Slavic and Germanic Grammars: A Comparative View. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 67–87.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. & Frisch, S. (2006). Effects of processing difficulty on judgments of acceptability. In Fanselow, G., Féry, C., Vogel, R., & Schlesewsky, M., eds., Gradience in Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 291–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, G., Schlesewsky, M., Vogel, R., & Weskott, T. (2011). Animacy effects on crossing wh-movement in German. Linguistics, 49, 657–683.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2005). Universals and grammaticality: Wh-constraints in German and English. Linguistics, 43, 667–711.Google Scholar
Fedorenko, E. & Gibson, E. (2008). Syntactic parallelism as an account of superiority effects: Empirical investigations in English and Russian. Unpublished manuscript, MIT.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., Ferraro, V., & Bailey, K. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11–15.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. & Henderson, J. (1991). Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 725–745.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. & Patson, N. (2007). The “good enough” approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 71–83.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. & Inoue, A. (2000). Syntactic features in reanalysis: Positive and negative symptoms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 25–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fodor, J. D., Nickels, S., & Schott, E. (2017). Center embedded sentences: What is pronouncable is comprehensible. In de Almeida, R. & Gleitman, L., eds., Minds on Language and Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Francis, E. (2010). Grammatical weight and relative clause extraposition in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 21, 35–74.Google Scholar
Francis, E. & Michaelis, L. (2016). When relative clause extraposition is the right choice, it’s easier. Language and Cognition, 9, 332–370.Google Scholar
Franck, J., Vigliocco, G., & Nicol, J. (2002). Subject–verb agreement errors in French and English: The role of syntactic hierarchy. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17(4), 371–404.Google Scholar
Francom, J. (2009). Experimental syntax: Exploring the effect of repeated exposure to anomalous syntactic structure evidence from rating and reading tasks. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Frank, S. & Ernst, P. (2018). Judgements about double-embedded relative clauses differ between languages. Psychological Research, 83(7), 1–13.Google Scholar
Frank, S., Trompenaars, T., & Vasishth, S. (2016). Cross-linguistic differences in processing double-embedded relative clauses: Working-memory constraints or language statistics? Cognitive Science, 40(3), 554–578.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1985). Syntactic complexity. In Dowty, D., Karttunen, L., & Zwicky, A., eds., Natural Language Processing: Psychological, Computational and Theoretical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 129–189.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In Coltheart, M., ed., Attention and Performance XII: The Psychology of Reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum, pp. 559–586.Google Scholar
Frazier, L., Clifton, C., Carlson, K., & Harris, J. (2014). Standing alone with prosodic help. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 29(4), 459–469.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A. (2011). Negative and positive polarity items. In von Heusinger, K., Maienborn, C., & Portner, P., eds. Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 1660–1712.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
Gibson, E. & Thomas, J. (1999). Memory limitations and structural forgetting: The perception of complex ungrammatical sentences as grammatical. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14(3), 225–248.Google Scholar
Gieselman, S, Kluender, R., & Caponigro, I. (2013). Isolating processing factors in negative island contexts. In Fainleib, Y., LaCara, N., & Park, Y., eds., Proceedings of NELS 41. Amherst, MA: GLSA, pp. 233–246.Google Scholar
Gillespie, M. & Pearlmutter, N. (2011). Hierarchy and scope of planning in subject–verb agreement production. Cognition, 118, 377–397.Google Scholar
Goodall, G. (2011). Syntactic satiation and the inversion effect in English and Spanish wh-questions. Syntax, 14, 29–47.Google Scholar
Goodall, G. (2015). The D-linking effect on extraction from islands and non-islands. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1493.Google Scholar
Goodluck, H., Tsiwah, F., & Saah, K. (2017). Island constraints are not the result of sentence processing. Proceedings the Linguistic Society of America, 2(15), 1–10.Google Scholar
Greco, C., Marelli, M., & Haegeman, L. (2017). External syntax and the cumulative effect in subject sub-extraction: An experimental evaluation. The Linguistic Review, 34, 479–531.Google Scholar
Grillo, N., Aguilar, A., Roberts, L., Santi, A., & Turco, G. (2018). Prosody of classic garden path sentences: The horse raced faster when embedded. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003868Google Scholar
Hall, R. (2018). Sättigungseffekte von multiplen W-Sätzen: Einfluss der Superiorität und Belebtheit. BSc thesis, Potsdam.Google Scholar
Hankamer, J. & Sag, I. (1976) Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry, 7, 391–426.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R., Anton-Mendez, I., & Van Zee, M. (2001). Object attraction in subject–verb agreement construction. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 546–572.Google Scholar
Häussler, J. & Bader, M. (2015). An interference account of the missing VP effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 766.Google Scholar
Häussler, J., Fanselow, G. Eythórsson, T., Šimik, R., & Vicente, L. (2019). Crossing movement paths: Multiple wh-questions in seven languages. Unpublished manuscript, University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Häussler, J., Grant, M., Fanselow, G., & Frazier, L. (2015). Superiority in English and German: Cross-language grammatical differences? Syntax, 18, 235–265.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. (1994). A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hemforth, B. (1993). Kognitives Parsing: Repräsentation und Verarbeitung sprachlichen Wissens. Sankt Augustin: Infix.Google Scholar
Hemforth, B. & Konieczny, L. (2003). Proximity in agreement errors. In Alterman, R. & Kirsh, D., eds., The 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Boston, MA: Cognitive Science Society, pp. 557–562.Google Scholar
Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., Seelig, H., & Walter, M. (2000). Case matching and relative clause attachment. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 81–88.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P., Culicover, P., & Winkler, S. (2015). Effects of processing on the acceptability of frozen extraposed constituents. Syntax, 184, 464–483.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P, Jaeger, T. F., Sag, I., Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2007). Locality and accessibility in wh-questions. In Featherston, S. & Sternefeld, S., eds., Roots: Linguistics in Search of its Evidential Base. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 185–206.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P., Jaeger, T. F., Sag, I., Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2013). The source ambiguity problem: Distinguishing effects of grammar and processing on acceptability judgments. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 48–87.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P. & Sag, I. (2010). Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language, 86, 366–415.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P., Staum Casasanto, L., & Sag, I. (2012). How do individual cognitive differences relate to acceptability judgments? A reply to Sprouse, Wagers, and Phillips. Language, 88(2), 390–400.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P, Staum Casasanto, L., & Sag, I. (2013). Islands in the grammar? Standards of evidence. In Sprouse, J. & Hornstein, N., eds., Experimental Syntax and Islands Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 42–63.Google Scholar
Jäger, L. A., Engelmann, F., & Vasishth, S. (2017). Similarity-based interference in sentence comprehension: Literature review and bayesian meta-analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 316–339.Google Scholar
Jung, D.-H, Kim, Y., & Kim, J.-S. (2017). Island effects in Korean Scrambling: An experimental study. Unpublished manuscript, Korea University, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311678736_Island_Effects_in_Korean_Scrambling_An_Experimental_StudyGoogle Scholar
Kaan, E. (2002). Investigating the effects of distance and number interference in processing subject–verb dependencies: An ERP study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 165–193.Google Scholar
Karlson, F. (2007). Constraints on multiple center-embedding of clauses. Journal of Linguistics, 43(2), 365–392.Google Scholar
Keffala, B. (2011). Resumption and gaps in English relative clauses: Relative acceptability creates an illusion of “saving.” In Cathcart, C. et al., eds., Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 140–154.Google Scholar
Keffala, B. & Goodall, G. (2011). Do resumptive pronouns ever rescue illicit gaps in English? Poster presented at the CUNY 2011 Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Keller, F, (2000). Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Keshev, M. & Meltzer-Asscher, A. (2019). A processing-based account of subliminal wh-island effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 37(2), 521–547.Google Scholar
Kim, B. & Goodall, G. (2016). Islands and non-islands in Native and Heritage Korean. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 134.Google Scholar
Kim, C., Kobele, G., Runner, J., & Hale, J. (2011). The acceptability cline in VP ellipsis. Syntax, 14, 318–354.Google Scholar
Kimball, J. & Aissen, J. (1971). I think, you think, he think. Linguistic Inquiry, 2, 241–246.Google Scholar
Kjelgaard, M. & Speer, S. R. (1999). Prosodic facilitation and interference in the resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(2), 153–194.Google Scholar
Klima, E. (1964). Negation in English. In Fodor, J. & Katz, J., eds., The Structure of Language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 246–323.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(6), 627–645.Google Scholar
Konieczny, L. & Döring, P. (2003). Anticipation of clause-final heads: Evidence from eye-tracking and SRNs. In Proceedings of ICCS/ASCS, pp. 13–17.Google Scholar
Konietzko, A., Winkler, S., & Culicover, P. (2018). Heavy NP Shift does not cause Freezing. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique, 63(3), 454–464.Google Scholar
Krems, J. (1984). Erwartungsgeleitete Sprachverarbeitung. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. & Robinson, J.. (1972). Multiple wh-questions. Linguistic Inquiry, 3, 463–87.Google Scholar
Kush, D., Lidz, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). Relation-sensitive retrieval: Evidence from bound variable pronouns. Journal of Memory and Language, 82, 18–40.Google Scholar
Kush, D., Lidz, J., & Phillips, C. (2017). Looking forwards and backwards: The real-time processing of Strong and Weak Crossover. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1), 70. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.280Google Scholar
Kush, D., Lohndal, T., & Sprouse, J. (2018). Investigating variation in island effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 36, 743–779.Google Scholar
Levy, R. & Keller, F. (2013). Expectation and locality effects in German verb final structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 199–222.Google Scholar
Lewis, R. & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29, 1–45.Google Scholar
Linebarger, M. (1987). Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 10, 325–387.Google Scholar
Luka, B. & Barsalou, L. (2005). Structural facilitation: Mere exposure effects for grammatical acceptability as evidence for syntactic priming in comprehension, Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 436–459.Google Scholar
Marks, L. (1967). Judgments of grammaticalness of some English sentences and semi-sentences. American Journal of Psychology, 80, 196–204.Google Scholar
McDaniel, D. & Wayne, C. (1999). Experimental evidence for a minimalist account of English resumptive pronouns. Cognition, 70, B15–B24.Google Scholar
Meyer, R. (2004). Syntax der Ergänzungsfrage: Empirische Untersuchungen am Russischen, Polnischen und Tschechischen. Munich: Sagner.Google Scholar
Michel, D. (2014). Individual cognitive measures and working memory accounts of syntactic island phenomena. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Michel, D. & Goodall, G. (2013). Finiteness and the nature of island constraints In N. Goto, K. Otaki, A. Sato, & K. Takita, eds., Proceedings of GLOW in Asia IX 2012: The Main Session, pp. 187–197.Google Scholar
Miller, G. & Chomsky, N. (1963). Finitary models of language users. In Luce, D. & Galanter, B., eds., Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, vol. II. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Miller, G. & Isard, S. (1964). Free recall of self embedded English sentences. Information and Control, 7, 292–303.Google Scholar
Montalbetti, M. (1984). After binding. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Myers, J. (2009). Syntactic judgment experiments. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 406–423.Google Scholar
Nagata, H. (1990). Speaker’s sensitivity to rule violations in sentences. Psychologia, 33, 179–184.Google Scholar
Nakatani, K. & Gibson, E. (2010). An on-line study of Japanese nesting complexity. Cognitive Science, 34(1), 94–112.Google Scholar
Novick, J., Hussey, E., Teubner-Rhodes, S., Harbison, J. I., & Bunting, M. (2014). Clearing the garden-path: Improving sentence processing through cognitive control training. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(2), 186–217.Google Scholar
Parker, D. & Phillips, C. (2016). Negative polarity illusions and the format of hierarchical encodings in memory. Cognition, 157, 321–339.Google Scholar
Patil, U., Vasishth, S., & Lewis, R. (2016). Retrieval interference in syntactic processing: The case of reflexive binding in English. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 329.Google Scholar
Patson, N. & Husband, E. M. (2016). Misinterpretations in agreement and agreement attraction. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 950–971.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (2000). Phrasal Movement and Its Kin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, C., Kazanina, N., & Abada, S. (2005). ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 407–428.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. (1992). Anaphors in English and the scope of binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 23(2), 261–303.Google Scholar
Prince, E. (1998). On the limits of syntax, with reference to Left-Dislocation and Topicalization. In Culicover, P. & McNally, L., eds., The Limits of Syntax (Syntax and Semantics, 29). New York: Academic Press, pp. 281–302.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. & Reuland, E. (1993). Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 24(4), 657–720.Google Scholar
Ross, J. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Ross, J. (1974). Three batons for cognitive psychology. In Weimer, W. & Palermo, D., eds., Cognition and the Symbolic Processes. Oxford: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ross, J. (1984). Inner islands. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 258–265.Google Scholar
Sloggett, S. (2017). When errors aren’t: How comprehenders selectively violate Binding theory. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amherst.Google Scholar
Snyder, W. (2000). An experimental investigation of syntactic satiation effects. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 575–582.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2007a). A program for experimental syntax: Finding the relationship between acceptability and grammatical knowledge. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland at College Park.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2007b). Continuous acceptability, categorical grammaticality, and experimental syntax. Biolinguistics, 1, 118–129.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2008). The differential sensitivity of acceptability judgments to processing effects. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 686–694.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., Fukuda, S., Ono, H., & Kluender, R. (2011). Reverse island effects and the backward search for a licensor in multiple wh-questions. Syntax, 14(2), 179–203.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
Staub, A. (2010). Eye movements and processing difficulty in object relative clauses. Cognition, 116, 71–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Staum Casasanto, L. & Sag, I. (2008). The advantage of the ungrammatical. In Love, B. C., McRae, K., & Sloutsky, V. M., eds., Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Staum Casasanto, L., Hofmeister, P., & Sag, I. (2010). Understanding acceptability judgments: Additivity and working memory effects. In Ohlsson, S. & Catrambone, R., eds., Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Stowe, L. (1986). Parsing wh-constructions: Evidence for online gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes 1(3), 227–245.Google Scholar
Sturt, P. (2003). The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(3), 542–562.Google Scholar
Tabor, W., Galantucci, B., & Richardson, D. (2004). Effects of merely local syntactic coherence on sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(4), 355–370.Google Scholar
Tabor, W. & Hutchins, S. (2004). Evidence for self-organized sentence processing: Digging-in effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 431–450.Google Scholar
Tanner, D., Nicol, J., & Brehm, L. (2014). The time-course of feature interference in agreement comprehension: Multiple mechanisms and asymmetrical attraction. Journal of Memory and Language, 76, 195–215.Google Scholar
Thornton, R., MacDonald, M., & Arnold, J. (2000). The concomitant effects of phrase length and informational content in sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 195–203.Google Scholar
Trotzke, A., Bader, M., & Frazier, L. (2013). Third factors and the performance interface in language design. Biolinguistics, 7, 1–34.Google Scholar
Vandierendonck, A., Loncke, M., Hartsuiker, R., & Desmet, T. (2018). The role of executive control in resolving grammatical number conflict in sentence comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 759–778.Google ScholarPubMed
Vasishth, S. (2002). Working memory in sentence comprehension: Processing Hindi center embeddings. Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Vasishth, S. & Lewis, R. (2006). Argument–head distance and processing complexity: Explaining both locality and anti-locality effects. Language, 82, 767–794.Google Scholar
Vasishth, S., Suckow, K., Lewis, R. L., & Kern, S. (2010). Short-term forgetting in sentence comprehension: Crosslinguistic evidence from verb-final structures. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 533–567.Google Scholar
Wagers, M., Lau, E., & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 206–237.Google Scholar
Wagner, M. & Watson, D. (2010). Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: A review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 905–945.Google Scholar
Wasow, T. (1997), Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change, 9, 81–105.Google Scholar
Wasow, T. & Arnold, J. (2003). Post-verbal constituent ordering in English. In Rohdenburg, G. & Mondorf, B., eds., Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 119–154.Google Scholar
Waters, G. & Caplan, D. (1996). Processing resource capacity and the comprehension of garden path sentences. Memory & Cognition, 24, 342–355.Google Scholar
Wellwood, A., Pancheva, R., Hacquard, V., & Phillips, C. (2018). The anatomy of a comparative illusion. Journal of Semantics, 35(3), 543–583.Google Scholar
Weskott, T. (2003). Information structure as a processing guide. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leipzig.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
Wexler, K. & Culicover, P. (1980). Formal Principles of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Widmann, C. (2005). Factors at play in determining the acceptability of sentential subjects in English: The role of constituent relative weight. Unpublished manuscript, University of South Carolina.Google Scholar
Wierzba, M. & Fanselow, G. (2020). Factors influencing the acceptability of object fronting in German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 23, 77–124.Google Scholar
Xiang, M., Dillon, B., & Phillips, C. (2006). Testing the strength of the spurious licensing effect for negative polarity items. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Meeting of the CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing (New York).Google Scholar
Xiang, M., Dillon, B., & Phillips, C. (2009). Illusory licensing effects across dependency types: Erp evidence. Brain and Language, 108(1), 40–55.Google Scholar
Xiang, M., Grove, J., & Giannakidou, A. (2013). Dependency–dependent interference: NPI interference, agreement attraction, and global pragmatic inferences. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 708.Google Scholar
Yngve, H. T. (1960). A model and an hypothesis for language structure. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 104, 444–466.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
Zervakis, J. & Mazuka, R. (2013). Effect of repeated evaluation and repeated exposure on acceptability ratings of sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42, 505–525.Google Scholar

References

Berwick, R. C. & Weinberg, A. S. (1984). The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance: Language Use and Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2003). Islands and Chains: Resumption as Stranding (Linguistik Aktuell / Linguistics Today 63). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Branigan, H. (2007). Syntactic priming. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(1–2), 1–16. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2006.00001.xGoogle Scholar
Braze, F. D. (2002). Grammaticality, acceptability, and sentence processing: A psycholinguistic study. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Chaves, R. P. & Dery, J. E. (2014). Which subject islands will the acceptability of improve with repeated exposure? In Santana-LaBarge, R. E., ed., Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 96–106.Google Scholar
Chaves, R. P. & Dery, J. E. (2018). Frequency effects in Subject Islands. Journal of Linguistics, 1–47. DOI:10.1017/S0022226718000294Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1977). On wh-movement. In Culicover, P., Wasow, T., & Akmanian, A., eds., Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 71–132.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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. DOI 10.1007/s10936-012–9210-xGoogle Scholar
Crawford, J. (2012). Using syntactic satiation effects to investigate subject islands. 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. 38–45.Google Scholar
Do, M. & Kaiser, E. (2017). A closer look: Investigating the mechanisms of syntactic satiation. In Kaplan, A., Kaplan, A., McCarvel, M. K., & Rubin, E. J., eds., Proceedings of the 34th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 187–194.Google Scholar
Do, M., Kaiser, E., & Zubizarreta, M. L. (2016). Spanish speakers’ acquisition of English subject–verb inversion: Evidence from satiation. In Stringer, D., Garrett, J., Halloran, B., & Mossman, S., eds., Proceedings of the 13th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2015). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 45–59.Google Scholar
Francom, J. C. (2009). Experimental syntax: Exploring the effect of repeated exposure to anomalous syntactic structure – evidence from rating and reading tasks. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
Goodall, G. (2004). On the syntax and processing of wh-questions in Spanish. In Chand, V., Kelleher, A., Rodríguez, A., & Schmeiser, B., eds., Proceedings of the 23rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 237–250.Google Scholar
Goodall, G. (2011). Syntactic satiation and the inversion effect in English and Spanish wh-questions. Syntax, 14, 29–47.Google Scholar
Hiramatsu, K. (2000). Accessing linguistic competence: Evidence from children’s and adults’ acceptability judgments. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P., Jaeger, T. F., Arnon, I., Sag, I. A., & Snider, N. (2013). The source ambiguity problem: Distinguishing the effects of grammar and processing on acceptability judgments. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1–2), 48–87. DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2011.572401Google Scholar
Jakobovits, L. A. & Lambert, W. E. (1961). Semantic satiation among bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(6), 576–582.Google Scholar
Kiss, K. É. (1987). Review of Barriers (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 13) by Noam Chomsky. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 37(1), 213–221. www.jstor.org/stable/44362775Google Scholar
Kluender, R. & Kutas, M. (1993). Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 573–633.Google Scholar
Luka, B. J. & Barsalou, L. J. (2005). Structural facilitation: Mere exposure effects for grammatical acceptability as evidence for syntactic priming in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 436–459.Google Scholar
Maia, M. (2013). Linguística experimental: Aferindo o curso temporal e a profundidade do processamento. Revista de Estudos da Linguagem, 21, 9–42.Google Scholar
Nagata, H. (1990). Speaker’s sensitivity to rule violations in sentences. Psychologia, 33, 179–184.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. T. (1996). The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Snyder, W. (1994). A psycholinguistic investigation of weak crossover, islands, and syntactic satiation effects: Implications for distinguishing competence from performance. Poster presentation, CUNY Human Sentence Processing Conference, CUNY Graduate Center, New York. www.williamsnyder.org/papers/1994Google Scholar
Snyder, W. (2000). An experimental investigation of syntactic satiation effects. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 575–582.Google Scholar
Snyder, W. (2018). On the nature of syntactic satiation. Manuscript, University of Connecticut, Storrs. www.williamsnyder.org/papers/2018Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2009). Revisiting satiation: Evidence for an equalization response strategy. Linguistic Inquiry, 40, 329–341.Google Scholar
Stepanov, A. (2007). The end of CED? Minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax, 10, 80–126.Google Scholar
Zervakis, J. & Mazuka, R. (2013). Effect of repeated evaluation and repeated exposure on acceptability ratings of sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42, 505–525. DOI: 10.1007/s10936-012–9233-3Google Scholar

References

Abney, S. P. (1987). The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Ackerman, L., Frazier, M., & Yoshida, M. (2018). Resumptive pronouns can ameliorate illicit island extractions. Linguistic Inquiry, 49(4), 847–859.Google Scholar
Alexopoulou, T. (1999). The syntax of discourse functions in Greek: A non-configurational approach. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Alexopoulou, T. & Keller, F. (2007). Locality, cyclicity, and resumption: At the interface between the grammar and the human sentence processor. Language, 83(1), 110–160.Google Scholar
Almeida, D. (2014). Subliminal wh-islands in Brazilian Portuguese and the consequences for syntactic theory. Revista da ABRALIN, 13(2), 55–93.Google Scholar
Anand, P., Chung, S., & Wagers, M. W. (2010). Widening the net: challenges for gathering linguistic data in the digital age. http://people.ucsc.edu/schung/anandchungwagers.pdfGoogle Scholar
Baek, J. Y.-K. (1998). Negation and object shift in early child Korean. In Sauerland, U. & Percus, O., eds., The Interpretive Tract. Cambridge, MA: MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, pp. 73–86.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (2001). The Atoms of Language. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (2008). The macroparameter in a microparametric world. In Bieberauer, T., ed., The Limits of Syntactic Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Barbiers, S., Cornips, L., & van der Kleij, S. (2001). Syntactic Microvariation. Available at: www.meertens.knaw.nl/books/synmic/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Bayer, J. (1990). Notes on the ECP in English and German. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanischen Linguistik, 30, 1–55.Google Scholar
Bayer, J. & Cheng, L. L.-S. (2017). In Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H., eds., The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 1–44.Google Scholar
Beltrama, A. & Xiang, M. (2016). Unacceptable but comprehensible: The facilitation effect of resumptive pronouns. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 1(1), 29. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.24Google Scholar
Bock, K. & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23(1), 45–93.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2014). What Principles and Parameters got wrong. In Carmen, M., ed., Linguistic Variation in the Minimalist Framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borer, H. (1984). Parametric Syntax: Case Studies in Semitic and Romance Languages. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. (2008). What will you have, NP or DP? In Elfner, E. & Walkow, M., eds., Proceedings of the 37th North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA, pp. 101–114.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1977). Variables in the theory of transformations. In Culicover, P. W., Wasow, T. & Akmajian, A., eds., Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 157–196.Google Scholar
Chao, W. & Sells, P. (1983). On the interpretation of resumptive pronouns. In Sells, P. & Jones, C., eds., Proceedings of the 13th North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Chacón, D. A. (2015). Comparative psychosyntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Chacón, D. A. (2019). Minding the gap? Mechanisms underlying resumption in English. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1), 68. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.839Google Scholar
Chacón, D. A., Fetters, M., Kandel, M., Pelz, E., & Phillips, C. (2019). Indirect learning and language variation: Reassessing the that-trace effect. Unpublished manuscript, New York University, Abu Dhabi.Google Scholar
Chacón, D. A., Imtiaz, M., Dasgupta, S., Murshed, S. M., Dan, M., & Phillips, C. (2016). Locality and word order in active dependency formation in Bangla. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(1235). DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01235Google Scholar
Chen, Y. (2019). The acquisition of Japanese relative clauses by L1 Chinese learners. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawa‘i at Mānoa.Google Scholar
Cheng, L. L.-S. & Sybesma, R. (1999). Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Lingusitic Inquiry, 30, 509–542.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures in Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Miller, G. A. (1963). Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. In Luce, R. D., Bush, R. R., & Galanter, E., eds., Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, vol. 2. New York: Wiley, pp. 419–492.Google Scholar
Clifton, C., Fanselow, G., & Frazier, L. (2006). Amnestying superiority violations: Processing multiple questions. Lingusitic Inquiry, 37(1), 51–68.Google Scholar
Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Cowart, W. (2003). Detecting syntactic dialects: The that-trace phenomenon. Talk delivered at the 39th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society.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
Cuetos, F. & Mitchell, D. C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the Late Closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30(1), 73–105.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. (1993). Evidence against ECP accounts of the that-t effect. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 557–561.Google Scholar
Edelman, S. & Christiansen, M. H. (2003). How seriously should we take Minimalist syntax? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 60–62.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 Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics 26. Jerusalem: IATL.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2005a). That-trace in German. Lingua, 115(9), 1277–1302.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2005b). Magnitude estimation and what it can do for your syntax: Some wh-constraints in German. Lingua, 115(11), 1525–1550.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2009). Relax, lean back, and be a linguist. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 28(1), 127–132.Google Scholar
Fedorenko, E. & Gibson, E. (2010). Adding a third wh-phrase does not increase the acceptability of object-initial multiple-wh-questions. Syntax, 13(3), 183–195.Google Scholar
Francis, E., Lam, C., Zheng, C. C., Hitz, J., & Matthews, S. (2015). Resumptive pronouns, structural complexity, and the elusive distinction between grammar and performance: Evidence from Cantonese. Lingua, 162, 56–81.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. & Clifton, C. (1989). Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 93–126.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. & Fedorenko, E. (2010). Weak quantitative standards in linguistics research. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(6), 233–234.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. & Fedorenko, E. (2013). The need for quantitative methods in syntax and semantics research. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1–2), 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(3), 229–240.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. & Thomas, J. (1999). Memory limitations and structural forgetting: The perception of complex ungrammatical sentences as grammatical. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14(3), 225–248.Google Scholar
Gilligan, G. (1987). A cross-linguistic approach to the pro-drop parameter. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Goldberg, L. M. (2005). Verb-stranding VP Ellipsis: A cross-linguistic study. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Golden, M. (1995). Interrogative wh-movement in Slovene and English. Acta Analytica, 14, 145–187.Google Scholar
Gribanova, V. (2013). Verb-stranding verb phrase ellipsis and the structure of the Russian verbal complex. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 31, 91–136.Google Scholar
Grillo, N. & Costa, J. (2014). A novel argument for the Universality of Parsing principles. Cognition, 133(1), 156–187.Google Scholar
Hagstrom, P. (2000). Phrasal movement in Korean negation. In Vaselinova, L., Robinson, S., & Antieau, L., eds., Proceedings of the 9th Student Conference in Linguistics (SCIL 9). Cambridge, MA: MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, pp. 127–142.Google Scholar
Haider, H. (1983). Connectedness effects in German. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanischen Linguistik, 23, 82–119.Google Scholar
Haider, H. (1993). Deutsche Syntax – Generativ. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Hammerly, C. (2018). Intrusive resumption can ameliorate island violations in real-time comprehension. Poster presented at the 31st CUNY Human Sentence Processing Conference.Google Scholar
Han, C.-H. (2013). On the syntax of relative clauses in Korean. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 58(2), 319–347.Google Scholar
Han, C.-H., Lidz, J., & Musolino, J. (2007). V-raising and grammar competition in Korean: Evidence from negation and quantifier scope. Linguistic Inquiry, 38(1), 1–47.Google Scholar
Han, C.-H., Musolino, J., & Lidz, J. (2011). Endogenous sources of variation in language acquisition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(4), 942–947.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2008). Parametric versus functional explanations of syntactic universals. In Bieberauer, T., ed., The Limits of Syntactic Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P. & Norcliffe, E. (2013). Does resumption facilitate sentence comprehension? In Hofmeister, P. & Norcliffe, E., eds., The Core and the Periphery: Data-Driven Perspectives on Syntax Inspired by Ivan A. Sag. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 225–246.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P. & Sag, I. (2010). Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language, 86(2), 366–415.Google Scholar
Hong, S. (1985). A and A’ binding in Korean and English: Government–Binding parameters. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Kang, N.-K. (2000). Reflexives and the Linking Theory in Universal Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (2005). Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French. In Cinque, G. & Kayne, R., eds., Handbook of Comparative Syntax. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Keller, F. (1995). Towards an account of extraposition in HPSG. In Abney, S. & Hinrichs, E. W., eds., Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Dublin: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 301–306.Google Scholar
Keshev, M. & Meltzer-Asscher, A. (2018). Active dependency formation in islands: How grammatical resumption affects sentence processing. Language, 93(3), 549–568.Google Scholar
Keshev, M. & Meltzer-Asscher, A. (2019). A processing-based account of subliminal wh-island effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 37(2), 621–657.Google Scholar
Kim, J.-B. (2000). The Grammar of Negation: A Constraint-Based Approach. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kim, K.-B. & 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
Kluender, R. (1998). On the distinction between strong and weak islands: A processing perspective. In Culicover, P. & McNally, L., ed., 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(4), 573–633.Google Scholar
Koak, H. (2008). A morpho-syntactic approach to pronominal binding. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 14(1), 227–240.Google Scholar
Kush, D. W., Lohndal, T., & Sprouse, J. (2018). Investigating variation in island effects: A case study of Norwegian extraction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 36(3), 743–779.Google Scholar
Lago, S., Sloggett, S., Schlueter, Z., Chow, W.Y., Williams, A., Lau, E., & Phillips, C. (2017). Coreference and antecedent representation across languages. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(5), 795–817.Google Scholar
Landau, I. (2018). Missing objects in Hebrew: Argument ellipsis, not VP ellipsis. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 76. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.560Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. & Saito, M. (1984). On the nature of proper government. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 235–289.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
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
Maling, J. & Zaenen, A. (1982). A phrase structure account of Scandinavian extraction phenomena. In Jacobson, P. & Pullum, G. K., eds., The Nature of Syntactic Representation. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 229–282.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (2005). Generative linguistics within the cognitive neuroscience of language. Linguistic Review 22(2–4), 429–445.Google Scholar
Merchant, J. & Sipson, A. (2012). Sluicing: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mioto, C. & Kato, M.A. (2005). As interrogativas-Q do português europeau e do português brasileiro atuais. Revista da ABRALIN, 4(1–2), 171–196.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (2004). Against a parameter-setting approach to typological variation. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 4(1), 181–234.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (2005). Possible and Probable Languages: A Generativist Perspective on Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nishigauchi, T. (1990). Quantification in the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Otani, K. & Whitman, J. (1991). V-raising and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 345–358.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (1971). Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (2017). Complementizer-trace effects. In Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H. C., eds., The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (2009). Should we impeach armchair linguists? In Iwasaki, S., ed., Japanese/Korean Linguistics, vol. 17. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1981). A second COMP position. In Belletti, A., Brandi, L. & Rizzi, L., eds., Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar. Pisa: Scuole Normale Superiore, pp. 517–557.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. & Holmberg, A. (2005). On the role of parameters in Universal Grammar: A reply to Newmeyer. In Broekhuis, H., Corver, N., Huybregts, R., Kleinhanz, U., & Koster, J., eds., Organizing Grammar: Linguistic Studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.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(4), 445–501.Google Scholar
Sakai, H. (1994). Complex NP constraint and case conversion in Japanese. In Nakamura, M., ed., Current Topics in English and Japanese. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo, pp. 179–200.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. (1996). The Emprical Base of Linguistics. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, U. (1992). Resumptive pronouns as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry, 23(3), 443–468.Google Scholar
Simpson, A., Choudhury, A., & Menon, M. (2013). Argument ellipsis and the licensing of covert nominals in Bangla, Hindi, and Malayalam. Lingua, 134, 103–128.Google Scholar
Sobin, N. (1987). The variable status of COMP-trace phenomena. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5, 33–60.Google Scholar
Sobin, N. (2002). The Comp-trace effect, the adverb effect and minimal CP. Journal of Linguistics, 38(3), 527–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobin, N. (2009). Prestige case forms and the comp-trace effect. Syntax, 12(1), 32–59.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. & Almeida, D. (2012). Assessing the reliability of textbook data in syntax: Adger’s “Core Syntax.” Journal of Linguistics, 48(3), 609–652.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Caponigro, I., Greco, C., & Cecchetto, C. (2016). Experiental syntax and the variation of island effects in English and Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 34(1), 307–344.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(2), 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
Sprouse, J., Wagers, M. W., & 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., Mušič, M., & Stateva, P. (2018). Two (non-) islands in Slovenian: A study in Experimental Syntax. Linguistics, 56(3), 435–476.Google Scholar
Suh, J.-H. (1989). Scope interaction in negation. In Kuno, S. et al., eds., Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics III. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Suh, J.-H. (1990). Scope phenomena and aspects of Korean syntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Tanaka, N. & Schwartz, B. (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
Torrego, E. (1984). On inversion in Spanish and some of its effects. Linguistic Inquiry, 15(1), 103–129.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M. (1999). Null operators, clitics, and identification: A comparison between Greek and English. In Alexiadou, A., Horrocks, G., & Stavrou, M., eds., Studies in Greek Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 241–262.Google Scholar
Tucker, M., Idrissi, A., Sprouse, J., & Almeida, D. (2019). Resumption ameliorates different islands differently: Acceptability data from Modern Standard Arabic. In Khalfaoui, A. & Tucker, M. A., 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
Uriagereka, J. (2007). Clarifying the notion “Parameter.” Biolinguistics, 1, 99–113.Google Scholar
Vasishth, S., Brussow, S., Lewis, R., & Drenhaus, H. (2008). Processing polarity: How the ungrammatical intrudes on the grammatical. Cognitive Science, 32(4), 685–712.Google Scholar
Vasishth, S., Suckow, K., Lewis, R. L., & Kern, S. (2010). Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(4), 533–567.Google Scholar
Wagers, M., Lau, E., & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(2), 206–237.Google Scholar
Wasow, T. & Arnold, J. (2005). Intuitions in linguistic argumentation. Lingua, 115, 1481–1496.Google Scholar
Wellwood, A., Pancheva, R., Hacquard, H., & Phillips, C. (2018). The anatomy of a comparative illusion. Journal of Semantics, 35(3), 543–583.Google Scholar
Wood, J. (2019). Quantifying geographical variation in acceptability judgments in regional American English dialect syntax. Linguistics, 57(6), 1367–1402.Google Scholar
Xiang, M., Dillon, B., Wagers, M. W., Liu, F. Q., & Guo, T. M. (2014). Processing covert dependencis: An SAT study on Mandarin wh-in-situ questions. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 23(2), 207–232.Google Scholar
Xiang, M., Wang, S. P., & Cui, Y. L. (2015). Constructing covert dependencies: The case of wh-in-situ processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 84, 139–166.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, R., Wood, J., Zentz, J., & Horn, L. (2018). The Yale Grammatical Diversity Project: Morphosyntactic variation in North American English. Linguistics Vanguard, 4(1), 20160070.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
×