Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax
- The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I General Issues in Acceptability Experiments
- Part II Experimental Studies of Specific Phenomena
- Part III Experimental Studies of Specific Populations and Language Families
- Part IV Experimental Syntax beyond Acceptability
- Index
- References
Part II - Experimental Studies of Specific Phenomena
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 December 2021
Edited by
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax
- The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I General Issues in Acceptability Experiments
- Part II Experimental Studies of Specific Phenomena
- Part III Experimental Studies of Specific Populations and Language Families
- Part IV Experimental Syntax beyond Acceptability
- Index
- References
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.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax , pp. 209 - 370Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
References
Ackerman, L., Frazier, M., & Yoshida, M. (2018). Resumptive pronouns can ameliorate illicit island extractions. Linguistic Inquiry, 49, 847–859.CrossRefGoogle 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
Ariel, M. (1999). Cognitive universals and linguistic conventions: The case of resumptive pronouns. Studies in Language, 23, 217–269.Google Scholar
Asudeh, A. (2011). Local grammaticality in syntactic production. In Bender, E. M. & Arnold, J. E., eds., Language from a Cognitive Perspective. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 51–79.Google Scholar
Asudeh, A. (2012). The Logic of Pronominal Resumption. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Asudeh, A. (2013). Directionality and production of ungrammatical sentences. Studies in Linguistics, 6, 83–106.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.24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cann, R., Kaplan, T., & Kempson, R. (2005). Data at the grammar-pragmatics interface: the case of resumptive pronouns in English. Lingua, 115, 1551–1577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clemens, L. E., Morgan, A., Polinsky, M., & Xiang, M. (2012). Listening to resumptives: An auditory experiment. A poster presented at CUNY 2012 Conference on Human Sentence Processing, March 14–16, 2012, CUNY.Google Scholar
Dickey, M. W. (1996). Constraints on the sentence processor and the distribution of resumptive pronouns. In Dickey, M. W. & Tunstall, S., eds., Linguistics in the Laboratory. Amherst, MA: GLSA, pp. 157–192.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N. (1992). Resumptive pronouns in islands. In Goodluck, H. & Rochemont, M., eds., Island Constraints: Theory, Acquisition and Processing (Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics 15). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 89–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fadlon, J., Morgan, A. M., Meltzer-Asscher, A., & Ferreira, V. S. (2019). It depends: Optionality in the production of filler-gap dependencies. Journal of Memory and Language, 106, 40–76.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. & Swets, B. (2005). The production and comprehension of resumptive pronouns in relative clause “island” contexts. In Cutler, A., ed., Twenty-First Century Psycholinguistics: Four Cornerstones. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 263–278.Google 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 Chung. eScholarship, University of California, pp. 65–80.Google Scholar
Han, C. Elouazizi, N., Galeano, C., Görgülü, E., Hedberg, N., Hinnell, J., Jeffrey, M., Kim, K., & Kirby, S. (2012). Processing strategies and resumptive pronouns in English. In Arnett, N. & Bennett, R., eds., Proceedings of the 30th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 153–161.Google Scholar
Heestand, D., Xiang, M. & Polinsky, M. (2011). Resumption still does not rescue islands. Linguistic Inquiry, 42, 138–152.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.Google Scholar
Keffala, B. (2013). Resumption and gaps in English relative clauses: Relative acceptability creates an illusion of “saving.” In C. Chen, Cathcart, G. Kang, Finley, C. S. Sandy, , & E. Stickles, , 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? A poster presented at CUNY 2011 Conference on Human Sentence Processing, March 24–26, 2011, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. (1981). On the role of resumptive pronouns in amnestying island constraint violations. In Hendrick, R. A., Masek, C. S., & Miller, M. F., eds., Papers from the 17th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 125–135.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. (1990). Resumptive pronouns, A’-binding and levels of representation in Irish. In Hendrick, R., ed., Syntax of the Modern Celtic Languages. New York: Academic Press, pp. 199–248.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. (2017). New thoughts on old questions: Resumption in Irish. In Ostrove, J., Kramer, R., & Sabbagh, J., eds., Asking the Right Questions: Essays in Honor of Sandra Chung. eScholarship, University of California, pp. 81–102.Google Scholar
McDaniel, D. & Cowart, W. (1999). Experimental evidence for a minimalist account of English resumptive pronouns. Cognition, 70, B15–B24.Google Scholar
Meltzer-Asscher, A., Fadlon, J., Goldstein, K., & Holan, A. (2015). Direct object resumption in Hebrew: How modality of presentation and relative clause position affect acceptability. Lingua, 166, 65–79.Google Scholar
Morgan, A. M., von der Malsburg, T., Ferreira, V. S., & Wittenberg, E. (2018). This is the structure that we wonder why anyone produces it: Resumptive pronouns in English hinder sentence comprehension. Presented at the 2018 CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, MIT, Boston.Google Scholar
Morgan, A. M. & Wagers, M. W. (2018). English resumptive pronouns are more common where gaps are less acceptable. Linguistic Inquiry, 49, 861–876.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M., Clemens, L. E., Morgan, A. M., Xiang, M., & Heestand, D. (2013). Resumption in English. In Sprouse, J., ed., Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 341–360.Google Scholar
Prince, E. (1990). Syntax and discourse: A look at resumptive pronouns. In Hall, K., Koenig, J.-P., Meacham, M., Reinman, S., & Sutton, L. A., eds., Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Parasession on the Legacy of Grice. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 482–497.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Sells, P. (1984). Syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, U. (1992). Resumptive pronouns as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 443–468.Google Scholar
References
Ackerman, L., Frazier, M., & Yoshida, M. (2018). Resumptive pronouns can ameliorate illicit island extractions. Linguistic Inquiry, 49, 847–859.Google Scholar
Alexopoulou, T. & Keller, F. (2007). Locality, cyclicity, and resumption: At the interface between the grammar and the human sentence processor. Language, 83, 110–160.Google Scholar
Almeida, D. (2014). Subliminal wh-islands in Brazilian Portuguese and the consequences for syntactic theory. Revista da ABRALIN, 13.55–93. DOI: 10.5380/rabl.v13i2 .39611.Google Scholar
Atkinson, E., Apple, A. Rawlins, K., & Omaki, A. (2015). Similarity of wh-phrases and acceptability variation in wh-islands. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 2048.Google ScholarPubMed
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
Chaves, R. P. & Dery, J. E. (2014). Which subject islands will the acceptability of improve with repeated exposure? In Santana-La Barge, R. E., ed., Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 96–106.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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clifton, C. & Frazier, L. (1989) Comprehending sentences with long-distance dependencies. In Carlson, G. N. & Tanenhaus, M. K., eds., Linguistic Structure in Language Processing (Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics 7). Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 273–317.Google Scholar
Crain, S. & Fodor, J. D. (1985). How can grammars help parsers? In Dowty, D., Kartuunen, L., & Zwicky, A., eds., Natural Language Parsing: Psychological, Computational, and Theoretical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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
Culicover, P. W. & Postal, P. M. (eds.). (2001). Parasitic Gaps. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2010). Naive v. expert intuitions: An empirical study of acceptability judgments. The Linguistic Review, 27(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Do, M. L. & Kaiser, E. (2017). The relationship between syntactic satiation and syntactic priming: A first look. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1851.Google Scholar
Engdahl, E. (1985). Parasitic gaps, resumptive pronouns, and subject extractions. Linguistics, 23, 3–44.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N. (1973). On the nature of island constraints. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2005). Magnitude estimation and what it can do for your syntax: Some wh constraints in German. Lingua, 115, 1525–1550.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. & Swets, B. (2005). The production and comprehension of resumptive pronouns in relative clause “island” contexts. In Cutler, A., ed., Twenty-First Century Psycholinguistics: Four Cornerstones. New York: Routledge, pp. 263–278.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.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. & d’Arcais, G. B. F. (1989). Filler driven parsing: A study of gap filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(3), 331–344.Google Scholar
Freedman, S. E. & Forster, K. I. (1985). The psychological status of overgenerated sentences. Cognition, 19(2), 101–131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garnsey, S., Tanenhaus, M., & Chapman, R. (1989). Evoked potentials and the study of sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 51–60.Google Scholar
Goodall, G. (2011). Syntactic satiation and the inversion effect in English and Spanish wh‐questions. Syntax, 14(1), 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
Heestand, D., Xiang, M., & Polinsky, M. (2011). Resumption still does not rescue islands. Linguistic Inquiry, 42(1), 138–152.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. & Sag, I. A. (2010). Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language, 86: 366–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hofmeister, P., Staum Casasanto, L., & Sag, I. A. (2012). How do individual cognitive differences relate to acceptability judgments? A reply to Sprouse, Wagers, and Phillips. Language, 88(2), 390–400.Google Scholar
Huang, C. T. J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 159–201.Google Scholar
Kazanina, N., Lau, E. F., Lieberman, M., Yoshida, M., & Phillips, C. (2007). The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 384–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keffala, B. (2013). Resumption and gaps in English relative clauses: Relative acceptability creates an illusion of ‘saving.’ In Cathchart, C., Chen, I.-H., Finley, G., Kang, S., Sandy, C. S., & Stickles, E., 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
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. (2017). Active dependency formation in islands: How grammatical resumption affects sentence processing. Language, 93, 549–68.Google Scholar
Keshev, M. & Meltzer-Asscher, A. (2019). A processing-based account of subliminal wh-island effects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 37(2), 621–657.Google Scholar
Kim, B. & Grant, G. (2016). Islands and non-islands in native and heritage Korean. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 134.Google Scholar
Kluender, R. & Kutas, M. (1993). Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 573–633.Google Scholar
Ko, H., Chung, H.-B., Kim, K., & Sprouse, J. (2019). An experimental study on scrambling out of islands: To the left and to the right. Language & Information Society, 37.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. (1981). On the role of resumptive pronouns in amnestying island constraint violations. In Hendrick, R., Maseh, C., & Miller, M., eds., Papers from the 17th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 125–135.Google Scholar
Kurtzman, H. S. & Crawford, L. F. (1991). Processing parasitic gaps. In Sherer, T., ed., Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: LSA Publications, pp. 217–231.Google Scholar
Kush, D., Lohndal, T., & Sprouse, J. (2018). Investigating variation in island effects: A case study of Norwegian wh-extraction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 36, 743–779.Google Scholar
Kush, D., Lohndal, T., & Sprouse, J. (2019). On the island sensitivity of topicalization in Norwegian: An experimental investigation. Language, 95(3), 393–420.Google Scholar
Loftus, G. R. (1978). On interpretation of interactions. Memory & Cognition, 6, 312–319.Google Scholar
Lu, J., Thompson, C., & Yoshida, M. (2020). Chinese wh-in-situ and islands: A formal judgment study. Linguistic Inquiry, 51(3), 611–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luka, B. J. & Barsalou, L. W. (2005). Structural facilitation: Mere exposure effects for grammatical acceptability as evidence for syntactic priming in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 436–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matchin, W., Sprouse, J., & Hickok, G. (2014). A structural distance effect for backward anaphora in Broca’s area: An fMRI study. Brain and Language, 138, 1–11.Google Scholar
Maxwell, S. E. & Delaney, H. D. (2003). Designing Experiments and Analyzing Data: A Model Comparison Perspective. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Maxwell, S. E., Delaney, H. D., & Kelley, K. (2017). Designing Experiments and Analyzing Data: A Model Comparison Perspective, 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. (2006). Resumption. In Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H., eds., The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 94–117.Google Scholar
McKinnon, R. & Osterhout, L. (1996). Event-related potentials and sentence processing: Evidence for the status of constraints on movement phenomena. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 495–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michel, D. (2014). Individual cognitive measures and working memory accounts of syntactic island phenomena. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Morgan, A. M. & Wagers, M. W. (2018). English resumptive pronouns are more common where gaps are less acceptable. Linguistic Inquiry, 49(4), 861–876.Google Scholar
Neville, H. J., Nicol, J., Barss, A., Forster, K. I., & Garrett, M. F. (1991). Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 151–165.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
Omaki, A., Lau, E. F., Davidson White, I., Dakan, M. L., Apple, A., & Phillips, C. (2015). Hyper-active gap filling. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 384.Google Scholar
Omaki, A. & Nakao, C. (2010). Does English resumption really help to repair island violations? Snippets, 21, 11–12.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (1987). Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In Reuland, E. & ter Meulen, A., eds., The Representation of (In)definiteness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 98–129.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (2006). The real-time status of island constraints. Language, 82, 795–823.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (2013a). On the nature of island constraints. I: Language processing and reductionist accounts. In Sprouse, J. & Hornstein, N., eds., Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 64–108.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (2013b). On the nature of island constraints. II: Language learning and innateness. In Sprouse, J. & Hornstein, N., eds., Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 132–157.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., Barton, S., & Shillcock, R. (1994). Unbounded dependencies, island constraints, and processing complexity. In Clifton, C., Jr., Frazier, L., & Rayner, K., eds., Perspectives on Sentence Processing. London: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 199–224.Google Scholar
Poulsen, M. (2008). Acceptability and processing of long-distance dependencies in Danish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 31, 73–107.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1981). A second COMP position. In Belletti, A., Brandi, L., & Rizzi, L., eds., Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore, pp. 517–557.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1982). Violations of the wh-island constraint and the subjacency condition. In Rizzi, L., ed., Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 49–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [Published as Infinite Syntax!, Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1986.]Google Scholar
Sells, P. (1984). Syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Snyder, W. (2000). An experimental investigation of syntactic satiation effects. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 575–582.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2007). A program for experimental syntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2009). Revisiting satiation: Evidence for a response equalization strategy. Linguistic Inquiry, 40, 329–341.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 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, 179–203.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. & Messick, T. (2015). How gradient are island effects? Poster presented at NELS 46.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
Stepanov, A., Mušič, M., & Stateva, P. (2018). Two (non-)islands in Slovenian: A study in experimental syntax. Linguistics, 56(3), 435–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stowe, L. A. (1986). Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 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
Szabolcsi, A. & Lohndal, T. (2017). Strong vs. weak islands. In Everaert, M. & Riemsdijk, H. C., eds., The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. & Zwarts, F. (1993). Weak islands and an algebraic semantics of scope taking. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 235–284.Google Scholar
Torrego, E. (1984). On inversion in Spanish and some of its effects. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 103–129.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J. & Pickering, M. J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 35: 454–475.Google Scholar
Tucker, M. A., Idrissi, A., Sprouse, J., & Almeida, D. (2019). Resumption ameliorates different islands differentially: 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
Van Gompel, R. P. & Liversedge, S. P. (2003). The influence of morphological information on cataphoric pronoun assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(1), 128.Google Scholar
Villata, S., Rizzi, L., & Franck, J. (2016). Intervention effects and relativized minimality: New experimental evidence from graded judgments. Lingua, 179, 76–96.Google Scholar
Wagenmakers, E., Krypotos, A., Criss, A. H., & Iverson, G. (2012). On the interpretation of removable interactions: A survey of the field 33 years after Loftus. Memory and Cognition, 40, 145–160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagers, M. W. & Phillips, C. (2009). Multiple dependencies and the role of the grammar in real-time comprehension. Journal of Linguistics, 45, 395–433.Google Scholar
Yoshida, M., Kazanina, N., Pablos, L., & Sturt, P. (2014). On the origin of islands. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 761–770.Google Scholar
References
Bayer, J. (2005). Was beschränkt die Extraktion? Subjekt–Objekt vs. Topik–Fokus. In D’Avis, F.-J., ed., Deutsche Syntax: Empirie und Theorie. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, pp. 233–257.Google Scholar
Bentzen, K. (2014). Subject and object extraction from embedded clauses. Nordic Atlas of Language Structures, 1, 435–446.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
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. Presentation at the 39th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, April, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2004). Bridge verbs and V2 verbs – the same thing in spades? Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 23(2), 181–209.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2008). Thermometer judgements as linguistic evidence. In Riehl, C. M. & Rothe, A., eds., Was ist linguistische Evidenz? Aachen: Shaker Verlag, pp. 69–90.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1974). Special sciences (or: The disunity of science as a working hypothesis). Synthese, 28(2), 97–115.Google Scholar
Kandybowicz, J. (2006). Comp-trace effects explained away. In Baumer, D., Montero, D., & Scanlon, M., eds., Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 220–228.Google Scholar
Kiziak, T. (2010). Extraction Asymmetries: Experimental Evidence from German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lindstad, A., Nøklestad, M., Johannessen, A., J. B., & Vangsnes, Ø. A. (2009). The Nordic Dialect Database: Mapping microsyntactic variation in the Scandinavian languages. In Jokinen, K. & Bick, E., eds., Proceedings of the 17th Nordic Conference of Computational Linguistics (NoDaLiDa) (NEALT Proceedings Series, 4). Helsinki: Northern European Association for Language Technology, pp. 283–286.Google Scholar
McDaniel, D. (2018). Long-distance extraction attraction: A production-based account of an unexpected cross-linguistic structure. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, D., McKee, C., Cowart, W., & Garrett, M. F. (2015). The role of the language production system in shaping grammars. Language, 91(2), 415–41.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. (1968). Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. (1971) Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Generative Grammar. 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, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1–34.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (2013). On the nature of island constraints. II: Language learning and innateness. Sprouse, In J. & Hornstein, N., eds., Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 132–157.Google Scholar
Ritchart, A., Goodall, G., & Garellek, M. (2016). Prosody and the that-trace effect: An experimental study. In Kim, K.-m., Umbal, P., Block, T., Chan, Q., Cheng, T., Finney, K., Katz, M., Nickel-Thompson, S., & Shorten, L., eds., Proceedings of the 33rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 320–328.Google Scholar
Salzmann, M., Häussler, J., Bader, M., & Bayer, J. (2013). That-trace effects without traces: An experimental investigation. Presented at the NELS 42.Google Scholar
Schippers, A. (2019). COMP-trace revisited: An indirect dependency analysis. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Sobin, N. (1987). The variable status of comp-trace phenomena. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 5(1), 33–60.Google Scholar
Stevens, S. S. (1975). Psychophysics: Introduction to its Perceptual, Neural, and Social Prospects. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Strik, N. (2008). Syntaxe et acquisition des phrases interrogatives en français et en néerlandais: une étude contrastive. Doctoral dissertation, University of Paris VIII.Google Scholar
Westergaard, M., Vangsnes, Ø. A., & Lohndal, T. (2017). Variation and change in Norwegian wh-questions: The role of the complementizer som. Linguistic Variation, 17(1), 8–43.Google Scholar
White, L. (1986). Island effects in second language acquisition. Montreal Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 1–27.Google Scholar
References
Bach, E. & Partee, B. H. (1980). Anaphora and semantic structure. In Kreiman, J. & Ojeda, A. E., eds., Papers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 1–28. [Reprinted in Partee, B. H. 2004. Compositionality in Formal Semantics: Selected Papers by Barbara H. Partee. Oxford: Blackwell, 122–152.]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. & Häussler, J. (2010). Toward a model of grammaticality judgments. Journal of Linguistics, 46, 273–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bard, E. G., Robertson, D., & Sorace, A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72, 32–68.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. & Schlesewsky, M. (2007). The wolf in sheep’s clothing: against a new judgment-driven imperialism. Theoretical Linguistics, 33, 319–333.Google Scholar
Büring, D. (2011). Pronouns. In von Heusinger, K., Maienborn, C., & Portner, P., eds., Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 33/2). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 971–996.Google Scholar
Carden, G. & Dieterich, T. (1981). Introspection, observation, and experiment: An example where experiments pay off. In PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1980. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 583–597.Google Scholar
Carminati, M.-N. (2005). Processing reflexes of the Feature Hierarchy (Person > Number > Gender) and implications for linguistic theory. Lingua, 115, 259–285.Google Scholar
Carminati, M.-N., Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (2002). Bound variables and c-command. Journal of Semantics, 19, 1–34.Google Scholar
Chien, Y.-C. & Wexler, K. (1990). Children’s knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition, 1, 225–295.Google Scholar
Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Culbertson, J. & Gross, S. (2009). Are linguists better subjects? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 60, 721–736.Google Scholar
Cunnings, I. & Felser, C. (2013). The role of working memory in the processing of reflexives. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 188–219.Google Scholar
Cunnings, I., Patterson, C., & Felser, C. (2015) Structural constraints on pronoun binding and coreference: Evidence from eye movements during reading. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 840.Google Scholar
Cunnings, I. & Sturt, P. (2014). Coargumenthood and the processing of reflexives. Journal of Memory and Language 75, 117–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunnings, I. & Sturt, P. (2018). Coargumenthood and the processing of pronouns. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(10), 1235–1251.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2010). Naïve v. expert intuitions: An empirical study of acceptability judgments. The Linguistic Review, 27, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillon, B. (2014). Syntactic memory in the comprehension of reflexive dependencies: An overview. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8(5), 171–187.Google Scholar
Dillon, B., Chow, W.-Y., Wagers, M., Guo, T., Liu, F., & Phillips, C. (2014). The structure-sensitivity of memory access: Evidence from Mandarin Chinese. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1025.Google Scholar
Dillon, B., Chow, W.-Y., & Xiang, M. (2016). The relationship between anaphor features and antecedent retrieval: Comparing Mandarin ziji and ta-ziji. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1966.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
Drummer, J.-D. & Felser, C. (2018). Cataphoric pronoun resolution in native and non-native sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 101, 97–113.Google Scholar
Evans, G. (1977). Pronouns, quantifiers, and relative clauses. The Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 7(3), 467–536.Google Scholar
Fabrigar, L. R. & Paik, J.-E. S. (2007). Thurstone scales. In Salkind, N., ed., Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 1003–1005.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2002). Coreferential objects in German: Experimental evidence on reflexivity. Linguistische Berichte, 192, 457–484.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2008). Thermometer judgments as linguistic evidence. In Riehl, C. M. & Rothe, A., eds., Was ist linguistische Evidenz? Aachen: Shaker, pp. 69–90.Google Scholar
Foraker, S. (2003). The processing of logophoric reflexives shows discourse and locality constraints. Paper presented at the 38th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Fraundorf, S. H., Benjamin, A. S., & Watson, D. G. (2013). What happened (and what didn’t): Discourse constraints on encoding of plausible alternatives. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 196–227.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. & Clifton, C. (2000). On bound variable interpretations: The LF-Only Hypothesis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 125–139.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
Fukumura, K., Hyönä, J., & Scholfield, M. (2013). Gender affects semantic competition: The effect of gender in a non-gender-marking language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(4), pp. 1012–1021.Google Scholar
Garnham, A. (2001). Mental Models and the Interpretation of Anaphora. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Gerken, L.-A. & Bever, T. (1986). Linguistic intuitions are the result of interactions between perceptual processes and linguistic universals. Cognitive Science, 10, 457–476.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
Gordon, P. C. & Hendrick, R. (1997). Intuitive knowledge of linguistic co-reference. Cognition, 62, 325–370.Google Scholar
Grosz, P. G., Patel-Grosz, P., Fedorenko, E., & Gibson, E. (2015). Constraints on donkey pronouns. Journal of Semantics, 32(4), 619–648.Google Scholar
Han, C.-h., Storoshenko, D., Leung, B., & Kim, K. (2015). The time course of long distance anaphor processing in Korean. Korean Linguistics, 17(1), 1–32.Google Scholar
Harris, T., Wexler, K., & Holcomb, P. (2000). An ERP investigation of binding and coreference. Brain and Language, 75, 313–346.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
He, X. & Kaiser, E. (2016). Processing the Chinese reflexive “ziji”: Effects of featural constraints on anaphor resolution. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 284.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. (2000). Anaphora: A Cross-Linguistic Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. & Zyzik, E. (2014). Judgment and interpretation tasks in second language research. Review article for Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34, 1–28.Google Scholar
Kaiser, E. (2015). Perspective-shifting and free indirect discourse: Experimental investigations. In S. D’Antonio, M. Moroney, & C. R.Little, eds, Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 25 (SALT 25), pp. 346–372.Google Scholar
Kaiser, E., Nichols, J., & Wang, C. (2018). Experimenting with imposters: What modulates choice of person agreement in pronouns? Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 22(1), 505–521.Google Scholar
Kaiser, E. & Runner, J. T. (2008). Intensifiers in German and Dutch Anaphor Resolution. In Abner, N. & Bishop, J., eds., Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 265–273.Google Scholar
Kaiser, E., Runner, J., Sussman, R., & Tanenhaus, M. (2009). Structural and semantic constraints on the resolution of pronouns and reflexives. Cognition, 112, 55–80.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1969). Pronouns and variables. In Binnick, R. I., Davidson, A., Green, G. M., & Morgan, J. L., eds., Proceedings of the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 108–116.Google Scholar
Kazanina, N., Lau, E. F., Lieberman, M., Yoshida, M., & Philips, C. (2007). The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 384–409.Google Scholar
Keller, F. & Asudeh, A. (2001). Constraints on linguistic coreference: Structural vs. pragmatic factors. In Moore, J. & Stenning, K. (eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 483–488.Google Scholar
Keller, F. (2000). Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Kreiner, H., Sturt, P., & Garrod, S. (2008). Processing definitional and stereotypical gender in reference resolution: Evidence from eye-movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(2), 239–261.Google Scholar
Kush, D. & Eik, R. (2019). Antecedent accessibility and exceptional covariation: Evidence from Norwegian Donkey Pronouns. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1), 96. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.930CrossRefGoogle 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
Lago, S., Stutter Garcia, A., & Felser, C. (2018). The role of native and non-native grammars in the comprehension of possessive pronouns. Second Language Research, 35(3), 319–349.Google Scholar
Langsford, S. et al. (2018). Quantifying sentence acceptability measures: Reliability, bias, and variability. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 37. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.396Google Scholar
Maia, J. & Morris, R. (2019). The semantics–pragmatics of typographic emphasis in discourse. Poster presented at the 32nd Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., Dias, R., & Santos, H. (2011). Clitics and object expression in the L3 acquisition of Brazilian Portuguese: Structural similarity matters for transfer. Second Language Research, 27, 21–58.Google Scholar
Moulton, K., Chan, Q., Cheng, T., Han, C.-h., Kim, K., & Nickel-Thompson, S. (2018). Focus on cataphora: Experiments in context. Linguistic Inquiry 49(1) 151–168.Google Scholar
Myers, J. (2009). Syntactic judgment experiments. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 406–423.Google Scholar
Nicenboim, B., Vasishth, S., Engelmann, F., & Suckow, K. (2018). Exploratory and confirmatory analyses in sentence processing: A case study of number interference in German. Cognitive Science, 42, 4, 1075–1100.Google Scholar
Nicol, J. & Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 5–20.Google Scholar
Parker, D. & Phillips, C. (2017). Reflexive attraction in comprehension is selective. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 272–290.Google Scholar
Parker, D., Lago, S., & Phillips, C. (2015). Interference in the processing of adjunct control. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–13.Google Scholar
Patil, U., Vasishth, S., & Lewis, R. L. (2016). Retrieval interference in syntactic processing: The case of reflexive binding in English. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–18.Google Scholar
Patterson, C., Trompelt, H., & Felser, C. (2014). The online application of binding condition B in native and non-native pronoun resolution. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 147.Google Scholar
Pearlmutter, N., Garnsey, S., & Bock, K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 427–456.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. & Lasnik, H. (2003). Linguistics and empirical evidence: Reply to Edelman and Christiansen. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 61–62.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. (1992). The processing of logophoric reflexives shows discourse and locality constraints. Linguistic Inquiry, 23(2), 261–303.Google Scholar
Rebuschat, P. (2013). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge in second language research. Language Learning, 63, 595–626.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1982). Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica, 27, 53–94.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1983b). Coreference and bound anaphora: A restatement of the anaphora question. Linguistics and Philosophy, 6, 47–88.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (2002). The theta system: An overview. Theoretical Linguistics, 28, 229–290.Google Scholar
Rigalleau, F., Caplan, D., & Baudiffier, V. (2004). New arguments in favour of an automatic gender pronominal process. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 57A(5), 893–933.Google Scholar
Roberts, J., Laughlin, J., & Wedel, D. (1999). Validity issues in the Likert and Thurstone approaches to attitude measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(2), 211–233.Google Scholar
Runner, J. T., Sussman, R. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2003). Assignment of reference to reflexives and pronouns in picture noun phrases: Evidence from eye movements. Cognition, 89, B1–B13.Google Scholar
Schumacher, P. B., Bisang, W., & Sun, L. (2011). Perspective in the processing of the Chinese reflexive ziji: ERP evidence. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7009, 119–131.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. (1996). The Empirical Base of Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. & Sprouse, J. (2013). Judgment data. In Podesva, R. J. & Sharma, D., eds., Research Methods in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 27–50.Google Scholar
Sekerina, I., Stromswold, K., & Hestvik, A. (2004). How adults and children process referentially ambiguous pronouns. Journal of Child Language, 31, 123–152.Google Scholar
Sloggett, S. & Dillon, B. (2018). Person blocking in reflexive processing: When “I” matter more than “them.” Talk given at CUNY 2018, UC Davis.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2007). Continuous acceptability, categorical grammaticality, and experimental syntax. Biolinguistics, 1, 123–134.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. & Almeida, , D. (2017). Design sensitivity and statistical power in acceptability judgment experiments. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1), 14.1–32. 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
Stevens, S. (1975). Psychophysics: Introduction to Its Perceptual, Neural, and Social Prospects. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Sturt, P. (2003). The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 542–562.Google Scholar
Temme, A. & Verhoeven, E. (2017). Backward binding as a psych effect: A binding illusion? Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 36(2), 279–308.Google Scholar
Thurstone, L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34(4), 273.Google Scholar
Vasishth, S., Brüssow, S., Lewis, R. L., & Drenhaus, H. (2008). Processing polarity: How the ungrammatical intrudes on the grammatical. Cognitive Science, 32(4), 685–712.Google Scholar
Wagers, M. W., Lau, E. F., & Phillips, C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(2), 206–237.Google Scholar
Weskott, T. & Fanselow, G. (2011). On the informativity of different measures of linguistic acceptability. Language, 87(2), 249–273.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
References
Aissen, J. (1999). Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17(4), 673–711.Google Scholar
Altmann, H. (1981). Formen der “Herausstellung” im Deutschen: Rechtsversetzung, Linksversetzung, Freies Thema und verwandte Konstruktionen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Averintseva-Klisch, M. (2009). Rechte Satzperipherie im Diskurs: NP-Rechtsversetzung im Deutschen. Tübingen: Stauffenberg.Google Scholar
Bader, M. (1999). Die Verarbeitung von Subjekt-Objekt-Ambiguitäten im Kontext. In Proceedings der 4. Fachtagung der Gesellschaft für Kognitionswissenschaft. St. Augustin: Infix.Google Scholar
Bader, M. & Häussler, J. (2010). Toward a model of grammaticality judgments. Journal of Linguistics, 46, 273–330.Google Scholar
Bader, M. & Portele, Y. (2018). Givenness licenses object-first order in German. Talk presented at CGSW 2018 Göttingen.Google Scholar
Bayer, J. & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1992). Configurationality in the light of language comprehension: The order of arguments in German. Manuscript, University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
Behaghel, O. (1909). Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Indogermanische Forschungen, 25, 110–142.Google Scholar
Birner, B. J. (1996). The Discourse Function of Inversion in English. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bojar, O., Semecky, J., Vasishth, S., & Kruijff-Korbayova, I. (2004). Processing noncanonical word order in Czech. Poster presented at conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing, September 2004, Aix-en-Provence, France (AM-LaP 2004).Google Scholar
Bornkessel, I. & Schlesewsky, M. (2006). The role of contrast in the local licensing of Scrambling in German: Evidence from online comprehension. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 18(1), 1–43.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1994). Locative inversion and the architecture of Universal Grammar. Language, 70(1), 72–131.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, R. H. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In Bouma, G., Krämer, I., & Zwarts, J., eds., Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science, pp. 69–94.Google Scholar
Brown, M., Savova, V., & Gibson, E. (2012). Syntax encodes information structure: Evidence from on-line reading comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(1), 194–209.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Li, C. N., ed., Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 25–55.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1971). Deep structure, surface structure and semantic interpretation. In Steinberg, D. & Jakobovits, L., eds., Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Haviland, S. (1977). Comprehension and the given-new contract. In Freedle, R., ed., Disourse Production and Comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 1–40.Google Scholar
Clifton, C. J. & Frazier, L. (1986). The use of syntactic information in filling gaps. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 15(3), 209–224.Google Scholar
Clifton, C. J. & Frazier, L. (2004). Should given information come before new? Yes and no. Memory & Cognition, 32(6), 886–895.Google Scholar
DeVeaugh-Geiss, J., Tönnis, S., Onea, E., & Zimmermann, M. (2018). That’s not quite it: An experimental investigation of (non-)exhaustivity in clefts. Semantics & Pragmatics, 11(3). DOI:10.3765/sp.11.3Google Scholar
Ebert, C. (2009). Quantificational Topics: A Scopal Treatment of Exceptional Wide Scope Phenomena (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, 86). Heidelberg: Springer.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.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G., Lenertová, D., & Weskott, T. (2008). Studies on the acceptability of object movement to Spec,CP. In Steube, A., ed., The Discourse Potential of Underspecified Structures. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 413–438.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. & Weskott, T. (2010). A short note on long movement in German. Linguistische Berichte, 222, 129–140.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. (1978). Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Inquiry, 9, 427–473.Google Scholar
Frey, W. (1993). Syntaktische Bedingungen für die semantische Interpretation: über Bindung, implizite Argumente, und Skopus (Studia Grammatica, 35). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Gärtner, H.-M. & Steinbach, M. (2003). What do reduced pronomnals reveal about the syntax of Dutch and German? Part I: Clause-internal positions. Linguistische Berichte, 195, 257–294.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68(1), 1–76.Google Scholar
Haider, H. & Rosengren, I. (1998). Scrambling (Sprache and Pragmatik, 49). Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
Haider, H. & Rosengren, I. (2003). Scrambling: Nontriggered chain formation in OV languages. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 15(3), 203–267.Google Scholar
Hartmann, J., Jäger, M., Kehl, A., Konietzko, A., & Winkler, S., eds. (2018). Freezing: Theoretical Approaches and Empirical Domains. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 387–402.Google Scholar
Häussler, J., Mucha, A., Schmidt, A., Weskott, T., & Wierzba, M. (2019). Experimenting with Lurchi: V2 and agreement violations in poetic contexts. In Brown, J. M. M., Wierzba, M., & Schmidt, A., eds., Of Trees and Birds: A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow. Potsdam: Potsdam University Press, pp. 307–321.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haywood, S. L., Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (2005). Do speakers avoid ambiguities during dialogue? Psychological Science, 16(5), 362–366.Google Scholar
Hemforth, B. (1993). Kognitives Parsing–Repräsentation und Verarbeitung sprachlichen Wissens. St. Augustin:Infix.Google Scholar
Höhle, T. N. (1982). Explikationen für “normale Betonung” und “normale Wortstellung.” In Abraham, W., ed., Satzglieder im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr, pp. 75–153.Google Scholar
Hörberg, T. (2016). Probabilistic and prominence-driven incremental argument interpretation in Swedish. Doctoral dissertation, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Hörnig, R., Oberauer, K., & Weidenfeld, A. (2005). Two principles of premise integration in spatial reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 33(1), 131–139.Google Scholar
Hörnig, R., Weskott, T., Kliegl, R., & Fanselow, G. (2006). Word order variation in spatial descriptions with adverbs. Memory & Cognition, 34(5), 1183–1192.Google Scholar
Kaan, E. (1996). Processing Subject–Object-Ambiguities in Dutch. Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics, 20, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.Google Scholar
Kaiser, E. & Trueswell, J. (2004). The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language. Cognition, 94(2), 113–147.Google Scholar
Keller, F. (2000). Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Kizach, J. (2015). Animacy and the ordering of postverbal prepositional phrases in Danish. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 47(2), 1–21.Google Scholar
Kleemann-Krämer, A., Kügler, F., & Pötzl, S. (2015). Zur Anbindung extraponierter PPen an ihre Bezugsstruktur. In Vinckel-Roisin, H., ed., Das Nachfeld im Deutschen: Theorie und Empirie. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 299–318.Google Scholar
Konietzko, A. (2018). Heavy NP shift in context: On the interaction of information structure and subextraction from shifted constituents. In Hartmann, J., Jäger, M., Kehl, A., Konietzko, A., & Winkler, S., eds., Freezing: Theoretical Approaches and Empirical Domains. Berlin and Boston, MA: De Gruyter, pp. 387–402.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1981). The speaker’s linearization problem. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B 295, 305–315.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Meng, M. (1998). Kognitive Sprachverarbeitung: Rekonstruktion syntaktischer Strukturen beim Lesen. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Müller, G. (1999). Optimality, markedness, and word order in German. Linguistics, 37, 777–818.Google Scholar
Müller, G. (2001). Optionality in Optimality-Theoretic syntax. In Cheng, L. & Sybesma, R., eds., The Second Glot International State-of-the-Article Book. Berlin: Mouton, pp. 289–312.Google Scholar
Namboodiripad, S. (2017). An experimental approach to variation and variability in constituent order. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Nikanne, U. (2017). Finite sentences in Finnish: Word order, morphol- ogy, and information structure. In Bailey, L. R. & Sheehan, M., eds., Order and Structure in Syntax I: Word Order and Syntactic Structure. Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 69–97.Google Scholar
Pechmann, T., Uszkoreit, H., Engelkamp, J., & Zerbst, D. (1994). Word order in the German Middlefield. Computerlinguistik an der Univerität des Saarlandes, 43.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1999). How not to mark topics: “Topicalization” in English and Yiddish. Texas Linguistics Forum. Austin: University of Texas, Ch. 8.Google Scholar
Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure: Towards an integrated theory of pragmatics. In Yoon, J. H. & Kathol, A., eds., Papers in Semantics (OSU Working Papers in Linguistics, 49). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. & Keller, F. (2005). Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua, 115, 1497–1524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheepers, C. & Rummer, R. (1999). Genre-specific parsing: Non-additive influences of metrical stress pattern on sentence processing. Talk held at KogWis (Fachtagung der Gesellschaft für Kognitionswissenschaft) in Leipzig.Google Scholar
Sternefeld, W. (2000). Semantic vs. syntactic reconstruction. Unpublished manuscript, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Steube, A. (2001). Grammatik und Pragmatik von Hutkonturen. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte, 77, 7–29. Leipzig University.Google Scholar
Temme, A. & Verhoeven, E. (2016). Verb class, case, and order: A crosslinguistic experiment on non-nominative experiencers. Linguistics, 54(4), 769–813.Google Scholar
Vasishth, S. (2004). Discourse context and word order preferences in Hindi. Yearbook of South Asian Languages. New Delhi and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 113–128.Google Scholar
Vilkuna, M. (1989). Free Word Order in Finnish: Its Syntax and Discourse Functions. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Vinckel-Roisin, H., ed. (2015). Das Nachfeld im Deutschen: Theorie und Empirie. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vogel, R. (2018). Sociocultural determinants of grammatical taboos in German. In Liashchova, L., ed., The Explicit and the Implicit in Language and Speech. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 116–153.Google Scholar
Ward, G. & Birner, B. (2004). Information structure and non-canonical syntax. In Horn, L. R. & Ward, G., eds., The Handbook of Pragmatics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 153–174.Google Scholar
Weskott, T. (2003). Information structure as a processing guide: The left periphery of German verb-second sentences an its interpretation in context. 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
Weskott, T., Hörnig, R., & Webelhuth, G. (2019). On the contextual licensing of English locative inversion and topicalization. In Featherston, S., Hörnig, R., von Wietersheim, S., & Winkler, S., eds., Experiments in Focus: Information Structure and Semantic Processing. New York: De Gruyter, pp. 153–182.Google Scholar
References
Abrams, K., Chiarello, C., Cress, K., Green, S., & Ellelt, N. (1978). The relation between mother-to-child speech and word-order comprehension strategies in children. In Campbell, R. N., & Smith, P. T., eds., Recent Advances in the Psychology of Language. New York: Plenum Press, vol. 4, pp. 337–347.Google Scholar
Alonso-Ovalle, L. & Menéndez-Benito, P. (2013). Two views on epistemic indefinites. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(2), 105–122.Google Scholar
Amaral, P. (2010). Entailment, assertion, and textual coherence: The case of almost and barely. Linguistics, 48(3), 525–545.Google Scholar
Bach, E., Jelinek, E., Kratzer, A., & Partee, B. H. (1995). Quantification in Natural Languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Baggio, G., Choma, T., Van Lambalgen, M., & Hagoort, P. (2010). Coercion and compositionality. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(9), 2131–2140.Google Scholar
Bard, E. G., Robertson, D., & Sorace, A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72(1), 32–68.Google Scholar
Barker, C. (2002). Continuations and the nature of quantification. Natural Language Semantics, 10(3), 211–242.Google Scholar
Barker, C. (2012). Quantificational binding does not require c-command. Linguistic Inquiry, 43(4), 614–633.Google Scholar
Barwise, J. & Cooper, R. (1981). Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4(2), 159–219.Google Scholar
Beghelli, F. & Stowell, T. (1997). Distributivity and negation: The syntax of each and every. In Szabolcsi, A., ed., Ways of Scope Taking. New York: Springer, pp. 71–107.Google Scholar
Berman, S. (1987). Situation-based semantics for adverbs of quantification. In Blevins, J. & Vainikka, A., eds., University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publishing, vol. 12, pp. 45–68.Google Scholar
Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. Cognition and the Development of Language, 279(362), 1–61.Google Scholar
Bott, O., Featherston, S., Radó, J., & Stolterfoht, B. (2011). The application of experimental methods in semantics. In Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K., & Portner, P., eds., Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 305–321.Google Scholar
Bott, O. & Radó, J. (2007). Quantifying quantifier scope: a cross-methodological comparison. In Featherston, S. & Sternefeld, W., eds., Roots: Linguistics in Search of Its Evidential Base. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 53–74.Google Scholar
Bott, O. & Radó, J. (2009). How to provide exactly one interpretation for every sentence, or what eye movements reveal about quantifier scope. In Featherston, S. & Winkler, S., eds., Fruits of Empirical Linguistics, vol.1: Processes (Studies in Generative Grammar, 101). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 25–46.Google Scholar
Brasoveanu, A. & Dotlačil, J. (2012). Licensing sentence-internal readings in English. In Aloni, M., Kimmelman, V., Roelofsen, F., Sassoon, G. W., Schulz, K., & Westera, M., eds., Logic, Language and Meaning. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 122–132.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clifton, C. Jr. & Frazier, L. (2010). When are downward-entailing contexts identified? The case of the domain widener ever. Linguistic Inquiry, 41(4), 681–689.Google Scholar
Clifton, C. Jr. & Frazier, L. (2012). Interpreting conjoined noun phrases and conjoined clauses: Collective versus distributive preferences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(9), 1760–1776.Google Scholar
Clifton, C. Jr. & Frazier, L. (2013). Partition if you must: Evidence for a No Extra Times principle. Discourse Processes, 50(8), 616–630.Google Scholar
Crain, S. (1991). Language acquisition in the absence of experience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14(4), 597–612.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, D. (1974). On the very idea of a conceptual scheme. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 47, 5–20. Reprinted in D. Davidson (1984). Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation: Philosophical Essays. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Dayal, V. (2013). The syntax of scope and quantification. In den Dikken, M., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Egg, M. (2005). Flexible Semantics for Reinterpretation Phenomena. Palo Alto, CA: CSLI Publications.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
Fauconnier, G. (1975). Pragmatic scales and logical structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 6(3), 353–375.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2005). Magnitude estimation and what it can do for your syntax: Some wh- constraints in German. Lingua, 115(11), 1525–1550.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
Ferreira, F. & Clifton, C. Jr. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25(3), 348–368.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. & Sag, I. A. (1982). Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy, 5(3), 355–398.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1999). On Sentence Interpretation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (2000). On interpretation: Minimal “lowering.” In Crocker, M. W., Pickering, M. & Clifton, C. Jr., eds., Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 303–323.Google Scholar
Frazier, L., Clifton, Jr., C., Rayner, K., Deevy, P., Koh, S., & Bader, M. (2005). Interface problems: Structural constraints on interpretation? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34 (3), 201–231.Google Scholar
Frisson, S. & McElree, B. (2008). Complement coercion is not modulated by competition: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
Geurts, B. (2000). Indefinites and choice functions. Linguistic Inquiry, 31(4), 731–738.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A. (1998). Polarity Sensitivity as (Non) Veridical Dependency. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.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., 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
Gillen, K. (1991). The comprehension of doubly quantified sentences. Doctoral dissertation, Durham University.Google Scholar
Gordon, P. (1998). The truth-value judgment task. In McDaniel, D., Smith Cairns, H., & McKee, C., eds., Methods for Assessing Children’s Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 211–232.Google Scholar
Gordon, P. C. & Hendrick, R. (1998). The representation and processing of coreference in discourse. Cognitive Science, 22(4), 389–424.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J., eds., Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gualmini, A., Hulsey, S., Hacquard, V., & Fox, D. (2008). The question–answer requirement for scope assignment. Natural Language Semantics, 16(3), 205–237.Google Scholar
Gyuris, B. & Jackson, S. R. (2018). Scope marking and prosody in Hungarian. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 83. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.311Google Scholar
Harris, J. A., Clifton, C. Jr., & Frazier, L. (2013). Processing and domain selection: Quantificational variability effects. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(10), 1519–1544.Google Scholar
Harris, J. A. & Korotkova, N. (2019). Preference for single events guides perception in Russian: A phoneme restoration study. In Ronai, E., Stigliano, L., & Sun, Y., eds., Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 149–163.Google Scholar
Harris, J. A. & Potts, C. (2009). Perspective-shifting with appositives and expressives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 32(6), 523–552.Google Scholar
Hinterwimmer, S. (2008). Q-Adverbs as Selective Binders: The Quantificational Variability of Free Relatives and Definite DPs. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hobbs, J. R. & Shieber, S. M. (1987). An algorithm for generating quantifier scopings. Computational Linguistics, 13(1–2), 47–63.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P., Jaeger, T. F., Sag, I. A., Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2007). Locality and accessibility in wh-questions. In Sternefeld, W. & Featherston, S., eds., Roots: Linguistics in Search of Its Evidential Base. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 185–206.Google Scholar
Huang, C. T. J. (1982). Move WH in a language without wh-movement. The Linguistic Review, 1(4), 369–416.Google Scholar
Husband, E. M., Kelly, L. A., & Zhu, D. C. (2011). Using complement coercion to understand the neural basis of semantic composition: Evidence from an fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(11), 3254–3266.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. (2010). The scope of indefinites: An experimental investigation. Natural Language Semantics, 18(3), pp. 295–350.Google Scholar
Ioup, G. (1975). The treatment of quantifier scope in a transformational grammar. Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York.Google Scholar
Jacobson, P. (1999). Towards a variable-free semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22(2), 117–185.Google Scholar
Janssen, T. M. V. (1997). Compositionality. In van Bentham, J. & ter Meulen, A., eds., Handbook of Logic and Language. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 417–474.Google Scholar
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111(2), 228–238.Google Scholar
Kaan, E., Dallas, A. C., & Barkley, C. M. (2007). Processing bare quantifiers in discourse. Brain Research, 1146, 199–209.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. & Stavi, J. (1986). A semantic characterization of natural language determiners. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9(3), 253–326.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1998). Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites? In Rothstein, S., ed., Events and Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 163–196.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. & Shimoyama, J. (2002). Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Otsu, Y., ed., Papers Presented at the 3rd Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
Kuperberg, G. R., Choi, A., Cohn, N., Paczynski, M., & Jackendoff, R. (2010). Electrophysiological correlates of complement coercion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(12), 2685–2701.Google Scholar
Kurtzman, H. S. & MacDonald, M. C. (1993). Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Cognition, 48(3), 243–279.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, W. A. (1979). Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Larson, R. (1995). Semantics. In Gleitman, L. R. & Liberman, M., eds., An Invitation to Cognitive Science, vol. 1: Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 361–380.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1975). Adverbs of quantification. In Keenan, E., ed., Formal Semantics of Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–15.Google Scholar
Lidz, J., Pietroski, P., Halberda, J., & Hunter, T. (2011). Interface transparency and the psychosemantics of most. Natural Language Semantics, 19(3), 227–256.Google Scholar
Ludlow, P. & Neale, S. (1991). Indefinite descriptions: In defense of Russell. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14(2), 171–202.Google Scholar
Majewski, H. (2014). Comprehending each other: weak reciprocity and processing. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
May, R. (1977). The grammar of quantification. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. (1997). Subjecthood and subject positions. In Haegeman, L. M. V., ed., Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 197–235.Google Scholar
McElree, B., Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2006). Deferred interpretations: Why starting Dickens is taxing but reading Dickens isn’t. Cognitive Science, 30(1), 181–192.Google Scholar
McElree, B., Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., Jackendoff, R. S., & Seely, R. E. (2001). Coercion in on-line semantic processing. Cognition, 78, B17–B25.Google Scholar
Meyer, M.-C. & Sauerland, U. (2009). A pragmatic constraint on ambiguity detection. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 27(1), 139–150.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (1983). Grammatical Theory: Its Limits and its Possibilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pagin, P. & Westerståhl, D. (2010). Compositionality I: Definitions and variants. Philosophy Compass, 5(3), 250–264.Google Scholar
Park, J. C. (1995). Quantifier scope and constituency. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 205–212.Google Scholar
Partee, B. (1995). Lexical semantics and compositionality. In Gleitman, L. R. & Liberman, M., eds., An Invitation to Cognitive Science, vol. 1: Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 311–360.Google Scholar
Partee, B. & Rooth, M. (1983). Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In Portner, P. & Partee, B., eds., Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 334–356. Originally published in R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow, eds., (1983). Meaning, Use and the Interpretation of Language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 361–393.Google Scholar
Paterson, K. B., Filik, R., & Liversedge, S. P. (2008). Competition during the processing of quantifier scope ambiguities: Evidence from eye movements during reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(3), 459–473.Google Scholar
Paterson, K. B., Filik, R., & Moxey, L. M. (2009). Quantifiers and discourse processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(6), 1390–1402.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., Frisson, S., McElree, B., & Traxler, M. J. (2004). Eye movements and semantic composition. In Carreiras, M. & Clifton, C., Jr., eds., The On-line Study of Sentence Comprehension: Eyetracking, ERPs, and Beyond. New York:Psychology Press, pp. 33–50.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., McElree, B., & Traxler, M. J. (2005). The difficulty of coercion: A response to de Almeida. Brain and Language, 93(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
Piñango, M. M. & Deo, A. (2015). Reanalyzing the complement coercion effect through a generalized lexical semantics for aspectual verbs. Journal of Semantics, 33(2), 359–408.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1991). The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics, 17(4), 409–41.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L., Martin, A. E., McElree, B., & Smart, A. (2009). The anterior midline field: Coercion or decision making? Brain and Language, 108(3), 184–190.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L. & McElree, B. (2006). The syntax-semantics interface: On-line composition of sentence meaning. In Traxler, M. & Gernsbacher, M. A., eds., Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 539–579.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L. & McElree, B. (2007). An MEG study of silent meaning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(11), 1905–1921.Google Scholar
Radó, J. & Bott, O. (2012). Underspecified representations of scope ambiguity? In Aloni, M., Kimmelman, V., Roelofsen, F., Sassoon, G. W., Schulz, K., & Westera, M., eds., Logic, Language and Meaning. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 180–189.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1997). Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20(4), 335–397.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Published as Infinite Syntax (1986). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Ruys, E. G. (1992). The scope of indefinites. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Saddy, D., Drenhaus, H., & Frisch, S. (2004). Processing polarity items: Contrastive licensing costs. Brain and Language, 90(1–3), 495–502.Google Scholar
Schiffer, S. (2015). Meaning and formal semantics in generative grammar. Erkenntnis, 80(1), 61–87.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. (2011). Linguistic evidence and grammatical theory. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(2), 206–221.Google Scholar
Schwarz, B. (2001). Two kinds of long-distance indefinites. In van Rooy, R. & Stokhof, M., eds., Proceedings of the 13th Amsterdam Colloquium. Amsterdam, pp. 192–197.Google Scholar
Schwarz, B. (2011). Long distance indefinites and choice functions. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5(12), 880–897.Google Scholar
Soames, S. (1992). Truth, meaning, and understanding. Philosophical Studies, 65(1–2), 17–35.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2008). The differential sensitivity of acceptability judgments to processing effects. Linguistic Inquiry, 39(4), 686–894.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2018). Acceptability judgments and grammaticality, prospects and challenges. In Hornstein, N., Yang, C., & Patel-Grosz, P., eds., Syntactic Structures after 60 Years: The Impact of the Chomskyan Revolution in Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 195–224.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. & Almeida, D. (2013). The empirical status of data in syntax: A reply to Gibson and Fedorenko. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(3), 222–228.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. & Almeida, D. (2017). Setting the empirical record straight: Acceptability judgments appear to be reliable, robust, and replicable. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, e311.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., & McElree, B. (2002). Coercion in sentence processing: Evidence from eye-movements and self-paced reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(4), 530–547.Google Scholar
Tunstall, S. (1998). The interpretation of quantifiers: semantics and processing. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Wijnen, F. & Kaan, E. (2006). Dynamics of semantic processing: The interpretation of bare quantifiers. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(6), 684–720.Google Scholar
Winter, Y. (1997). Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20(4), 399–467.Google Scholar
Xiang, M., Grove, J., & Giannakidou, A. (2016). Semantic and pragmatic processes in the comprehension of negation: An event related potential study of negative polarity sensitivity. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 38, 71–88.Google Scholar