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

Kayne, R. (1981). “ECP” Extensions. Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 93–134.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

Abrusán, M. (2014). Weak Island Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

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.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. (1983). Parasitic gaps. Linguistic Inquiry, 6, 5–34.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

Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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

Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Rizzi, L. (2013). Locality. Lingua, 130, 169–186.Google 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

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

Bennis, H. (1986). Gaps and Dummies. Dordrecht: Foris.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

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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. (2005). That-trace in German. Lingua, 115(9), 1277–1302.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

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

Geach, P. (1962). Reference and Generality. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University 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

Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.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. (1983a). Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. London: Croom Helm.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

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

Battistella, E. (1996). The Logic of Markedness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.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

Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental Syntax. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.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. (1993). Deutsche Syntax – generativ. Tübingen: Narr.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

Jacobs, J. (1997). I-Topikalisierung. Linguistische Berichte, 168, 91–133.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

Lenerz, J. (1977). Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.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

Neeleman, A. (1994). Complex Predicates. Utrecht: Led.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

Postal, P. M. (1971). Cross-over Phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.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

Stalnaker, R. C. (1973). Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2, 447–457.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

Wasow, T. (2002). Postverbal Behavior. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.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

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

Chomsky, N. (1969). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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

Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Dummett, M. (2006). Thought and Reality. Oxford: Oxford 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

Heim, I. & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.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

Hintikka, J. (1986). The semantics of a certain. Linguistic Inquiry, 17(2), 331–336.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

May, R. (1985). Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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