Abrahamsson, N. & Hyltenstam, K. (2008). The robustness of aptitude effects in near-native second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 481–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Abrahamsson, N. & Hyltenstam, K. (2009). Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second language: Listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning, 59(2), 249–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bard, E. G., Robertson, D., & Sorace, A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72, 32–68.Google Scholar

Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language, 68, 706–755.Google Scholar

Birdsong, D. & Molis, M. (2001). On the evidence for maturational constraints in second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(2), 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blackwell, A. & Bates, E. (1995). Inducing agrammatic profiles in normals: Evidence for the selective vulnerability of morphology under cognitive resource limitation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7(2), 228–257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Blackwell, A., Bates, E., & Fisher, D. (1996). The time course of grammaticality judgment. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 337–406.Google Scholar

Bowles, M. A. (2011). Measuring implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 247–271.Google Scholar

Bruhn de Garavito, J. (2011). Subject/object asymmetries in the grammar of bilingual and monolingual Spanish speakers: Evidence against connectionism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 111–148.Google Scholar

Christensen, R. H. B. (2018). ordinal – Regression Models for Ordinal Data. R package version 2018.4–19. www.cran.r-project.org/package=ordinal/Google Scholar

Coppieters, R. (1987). Competence differences between native and near-native speakers. Language, 63, 544–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental Syntax. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–533.Google Scholar

Dekydtspotter, L. & Hathorn, J. (2005). Quelque chose … de remarquable in English–French acquisition: Mandatory, informationally encapsulated computations in second language interpretation. Second Language Research, 21, 291–323.Google Scholar

Dick, F., Bates, E., Wulfeck, B., Utman, J. A., Dronkers, N., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (2001). Language deficits, localization, and grammar: Evidence for a distributive model of language breakdown in aphasic patients and neurologically intact individuals. Psychological Review, 108(4), 759–788.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 141–172.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. & Loewen, S. (2007). Confirming the operational definitions of explicit and implicit knowledge in Ellis (2005): Responding to Isemonger. Second Language Research, 29, 119–126.Google Scholar

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philip, J., & Reinders, H. (2009). Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing, and Teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Falk, Y. & Bardel, C. (2011). Object pronouns in German L3 syntax: Evidence for the L2 status factor. Second Language Research, 27, 59–82.Google Scholar

Flege, J. E., Yeni-Komshian, G. H., & Liu, S. (1999). Age constraints on second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(1), 78–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gabriele, A. (2009). Transfer and transition in the SLA of aspect: A bidirectional study of learners of English and Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 371–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gass, S. M. & Alvarez Torres, M. J. (2005). Attention when? An investigation of the ordering effect of input and interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Godfroid, A., Loewen, S., Jung, S., Park, J.-H., Gass, S., & Ellis, R. (2015). Timed and untimed grammaticality judgments measure distinct types of knowledge: Evidence from eye-movement patterns. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37(2), 269–297.Google Scholar

Grier, J. B. (1971). Non-parametric indexes for sensitivity and bias: Computing formulas. Psychological Bulletin, 75(6), 424–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gutiérrez, X. (2013). The construct validity of grammaticality judgment tests as measures of implicit and explicit knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 423–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hulstijn, J. & Ellis, R., eds. (2005). Implicit and Explicit Second-Language Learning (Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2) (special issue)).Google Scholar

Ionin, T. (2012). Formal theory-based methodologies. In Mackey, A. & Gass, S., eds., Research Methods in Second Language Acquisition: A Practical Guide. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 30–52.Google Scholar

Ionin, T., Montrul, S., & Crivos, M. (2013). A bidirectional study on the acquisition of plural noun phrase interpretation in English and Spanish. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 483–518.Google Scholar

Ionin, T. & Zyzik, E. (2014). Judgment and interpretation tasks in second language research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34, 1–28. DOI:10.1017/S0267190514000026Google Scholar

Johnson, J. & Newport, E. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Johnson, J. & Newport, E. (1991). Critical period effects on universal properties of languages: The status of subjacency in the acquisition of a second language. Cognition, 39, 215–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kim, B. (2015). Sensitivity to islands in Korean-English bilinguals. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego,Google Scholar

Loewen, S. (2009). Grammaticality judgment tests and the measurement of implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. In Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philip, J., & Reinders, H., eds., Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing, and Teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 65–93.Google Scholar

McDonald, J. L. (2000). Grammaticality judgments in a second language: Influences of age of acquisition and native language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21(3), 395–423.Google Scholar

McDonald, J. L. (2006). Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(3), 381–401.Google Scholar

Montrul, S. A. (2005). On knowledge and development of unaccusativity in Spanish L2-acquisition. Linguistics, 43(6), 1153–1190.Google Scholar

Montrul, S. A. (2008). Incomplete Acquisition in Bilingualism: Re-examining the Age Factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Montrul, S. A., Bhatt, R., & Girju, R. (2015). Differential object marking in Spanish, Hindi, and Romanian as heritage languages. Language, 91(3), 564–610.Google Scholar

Montrul, S. A., Dias, R., & Santos, H. (2011). Clitics and object expression in the L3 acquisition of Brazilian Portuguese: Structural similarity matters for transfer. Second Language Research, 27, 21–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Montrul, S. A., Foote, R., & Perpiñán, S. (2008). Gender agreement in adult second language learners and Spanish heritage speakers: The effects of age and context of acquisition. Language Learning, 58, 503–553.Google Scholar

Montrul, S. A. & Slabakova, R. (2003). Competence similarities between native and near-native speakers: An investigation of the preterite-imperfect contrast in Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 351–398.Google Scholar

Murphy, V. A. (1997). The effect of modality on a grammaticality judgement task. Second Language Research, 13(1), 34–65.Google Scholar

Orfitelli, R. & Grüter, T. (2014). Do null subjects really transfer? In Cabrelli-Amaro, J., Judy, T., & y Cabo, D. Pascual, eds., Proceedings of the 12th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

Orfitelli, R. & Polinsky, M. (2017). When performance masquerades as comprehension: Grammaticality judgments in non-native speakers. In Kopotev, M., Lyashevskaya, O., & Mustajoki, A., eds., Quantitative Approaches to the Russian Language. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 197–214.Google Scholar

Pollack, I. & Norman, D. A. (1964). A nonparametric analysis of signal detection experiments. Psychonomic Science, 1, 125–126.Google Scholar

Prévost, P. & White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 16, 103–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roberts, L. (2012). Review article: Psycholinguistic techniques and resources in second language acquisition research. Second Language Research, 28, 113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schütze, C. (1996). The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar

Schwartz, B. D. & Sprouse, R. A. (2000). When syntactic theories evolve: Consequences for L2 acquisition research. In Archibald, J., ed., Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 156–186.Google Scholar

Slabakova, R. (1999). The parameter of aspect in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 15(3), 283–317.Google Scholar

Sorace, A. (2010). Using Magnitude Estimation in developmental linguistic research. In Blom, E. & Unsworth, S., eds., Experimental Methods in Language Acquisition Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Spinner, P. & Gass, S. M. (2019). Using Judgments In Second Language Acquisition Research. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar

Sprouse, J. (2011). A test of the cognitive assumptions of magnitude estimation: Commutativity does not hold for acceptability judgments. Language, 87, 274–288.Google Scholar

Sprouse, J., Wagers, M., & Phillips, C. (2012). A test of the relation between working-memory capacity and syntactic island effects. Language, 88, 82–123.Google Scholar

Steinhauer, K. (2014). Event-related potentials (ERPs) in second language research: A brief introduction to the technique, a selected review, and an invitation to reconsider critical periods in L2. Applied Linguistics, 35(4), 393–417.Google Scholar

Tokowicz, N. & MacWhinney, B. (2005). Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar: An event-related potential investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 173–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tremblay, A. (2005). Theoretical and methodological perspectives on the use of grammaticality judgment tasks in linguistic theory. Second Language Studies, 24, 129–167.Google Scholar

Waters, G., Caplan, D., & Rochon, E. (1995). Processing capacity and sentence comprehension in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 12(1), 1–30. DOI:10.1080/02643299508251990Google Scholar

Waters, G., Caplan, D., & Yampolsky, S. (2003). On-line syntactic processing under concurrent memory load. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(1), 88–95.Google Scholar

Westcott, T. & Fanselow, G. (2011). On the informativity of different measures of linguistic acceptability. Language, 87(2), 249–273.Google Scholar

White, L. & Genesee, F. (1996). How native is near-native? The issue of ultimate attainment in adult second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 12, 233–265.Google Scholar

Whong-Barr, M. & Schwartz, B. D. (2002). Morphological and syntactic transfer in child L2 acquisition of the English dative alternation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 579–616.Google Scholar

Ambridge, B., Pine, J., Rowland, C., & Young, C. R. (2008). The effect of verb semantic class and verb frequency (entrenchment) on children’s and adults’ graded judgments of argument structure overgeneralization errors. Cognition, 106, 87–129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Barner, D., Brooks, N., & Bale, A. (2011). Accessing the unsaid: The role of scalar alternatives in children’s pragmatic inference. Cognition, 118, 84–93.Google Scholar

Borer, H. & Wexler, K. (1987). The maturation of syntax. In Roeper, T. & Williams, E., eds., Parameter Setting. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 123–172.Google Scholar

Bowerman, M. (1982). Evaluating competing linguistic models with language acquisition data: Implications of developmental errors with causative verbs. Quaderni di Semantica, 3, 5–66.Google Scholar

Brown, R., Fraser, C., & Bellugi, U. (1964). Explorations in grammar evaluation. In. Bellugi, U. & Brown, R., eds., The Acquisition of Language (Monograph of the Society of Research in Child Development, 29). Lafayette, IN: Society for Research in Child Development, pp. 79–92.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G., Crain, S., Guasti, M. T., Gualmini, A., & Meroni, L. (2001). The acquisition of disjunction: Evidence for a grammatical view of scalar implicatures. In Do, A. H.-J., Domínguez, L., & Johansen, A., eds., Proceedings of the 25th Boston University Conference on Child Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 157–168.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Crain, S. (1982). Temporal terms: Mastery by age five. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 21, 33–38.Google Scholar

Crain, S. (1991). Language acquisition in the absence of experience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 597–612.Google Scholar

Crain, S., Koring, L., & Thornton, R. (2017). Language acquisition from a biolinguistic perspective. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 81, 120–149.Google Scholar

Crain, S. & McKee, C. (1985). Acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora. In Berman, S., McDonough, J., & Choe, J.-W., eds., Proceedings of the 16th North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA, pp. 94–110.Google Scholar

Crain, S. & Thornton, R. (1998). Investigations in Universal Grammar: A Guide to Experiments on the Acquisition of Syntax and Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Crawford, J. (2012). Developmental perspectives on the acquisition of the passive. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar

Davidson, D. (1984). Radical translation. In Davidson, D., ed., Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 125–139.Google Scholar

De Villiers, J. & de Villiers, P. (1974). Competence and performance in child language: Are children really competent to judge? Journal of Child Language, 1, 11–22.Google Scholar

Foppolo, F., Guasti, M. T., & Chierchia, G. (2012). Scalar implicatures in child language: Give children a chance. Language Learning and Development, 8, 365–394.Google Scholar

Fukuda, S., Goodall, G., Michel, D., & Beecher, H. (2012). Is magnitude estimation worth the trouble? In Choi, J., Hogue, E. A., Punske, J., Tat, D., Schertz, J., & Trueman, A., eds., Proceedings of the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 328–336.Google Scholar

Gleitman, L. R., Gleitman, H., & Shipley, E. (1972). The emergence of the child as grammarian. Cognition, 1, 137–164.Google Scholar

Hamburger, H. & Crain, S. (1982). Relative acquisition. In Kuczaj, Stan A. II, ed., Language Development, Syntax and Semantics, vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 245–274.Google Scholar

Hochberg, J. (1986). Children’s judgements of transitivity errors. Journal of Child Language, 13, 317–334.Google Scholar

Katsos, N. & Bishop, D. V. M. (2011). Pragmatic tolerance: Implications for the acquisition of informativeness and implicature. Cognition, 120, 67–81.Google Scholar

Lasnik, H. & Crain, S. (1985). On the acquisition of pronominal reference. Lingua, 65, 135–154.Google Scholar

Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

McDaniel, D. & Cairns, H. S. (1990). The child as informant: Eliciting linguistic intuitions from young children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19, 331–344.Google Scholar

McDaniel, D. & Cairns, H. S. (1996). Eliciting judgments of grammaticality and reference. In McDaniel, D., McKee, C., & Cairns, H. S., eds., Methods for Assessing Children’s Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 233–254.Google Scholar

McDaniel, D., Cairns, H. S., & Hsu, J. R. (1990). Binding principles in the grammars of young children. Language Acquisition, 1, 121–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McDaniel, D., Cairns, H. S., & Hsu, J. R. (1990/1991). Control principles in the grammars of young children. Language Acquisition, 1, 297–335.Google Scholar

McDaniel, D. & Maxfield, T. (1992). The nature of the anti-c-command requirement: Evidence from young children. Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 667–671.Google Scholar

Noveck, I. A. (2001). When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition, 78, 165–188.Google Scholar

Pinker, S. (1984). Language Learnability and Language Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Renans, A., Romoli, J., Makri, M. M., Tieu, L., de Vries, H., Folli, R., & Tsoulas, G. (2018). The abundance inference of pluralised mass nouns is an implicature: Evidence from Greek. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 103. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.531Google Scholar

Skordos, D. & Pappafragou, A. (2016). Children’s derivation of scalar implicatures: Alternatives and relevance. Cognition, 153, 6–18.Google Scholar

Smith, C. L. (1980). Quantifiers and question answering in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 30, 191–205.Google Scholar

Theakston, A. (2004). The role of entrenchment in children’s and adults’ performance on grammaticality judgment tasks. Cognitive Development, 19, 15–34.Google Scholar

Thornton, R. (2017). The truth value judgment task: An update. In Nakayama, M., Su, Y. C., & Huang, A., eds., Studies in Chinese and Japanese Language Acquisition: In Honor of Stephen Crain. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–39.Google Scholar

Ahn, S.-H. (1990). Korean quantification and Universal Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar

Almeida, D. (2014). Subliminal wh-islands in Brazilian Portuguese and the consequences for syntactic theory. Revista da ABRALIN, 13, 55–93.Google Scholar

Anderson, C. (2004). The structure and real-time comprehension of quantifier scope ambiguity. Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar

Aoun, J. & Li, Y.-H. A. (1993). Syntax of Scope. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bard, E. G., Robertson, D., & Sorace, A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72, 32–68.Google Scholar

Burzio, L. (1981). Intransitive verbs and Italian auxiliaries. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Burzio, L. (1986). Italian Syntax: A Government and Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Chen, Y. (2019). The acquisition of Japanese relative clauses by L1 Chinese learners. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.Google Scholar

Choe, J. W. (1987). LF movement and pied-piping. Linguistic Inquiry, 18, 348–353.Google Scholar

Cooper, R. (1979). Variable binding and relative clauses. In Guenthner, F. & Schmidt, S. J., eds., Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 131–169.Google Scholar

Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Emonds, J. (1978). The verbal complex V′-V in French. Linguistic Inquiry, 9, 151–175.Google Scholar

Featherston, S. (2005a). That-trace in German. Lingua, 115, 1277–1302.Google Scholar

Featherston, S. (2005b). Magnitude estimation and what it can do for your syntax: Some wh-constraints in German. Lingua, 115, 1525–1550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fodor, J. & Sag, I. (1982). Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy, 5, 355–398.Google Scholar

Fukuda, S. (2017). Split intransitivity in Japanese is syntactic: Evidence for the Unaccusative Hypothesis from sentence acceptability and truth value judgment experiments. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1), 83. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.268Google Scholar

Fukuda, S, Nakao, C., Omaki, A., & Polinsky, M.. (2016). Japanese subjects and objects are equally open to subextraction. Why? In Sugawara, A., Hayashi, S., & Ito, S., eds., Proceedings of the Eighth Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics (FAJL8). Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, pp. 13–29.Google Scholar

Fukuda, S. & Sprouse, J. (2019). Islandhood of Japanese complex NPs and the factorial definition of island effects. Manuscript, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa and University of Connecticut.Google Scholar

Fukui, N. (1988). LF extraction of naze: Some theoretical implications. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6, 503–526.Google Scholar

Fukushima, K. (2003). Verb-raising and numeral classifiers in Japanese: Incompatible bedfellows. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 12, 313–347.Google Scholar

Gerdts, D. (1987). Surface case and grammatical relations in Korean: The evidence from quantifier float. Studies in Language, 11, 181–197.Google Scholar

Gibson, E. & Fedorenko, E. (2013). The need for quantitative methods in syntax and semantics research. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 88–124.Google Scholar

Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S. T., & Fedorenko, E. (2013). Quantitative methods in syntax/semantics research: A response to Sprouse and Almeida (2013). Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 229–240.Google Scholar

Han, C.-H. (2013). On the syntax of relative clauses in Korean. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 58, 319–347.Google Scholar

Han, C.-H., Lidz, J., & Musolino, J. (2007). Verb-raising and grammar competition in Korean: Evidence from negation and quantifier scope. Linguistic Inquiry, 38, 1–47.Google Scholar

Han, C.-H., Storoshenko, D. R., & Sakurai, Y. (2009a). An experimental investigation into scope rigidity in Japanese. Current Issues in Unity and Diversity of Languages: Collection of the Papers Selected from the 18th International Congress of Linguistics. Seoul: The Linguistic Society of Korea.Google Scholar

Han, C.-H., Storoshenko, D. R., & Sakurai, Y. (2009b). An experimental investigation into the placement of the verb in the clause structure of Japanese. Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Linguistics in Korea (ICLK-2007). Seoul: The Linguistic Society of Korea.Google Scholar

Han, C.-H., Storoshenko, D. R., & Walshe, R. C. (2010). An experimental study of the grammatical status of caki in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 19, 81–94.Google Scholar

Hirakawa, M. (1999). L2 acquisition of Japanese unaccusative verbs by speakers of English and Chinese. In Kanno, K., ed., The Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 89–113.Google Scholar

Hirakawa, M. (2001). L2 acquisition of Japanese unaccusative verbs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 221–245.Google Scholar

Hoji, H. (1985). Logical Form constraints and configurational structures in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar

Hong, S. & Nakayama, N. (2017). Kare and the acquisition of bound variable interpretations by Korean speaking learners of Japanese. In Nakayama, M., Su, Y.-C., & Huang, A., eds., Studies in Chinese and Japanese Language Acquisition: In Honor of Stephen Crain. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 85–106.Google Scholar

Huang, C.-T. J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Huang, C.-T. J. (1987). Existential sentences in Chinese and (in)definiteness. In Reuland, E. J. & ter Meulen, A. G. B., eds., The Representation of (In)definiteness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 226–253.Google Scholar

Jiang, L. (2012). Nominal arguments and language variation. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar

Joo, K.-J. (2014). Children’s interpretation of the Korean reflexive pronouns caki and caki-casin. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.Google Scholar

Jurka, J. (2010). The importance of being a complement: the CED effects revisited. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar

Jurka, J., Nakao, C., & Omaki, A. (2011). It’s not the end of the CED as we know it: Revisiting German and Japanese subject islands. In Washburn, M. B., McKinney-Bock, K., Varis, E., Sawyer, A., & Tomaszewicz, B., eds., Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 124–132.Google Scholar

Kang, B.-M. (2002). Categories and meanings of Korean floating quantifiers: With some reference to Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 1, 375–398.Google Scholar

Kanno, K. (1997). The acquisition of null and overt pronominals in Japanese by English speakers. Second Language Research, 13(3), 265–287.Google Scholar

Keller, F. (2000). Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar

Keller, F. & Sorace, A. (2003). Gradient auxiliary selection and impersonal passivization in German: An experimental investigation. Journal of Linguistics, 39, 57–108.Google Scholar

Keshev, K. & Meltzer-Asscher, A. (2019). A processing-based account of subliminal wh-island effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 37, 621–57.Google Scholar

Kim, B. (2015). Sensitivity to islands in Korean–English bilinguals. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar

Kim, B. & Goodall, G. (2016). Islands and non-islands in native and heritage Korean. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 134. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00134Google Scholar

Kim, J.-H., Montrul, S., & Yoon, J.-H. (2009). Binding interpretations of anaphors by Korean heritage speakers. Language Acquisition, 16, 3–35.Google Scholar

Kim, J.-H. & Yoon, J.-H. (2009). Long-distance bound local anaphors in Korean: An empirical study of the Korean anaphor caki-casin. Lingua, 119, 733–755.Google Scholar

Kim, K.-M. (2019). The syntax of Korean anaphora: An experimental investigation. Doctoral dissertation, Simon Frazer University.Google Scholar

Kim, K.-M. & Han, C.-H. (2016). Inter-speaker variation in Korean pronouns. In Grosz, P. & Patel-Grosz, P., eds., The Impact of Pronominal Form on Interpretation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 347–372.Google Scholar

Kishimoto, H. (2005). Wh-in-situ and movement in Sinhala questions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 23, 1–51.Google Scholar

Ko, H. (2005). Syntax of why-in-situ: Merge into [Spec, CP] in the overt syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 23, 867–916.Google Scholar

Ko, H. (2007). Asymmetries in scrambling and cyclic linearization. Linguistic Inquiry, 38, 49–83.Google Scholar

Ko, H. & Oh, E. (2010). A hybrid approach to floating quantifiers: Experimental evidence. Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 19, 171–184.Google Scholar

Ko, H. & Oh, E. (2012). A hybrid approach to floating quantifiers: Some experimental evidence. Linguistic Research, 29, 69–106.Google Scholar

Koizumi, M. (2000). String vacuous overt verb-raising. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 9, 227–285.Google Scholar

Kratzer, A. (1994). On external arguments. In Benedicto, E. & Runner, J., eds., Functional Projections: University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 17, Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, GLSA, pp.103–130.Google Scholar

Kratzer, A. (1996). Severing the external argument from the verb. In Rooryck, J. & Zariing, L., eds., Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 109–137.Google Scholar

Kratzer, A. (1998). Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide scope indefinites? In Rothstein, S., ed., Events and Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 163–196.Google Scholar

Kuno, S. (1973). The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965). Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Reprinted, New York: Garland, 1979.Google Scholar

Kuroda, S.-Y. (1970). Remarks on the notion of subject with reference to words like also, even, or only, part 2. Annual Bulletin – Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics, Tokyo University. Tokyo: Tokyo University, vol. 4, pp. 127–152.Google Scholar

Kush, D., Lohndal, T., & Sprouse, J. (2018). Investigating variation in island effects: A case study of Norwegian wh-extraction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 36, 743–779.Google Scholar

Lasnik, H. & Saito, M. (1992). Move α: Conditions on Its Application and Output. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Laws, J. & Yuen, B. (2010). Is the core-peripheral distinction for unaccusative verbs cross-linguistically consistent? Empirical evidence from Mandarin. Chinese Language and Discourse, 1, 220–263.Google Scholar

Lee, C.-M. (1989). (In-)definites, case-markers, classifiers and quantifiers in Korean. In Kuno, S., Lee, I.-H., Whitman, J., Bak, S.-Y., Kang, Y.-S. & Kim, Y.-J., eds., Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics, 3, 469–487.Google Scholar

Lee, H. (1990). Logical relations in the child’s grammar: Relative scope, bound variables, and long-distance binding in Korean. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar

Lee, S. (2009). Interpreting scope ambiguity in first and second language processing: Universal quantifier and negation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.Google Scholar

Lee, T. (2011). Grammatical knowledge of Korean heritage speakers. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 149–174.Google Scholar

Lee, T. H.-T. (1986). Studies on quantification in Chinese. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Li, Y.-H. A. (1998). Argument determiner phrases and number phrases. Linguistic Inquiry, 29(4), 693–702.Google Scholar

Linzen, T. & Oseki, Y. (2018). The reliability of acceptability judgments across languages. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 100. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.528Google Scholar

Liu, F.-H. (1997). Scope and Specificity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Liu, F.-H. (2007). Auxiliary selection in Chinese. In Aranovich, R., ed., Split Auxiliary Systems. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 181–205.Google Scholar

Lu, J., Thompson, C. K., & Yoshida, M. (2020). Chinese wh-in-situ and islands: A formal judgment study. Linguistic Inquiry, 51(3), 611–623.Google Scholar

Miyagawa, S. (1989). Structure and Case Marking in Japanese. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Miyagawa, S. (2006). Locality in syntax and floated numeral quantifiers in Japanese and Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 14, 270–282.Google Scholar

Myers, J. (2009). The design and analysis of small-scale syntactic judgment experiments. Lingua, 119, 425–444.Google Scholar

Myers, J. (2012). Testing adjunct and conjunct island constraints in Chinese. Language and Linguistics, 13, 437–470.Google Scholar

Nishigauchi, T. (1990). Quantification in the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

O’Grady, W. (1991). Categories and Case: The Sentence Structure of Korean. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Omaki, A., Fukuda, S., Nakao, C., & Polinsky, M. (2020). Subextraction in Japanese and subject–object symmetry. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 38, 627–669.Google Scholar

Otani, K. & Whitman, J. (1991). V-raising and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 345–358.Google Scholar

Pan, H. (1996). Imperfective aspect zhe, agent deletion, and locative inversion in Mandarin Chinese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 14, 409–432.Google Scholar

Park, K. (1992). Light verb constructions in Korean and Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar

Park, M.-K. (1998). Negation and the placement of verb in Korean. Language Research, 34, 709–736.Google Scholar

Perlmutter, D. M. (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 157–185.Google Scholar

Pollock, J.-Y. (1989). Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 365–424.Google Scholar

Reinhart, T. (1976). The syntactic domain of anaphora. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Reinhart, T. (1997). Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 335–397.Google Scholar

Richards, N. (2008). Wh-questions. In Miyagawa, S. & Saito, M., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 348–371.Google Scholar

Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Ross, J. R. (1987). Infinite Syntax! Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Ruys, E. G. (1992). The scope of indefinites. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar

Schütze, C. T. (1996). The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Scontras, G., Polinsky, M., Tsai, C.-Y. E., & Mai, K. (2017). Cross-linguistic scope ambiguity: When two systems meet. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2 (1), 36. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.198CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scontras, G., Tsai, C.-Y. E., Mai, K., & Polinsky, M. (2014). Chinese scope: An experimental investigation. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 18, 396–414.Google Scholar

Sohn, K.-W. (1995). Negative polarity items, scope and economy. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar

Sorace, A. (1993). Incomplete vs. divergent representation of unaccusativity in non-native grammars of Italian. Second Language Research, 9, 22–47.Google Scholar

Sorace, A. (1995). Acquiring linking rules and argument structures in a second language: The unaccusative/unergative distinction. In Eubank, L., Selinker, L., & Sharwood Smith, M., eds., The Current State of Interlanguage: Studies in Honor of William E. Rutherford. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 153–175.Google Scholar

Sorace, A. (2000). Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language, 76, 859–890.Google Scholar

Sorace, A. & Shomura, Y. (2001). Lexical constraints on the acquisition of split intransitivity. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 247–278.Google Scholar

Sprouse, J. (2007). A program for experimental syntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar

Sprouse, J. & Almeida, D. (2012). Assessing the reliability of textbook data in syntax: Adger’s core syntax. Journal of Linguistics, 48, 609–652.Google Scholar

Sprouse, J. & Almeida, D. (2013). The empirical status of data in syntax: A reply to Gibson and Fedorenko. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 222–228.Google Scholar

Sprouse, J., Fukuda, S., Ono, H., & Kluender, R. (2011). Reverse island effects and the backward search for a licensor in multiple wh-questions. Syntax, 14, 179–203.Google Scholar

Sprouse, J. & Hornstein, N. (2013). Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sprouse, J., Schütze, C. T., & Almeida, D. (2013). A comparison of informal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from Linguistic Inquiry 2001–2010. Lingua, 134, 219–248.Google Scholar

Sprouse, J., Wagers, M., & Phillips, C. (2012). A test of the relation between working memory capacity and syntactic island effects. Language, 88, 82–123.Google Scholar

Tanaka, N. & Schwartz, B. D. (2018). Investigating relative clause island effects in native and nonnative adult speakers of Japanese. In Bertolini, A. B. & Kaplan, M. J., eds., Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 750–763.Google Scholar

Tsai, W.-T. D. (1994). On nominal islands and LE extraction in Chinese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 12, 121–175.Google Scholar

Tsai, W.-T. D. (1997). On the absence of island effects. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies, New Series, 27, 125–149.Google Scholar

Tsai, W.-T. D. (1999). On lexical courtesy. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 8, 39–73.Google Scholar

Yoon, J.-H. (1994). Korean verbal inflection and Checking Theory. In Harley, H. & Phillips, C., eds., MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22: Morphology–Syntax Connection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 251–270.Google Scholar

Yuan, B. (1999). Acquiring the unaccusative/unergative distinction in a second language: Evidence from English-speaking learners of L2 Chinese. Linguistics, 37, 275–296.Google Scholar

Zenker, F. & Schwartz, B. D. (2017). Topicalization from adjuncts in English vs. Chinese vs. Chinese–English interlanguage. In LaMendola, M. & Scott, J., eds., Proceedings of the 41st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 806–819.Google Scholar

Zhou, P. & Gao, L. (2009). Scope processing in Chinese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38, 11–24.Google Scholar

Adger, D. (2006). Combinatorial variability. Journal of Linguistics, 42, 503–530.Google Scholar

Auger, J. (1994). Pronominal clitic in Québec colloquial French: A morphological analysis. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Bader, M. & Meng, M. (1999). Subject–object ambiguities in German embedded clauses: An across-the-board comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28(2), 121–143.Google Scholar

Bard, E., Robertson, D., & Sorace, A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72(1), 32–68.Google Scholar

Biberauer, T. & Roberts, I. (2012). Towards a parameter hierarchy for auxiliaries: Diachronic considerations. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 6, 267–294.Google Scholar

Blom, E. & Unsworth, S., eds. (2010). Experimental Methods in Language Acquisition Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Boeckx, C. & Hornstein, N. (2006). The virtues of control as movement. Syntax, 9, 118–130.Google Scholar

Boeckx, C. & Hornstein, N. (2007). On (non-)obligatory control. In Davies, W. D. Dubinsky, & S., eds., New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 251–262.Google Scholar

Bosque, I. & Gutiérrez-Rexach, J. (2009). Fundamentos de sintaxis formal. Madrid: Ediciones Akal.Google Scholar

Boyd, C. O. (2001). Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. In Munhall, P. L., ed., Nursing Research: A Qualitative Perspective. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett, pp. 579–598.Google Scholar

Brandi, L. & Cordin, P. (1989). Two Italian dialects and the Null Subject Parameter. In Jaeggli, O. & Safir, K., eds., The Null Subject Parameter. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 111–142.Google Scholar

Büring, D. & Gutiérrez-Bravo, R. (2001.) Focus-related constituent order variation without the NSR: A prosody-based crosslinguistic analysis. In MacBhloscaidh, S., ed., Syntax at Santa Cruz, vol. 3. University of California, Santa Cruz, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. (2001). Frequency and the Emergence of Language Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Cardinaletti, A. & Repetti, L. (2004). Clitics in Northern Italian dialects: Phonology, syntax and microvariation. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, 14, 7–106.Google Scholar

Cardinaletti, A. & Repetti, L. (2010). Proclitic vs enclitic pronouns in northern Italian dialects and the null-subject parameter. In D’Alessandro, R., Ledgeway, A., & Roberts, I., eds., Syntactic Variation: The Dialects of Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 119–134.Google Scholar

Casey, D. & Murphy, K. (2009). Issues in using methodological triangulation in research. Nurse Researcher, 16(4), 40–55.Google Scholar

Casielles-Suárez, E. (2004). The Syntax–Information Structure Interface: Evidence from Spanish and English. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1977). On WH-movement. In Culicover, P., Wasow, T., & Akmajian, A., eds., Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 71–132.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Cowles, H. W. (2012.) The psychology of information structure. In Krifka, M. & Musan, R., eds., The Expression of Information Structure. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 287–318.Google Scholar

Culbertson, J. (2010). Convergent evidence for categorical change in French: From subject clitic to agreement marker. Language, 86(1) 85–132.Google Scholar

Culbertson, J. & Legendre, G. (2014). Prefixal agreement and impersonal ‘il’ in Spoken French: Experimental evidence. French Language Studies, 24, 83–105.Google Scholar

Davies, W. D. & Dubinsky, S., eds. (2004). The Grammar of Raising and Control: A Course in Syntactic Argumentation. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Davies, M. (2016–). Corpus del Español: Two Billion Words, 21 Countries. Available online at www.corpusdelespanol.org/web-dial/Google Scholar

Denzin, N. (1978). The Research Act. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Denzin, N. (1989). The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

DeVicenzi, M. (1996). Syntactic analysis in sentence comprehension: Effects of dependency types and grammatical constraints. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25(1), 117–133.Google Scholar

Feldhausen, I. (2016). Inter-speaker variation, Optimality theory, and the prosody of clitic left-dislocations in Spanish. Probus, 28(2), 293–333.Google Scholar

Fernández-Rubiera, F. (2009). Clitics at the edge: clitic placement in Western Iberian Romance languages. Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar

Frazier, L. & Clifton, C. (2002). Processing ‘d-linked’ phrases. Journal of Psycholinguistics, 31(6), 633–659.Google Scholar

Gabriel, C. (2010). On focus, prosody, and word order in Argentinean Spanish: A Minimalist OT account. Revista Virtual de Estudos da Linguagem, 4, 183–222.Google Scholar

Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: a distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Miyashita, Y., Marantz, A., & O’Neil, W., eds., Image, Language, Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 95–126.Google Scholar

Gilquin, G. & Gries, S. T. (2009). Corpora and experimental methods: A state-of-the-art review. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5(1), 1–26.Google Scholar

Gonçalves, A., Santos, A. L., & Duarte, I. (2014). (Pseudo-)Inflected infinitives and control as Agree. In Lahousse, K. & Marzo, S., eds., Selected Papers from “Going Romance” Leuven 2012. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 161–180.Google Scholar

Goodall, G. (2010). Experimenting with wh-movement in Spanish. In Arregi, K., Fagyal, Z., Montrul, S., & Tremblay, A., eds., Romance Linguistics 2008: Interactions in Romance. Selected Papers from the 38th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Urbana-Champaign, April 2008. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 233–248.Google Scholar

Goodall, G. (2011). Syntactic satiation and the inversion effect in English and Spanish wh-questions. Syntax, 14, 29–47.Google Scholar

Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual’s language modes. In Nicol, J., ed., One Mind Two Languages. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar

Gupton, T. (2014). The Syntax–Information Structure Interface: Clausal Word Order and the Left Periphery in Galician. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gupton, T. (2017). Early minority language acquirers of Spanish exhibit focus-related interface asymmetries: Word order alternation and optionality in Spanish–Catalan, Spanish–Galician, and Spanish–English bilinguals. In Lauchlan, F. & Parafita-Couto, M. C., eds., Bilingualism and Minority Languages in Europe. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 214–241.Google Scholar

Gupton, T. & Leal-Méndez, T. (2013). Experimental methodologies: Two case studies investigating the syntax–discourse interface. Studies in Hispanic & Lusophone Linguistics, 6(1), 139–164.Google Scholar

Halcomb, E. & Andrew, S. (2005). Triangulation as a method for contemporary nursing research. Nurse Researcher, 13(2), 71–82.Google Scholar

Henríquez Ureña, P. (1940). El español en Santo Domingo. Buenos Aires: Coni.Google Scholar

Henry, A. (2005). Non-standard dialects and linguistic data. Lingua, 115(11), 1599–1617.Google Scholar

Hofmeister, P. (2007). Representational complexity and memory retrieval in language comprehension. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar

Hofmeister, P., Jaeger, T., Sag, I., Arnon, I., & Snider, I. (2007). Locality and accessibility in wh-questions. In Featherston, S. & Sternefeld, W., eds., Island Constraints: Theory, Acquisition and Processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 195–222.Google Scholar

Hofmeister, P., Jaeger, T., Arnon, I., Sag, I., & Snider, I. (2013). The source ambiguity problem: Distinguishing the effects of grammar and processing on acceptability judgments. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1), 48–87.Google Scholar

Hoot, B. (2012). Presentational focus in heritage and monolingual Spanish. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois.Google Scholar

Hoot, B. (2016). Narrow presentational focus in Mexican Spanish: Experimental evidence. Probus, 28(2), 335–365.Google Scholar

Hoot, B. & Leal, T. (2020). Native speaker processing of narrow focus in Spanish. Probus: International Journal of Romance Linguistics, 32(1), 93–127.Google Scholar

Hopp, H. (2009). The syntax–discourse interface in near-native L2 acquisition: Off-line and on-line performance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(4), 463–483.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. (1974). A deep structure projection rule. Linguistic Inquiry, 5(4), 481–505.Google Scholar

Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 603–611.Google Scholar

Jiménez-Fernández, A. L. (2015). Towards a typology of focus: Subject position and microvariation at the discourse–syntax interface. Ampersand, 2, 49–60.Google Scholar

Katz, J. & Selkirk, E. (2011). Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: Evidence from phonetic prominence in English. Language, 87(4), 771–816.Google Scholar

Kempchinsky, P. (2018). Generative linguistics: Syntax. In Geeslin, K., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Hispanic Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–30.Google Scholar

Kluender, R. (1998). On the distinction between strong and weak islands: A processing perspective. Culicover, P. & McNally, L., eds.,The Limits of Syntax (Syntax and Semantics, 29). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 241–279.Google Scholar

Knafl, K. A. & Breitmayer, B. J. (1991). Triangulation in qualitative research: Issues of conceptual clarity and purpose. In Morse, J. M., ed., Qualitative Nursing Research: A Contemporary Dialogue. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 226–239.Google Scholar

Labov, W. (1996). When intuitions fail. In McNair, L., Singer, K., Dolbrin, L., & Aucon, M., eds., Papers from the Parasession on Theory and Data in Linguistics. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 77–106.Google Scholar

Landau, I. (2000). Elements of Control: Structure and Meaning in Infinitival Constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Landau, I. (2004). The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 22, 811–877.Google Scholar

Leal, T. (2016). Look before you move: Clitic left dislocation in combination with other elements at the Spanish left periphery. Spanish Review of Applied Linguistics, 29(2), 396–428.Google Scholar

Leal, T., Destruel, E., & Hoot, B. (2018). The realization of information focus in monolingual and bilingual native Spanish. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(2), 217–251.Google Scholar

Leal, T. & Slabakova, R. (2019). The relationship between L2 instruction, exposure, and the acquisition of a syntax–discourse property in L2 Spanish. Language Teaching Research, 23(2), 237–258.Google Scholar

Leal, T., Slabakova, R., & Rothman, J. (2014). A rare structure at the syntax–discourse interface: Heritage and Spanish-dominant native speakers weigh in. Language Acquisition, 21(4), 411–429.Google Scholar

Leal Méndez, T. & Slabakova, R. (2011). Pragmatic consequences of P-movement and focus fronting in L2 Spanish: Unraveling the syntax-discourse interface. In Herschensohn, J. & Tanner, D., eds., Proceedings of the 11th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2011). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 63–75.Google Scholar

Leal Méndez, T., Slabakova, R., & Rothman, J. (2015). Discourse-sensitive clitic-doubled dislocations in heritage Spanish. Lingua, 155, 85–97.Google Scholar

Ledgeway, A. (2015). Parallels in Romance nominal and clausal microvariation. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 60 (2–3) 105–127.Google Scholar

Mackey, A. & Gass, S. M. (2015). Second Language Research: Methodology and Design, 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Martins, A. M. (2011). Coordination, gapping, and the Portuguese inflected infinitive: The role of structural ambiguity in syntactic change. In Jones, D., Whitman, J., & Garrett, A., eds., Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 275–292.Google Scholar

Mayol, L. (2010). Refining salience and the position of antecedent hypothesis: A study of Catalan pronouns. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 16(1), 127–136.Google Scholar

Miller, K. & Schmitt, C. (2010). Effects of variable input in the acquisition of plural in two dialects of Spanish. Lingua, 120(5), 1178–1193.Google Scholar

Modesto, M. (2010). What Brazilian Portuguese says about control: Remarks on Boeckx & Hornstein. Syntax, 13(1), 78–96.Google Scholar

Modesto, M. & Maia, M. (2017). Representation and processing of the inflected infinitive in Brazilian Portuguese: An eye-tracking study. Revista de Estudos da Linguagem, 25(3), 1183–1224.Google Scholar

Molsing, K. (2010). On the L2 Acquisition of the Overt Pronoun Constraint in Brazilian Portuguese. In Guijarro-Fuentes, P. & Domínguez, L., eds., New Directions in Language Acquisition: Romance Languages in the Generative Perspective. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 267–298.Google Scholar

Montrul, S. & Rodr, íguez Louro, C. (2006). Beyond the syntax of the Null Subject Parameter: A look at the discourse-pragmatic distribution of null and overt subjects by L2 learners of Spanish. In Torrens, V. & Escobar, L., eds., The Acquisition of Syntax in Romance Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 401–418.Google Scholar

Muntendam, A. G. (2013). On the nature of cross-linguistic transfer: A case study of Andean Spanish. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(1), 111–131.Google Scholar

Ordóñez, F. & Olarrea, A. (2006). Microvariation in Caribbean/non Caribbean Spanish interrogatives. Probus, 18, 59–96.Google Scholar

Orozco, R. & Guy, G. (2008). El uso variable de los pronombres sujetos: ¿Qué pasa en la costa Caribe colombiana? In Westmoreland, M. & Thomas, J. A., eds., Selected Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 70–80.Google Scholar

Ortiz López, L. A. (2011). Spanish in contact with Haitian Creole. In Díaz-Campos, M., ed., The Handbook of Hispanic Sociolinguistics. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 418–445.Google Scholar

Otheguy, R. & Zentella, A. C. (2012). Spanish in New York. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Otheguy, R., Zentella, A. C., & Livert, D. (2007). Language and dialect contact in Spanish in New York: Toward the formation of a speech community. Language, 83, 770–802.Google Scholar

Perlmutter, D. (1971). Deep and Surface Constraints in Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar

Pires, A. & Rothman, J. (2009). Disentangling sources of incomplete acquisition: An explanation for competence divergence across heritage grammars. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(2), 211–238.Google Scholar

Pires, A. & Rothman, J. (2010). Building bridges: Experimental L1 acquisition meets diachronic linguistics. In Guijarro-Fuentes, P. & Domínguez, L., eds., New Directions in Language Acquisition: Romance Languages in the Generative Perspective. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 357–385.Google Scholar

Pires, A., Rothman, J., & Santos, A.L. (2011). L1 acquisition across Portuguese dialects: Modular and interdisciplinary interfaces as sources of explanation. Lingua, 121, 605–622.Google Scholar

Poletto, C. (2000). The Higher Functional Field. Evidence from Northern Italian Dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Poletto, C. & Pollock, J.-Y. (2005). On wh-clitics, wh-doubling and apparent wh-in-situ in French and some North Eastern Italian dialects. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes, 33, 135–156.Google Scholar

Poletto, C. & Tortora, C. (2016). Subject clitics: Syntax. In Ledgeway, A. & Maiden, M., eds., The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 772–785.Google Scholar

de Prada Pérez, A. (2009). Subject expression in Minorcan Spanish: Consequences of contact with Catalan. Doctoral dissertation, Penn State University.Google Scholar

Redfern, S. J. & Norman, I. J. (1994). Validity through triangulation. Nurse Researcher, 2, 41–56.Google Scholar

Rizzi, L. (1986). Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 501–57.Google Scholar

Rizzi, L. (1991). Residual Verb Second and the Wh- Criterion. Geneva: University of Geneva.Google Scholar

Rizzi, L. (1996). Residual verb second and the Wh-Criterion. In Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L., eds., Parameters and Functional Heads: Essays in Comparative Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 63–90.Google Scholar

Rizzi, L. (2001). On the position “Int(errogative)” in the left periphery of the clause.” In Cinque, G. & Salvi, G., eds., Current Studies in Italian Syntax. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 287–296.Google Scholar

Roberge, Y. (1990). The Syntactic Recoverability of Null Arguments. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. (2014). Syntactic change. In Carnie, A., Siddiqi, D., & Sato, Y., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Syntax. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 391–408.Google Scholar

Rodrigues, C. A. N. (2004). Impoverished morphology and A-movement out of Case domains. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar

Rodrigues, C. & Hornstein, N. (2013). Epicene agreement and Inflected Infinitives when the data is “under control”: A reply to Modesto (2010). Syntax, 16(3), 217–309.Google Scholar

Rosenbaum, P. (1967). The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Rothman, J. (2007). Heritage speaker competence differences, language change, and input type: Inflected infinitives in Heritage Brazilian Portuguese. International Journal of Bilingualism, 11(4), 359–389.Google Scholar

Rothman, J. (2009). Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences? L2 pronominal subjects and the syntax–pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5) 951–973.Google Scholar

Schütze, C. & Sprouse, J. (2014). Judgment data. In Sharma, D. & Podesva, R., eds., Research Methods in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 27-50.Google Scholar

Sheehan, M. (2012). A new take on partial control: Defective thematic intervention. Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 6, 1–47.Google Scholar

Slabakova, R. (2015). The effect of construction frequency and native transfer on second language knowledge of the syntax–discourse interface. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(3), 671–699.Google Scholar

Slabakova, R., Rothman, J., & Kempchinsky, P. (2011). Gradient competence and the syntax–discourse interface. EUROSLA Yearbook, 11, 218–243.Google Scholar

Snyder, W. (2000). An experimental investigation of syntactic satiation effects. Linguistic Inquiry, 31(3), 575–582.Google Scholar

Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(1), 1–33.Google Scholar

Sprouse, J. (2018). Acceptability judgments and grammaticality, prospects and challenges. In Hornstein, N., Yang, C., & Patel-Grosz, P., eds., Syntactic Structures after 60 Years: The Impact of the Chomskyan Revolution in Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 195–224.Google Scholar

Suñer, M. (1994). V-movement and the licensing of argumental wh-phrases in Spanish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 12, 335–372.Google Scholar

Toribio, A. J. (1993). Parametric variation in the licensing of nominals. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar

Torrego, E. (1984). On inversion in Spanish and some of its effects. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 103–129.Google Scholar

Travis, C. E. (2007). Genre effects on subject expression in Spanish: Priming in narrative and conversation. Language Variation and Change, 19(2), 101–135.Google Scholar

Valenzuela, E. (2005). L2 ultimate attainment and the syntax–discourse interface: The acquisition of topic constructions in non-native Spanish and English. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar

Vermès, G., Collet, S.-M., & Huet, E. (1999). Réflexion métalinguistique en langue minorisée: Le cas du créole pour les enfants réunionnais en France. Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée, 69(2), 73–86.Google Scholar

Warren, T. & Gibson, E. (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition, 85, 79–112.Google Scholar

Williams, E. (1980). Predication. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 203–238.Google Scholar

Yang, C. (2002). Knowledge and Learning in Natural Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Young, R. (1995). Conversational styles in language proficiency interviews. Language Learning, 45(1), 3–42.Google Scholar

Zubizarreta, M. L. (1998). Prosody, Focus, and Word Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Andersson, S.-G. & Kvam, S. (1984). Satzverschränkung im heutigen Deutsch. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

Bader, M., Ellsiepen, E., Koukoulioti, V., & Portele, Y. (2017). Filling the prefield: Findings and challenges. In Freitag, C., Bott, O., & Schlotterbeck, F., eds., Two Perspectives on V2: The Invited Talks of the DGfS 2016 Workshop “V2 in Grammar and Processing: Its Causes and Its Consequences.” Konstanz: University of Konstanz, pp. 27–49.Google Scholar

Bader, M. & Häussler, J. (2010). Word order in German: A corpus study. Lingua, 120(3), 717–762.Google Scholar

Bader, M. & Schmid, T. (2009). Verb clusters in Colloquial German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 12(3), 175–228.Google Scholar

Barbiers, S., Bennis, H., & Dros-Hendriks, L. (2018). Merging verb cluster variation. Linguistic Variation, 18(1), 144–196.Google Scholar

Bard, E. G., Robertson, D., & Sorace, A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72(1), 32–68.Google Scholar

Bayer, J., Häussler, J., & Bader, M. (2016). A new diagnostic for cyclic Wh-movement: Discourse particles in German questions. Linguistic Inquiry, 47(4), 591–629.Google Scholar

Bayer, J. & Salzmann, M. (2013). That-trace effects and resumption: How improper movement can be repaired. In Brandt, P. & Fuß, E., eds., Repairs: The Added Value of Being Wrong. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 275–333.Google Scholar

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

Birner, B. J. & Ward, G. (1998). Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Boeckx, C. (2007). Islands. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(1), 151–167.Google Scholar

Bornkessel, I. & Schlesewsky, M. (2009). Processing Syntax and Morphology: A Neurocognitive Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bouma, G. J. (2008). Starting a sentence in Dutch: A corpus study of subject- and object- fronting. Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, S. R. & Kiparsky, P., eds., A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, pp. 232–286.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. & Lasnik, H. (1977). Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 425–504.Google Scholar

Christensen, K. R., Kizach, J., & Nyvad, A. M. (2013). Escape from the island: Grammaticality and (reduced) acceptability of wh-island violations in Danish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42, 51–70.Google Scholar

Christensen, K. R. & Nyvad, A. M. (2014). On the nature of escapable relative islands. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 48(1), 37–65.Google Scholar

Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Croft, W. (2003). Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Culicover, P. W. (1993). Evidence against ECP accounts of the that-t effect. Linguistic Inquiry, 24(3), 557–561.Google Scholar

Ellsiepen, E. & Bader, M. (2018). Constraints on argument linearization in German. Glossa: a Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 1–36. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.258Google Scholar

Engdahl, E. (1982). Restrictions on unbounded dependencies in Swedish. In Engdahl, E. & Ejerhed, E., eds., Readings on Unbounded Dependencies in Scandinavian Languages. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, pp. 151–174.Google Scholar

Engdahl, E. (1997). Relative clause extractions in context. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 60, 51–79.Google Scholar

Erteschik-Shir, N. (1973). On the nature of island constraints. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Erteschik-Shir, N. & Lappin, S. (1979). Dominance and the functional explanation of island phenomena. Theoretical Linguistics, 6(1–3), 41–86.Google Scholar

Fanselow, G. (1987). Konfigurationalität: Untersuchungen zur Universalgrammatik am Beispiel des Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

Fanselow, G. (2006). On pure syntax (uncontaminated by information structure). In Brandt, P. & E. Fuss, , eds., Form, Structure and Grammar. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, pp. 137–158.Google Scholar

Fanselow, G., Lenertova, D., & Weskott, T. (2008). Studies on the acceptability of object movement to Spec, CP. In Steube, A., ed., The Discourse Potential of Underspecified Structures, vol. 8. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 413–438.Google Scholar

Fanselow, G., Schlesewsky, M., Vogel, R., & Weskott, T. (2011). Animacy effects on crossing wh-movement in German. Linguistics, 49(4), 657–683.Google Scholar

Fanselow, G. & Weskott, T. (2010). A short note on long movement in German. Linguistische Berichte, 222, 129–140.Google Scholar

Featherston, S. (2005a). Magnitude estimation and what it can do for your syntax: Some wh-constraints in German. Lingua, 115(11), 1525–1550.Google Scholar

Featherston, S. (2005b). That-trace in German. Lingua, 115(9), 1277–1302.Google Scholar

Frey, W. (2004). A medial topic position for German. Linguistische Berichte, 198, 153–190.Google Scholar

Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Marantz, A., Miyashita, Y., & O’Neil, W., eds., Image, Language, Brain. Papers from the First Mind Articulation Project Symposium, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 95–126.Google Scholar

Goodall, G. (2015). The D-linking effect on extraction from islands and non-islands. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–11.Google Scholar

Grewendorf, G. (1988). Aspekte der deutschen Syntax: Eine Rektions-Bindungs-Analyse. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

Haider, H. (1993). Deutsche Syntax – generativ. Vorstudien zu einer projektiven Theorie der Grammatik. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

Haider, H. (2010). The Syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Häussler, J., Grant, M., Fanselow, G. & Frazier, L. (2015). Superiority in English and German: Cross-language grammatical differences? Syntax, 18(3), 235–265.Google Scholar

Heycock, C., Sorace, A., & Hansen, Z. S. (2010). V-to-I and V2 in subordinate clauses: An investigation of Faroese in relation to Icelandic and Danish. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 13(1), 61–97.Google Scholar

Hofmeister, P. & Sag, I. A. (2010). Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language, 86(2), 366–415.Google Scholar

Hörberg, T. (2018). Functional motivations behind direct object fronting in written Swedish: A corpus-distributional account. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 81. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.502Google Scholar

Hörberg, T., Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M., & Kallioinen, P. (2013). The neurophysiological correlate to grammatical function reanalysis in Swedish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(3), 388–416.Google Scholar

Keller, F. (2000a). Evaluating competition-based models of word order. In Gleitman, L. R. & Joshi, A. K., eds., Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 747–752.Google Scholar

Keller, F. (2000b). Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar

Keller, F. (2006). Linear optimality theory as a model of gradience in grammar. In Fanselow, G., Féry, C., Vogel, R., & Schlesewsky, M., eds., Gradience in Grammar: Generative Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 270–287.Google Scholar

Keller, F. & Sorace, A. (2003). Gradient auxiliary selection and impersonal passivization in German: An experimental investigation. Journal of Linguistics, 39, 57–108.Google Scholar

Kempen, G. & Harbusch, K. (2004). Generating natural word orders in a semi-free word order language: Treebank-based linearization preferences for German. In Gelbukh, A., ed., Fifth International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics (CICLing2004), Seoul, South Korea (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2945). Berlin: Springer, pp. 350–354.Google Scholar

Kizach, J. & Balling, L. W. (2013). Givenness, complexity, and the Danish dative alternation. Memory & Cognition, 41(8), 1159–1171.Google Scholar

Kiziak, T. (2010). Extraction Asymmetries: Experimental Evidence from German. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Kluender, R. (1998). On the distinction between strong and weak islands: A processing perspective. In Culicover, P. W. & McNally, L., eds., The Limits of Syntax (Syntax and Semantics, 29). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 241–279.Google Scholar

Kluender, R. & Kutas, M. (1993). Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 573–633.Google Scholar

Konieczny, L. (2000). Locality and parsing complexity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 627–645.Google Scholar

Kristensen, L. B., Engberg-Pedersen, E., & Poulsen, M. (2014). Context improves comprehension of fronted objects. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 43(2), 125–140.Google Scholar

Kristensen, L. B., Engberg-Pedersen, E., & Wallentin, M. (2014). Context predicts word order processing in Broca’s region. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(12), 2762–2777.Google Scholar

Kush, D., Lohndal, T., & Sprouse, J. (2018). Investigating variation in island effects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 36, 743–779.Google Scholar

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

Lohndal, T. (2007). That-t in Scandinavian and elsewhere: Variation in the position of C. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 79, 47–73.Google Scholar

Maling, J. & Zaenen, A. (1978). The nonuniversality of a surface filter. Linguistic Inquiry, 9(3), 475–497.Google Scholar

Meng, M., Bader, M., & Bayer, J. (1999). Die Verarbeitung von Subjekt-Objekt-Ambiguitäten im Kontext. In Wachsmuth, I. & Jung, B., eds., KogWiss99. Proceedings der 4. Fachtagung der Gesellschaft fur Kognitionswissenschaft. St. Augustin: Infix Verlag, pp. 244–249.Google Scholar

Nyvad, A. M., Christensen, K. R., & Vikner, S. (2017). CP-recursion in Danish: A cP/Cpanalysis. The Linguistic Review, 34(3), 449–477.Google Scholar

Pesetsky, D. (1987). Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In Reuland, E. J. & ter Meulen, A. G. B., eds., The Representation of (In)definiteness, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 98–129.Google Scholar

Pesetsky, D. (2017). Complementizer-trace effects. In Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H., eds., The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1–34.Google Scholar

Phillips, C. (2013). Some arguments and nonarguments for reductionist accounts of syntactic phenomena. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1–2), 156–187.Google Scholar

Poulsen, M. (2008). Acceptability and processing of long-distance dependencies in Danish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 31(1), 73–107.Google Scholar

Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Cole, P., ed., Radical Pragmatic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 223–255.Google Scholar

Reis, M. (1995). Extractions from verb-second clauses in German? In Lutz, U. & Pafel, J., eds., On Extraction and Extraposition in German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 45–88.Google Scholar

Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L., ed., Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 281–337.Google Scholar

Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Salzmann, M., Häussler, J., Bader, M., & Bayer, J. (2013). That-trace effects without traces: An experimental investigation. In S. Kleine & S. Sloggett, eds., NELS 42: Proceedings of the 42nd Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, vol. 2. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, pp. 149–162.Google Scholar

Skopeteas, S. & Fanselow, G. (2009). Effects of givenness and constraints on free word order. In Zimmermann, M. & Féry, C., eds., Information Structure: Theoretical, Typological, and Experimental Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 307–331.Google Scholar

Sorace, A. (1992). Conditions on syntactic knowledge: Auxiliary selection in native and non-native grammars of Italian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar

Speyer, A. (2008). German Vorfeld-filling as constraint interaction. In Benz, A. & Kühnlein, P., eds., Constraints in Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 267–290.Google Scholar

Sprouse, J., Caponigro, I., Greco, C., & Cecchetto, C. (2016). Experimental syntax and the variation of island effects in English and Italian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 34(1), 307–344.Google Scholar

Sprouse, J. & Hornstein, N., eds. (2013). Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sprouse, J., Schütze, C., & Almeida, D. (2013). A comparison of informal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from Linguistic Inquiry 2001–2010. Lingua, 134, 219–248.Google Scholar

Sprouse, J., Wagers, M., & Phillips, C. (2012). A test of the relation between working-memory capacity and syntactic island effects. Language, 88(1), 82–123.Google Scholar

Störzer, M. & Stolterfoht, B. (2018). Is German discourse-configurational? Experimental evidence for a topic position. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 1–24.Google Scholar

Tutunjian, D., Heinat, F., Klingvall, E., & Wiklund, A.-L. (2017). Processing relative clause extractions in Swedish. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2118.Google Scholar

Uszkoreit, H., Brants, T., Duchier, D., Krenn, B., Konieczny, L., Oepen, S., & Skut, W. (1998). Studien zur performanzorientierten Linguistik Aspekte der Relativsatzextraposition im Deutschen. Kognitionswissenschaft, 7, 129–133.Google Scholar

Weskott, T., Hörnig, R., Fanselow, G., & Kliegl, R. (2011). Contextual licensing of marked OVS word order in German. Linguistische Berichte, 225, 3–18.Google Scholar

Wiltschko, M. (1997). D-Linking, scrambling und superiority in German. GAGL: Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik, 41, 107–142.Google Scholar

Ackerman, L., Frazier, M., & Yoshida, M. (2018). Resumptive pronouns can ameliorate illicit island extractions. Linguistic Inquiry, 49, 847–859.Google Scholar

Alexopoulou, T. & Keller, F. (2007). Locality, cyclicity, and resumption: At the interface between the grammar and the human sentence processor. Language, 83, 110–160.Google Scholar

Al-Horais, N. (2006). Arabic verbless sentences: Is there a null VP? Pragmalinguistica, 14, 101–116.Google Scholar

Almeida, D. (2014). Subliminal wh-islands in Brazilian Portuguese and the consequences for syntactic theory. Revista da ABRALIN, 13, 55–93.Google Scholar

Aoun, J. E., Benmamoun, E., & Choueiri, L. (2010). The Syntax of Arabic (Cambridge Syntax Guides). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Aoun, J., Choueiri, L., & Hornstein, N. (2001). Resumption, movement, and derivational economy. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 371–403.Google Scholar

Ariel, M. (1999). Cognitive universals and linguistic conventions: The case of resumptive pronouns. Studies in Language, 23, 217–269.Google Scholar

Badecker, W. & Kuminiak, F. (2007). Morphology, agreement and working memory retrieval in sentence production: Evidence from gender and case in Slovak. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 65–85.Google Scholar