Alexopoulou, T. & Keller, F. (2007). Locality, cyclicity, and resumption: At the interface between the grammar and the human sentence processor. Language, 83(1), 110–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beltrama, A. & Xiang, M. (2016). Unacceptable but comprehensible: The facilitation effect of resumptive pronouns. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 1(1), 29. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.24Google Scholar

Bermel, N. & Knittl, L. (2012). Corpus frequency and acceptability judgments: A study of morphosyntactic variants in Czech. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8(2), 241–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bever, T. G., Carrithers, C., Cowart, W., & Townsend, D. J. (1989). Language processing and familial handedness. In Galaburda, A. M., ed., From Reading to Neurons. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 331–360.Google Scholar

Bolinger, D. (1978). Asking more than one thing at a time. In Hiz, H., ed., Questions. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar

Bresnan, J. & Ford, M. (2010). Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language, 86(1), 168–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carlsson, A. M. (1983). Assessment of chronic pain. I. Aspects of the reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale. Pain, 16(1), 87–101.Google Scholar

Chacón, D. A. (2015). Comparative psychosyntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

Cole, P. & Hermon, G. (1998). The typology of wh‐movement and wh‐questions in Malay. Syntax, 1(3), 221–258.Google Scholar

Cole, P. & Hermon, G. (2000). Partial Wh-Movement: Evidence from Malay. In Lutz, U., Müller, G., & Von Stechow, A., eds., Wh-scope Marking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 101–130.Google Scholar

Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental Syntax. New York: Sage.Google Scholar

Culicover, P. W. & Jackendoff, R. (2010). Quantitative methods alone are not enough: Response to Gibson and Fedorenko. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(6), 234–235.Google Scholar

Davidson, R. J. (1992). Anterior cerebral asymmetry and the nature of emotion. Brain and Cognition, 20, 125–151.Google Scholar

Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(3), 371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dworkin, R. H., Turk, D. C., Wyrwich, K. W., Beaton, D., Cleeland, C. S., Farrar, J. T., & Brandenburg, N. (2008). Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Journal of Pain, 9(2), 105–121.Google Scholar

Fanselow, G. (2017). Partial wh‐movement. In Everaert, M. & Van Riemsdijk, H. C., eds., The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd edn. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Featherston, S. (2005). Universals and grammaticality: Wh-constraints in German and English. Linguistics, 43(4), 667–711.Google Scholar

Fedorenko, E. & Gibson, E. (2010). Adding a third wh‐phrase does not increase the acceptability of object‐initial multiple‐wh‐questions. Syntax, 13(3), 183–195.Google Scholar

Fiengo, R. & Higginbotham, J. (1981). Opacity in NP. Linguistic Analysis, 7, 347–373.Google Scholar

Fisher, R. A. (1935). The logic of inductive inference. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 98(1), 39–82.Google Scholar

Forouzanfar, T., Weber, W. E., Kemler, M., & van Kleef, M. (2003). What is a meaningful pain reduction in patients with complex regional pain syndrome type 1? Clinical Journal of Pain, 19(5), 281–285.Google Scholar

Fukuda, S. (2012). Aspectual verbs as functional heads: evidence from Japanese aspectual verbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 30(4), 965–1026.Google Scholar

Fukuda, S. (2017). Split intransitivity in Japanese is syntactic: Evidence for the Unaccusative Hypothesis from sentence acceptability and truth value judgment experiments. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1), 28. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.268Google Scholar

Gallego, Á. (2009). On freezing effects. Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 1(1), 33–51.Google Scholar

Garrod, S. (2006). Psycholinguistic research methods. In Brown, K., ed., Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 251–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gibson, E. & Fedorenko, E. (2010). Weak quantitative standards in linguistics research. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(6), 233.Google Scholar

Gibson, E. & Fedorenko, E. (2013). The need for quantitative methods in syntax and semantics research. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1–2), 88–124.Google Scholar

Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S. T., & Fedorenko, E. (2013). Quantitative methods in syntax/semantics research: A response to Sprouse and Almeida (2013). Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(3), 229–240.Google Scholar

Goodall, G. (2015). The D-linking effect on extraction from islands and non-islands. Frontiers in Psychology: Language Sciences, 5, 1493. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01493Google Scholar

Goodall, G. (2017). Referentiality and resumption in wh-dependencies. In Ostrove, J., Kramer, R., & Sabbagh, J., eds., Asking the Right Questions: Essays in Honor of Sandra Chun, pp. 65–80. eScholarship, University of California. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8255v8scGoogle Scholar

Grewendorf, G. (1988). Aspekte der deutschen Syntax. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

Guajardo, G. & Goodall, G. (2019). On the status of Concordantia Temporum in Spanish: An experimental approach. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1), 116. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.749CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harvey, B. M., Klein, B. P., Petridou, N., & Dumoulin, S. O. (2013) Topographic representation of numerosity in the human parietal cortex. Science, 341(6150), 1123–1126.Google Scholar

Hofmeister, P., Culicover, P., & Winkler, S. (2015). Effects of processing on the acceptability of “frozen” extraposed constituents. Syntax, 18(4), 464–483.Google Scholar

Hofmeister, P., Staum Casasanto, L., & Sag, I. A. (2014). Processing effects in linguistic judgment data: (Super-)additivity and reading span scores. Language and Cognition, 6(1), 111–145.Google Scholar

Householder, F. W. (1973). On arguments from asterisks. Foundations of Language, l0(3), 365–376.Google Scholar

Kayne, R. (1983). Connectedness. Linguistic Inquiry, 14, 223–249.Google Scholar

Kayne, R. S. (1984). Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Keffala, B. (2011). Resumption and gaps in English relative clauses: Relative acceptability creates an illusion of “saving.” In Cathcart, C. et al., eds., Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 140–154.Google Scholar

Keffala, B. & Goodall, G. (2011). Do resumptive pronouns ever rescue illicit gaps in English? Poster presented at the 24th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Stanford, California.Google Scholar

Keffala, B. & Goodall, G. (2013). On processing difficulty and the acceptability of resumptive pronouns. Paper presented at Linguistic Evidence – Berlin Special, Humboldt-Universität, Berlin.Google Scholar

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

Kim, D. & Goodall, G. (2018). Complexity effects in A- and A’-dependencies. Poster presented at 31st CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, UC Davis.Google Scholar

Langsford, S., Perfors, A., Hendrickson, A. T., Kennedy, L. A., & Navarro, D. J. (2018). Quantifying sentence acceptability measures: Reliability, bias, and variability. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 37. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.396CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Lewis, S. & Phillips, C. (2015). Aligning grammatical theories and language processing models. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44(1), 27–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Mahowald, K., Graff, P., Hartman, J., & Gibson, E. (2016). SNAP judgments: A small N acceptability paradigm (SNAP) for linguistic acceptability judgments. Language, 92(3), 619–635.Google Scholar

Michel, D. (2014). Individual cognitive measures and working memory accounts of syntactic island phenomena. Doctoral dissertation, University of Calfiornia, San Diego.Google Scholar

Müller, G. (2010). On deriving CED effects from the PIC. Linguistic Inquiry, 41(1), 35–82.Google Scholar

Myers, J. (2009). Syntactic judgment experiments. Language & Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 406–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Myers, J. (2017). Acceptability judgments. In Aronoff, M., ed., Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.333Google Scholar

Namboodiripad, S. (2017). An experimental approach to variation and variability in constituent order. Doctoral dissertation, University of Calfiornia, San Diego.Google Scholar

Natale, M., Gur, R. E., & Gur, R. C. (1983). Hemispheric asymmetries in processing emotional expressions. Neuropsychologia, 19, 609–613.Google Scholar

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

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

Pesetsky, D. (2017). Complementizer‐trace effects. In Everaert, M. & Van Riemsdijk, H. C., eds., The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Phillips, C. (2009). Should we impeach armchair linguists? Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 17, 49–64.Google Scholar

Phillips, C. & Wagers, M. (2007). Relating structure and time in linguistics and psycholinguistics. In Levelt, P. & Caramazza, A., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 739–756.Google Scholar

Polinsky, M., Clemens, L. E., Morgan, A. M., Xiang, M., & Heestand, D. (2013). Resumption in English. In Sprouse, J. & Hornstein, N., eds., Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ritchart, A., Goodall, G., & Garellek, M. (2016). Prosody and the that-trace effect: An experimental study. In Kim, K. et al., eds., Proceedings of the 33rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 320–328.Google Scholar

Saddy, D. (1991). Wh-scope mechanisms in Bahasa Indonesia. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 15, 183–218.Google Scholar

Sag, I., Hofmeister, P., & Snider, N. (2007). Processing complexity in subjacency violations: the complex noun phrase constraint. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 215–229.Google Scholar

Schütze, C. T. (2016). The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar

Schütze, C. & Sprouse, J. (2014). Judgment data. In Podesva, R. & Sharma, D., eds., Research Methods in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 27–51.Google Scholar

Sedarous, Y. & Namboodiripad, S. (2020). Using audio stimuli in acceptability judgment experiments. Language and Linguistics Compass, 14:e12377. DOI: 10.1111/lnc3.12377Google Scholar

Sprouse, J. & Almeida, D. (2012). Assessing the reliability of textbook data in syntax: Adger’s Core Syntax. Journal of Linguistics, 48(3), 609–652.Google Scholar

Sprouse, J. & Almeida, D. (2017). Design sensitivity and statistical power in acceptability judgment experiments. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1). DOI:10.5334/gjgl.236Google Scholar

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

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

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

Sprouse, J., Fukuda, S., Ono, H., & Kluender, R. (2011). Reverse island effects and the backward search for a licensor in multiple wh-questions. Syntax, 14(2), 179–203.Google Scholar

Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the Theory of Scales of Measurement. Science, 103(2684), 677–680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Torrego, E. (1985). On empty categories in nominals. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Boston.Google Scholar

Zorzi, M., Priftis, K., & Umiltà, C. (2002). Brain damage: Neglect disrupts the mental number line. Nature, 417(6885), 138–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Adli, A. (2004). Grammatische Variation und Sozialstruktur. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, N. (1989). Integration psychophysics. Behavioral Brain Science, 12, 268–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bader, M. & Bayer, J. (2006). Case and Linking in Language Comprehension. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Bader, M. & Häussler, J. (2010). Toward a model of grammaticality judgments. Journal of Linguistics, 46(2), 273–330.Google Scholar

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

Birnbaum, M. (1980). Comparison of two theories of ‘difference’ and ‘ratio’ judgements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 304–319.Google Scholar

Boland, J., Tanenhaus, M., & Garnsey, S. (1990). Lexical structure and parsing: Evidence for the immediate use of verbal argument and control information in parsing. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 413–432.Google Scholar

Chafe, W. (1988). Punctuation and the prosody of written language. Written Communication, 5(4), 395–426.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Clifton, C., Frazier, L., & Connine, C. (1984). Lexical expectations in sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23(6), 696–708.Google Scholar

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

David, H. (1988). The Method of Paired Comparisons. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Davidson, D. (2011). Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, 2nd ed. Oxford and New York: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Ellermeier, W. & Faulhammer, G. (2000). Empirical evaluation of axioms fundamental to Stevens’s ratio-scaling approach: I. Loudness production. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1505–1511.Google Scholar

Featherston, S. (2007). Data in generative grammar: The stick and the carrot. Theoretical Linguistics, 33(3), 269–318.Google Scholar

Featherston, S. (2009). Why linguistics needs boiling and freezing points. In Featherston, S. & Winkler, S., eds., The Fruits of Empirical Linguistics, vol. 1: Process. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 47–74.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. D. (2002). Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. In Hirotani, M., ed., Proceedings of NELS 32. Amherst, MA: GLSA, pp. 113–132.Google Scholar

Frazier, L. (1985). Modularity and the representational hypothesis. Proceedings of NELS 15. Amherst, MA: GLSA, pp. 131–145.Google Scholar

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

Gerbrich, H., Schreier, V., & Featherston, S. (2019). Standard items for English judgement studies: Syntax and semantics. In Featherston, S., Hörnig, R., von Wietersheim, S., & Winkler, S., eds., Experiments in Focus: Information Structure and Semantic Processing. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 305–327.Google Scholar

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

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

Höhle, T. (1982). Markiertheit, Linking, Regelformat – Evidenz aus dem Deutschen. In Vennemann, T., ed., Silben, Segmente, Akzente (Linguistische Arbeiten 126). Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 99–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jones, D., Shen, W., Shriberg, E., Stolcke, A., Kamm, T., & Reynolds, D. (2005). Two experiments comparing reading with listening for human processing of conversational telephone speech. INTERSPEECH-2005, 1145–1148.Google Scholar

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

Labov, W. (1996). When intuitions fail. In McNair, L., Singer, K., Dolbrin, L., & Aucon, M., eds., Papers from the Parasession on Theory and Data in Linguistics 32. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 77–106.Google Scholar

Laming, D. (1997). The Measurement of Sensation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

McBride, R. (1993). Integration psychophysicon as: The use of functional measurement in the study of mixtures. Chemical Senses 18, 83–92.Google Scholar

McElree, B. (1993). The locus of lexical preference effects in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 536–571.Google Scholar

Phillips, C. (2007). Should we impeach armchair linguists? In Iwasaki, S., Hoji, H., Clancy, P. M., & Sohn, S.-O., eds., Japanese/Korean Linguistics 17. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 49–64.Google Scholar

Poulton, E. C. (1989). Bias in Quantifying Judgments. Hove and London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Saaty, T. L. (2008). Relative measurement and its generalization in decision making: Why pairwise comparisons are central in mathematics for the measurement of intangible factors – the Analytic Hierarchy/Network Process. Review of the Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Series A: Mathematics (RACSAM), 102(2), 251–318.Google Scholar

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

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

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

Stevens, S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103(2684), 677–680.Google Scholar

Stevens, S. (1975). Psychophysics: Introduction to Its Perceptual, Neural and Social Prospects. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar

Stevens, S. & Galanter, E. (1957). Ratio scales and category scale for a dozen perceptual continua. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 377–411.Google Scholar

Tanenhaus, M., Boland, J., Garnsey, S., & Carlson, G. (1989). Lexical structure in parsing long-distance dependencies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 37–49.Google Scholar

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

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

Aarts, B. (2007). Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Alexopoulou, T. & Keller, F. (2007). Locality, cyclicity, and resumption: At the interface between the grammar and the human sentence processor. Language, 83(1), 110–160.Google Scholar

Almeida, D. (2014). Subliminal wh-islands in Brazilian Portuguese and the consequences for syntactic theory. Revista da ABRALIN, 13(2), 55–91.Google Scholar

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

Bader, M. & Häussler, J. (2010). Toward a model of grammaticality judgments. Journal of Linguistics, 46(2), 273–330.Google Scholar

Bard, E. G., Robertson, D., & Sorace, A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 71(2), 32–68.Google Scholar

Bock, K. & Middleton, E. L. (2011). Reaching agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 29(4), 1033–1069.Google Scholar

Bürkner, P. C. & Vuorre, M. (2019). Ordinal regression models in psychology: A tutorial. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(1), 77–101.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12(4), 335–359.Google Scholar

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

DeCarlo, L. T. (2002). Signal detection theory with finite mixture distributions: Theoretical developments with applications to recognition memory. Psychological Review, 109(4), 710.Google Scholar

DeLong, E. R., DeLong, D. M., & Clarke-Pearson, D. L. (1988). Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics, 44(3), 837–845.Google Scholar

Dillon, B., Andrews, C., Rotello, C. M., & Wagers, M. (2019). A new argument for co-active parses during language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(7), 1271.Google Scholar

Dillon, B., Staub, A., Levy, J., & Clifton, C. Jr. (2017). Which noun phrases is the verb supposed to agree with? Object agreement in American English. Language, 93(1), 65–96.Google Scholar

Drummond, A. (2013). Ibex farm. Online server: http://spellout.net/ibexfarm.Google Scholar

Dube, C., Rotello, C. M., & Heit, E. (2010). Assessing the belief bias effect with ROCs: It’s a response bias effect. Psychological Review, 117(3), 831.Google Scholar

Efron, B. & Tibshirani, R. (1993). An Introduction to the Bootstrap. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar

Featherston, S. (2008). Thermometer judgments as linguistic evidence. In Riehl, C. M. & Rothe, A. (eds.), Was ist linguistische Evidenz? Aachen: Shaker Verlag, pp. 69–90.Google Scholar

Featherston, S. (2009). Relax, lean back, and be a linguist. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 28(1), 127–32.Google Scholar

Franck, J. (2011). Reaching agreement as a core syntactic process. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 29(4), 1071–1086.Google Scholar

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

Gahl, S., Jurafsky, D., & Roland, D. (2004). Verb subcategorization frequencies: American English corpus data, methodological studies, and cross-corpus comparisons. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 432–443.Google Scholar

Goodall, G. (2015). The D-linking effect on extraction from islands and non-islands. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1493.Google Scholar

Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2001). Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(6), 1411.Google Scholar

Hanley, J. A. & McNeil, B. J. (1983). A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology, 148(3), 839–843.Google Scholar

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

Hautus, M. J. (1995). Corrections for extreme proportions and their biasing effects on estimated values of d′. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 27(1), 46–51.Google Scholar

Hautus, M. J. (1997). Calculating estimates of sensitivity from group data: Pooled versus averaged estimators. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 29(4), 556–562.Google Scholar

Heit, E. & Rotello, C. M. (2014). Traditional difference-score analyses of reasoning are flawed. Cognition, 131(1), 75–91.Google Scholar

Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434–446.Google Scholar

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

Kush, D., Lohndal, T., & Sprouse, J. (2018). Investigating variation in island effects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 36(3), 743–779.Google Scholar

Langsford, S., Perfors, A., Hendrickson, A. T., Kennedy, L. A., & Navarro, D. J. (2018). Quantifying sentence acceptability measures: Reliability, bias, and variability. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1). DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.396Google Scholar

Lau, J. H., Clark, A., & Lappin, S. (2017). Grammaticality, acceptability, and probability: A probabilistic view of linguistic knowledge. Cognitive Science, 41(5), 1202–1241.Google Scholar

Liddell, T. M. & Kruschke, J. K. (2018). Analyzing ordinal data with metric models: What could possibly go wrong? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 328–348.Google Scholar

Liu, C. C. & Smith, P. L. (2009). Comparing time-accuracy curves: Beyond goodness-of-fit measures. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(1), 190–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Loftus, G. R. (1978). On interpretation of interactions. Memory & Cognition, 6(3), 312–319.Google Scholar

Ma, H., Bandos, A. I., Rockette, H. E., & Gur, D. (2013). On use of partial area under the ROC curve for evaluation of diagnostic performance. Statistics in Medicine, 32(20), 3449–3458.Google Scholar

Macmillan, N. A. & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection Theory: A User’s Guide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Macmillan, N. A. & Kaplan, H. L. (1985). Detection theory analysis of group data: Estimating sensitivity from average hit and false-alarm rates. Psychological Bulletin, 98(1), 185.Google Scholar

Macmillan, N. A., Rotello, C. M., & Miller, J. O. (2004). The sampling distributions of Gaussian ROC statistics. Perception & Psychophysics, 66(3), 406–421.Google Scholar

Mauner, G. (1995). Examining the empirical and linguistic bases of current theories of agrammatism. Brain and Language, 50(3), 339–368.Google Scholar

McElree, B. (2000). Sentence comprehension is mediated by content-addressable memory structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 111–123.Google Scholar

McElree, B., Foraker, S., & Dyer, L. (2003). Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(1), 67–91.Google Scholar

Melo, F. (2013). Area under the ROC curve. In Dubitzky, W., Wolkenhauer, O., Cho, K. H., & Yokota, H., eds., Encyclopedia of Systems Biology. New York: Springer New York, pp. 38–39.Google Scholar

Pazzaglia, A. M., Dube, C., & Rotello, C. M. (2013). A critical comparison of discrete-state and continuous models of recognition memory: Implications for recognition and beyond. Psychological Bulletin, 139(6), 1173.Google Scholar

Ratcliff, R., McKoon, G., & Tindall, M. (1994). Empirical generality of data from recognition memory receiver-operating characteristic functions and implications for the global memory models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(4), 763.Google Scholar

Ratcliff, R., Sheu, C. F., & Gronlund, S. D. (1992). Testing global memory models using ROC curves. Psychological Review, 99(3), 518.Google Scholar

Robin, X., Turck, N., Hainard, A., Tiberti, N., Lisacek, F., Sanchez, J. C., & Müller, M. (2011). pROC: An open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics, 12(1), 77.Google Scholar

Rotello, C. M., Heit, E., & Dubé, C. (2015). When more data steer us wrong: Replications with the wrong dependent measure perpetuate erroneous conclusions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(4), 944–954.Google Scholar

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

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

Sorace, A. & Keller, F. (2005). Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua, 115(11), 1497–1524.Google Scholar

Sprouse, J. (2011). A test of the cognitive assumptions of magnitude estimation: Commutativity does not hold for acceptability judgments. Language 87(2), 274–288.Google Scholar

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

Sprouse, J. & Almeida, D. (2017). Design sensitivity and statistical power in acceptability judgment experiments. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1), 1–32. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.236Google Scholar

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

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

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

Sprouse, J., Yankama, B., Indurkhya, S., Fong, S., & Berwick, R. C. (2018). Colorless green ideas do sleep furiously: gradient acceptability and the nature of the grammar. Linguistic Review, 35(3), 575–599.Google Scholar

Stevens, S. S. (1956). The direct estimation of sensory magnitudes: Loudness. American Journal of Psychology, 69(1), 1–25.Google Scholar

Stevens, S. S. (1960). The psychophysics of sensory function. American Scientist, 48(2), 226–253.Google Scholar

Theodoridis, S. & Koutroumbas, K. (2008). Pattern Recognition. Burlington, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Venkatraman, E. S. (2000). A permutation test to compare receiver operating characteristic curves. Biometrics, 56, 1134–1138.Google Scholar

Wagers, M. (2013). Memory mechanisms for wh-dependency formation and their implications for islandhood. In Sprouse, J. & Hornstein, N. (eds.), Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 161–185.Google Scholar

Wagers, M. & Dillon, B. (in prep). Which sentences do speakers favor? ROC analysis of d-linking in filler–gap integration.Google Scholar

Wagers, M. W. & Phillips, C. (2014). Going the distance: memory and control processes in active dependency construction. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(7), 1274–1304.Google Scholar

Warstadt, A., Singh, A., & Bowman, S. R. (2018). Neural network acceptability judgments. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.12471.Google Scholar

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

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

Andersson, S.-G. & Kvam, S. (1984). Satzverschränkung im heutigen Deutsch. Eine syntaktische und funktionale Studie unter Berücksichtigung alternativer Konstruktionen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing NP Antecedents. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. H. & Milin, P. (2010). Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(2), 12–28.Google Scholar

Bader, M. & Häussler, J. (2010). Toward a model of grammaticality judgments. Journal of Linguistics, 46(2), 273–330.Google Scholar

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

Bayer, J. (1984). Comp in Bavarian syntax. The Linguistic Review, 3(3), 209–274.Google Scholar

Bolinger, D. (1978). Asking more than one thing at a time. In Hiz, H., eds., Questions. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 97–106.Google Scholar

Brandner, E. (2012). Syntactic microvariation. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6, 113–130.Google Scholar

Bresnan, J. & Ford, M. (2010). Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language, 86(1),168–213.Google Scholar

Buchholz, S. & Latorre, J. (2011). Crowdsourcing preference tests, and how to detect cheating. In P. Cosi, R. De Mori, G. Di Fabbrizio, & R. Pieraccini, eds., INTERSPEECH 2011: 12th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, pp. 3053–3056. ISCA Archive: www.isca-speech.org/archive/interspeech_2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and Representations (Woodbridge Lectures 11). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Clifton, C., Jr., Fanselow, G., & Frazier, L. (2006). Amnestying superiority violations: Processing multiple questions. Linguistic Inquiry, 37, 51–68.Google Scholar

Clifton, C. Jr., Frazier, L., & Connine, C. (1984). Lexical expectations in sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 23, 696–708.Google Scholar

Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46.Google Scholar

Conway, A., Kane, M., Bunting, M., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 769–86.Google Scholar

Cover, T. M. & Hart, P. E. (1967). Nearest neighbor pattern classification. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 13(1), 1–27.Google Scholar

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

Cox, E. P (1980). The optimal number of response alternatives for a scale: A review. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 407–422.Google Scholar

Crawford, J. (2012). Using syntactic satiation to investigate subject islands. In J. Choi, E. Hogue, A., Punske, J., Tat, D., Schertz, J., & Trueman, A., eds., Proceedings of the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 38–45.Google Scholar

Culicover, P. W. & Jackendoff, R. (2010). Quantitative methods alone are not enough: Response to Gibson and Fedorenko. Trends Cognitive Science, 14, 234–235.Google Scholar

Dandurand, F., Shultz, T. R., & Onishi, K. H. (2008). Comparing online and lab methods in a problem-solving experiment. Behavior Research Methods, 40(2), 428–434.Google Scholar

Divjak, D. (2017). The role of lexical frequency in the acceptability of syntactic variants: Evidence from that-clauses in Polish. Cognitive Science, 41(2), 354–382.Google Scholar

Downs, J. S., Holbrook, M. B., Sheng, S., & Cranor, L. F. (2010). Are your participants gaming the system? Screening Mechanical Turk workers. In Mynatt, E., ed., CHI ʼ10: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Atlanta, GA: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 2399–2402.Google Scholar

Eickhoff, C. & de Vries, A. P. (2013). Increasing cheat robustness of crowdsourcing tasks. Information Retrieval, 16(2), 121–137.Google Scholar

Fanselow, G. & Frisch, S. (2006). Effects of processing difficulty on judgments of acceptability. In Fanselow, G., Féry, C., Schlesewsky, M., & Vogel, R., eds., Gradience in Grammar: Generative Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 291–316.Google Scholar

Fanselow, G., Kliegl, R., & Schlesewsky, M. (2005). Syntactic variation in German wh-questions: Empirical investigations of weak crossover violations and long wh-movement. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 5, 37–63.Google Scholar

Featherston, S. (2007). Data in generative grammar: The stick and the carrot. Theoretical Linguistics, 33, 269–318.Google Scholar

Featherston, S. (2008). Thermometer judgments as linguistic evidence. In Riehl, C. M. & Rothe, A., eds., Was ist linguistische Evidenz? Aachen: Shaker Verlag, pp. 69–89.Google Scholar

Fedorenko, E. & Gibson, E. (2010). Adding a third wh-phrase does not increase the acceptability of object-initial multiple-wh-questions. Syntax, 13(3), 183–195.Google Scholar

Fine, A. B., Jaeger, T. F., Farmer, T. A., & Qian, T. (2013). Rapid expectation adaptation during syntactic comprehension. PLoS ONE, 8(10), e77661. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0077661Google Scholar

Fix, E. & Hodges, J. (1989). Discriminatory analysis. Nonparametric discrimination: Consistency properties. International Statistical Review / Revue internationale de statistique, 57(3), 238–247.Google Scholar

Forgy, E. W. (1965). Cluster analysis of multivariate data: Efficiency versus interpretability of classification. Biometrics, 21(3), 768–769.Google Scholar

Francom, J. (2009). Experimental syntax: Exploring the effect of repeated exposure to anomalous syntactic structure – evidence from rating and reading tasks. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar

Garland, R. (1991). The mid-point on a rating scale: Is it desirable? Marketing Bulletin, 2, 66–70.Google Scholar

Gerbrich, H., Schreier, V., & Featherston, S. (2019). Standard items for English judgment studies: Syntax and semantics. In Featherston, S., Hörnig, R., von Wietersheim, S., & Winkler, S. (eds.), Experiments in Focus: Information Structure and Semantic Processing. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 305–327.Google Scholar

Gervain, J. (2003). Syntactic microvariation and methodology: problems and perspectives. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 50(3–4), 405–434.Google Scholar

Ghiselli, E. E. (1939). All or none versus graded response questionnaires. Journal of Applied Psychology, 23, 405–415.Google Scholar

Gibson, E. & Fedorenko, E. (2010). Weak quantitative standards in linguistics research. Trends Cognitive Science, 14, 233–234.Google Scholar

Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S., & Fedorenko, K. (2011). Using Mechanical Turk to obtain and analyze English acceptability judgments. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5(8), 509–524.Google Scholar

Givón, T. (1983). Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Gries, S. Th. (2013). Statistics for Linguistics with R. A Practical Introduction, 2nd, revised ed. Berlin and Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Guajardo, G. & Goodall, , G. (2019). On the status of Concordantia Temporum in Spanish: An experimental approach. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1), 116. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.749Google Scholar

Hancock, R. & Bever, T. G. (2013). Genetic factors and normal variation in the organization of language. Biolinguistics, 7, 75–95.Google Scholar

Harrington Stack, C. M., James, A. N., & Watson, D. G. (2018). A failure to replicate rapid syntactic adaptation in comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 46, 864–877.Google Scholar

Hartsuiker, R. J., Bernolet, S., Schoonbaert, S., Speybroeck, S., & Vanderelst, D. (2008). Syntactic priming persists while the lexical boost decays: Evidence from written and spoken dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 214–238.Google Scholar

Häussler, J. & Juzek, T. S. (2017). Hot topics surrounding acceptability judgement tasks. In Featherston, S., Hörnig, R., Steinberg, R., Umbreit, B., & Wallis, J., eds., Proceedings of Linguistic Evidence 2016: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives. University of Tübingen, http://dx.doi.org/10.15496/publikation-19039Google Scholar

Hiramatsu, K. (2000). Accessing linguistic competence: Evidence from children’s and adults’ acceptability judgments. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar

Hofmeister, P., Jaeger, T. F., Sag, I. A., Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2007). Locality and accessibility in wh-questions. In Featherston, S. & Sternefeld, W., eds., Roots: Linguistics in Search of Its Evidential Base. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 185–206.Google Scholar

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

Hofmeister, P., Staum Casasanto, L., & Sag, I. A. (2012a). How do individual cognitive differences relate to acceptability judgments? A reply to Sprouse, Wagers, and Phillips. Language, 88, 390–400.Google Scholar

Hofmeister, P., Staum, Casasanto, L., & Sag, I. A. (2012b). Misapplying working memory tests: A reductio ad absurdum. Language, 88(2), 408–409.Google Scholar

Jegerski, J. (2014). Self-paced reading. In Jegerski, J. & VanPatten, B., eds., Research Methods in Second Language Psycholinguistics. New York: Routledge, pp. 20–49.Google Scholar

Just, M. A. & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1), 122–149.Google Scholar

Kaan, E. & Chun, E. (2018). Priming and adaptation in native speakers and second-language learners. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21, 228–242.Google Scholar

Kayne, R. (1983). Connectedness. Linguistic Inquiry, 14, 223–249.Google Scholar

Kazai, G. (2011). In search of quality in crowdsourcing for search engine evaluation. In Clough, P., Foley, C., Gurrin, C., Jones, G., Kraaij, W., Lee, H., & Murdock, V., eds., Advances in Information Retrieval. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 165–176.Google Scholar

Kazai, G., Kamps, J., & Milic-Frayling, N. (2011). Worker types and personality traits in crowdsourcing relevance labels. In Berendt, B., de Vries, A., Fan, W., Macdonald, C., Ounis, I., & Ruthven, I., eds., Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM’11). New York: ACM, pp. 1941–1944.Google Scholar

Kilpatrick, F. P. & Cantril, H. (1960). Self-anchoring scaling: A measure of individuals’ unique reality worlds. Journal of Individual Psychology, 16, 158–173.Google Scholar

Klaus, J. & Schriefers, H. (2016). Measuring verbal working memory capacity: A reading span task for laboratory and web-based use. OSF Preprints. December 7. DOI:10.31219/osf.io/nj48xGoogle Scholar

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

Kluender, R. (2004). Are subject islands subject to a processing account? In Chand, V., Kelleher, A., Rodríguez, A. J., & Schmeiser, B., eds., Proceedings of the 23rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 101–125.Google Scholar

Krantz, J. H. & Dalal, R. (2000). Validity of Web-based psychological research. In Birnbaum, M., ed., Psychological Experiments on the Internet. New York: Academic Press, pp. 35–60.Google Scholar

Kroch, A. (1989). Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change, 1, 199–244.Google Scholar

Kuno, S. & Robinson, J. (1972). Multiple wh-questions. Linguistic Inquiry, 3, 463–487.Google Scholar

Labov, W. (1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar

Langsford, S., Perfors, A., Hendrickson, A. T., Kennedy, L. A., & Navarro, D. J. (2018). Quantifying sentence acceptability measures: Reliability, bias, and variability. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3 (1), 37. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.396Google Scholar

Levshina, N. (2015). How to Do Linguistics with R: Data Exploration and Statistical Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Lloyd, S. P. (1982). Least squares quantization in pcm. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 28, 129–137.Google Scholar

Luce, R. D. (1986). Response Times: Their Role in Inferring Elementary Mental Organization. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lühr, R. (1988). Zur Satzverschränkung im heutigen Deutsch. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik, 29, 74–87.Google Scholar

Mason, W. & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazonʼs Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44(1), 1–23.Google Scholar

Mattel, M. & Jacoby, J. (1971). Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert scale items? Study I: Reliability and validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(6), 506–509.Google Scholar

Munro, R., Bethard, S., Kuperman, V., Lai, V. T., Melnick, R., Potts, C., Schnoebelen, T., & Tily, H. (2010). Crowdsourcing and language studies: the new generation of linguistic data. In NAACL HLT 2010 Workshop on Creating Speech and Language Data with Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, 122–130.Google Scholar

Pakulak, E. & Neville, H. J. (2010). Proficiency differences in syntactic processing of monolingual native speakers indexed by event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(12), 2728–2744.Google Scholar

Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411–419.Google Scholar

Pesetsky, D. (1982). Paths and categories. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

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

Phillips, C. (2013). On the nature of island constraints. I: Language processing and reductionist accounts. In Sprouse, J. & Hornstein, N., eds., Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 64–108.Google Scholar

Pickering, M. J. & Branigan, H. P. (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 633–651.Google Scholar

Preston, C. C. & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica, 104(1), 1–15.Google Scholar

Rayner, K. & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14, 191–201.Google Scholar

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

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

Schnoebelen, T. & Kuperman, V. (2010). Using Amazon Mechanical Turk for linguistic research. Psihologija, 43(4), 441–464.Google Scholar

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

Seidenberg, M. S. & MacDonald, M. C. (1999). A probabilistic constraints approach to language acquisition and processing. Cognitive Science, 23(4), 569–588.Google Scholar

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

Soleymani, M. & Larson, M. (2010). Crowdsourcing for affective annotation of video: development of a viewer-reported boredom corpus. In ACM SIGIR 2010 Workshop on Crowdsourcing for Search Evaluation (CSE 2010), pp. 4–8.Google Scholar

Sorokin, A. & Forsyth, D. (2008). Utility data annotation with Amazon Mechanical Turk: Computer vision and pattern recognition workshops. In IEEE Computer Society Conference on IEEE (CVPRW’08), pp. 1–8.Google Scholar

Sprouse, J. (2009). Revisiting satiation: Evidence for an equalization response strategy. Linguistic Inquiry, 40, 329–341.Google Scholar

Sprouse, J. (2011). A validation of Amazon Mechanical Turk for the collection of acceptability judgments in linguistic theory. Behavior Research Methods, 43(1), 155–167.Google Scholar

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

Sprouse, J., Wagers, M., & Phillips, C. (2012b). Working-memory capacity and island effects: A reminder of the issues and the facts. Language, 88(2), 401–407.Google Scholar

Stevens, S. S (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103, 667–688.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Tooley, K. M. & Bock, K. (2014). On the parity of structural persistence in language production and comprehension. Cognition, 132(2), 101–136.Google Scholar

Tooley, K. M. & Traxler, M. J. (2010). Syntactic priming effects in comprehension: A critical review. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(10), 925–937.Google Scholar

Traxler, M. J. (2008). Lexically independent syntactic priming of adjunct relations in on-line sentence comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 149–155.Google Scholar

Traxler, M. J., Tooley, K. M., & Pickering, M. J. (2014). Syntactic priming during sentence comprehension: Evidence for the lexical boost. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 40(4), 905–918.Google Scholar

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.Google Scholar

Vogel, R. (2019). Grammatical taboos: An investigation on the impact of prescription in acceptability judgement experiments. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 38(1), 37–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Warren, T. & Gibson, E. (2005). Effects of NP type in reading cleft sentences in English. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 751–767.Google Scholar

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

Weijters, B., Cabooter, E., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). The effect of rating scale format on response styles: the number of response categories and response category labels. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27, 236–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Winter, B. (2019). Statistics for Linguists: An Introduction Using R. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Zhu, D. & Carterette, B. (2010). An analysis of assessor behavior in crowdsourced preference judgments. In SIGIR 2010 Workshop on Crowdsourcing for Search Evaluation (CSE 2010), pp. 17–20.Google Scholar

Abeillé, A., Hemforth, B., Winckel, E., & Gibson, E. (2018). A construction-conflict explanation of the subject-island constraint. Poster presented at the 31st Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar

Acuña-Fariña, J. C. (2012). Agreement, attraction and architectural opportunism. Journal of Linguistics, 48, 257–295.Google Scholar

Aldosari, S. (2015). The role of individual differences in the acceptability of island violations in native and non-native speakers. Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas.Google Scholar

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

Almeida, D. (2014). Subliminal wh-islands in Brazilian Portuguese and the consequences for syntactic theory. Revista da ABRALIN, 13(2), 55–93.Google Scholar

Arnold, J., Wasow, T., Losongo, A., & Ginstrom, R. (2000). Heavyness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76, 28–55.Google Scholar

Arnon, I., Snider, N., Hofmeister, P., Jaeger, T. F., & Sag, I. (2012). Cross-linguistic variation in a processing account: The case of multiple wh-questions. In Houser, M. J. et al., eds., Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 23–36.Google Scholar

Arregui, A., Clifton, C., Frazier, L. & Moulton, K. (2006). Processing elided verb phrases with flawed antecedents: The recycling hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language 55, 232–246.Google Scholar

Atkinson, E., Apple, A., Rawlins, K., & Omaki, A. (2016). Similarity of wh-phrases and acceptability variation in wh-islands. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 2048.Google Scholar

Badecker, W. & Straub, K. (2002). The processing role of structural constraints on interpretation of pronouns and anaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(4), 748–769.Google Scholar

Bader, M. (2016). The Limited Role of Number of Nested Syntactic Dependencies in Accounting for Processing Cost: Evidence from German Simplex and Complex Verbal Clusters. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2268.Google Scholar

Bader, M. & Bayer, J. (2006). Case and Linking in Language Comprehension. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Bader, M., Häussler, J., & Schmid, T. (2013). Constraints on intra- and extraposition. In Webelhuth, G., Sailer, M., & Walker, H., eds., Rightward Movement in a Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–60.Google Scholar

Bayer, J., Bader, M., & Meng, M. (2001). Morphological underspecification meets oblique case: syntactic and processing effects in German. Lingua, 111, 465–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bayer, J., Schmid, T., & Bader, M. (2005). Clause union and clausal position. In Den Dikken, M., ed., The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 79–113.Google Scholar

Behaghel, O. (1909). Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Indogermanische Forschungen, 25, 110–142.Google Scholar

Behaghel, O. (1932). Deutsche Syntax, vol. IV: Wortstellung Periodenbau. Heidelberg: Carl Winters.Google Scholar

Beltrama, A. & Xiang, M. (2016). Unacceptable but comprehensible: The facilitation effects of resumptive pronouns. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 1(1), 29. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.24Google Scholar

Bever, T. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In Hayes, J. R., ed., Cognition and the Development of Language. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 279–362.Google Scholar

Bever, T. (1976). The influence of speech performance on linguistic structure. In Bever, T., Katz, J., & Langendoen, D., eds., An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Ability. New York: Crowell, pp. 65–88.Google Scholar

Charnavel, I. & Sportiche, D. (2016). Anaphor binding: What French inanimate anaphors show. Linguistic Inquiry, 47, 35–87.Google Scholar

Chaves, R. & Dery, J. (2014). Which subject islands will the acceptability of improve with repeated exposure? In Santana-La Barge, R., ed., Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 96–106.Google Scholar

Chaves, R. & Dery, J. (2018). Frequency effects in subject islands. Journal of Linguistics, 55, 1–47.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1955/1975). The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Christensen, K. (2010). Syntactic reconstruction and reanalysis, semantic dead ends, and prefrontal cortex. Brain and Cognition, 73(1), 41–50.Google Scholar

Christensen, K. (2016). The dead ends of language: The (mis)interpretation of a grammatical illusion. In Vikner, S., Jørgensen, H., & van Gelderen, E., eds., Let Us Have Articles Betwixt Us: Papers in Historical and Comparative Linguistics in Honour of Johanna L. Wood. Aarhus: Dept. of English, School of Communication & Culture, Aarhus University, pp. 129–160.Google Scholar

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

Christensen, K., Kizach, J., & Nyvad, A. (2013b). The processing of syntactic islands: An fMRI study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 26, 239–251.Google Scholar

Christiansen, M. & Chater, N. (1999). Toward a connectionist model of recursion in human linguistic performance. Cognitive Science, 23, 157–205.Google Scholar

Christiansen, M. & Macdonald, M. (1998). Processing of recursive sentence structure: Testing predictions from a connectionist model. Cognition, 45, 225–255.Google Scholar

Christianson, K., Williams, C., Zacks, R., & Ferreira, F. (2006). Younger and older adults’ “good-enough” interpretations of garden-path sentences. Discourse Processes, 42(2), 205–238.Google Scholar

Clausen, D. (2010). Processing factors influencing acceptability in extractions from complex subjects. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.Google Scholar

Clausen, D. (2011). Informativity and acceptability of complex subject islands. Poster presented at the 24th Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, Stanford.Google Scholar

Clifton, C., Fanselow, G., & Frazier, L. (2006). Amnestying superiority violations: Processing multiple questions. Linguistic Inquiry, 37, 51–68.Google Scholar

Clifton, C., Frazier, L., & Deevy, P. (1999). Feature manipulation in sentence comprehension. Rivista di Linguistica, 11(1), 11–39.Google Scholar

Crawford, J. (2012). Using Syntactic Satiation to Investigate Subject Islands. In Choi, J., Hogue, E. A., Punske, J., Tat, D., Schertz, J., & Trueman, A., eds., Proceedings of the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 38–45.Google Scholar

Davies, W. D. & Dubinsky, S. (2009). On the existence (and distribution) of sentential subjects. In Gerdts, D., Moore, J., & Polinsky, M., eds., Hypothesis A/Hypothesis B: Linguistic Explorations in Honor of David M. Perlmutter. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 111–128.Google Scholar

De Vries, M., Christiansen, M. H., & Petersson, K. M. (2011). Learning recursion: Multiple nested and crossed dependencies. Biolinguistics, 5, 010–035.Google Scholar

Dillon, B., Mishler, A., Sloggett, S., & Phillips, C. (2013). Contrasting intrusion profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modeling evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 85–103.Google Scholar

Do, M. & Kaiser, E. (2017). A closer look: Investigating the mechanisms of syntactic satiation. In Kaplan, A. et al. eds., Proceedings of the 34th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 187–194.Google Scholar

Drenhaus, H., Saddy, D., & Frisch, S. (2005). Processing negative polarity items: when negation comes through the backdoor. In Kepser, S. & Reis, M., eds., Linguistic Evidence – Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 145–165.Google Scholar

Eberhard, M. K., Cooper Cutting, J., & Bock, K. (2005). Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review, 112(3), 531–559.Google Scholar

Erdmann, P. (1988). On the principle of “weight” in English. In Duncan-Rose, C. & Vennemann, T., eds., On Language. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 325–339.Google Scholar

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

Fanselow, G. & Féry, C. (2008): Missing superiority effects: Long movement in German (and other languages). In Witkos, J. & Fanselow, G., eds., Elements of Slavic and Germanic Grammars: A Comparative View. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 67–87.Google Scholar

Fanselow, G. & Frisch, S. (2006). Effects of processing difficulty on judgments of acceptability. In Fanselow, G., Féry, C., Vogel, R., & Schlesewsky, M., eds., Gradience in Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 291–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Featherston, S. (2005). Universals and grammaticality: Wh-constraints in German and English. Linguistics, 43, 667–711.Google Scholar

Fedorenko, E. & Gibson, E. (2008). Syntactic parallelism as an account of superiority effects: Empirical investigations in English and Russian. Unpublished manuscript, MIT.Google Scholar

Ferreira, F., Ferraro, V., & Bailey, K. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11–15.Google Scholar

Ferreira, F. & Henderson, J. (1991). Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 725–745.Google Scholar

Ferreira, F. & Patson, N. (2007). The “good enough” approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 71–83.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. D. & Inoue, A. (2000). Syntactic features in reanalysis: Positive and negative symptoms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 25–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Fodor, J. D., Nickels, S., & Schott, E. (2017). Center embedded sentences: What is pronouncable is comprehensible. In de Almeida, R. & Gleitman, L., eds., Minds on Language and Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Francis, E. (2010). Grammatical weight and relative clause extraposition in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 21, 35–74.Google Scholar

Francis, E. & Michaelis, L. (2016). When relative clause extraposition is the right choice, it’s easier. Language and Cognition, 9, 332–370.Google Scholar

Franck, J., Vigliocco, G., & Nicol, J. (2002). Subject–verb agreement errors in French and English: The role of syntactic hierarchy. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17(4), 371–404.Google Scholar

Francom, J. (2009). Experimental syntax: Exploring the effect of repeated exposure to anomalous syntactic structure evidence from rating and reading tasks. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar

Frank, S. & Ernst, P. (2018). Judgements about double-embedded relative clauses differ between languages. Psychological Research, 83(7), 1–13.Google Scholar

Frank, S., Trompenaars, T., & Vasishth, S. (2016). Cross-linguistic differences in processing double-embedded relative clauses: Working-memory constraints or language statistics? Cognitive Science, 40(3), 554–578.Google Scholar

Frazier, L. (1985). Syntactic complexity. In Dowty, D., Karttunen, L., & Zwicky, A., eds., Natural Language Processing: Psychological, Computational and Theoretical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 129–189.Google Scholar

Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In Coltheart, M., ed., Attention and Performance XII: The Psychology of Reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum, pp. 559–586.Google Scholar

Frazier, L., Clifton, C., Carlson, K., & Harris, J. (2014). Standing alone with prosodic help. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 29(4), 459–469.Google Scholar

Giannakidou, A. (2011). Negative and positive polarity items. In von Heusinger, K., Maienborn, C., & Portner, P., eds. Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 1660–1712.Google Scholar

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

Gibson, E. & Thomas, J. (1999). Memory limitations and structural forgetting: The perception of complex ungrammatical sentences as grammatical. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14(3), 225–248.Google Scholar

Gieselman, S, Kluender, R., & Caponigro, I. (2013). Isolating processing factors in negative island contexts. In Fainleib, Y., LaCara, N., & Park, Y., eds., Proceedings of NELS 41. Amherst, MA: GLSA, pp. 233–246.Google Scholar

Gillespie, M. & Pearlmutter, N. (2011). Hierarchy and scope of planning in subject–verb agreement production. Cognition, 118, 377–397.Google Scholar

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

Goodall, G. (2015). The D-linking effect on extraction from islands and non-islands. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1493.Google Scholar

Goodluck, H., Tsiwah, F., & Saah, K. (2017). Island constraints are not the result of sentence processing. Proceedings the Linguistic Society of America, 2(15), 1–10.Google Scholar

Greco, C., Marelli, M., & Haegeman, L. (2017). External syntax and the cumulative effect in subject sub-extraction: An experimental evaluation. The Linguistic Review, 34, 479–531.Google Scholar

Grillo, N., Aguilar, A., Roberts, L., Santi, A., & Turco, G. (2018). Prosody of classic garden path sentences: The horse raced faster when embedded. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003868Google Scholar

Hall, R. (2018). Sättigungseffekte von multiplen W-Sätzen: Einfluss der Superiorität und Belebtheit. BSc thesis, Potsdam.Google Scholar

Hankamer, J. & Sag, I. (1976) Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry, 7, 391–426.Google Scholar

Hartsuiker, R., Anton-Mendez, I., & Van Zee, M. (2001). Object attraction in subject–verb agreement construction. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 546–572.Google Scholar

Häussler, J. & Bader, M. (2015). An interference account of the missing VP effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 766.Google Scholar

Häussler, J., Fanselow, G. Eythórsson, T., Šimik, R., & Vicente, L. (2019). Crossing movement paths: Multiple wh-questions in seven languages. Unpublished manuscript, University of Potsdam.Google Scholar

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

Hawkins, J. (1994). A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hemforth, B. (1993). Kognitives Parsing: Repräsentation und Verarbeitung sprachlichen Wissens. Sankt Augustin: Infix.Google Scholar

Hemforth, B. & Konieczny, L. (2003). Proximity in agreement errors. In Alterman, R. & Kirsh, D., eds., The 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Boston, MA: Cognitive Science Society, pp. 557–562.Google Scholar

Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., Seelig, H., & Walter, M. (2000). Case matching and relative clause attachment. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 81–88.Google Scholar

Hofmeister, P., Culicover, P., & Winkler, S. (2015). Effects of processing on the acceptability of frozen extraposed constituents. Syntax, 184, 464–483.Google Scholar

Hofmeister, P, Jaeger, T. F., Sag, I., Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2007). Locality and accessibility in wh-questions. In Featherston, S. & Sternefeld, S., eds., Roots: Linguistics in Search of its Evidential Base. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 185–206.Google Scholar

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

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

Hofmeister, P., Staum Casasanto, L., & Sag, I. (2012). How do individual cognitive differences relate to acceptability judgments? A reply to Sprouse, Wagers, and Phillips. Language, 88(2), 390–400.Google Scholar

Hofmeister, P, Staum Casasanto, L., & Sag, I. (2013). Islands in the grammar? Standards of evidence. In Sprouse, J. & Hornstein, N., eds., Experimental Syntax and Islands Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 42–63.Google Scholar

Jäger, L. A., Engelmann, F., & Vasishth, S. (2017). Similarity-based interference in sentence comprehension: Literature review and bayesian meta-analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 316–339.Google Scholar

Jung, D.-H, Kim, Y., & Kim, J.-S. (2017). Island effects in Korean Scrambling: An experimental study. Unpublished manuscript, Korea University, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311678736_Island_Effects_in_Korean_Scrambling_An_Experimental_StudyGoogle Scholar

Kaan, E. (2002). Investigating the effects of distance and number interference in processing subject–verb dependencies: An ERP study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 165–193.Google Scholar

Karlson, F. (2007). Constraints on multiple center-embedding of clauses. Journal of Linguistics, 43(2), 365–392.Google Scholar

Keffala, B. (2011). Resumption and gaps in English relative clauses: Relative acceptability creates an illusion of “saving.” In Cathcart, C. et al., eds., Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 140–154.Google Scholar

Keffala, B. & Goodall, G. (2011). Do resumptive pronouns ever rescue illicit gaps in English? Poster presented at the CUNY 2011 Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Stanford University.Google Scholar

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

Keshev, M. & Meltzer-Asscher, A. (2019). A processing-based account of subliminal wh-island effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 37(2), 521–547.Google Scholar

Kim, B. & Goodall, G. (2016). Islands and non-islands in Native and Heritage Korean. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 134.Google Scholar

Kim, C., Kobele, G., Runner, J., & Hale, J. (2011). The acceptability cline in VP ellipsis. Syntax, 14, 318–354.Google Scholar

Kimball, J. & Aissen, J. (1971). I think, you think, he think. Linguistic Inquiry, 2, 241–246.Google Scholar