Chomsky, N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1965.
Labov, W. When intuitions fail. In: McNair, L, Singer, K, Dobrin, LM, AuCoin, MM, eds. CLS 32: Papers from the Parasession on Theory and Data in Linguistics. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society; 1996; 77–106.
Chomsky, N. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger; 1986.
Chomsky, N. Universal grammar. New York Rev Books 1991; 38: 82.
Luka, BJ, Barsalou, LW. Structural facilitation: mere exposure effects for grammatical acceptability as evidence for syntactic priming in comprehension. J Mem Lang 2005; 52: 436–459.
Schütze, CT. The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1996.
Kučera, H, Francis, WN. Computational Analysis of Present‐Day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press; 1967.
Baayen, RH, Piepenbrock, R, Gulikers, L. The CELEX Lexical Database (CD‐ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania; 1995.
Burnard, L. Reference Guide for the British National Corpus (XML Edition), Published for the British National Corpus Consortium by the Research Technologies Service at Oxford University Computing Services; 2007. Available at: http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/docs/URG. (Accessed 24 June, 2010).
Davies, M. The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990–2008+): design, architecture, and linguistic insights. Int J Corpus Linguist 2009; 14: 159–190.
Krauss, M. Linguistics and biology: threatened linguistic and biological diversity compared. In: McNair, L, Singer, K, Dobrin, LM, AuCoin, MM, eds. CLS 32: Papers from the Parasession on Theory and Data in Linguistics. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society; 1996; 69–75.
Bresnan, J, Nikitina, T. The gradience of the dative alternation. In: Uyechi, LA, Wee, L‐H, eds. Reality Exploration and Discovery: Pattern Interaction in Language and Life. Stanford: CSLI Publications; 2010; 161–184.
Resnik, P, Elkiss, A, Lau, E, Taylor, H. The Web in theoretical linguistics research: two case studies using the Linguist`s Search Engine. In: Cover RT, Kim Y, eds. Proceedings of the Thirty‐First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society; 2006; 265–276.
Schütze, CT. Web searches should supplement judgments, not supplant them. Z Sprachwiss 2009; 28: 151–156.
Manning, CD. Probabilistic syntax. In: Bod, R, Hay, J, Jannedy, S, eds. Probabilistic Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2003; 289–341.
Kilgarriff, A, Grefenstette, G. Introduction to the special issue on the Web as corpus. Comput Linguist 2003; 29: 333–347.
Demonte, V, Fernández Soriano, O. Features in comp and syntactic variation: the case of ‘(de)queísmo’ in Spanish. Lingua 2005; 115: 1063–1082.
Keller, F, Lapata, M. Using the web to obtain frequencies for unseen bigrams. Comput Linguist 2003; 29: 459–484.
Eu, J. Testing search engine frequencies: Patterns of inconsistency. Corpus Linguist Linguist Theory 2008; 4: 177–207.
Cowart, W. Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgments. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1997.
Chomsky, N. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton; 1957.
Newmeyer, FJ. Grammatical Theory, its Limits and its Possibilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1983.
Sampson, GR. Grammar without grammaticality. Corpus Linguist Linguist Theory 2007; 3: 1–32.
Hill, AA. Grammaticality. Word 1961; 7: 1–10.
Hakes, DT. The Development of Metalinguistic Abilities in Children. New York: Springer; 1980.
Crain, S, Thornton, R. Investigations in Universal Grammar: A Guide to Experiments on the Acquisition of Syntax and Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1998.
Koster, J. Why subject sentences don`t exist. In: Keyser, SJ, ed. Recent Transformational Studies in European Languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1978; 53–64.
Stowell, TA. Origins of phrase structure. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA; 1981.
Delahunty, GP. But sentential subjects do exist. Linguist Anal 1983; 12: 379–398.
Bever, TG. The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In: Hayes, JR, ed. Cognition and the Development of Language. New York: Wiley; 1970; 279–362.
McKoon, G, Ratcliff, R. Meaning through syntax: language comprehension and the reduced relative clause construction. Psychol Rev 2003; 110: 490–525.
Frazier, L. Syntactic complexity. In: Dowty, DD, Karttunen, L, Zwicky, AM, eds. Natural Language Processing: Psychological, Computational, and Theoretical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1985; 129–189.
Chomsky, N, Miller, GA. Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. In: Luce, RD, Bush, RR, Galanter, E, eds. Handbook of Mathematical Psychology. Vol. 2. New York: John Wiley %26 Sons; 1963; 269–321.
Gibson, E, Thomas, J. Memory limitations and structural forgetting: the perception of complex ungrammatical sentences as grammatical. Lang Cogn Process 1999; 14: 225–248.
Montalbetti, M. After binding: on the interpretation of pronouns. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA; 1984.
Townsend, DJ, Bever, TG. Sentence Comprehension: The Integration of Habits and Rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2001.
Gordon, PC, Hendrick, R. Intuitive knowledge of linguistic co‐reference. Cognition 1997; 62: 325–370.
Da̧browska, E. Naive v. expert intuitions: an empirical study of acceptability judgments. Linguist Rev. 2010; 27: 1–23.
Spencer, NJ. Differences between linguists and nonlinguists in intuitions of grammaticality‐acceptability. J Psycholinguist Res 1973; 2: 83–98.
Valian, V. Psycholinguistic experiment and linguistic intuition. In: Simon, TW, Scholes, RJ, eds. Language, Mind, and Brain. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1982; 179–188.
Bard, EG, Robertson, D, Sorace, A. Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language 1996; 72: 32–68.
Keller, F. Gradience in grammar: experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh; 2000.
Featherston, S. Data in generative grammar: the stick and the carrot. Theor Linguist 2007; 33: 269–318.
Sprouse, J. A program for experimental syntax: finding the relationship between acceptability and grammatical knowledge. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park; 2007.
Myers, J. The design and analysis of small‐scale syntactic judgment experiments. Lingua 2009; 119: 425–444.
Phillips, C, Lasnik, H. Linguistics and empirical evidence: reply to Edelman and Christiansen. Trends Cogn Sci 2003; 7: 61–62.
Phillips, C, Wagers, M. Relating structure and time in linguistics and psycholinguistics. In: Gaskell, MG, ed. Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007; 739–756.
Likert, R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 1932; 140: 1–55.
Stevens, SS. On the psychophysical law. Psychol Rev 1957; 64: 153–181.
Featherston, S. Magnitude estimation and what it can do for your syntax: some wh‐constraints in German. Lingua 2005; 115: 1525–1550.
Sprouse, J, Cunningham, H. Evaluating the assumptions of magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Ms., University of California at Irvine; 2010.
Weskott, T, Fanselow, G. Scaling issues in the measurement of linguistic acceptability. In: Featherston, S, Winkler, S, eds. The Fruits of Empirical Linguistics I: Process. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; 2009; 229–246.
Murphy, B, Vogel, C. An empirical comparison of measurement scales for judgements of acceptability. Poster presented at the International Conference on Linguistic Evidence, University of Tübingen, February; 2008.
Featherston, S. A scale for measuring well‐formedness: why syntax needs boiling and freezing points. In: Featherston, S, Winkler, S, eds. The Fruits of Empirical Linguistics I: Process. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; 2009; 47–74.
Sorace, A, Keller, F. Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua 2005; 115: 1497–1524.
Featherston, S. The decathlon model: design features for an empirical syntax. In: Kepser, S, Reis, M, eds. Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; 2005; 187–208.
Newmeyer, FJ. Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language 2003; 79: 682–707.
Armstrong, SL, Gleitman, LR, Gleitman, H. What some concepts might not be. Cognition 1983; 13: 263–308.
Barsalou, LW. The instability of graded structure: implications for the nature of concepts. In: Neisser, U, ed. Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1987; 101–140.
Featherston, S. Universals and grammaticality: wh‐constraints in German and English. Linguistics 2005; 43: 667–711.
Haider, H. Deutsche Syntax—Generativ. Tübingen: Narr; 1993.
Chomsky, N. Conditions on transformations. In: Anderson, SR, Kiparsky, P, eds. A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1973; 232–286.
Kluender, R, Kutas, M. Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Lang Cogn Process 1993; 8: 573–633.
Crain, S, Fodor, JD. How can grammars help parsers? In: Dowty, D, Karttunen, L, Zwicky, A, eds. Natural Language Parsing: Psychological, Computational, and Theoretical Approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1985; 94–128.
Stowe, LA. Parsing WH‐constructions: Evidence for on‐line gap location. Lang Cogn Process 1986; 1: 227–245.
Sprouse, J. The differential sensitivity of acceptability to processing effects. Linguist Inq 2008; 39: 686–694.
Fodor, JD, Inoue, A. The diagnosis and cure of garden paths. J Psycholinguist Res 1994; 23: 407–434.
Edelman, S, Christiansen, MH. How seriously should we take Minimalist syntax? Trends Cogn Sci 2003; 7: 60–61.
Dresher, E. There`s no reality like psychological reality. Glot Int 1995; 1: 7.
Bresnan, J. Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In: Featherston, S, Sternefeld, W, eds. Roots: Linguistics in Search of its Evidential Base. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; 2007; 77–96.
Labov, W. Empirical foundations of linguistic theory. In: Austerlitz, R, ed. The Scope of American Linguistics. Lisse, The Netherlands: Peter de Ridder; 1975; 77–133.
Fodor, JA, Bever, TG. The psychological reality of linguistic segments. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav 1965; 4: 414–420.
Miller, GA, Chomsky, N. Finitary models of language users. In: Luce, RD, Bush, RR, Galanter, E, eds. Handbook of Mathematical Psychology. Vol. 2. New York: John Wiley %26 Sons; 1963; 419–491.
Fodor, JA, Bever, TG, Garrett, MF. The Psychology of Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics and Generative Grammar. New York: McGraw‐Hill; 1974.
Phillips, C. Order and structure. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA: 1996.
Chomsky, N. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris; 1981.
Featherston, S. Empty Categories in Sentence Processing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2001.
Nicol, J, Swinney, D, Love, T, Hald, L. The on‐line study of sentence comprehension: an examination of dual task paradigms. J Psycholinguist Res 2006; 35: 215–231.
Neville, H, Nicol, JL, Barss, A, Forster, KI, Garrett, MF. Syntactically‐based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event‐related brain potentials. J Cogn Neurosci 1991; 3: 151–165.
Brennan, J, Pylkkänen, L. Processing events: behavioral and neuromagnetic correlates of Aspectual Coercion. Brain Lang 2008; 106: 132–143.
Pylkkänen, L, McElree, B. An MEG study of silent meaning. J Cogn Neurosci 2007; 19: 1905–1921.
Pylkkänen, L, Martin, AE, McElree, B, Smart, A. The anterior midline field: coercion or decision making? Brain Lang 2009; 108: 184–190.
Pylkkänen, L. Mismatching meanings in brain and behavior. Lang Linguist Compass 2008; 2: 712–738.
Berwick, RC, Weinberg, AS. The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance: Language Use and Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1984.
Birdsong, D. Metalinguistic Performance and Interlinguistic Competence. New York: Springer; 1989.
Borsley, RD. Data in theoretical linguistics. Special issue. Lingua 2005; 115: 1475–1665.
Botha, RP. The Conduct of Linguistic Inquiry: A Systematic Introduction to the Methodology of Generative Grammar. The Hague: Mouton; 1981.
Carr, P. Linguistic Realities: An Autonomist Metatheory for the Generative Enterprise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990.
Chomsky, N. Some methodological remarks on generative grammar. Word 1961; 17: 219–239.
Featherston, S, Sternefeld, W, eds. Roots: Linguistics in Search of its Evidential Base. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; 2007.
Fillmore, CJ, Kempler, D, Wang, WS, eds. Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behavior. New York: Academic Press; 1979.
Gerken, L, Bever, TG. Linguistic intuitions are the result of interactions between perceptual processes and linguistic universals. Cogn Sci 1986; 10: 457–476.
Greenbaum, S. Good English and the Grammarian. London: Longman; 1988.
Kilgarriff, A, Grefenstette, G. The Web as corpus. Special issue. Comput Linguist 2003; 29: 333–502.
Levelt, WJM. Formal Grammars in Linguistics and Psycholinguistics. 3 Vols. The Hague: Mouton; 1974.
Linebarger, MC, Schwartz, MF, Saffran, EM. Sensitivity to grammatical structure in so‐called agrammatic aphasics. Cognition 1983; 13: 361–392.
McNair, L, Singer, K, Dobrin, LM, AuCoin, MM, eds. CLS 32: Papers from the Parasession on Theory and Data in Linguistics. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society; 1996.
Penke, M, Rosenbach, A. What counts as evidence in linguistics? The case of innateness. Special issue. Stud Lang 2004; 28: 477–747.
Perry, TA, ed. Evidence and Argumentation in Linguistics. Berlin: de Gruyter; 1979.
Sampson, GR. Empirical Linguistics. London/New York: Continuum; 2001.
Schütze, CT. Thinking about what we are asking speakers to do. In: Kepser, S, Reis, M, eds. Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; 2005; 457–484.