Book contents
- Inconsistency in Linguistic Theorising
- Inconsistency in Linguistic Theorising
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Preface
- Abbreviations and central terms
- 1 Introduction
- Part I The State of the Art
- Part II Paraconsistency
- Part III Plausible Argumentation
- Part IV Summary
- References
- Index
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 June 2022
Book contents
- Inconsistency in Linguistic Theorising
- Inconsistency in Linguistic Theorising
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Preface
- Abbreviations and central terms
- 1 Introduction
- Part I The State of the Art
- Part II Paraconsistency
- Part III Plausible Argumentation
- Part IV Summary
- References
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Inconsistency in Linguistic Theorising , pp. 309 - 316Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Arabatzis, T. (2008). Experiment. In Psillos, S., and Curd, M. (eds.), The Routledge companion to philosophy of science. London; New York: Routledge, 159–170.Google Scholar
Archangeli, D. (1997). Optimality theory: An introduction to linguistics in the 1990s. In Archangeli, D., and Langendoen, D. T. (eds.), Optimality Theory: An overview. Oxford: Blackwell, 1–33.Google Scholar
Arppe, A., and Järvikivi, J. (2007). Take empiricism seriously! In support of methodological diversity in linguistics. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3, 99–109.Google Scholar
Baltin, M. R. (1987). Degree complements. In Huck, G. J., and Ojeda, A. E. (eds.), Discontinuous constituency. Orlando: Academic Press, 11–26.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2006). Linguistic minimalism: Origins, concepts, methods and aims. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2010). Linguistic minimalism. In Heine, B., and Narrog, H. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 485–505.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., and Schlesewsky, M. (2007). The wolf in sheep’s clothing: Against a new judgement-driven imperialism. Theoretical Linguistics 33(3), 319–333.Google Scholar
Botha, R. P. (1988). Form and meaning in word formation: A study of Afrikaans reduplication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brame, M. (1984). Universal word induction vs. move α. Linguistic Analysis 14, 313–352.Google Scholar
Bueno, O., and Vickers, P. (eds.) (2014). Is science inconsistent? (Special issue of Synthese 191, 2887–3158).Google Scholar
Carnielli, W., and Coniglio, M. E. (2016). Paraconsistent logic: Consistency, contradiction and negation. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Carnielli, W., and Malinowski, J. (eds.) (2018). Contradictions. From consistency to inconsistency. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Chang, H. (2011). Beyond case studies: History as philosophy. In Mauskopf, S., and Schmaltz, T. (eds.), Integrating history and philosophy of science. Dordrecht: Springer, 109–124.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, S., and Kiparsky, P. (eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Academic Press, 232–286.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2004). The generative enterprise revisited. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Clements, C. N., and Keyser, S. J. (1983). CV phonology: A generative theory of the syllable. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Daniels, N. (2003). Reflective equilibrium. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2003/entries/reflective-equilibrium/.Google Scholar
Devitt, M., and Sterelny, K. (1999). Language and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dikken, M. den, Bernstein, J. B., Tortora, Ch., and Zanuttini, R. (2007). Data and grammar: Means and individuals. Theoretical Linguistics 33(3), 335–352.Google Scholar
Dogil, G., and Jessen, M. (1989). Phonologie in der Nähe der Phonetik. Die Affrikaten im Polnischen und Deutschen. In Prinzhorn, M. (ed.), Phonologie. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 223–279.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, K. (1987). Configurationality in Hungarian. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó & Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. (2007). Carrots – perfect as vegetables, but please not as a main dish. Theoretical Linguistics 33(3), 353–367.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2005). The Decathlon Model: Design features for an empirical syntax. In Kepser, S., and Reis, M. (eds.), Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical and computational perspectives. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 187–208.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2007). Data in generative grammar: The stick and the carrot. Theoretical Linguistics 33(3), 269–318.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2009a). Relax, lean back, and be a linguist. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 28, 127–132.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2009b). A scale for measuring well-formedness: Why syntax needs boiling and freezing points. In Featherston, S., and Winkler, S. (eds.), The fruits of empirical linguistics. Vol. 1: Process. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 47–73.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2011). Three types of exceptions – and all of them rule-based. In Simon, H. J., and Wiese, H. (eds.), Expecting the unexpected: Exceptions in grammar. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 291–324.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2019). The decathlon model. In Kertész, A., Moravcsik, E., and Rákosi, Cs. (eds.), Current approaches to syntax: A comparative handbook. Berlin; Boston: de Gruyter Mouton, 155–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Featherston, S., Hörnig, R., Steinberg, R., Umbreit, B., and Wallis, J. (eds.) (2017). Proceedings of linguistic evidence 2016: Empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives. Tübingen: University of Tübingen Press. https://publikationen.uni-tuebingen.de/xmlui/handle/10900/77066.Google Scholar
Fehér, M. (1990). The essential tension. (On the role of inconsistencies in science). Studies in Soviet Thought 39, 231–239.Google Scholar
Ficara, E. (ed.) (2014). Contradictions: Logic, history, actuality. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Foster, J. (2007). Real bad grammar: Realistic grammatical description with grammaticality. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3, 73–86.Google Scholar
Freidin, R., and Vergnaud, J.-R. (2001). Excuisite connections: Some remarks on the evolution of linguistic theory. Lingua 111, 639–666.Google Scholar
Giere, R. N. (2011). History and philosophy of science. Thirty-five years later. In Mauskopf, S., and Schmaltz, T. (eds.), Integrating history and philosophy of science. Dordrecht: Springer, 59–65.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. (1955). Fact, fiction, and forecast. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (ed.) (1978). Universals of human language. 4 vols. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, G. (1988). Aspekte der deutschen Syntax. Eine Rektions-Bindungs-Analyse. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, G. (2007). Empirical evidence and theoretical reasoning in generative grammar. Theoretical Linguistics 33(3), 369–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th., Hampe, B., and Schönefeld, D. (2005a). Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16(4), 635–676.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th., Hampe, B., and Schönefeld, D. (2005b). Converging evidence II: More on the association of verbs and constructions. In Newman, J., and Rice, S. (eds.), Empirical and experimental methods in cognitive/functional research. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Guéron, J., and May, R. (1984). Extraposition and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 1–31.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1996). The disunities of science. In Galison, P., and Stump, D. J. (eds.), The disunity of science. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 37–74.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1991). Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford; Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haider, H. (2004). The superiority conspiracy. In Stepanov, A., Fanselow, G., and Vogel, R. (eds.), The minimal link condition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 167–175.Google Scholar
Haider, H. (2005). How to turn German into Icelandic – and derive the VO-OV contrasts. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 8, 1–53.Google Scholar
Haider, H. (2007). As a matter of facts – comments on Featherston’s sticks and carrots. Theoretical Linguistics 33(3), 381–394.Google Scholar
Haider, H. (2009). The thin line between facts and fiction. In Featherston, S., and Winkler, S. (eds.), The fruits of empirical linguistics. Vol. 1: Process. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 75–102.Google Scholar
Haider, H. (2011). Exceptions and anomalies. In Simon, H. J., and Wiese, H. (eds.), Expecting the unexpected – Exceptions in grammar. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 325–334.Google Scholar
Hale, M., and Reiss, C. (2008). The phonological enterprise. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, T. A. (1991). Über ein ungültiges Argument für den Affrikatenstatus von Plosiv + Frikativ Sequenzen im Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte 134, 310–313.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, L. (1969). Prolegomena to a theory of language. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2007). ‘Good is good and bad is bad’: But how do we know which one we had? Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3, 87–98.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N., Nunes, J., and Grohmann, K. K. (2005). Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Howson, C. (2000). Evidence and confirmation. In Newton-Smith, W. H. (ed.), A companion to the philosophy of science. Oxford: Blackwell, 108–116.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. (2000). Anaphora: A cross-linguistic study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hung, E. (2014). Philosophy of science complete: A text on traditional problems and schools of thought. Belmont: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Itkonen, E. (2003). What is language? A study in the philosophy of linguistics. Turku: University of Turku Press.Google Scholar
Kager, R. (1997). Book review of Richard Wiese, The Phonology of German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1, 55–72.Google Scholar
Kepser, S., and Reis, M. (2005). Evidence in linguistics. In Kepser, S., and Reis, M. (eds.), Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical and computational perspectives. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1–6.Google Scholar
Kertész, A. (1993). Heuristik der deutschen Phonologie. Eine elementare Einführung in Strategien der Problemlösung. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Kertész, A. (2004a). Philosophie der Linguistik. Studien zur naturalisierten Wissenschaftstheorie. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Kertész, A. (2004b): Cognitive semantics and scientific knowledge: Case studies in the cognitive science of science. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kertész, A. (2012). The ‘Galilean style in science’ and the inconsistency of linguistic theorising. Foundations of Science 17, 91–108.Google Scholar
Kertész, A. (2015). The puzzle of thought experiments in conceptual metaphor research. Foundations of Science 20, 147–174.Google Scholar
Kertész, A. (2016). Poor vs. good thought experiments in pragmatics: A case study. In Allan, K., Capone, A., and Kecskés, I. (eds.), Pragmemes and theories of language use. Cham: Springer, 643–677.Google Scholar
Kertész, A. (2021). Diverging evidence and alethic relativism in linguistics. In progress.Google Scholar
Kertész, A., and Kiefer, F. (2013). From thought experiments to real experiments in pragmatics. In Capone, A., Lo Piparo, F., Carapezza, M. (eds.), Perspectives on pragmatics and philosophy. Cham: Springer, 53–86.Google Scholar
Kertész, A., and Rákosi, Cs. (2006). Inconsistency and plausible reasoning in an analysis of German affricates: A case study in the philosophy of linguistics. Language Sciences 28, 386–423.Google Scholar
Kertész, A., and Rákosi, Cs. (2009). Cyclic vs. circular argumentation in the Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Cognitive Linguistics 20, 703–732.Google Scholar
Kertész, A., and Rákosi, Cs. (2019 [2012]). Data and evidence in linguistics: A plausible argumentation model. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kertész, A., and Rákosi, Cs. (2013). Paraconsistency and plausible argumentation in generative grammar: A case study. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 22, 195–230.Google Scholar
Kertész, A., and Rákosi, Cs. (2016). On the inferential structure of indirect reports. In Capone, A., Kiefer, F., and Lo Piparo, F. (eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics: Interdisciplinary studies. Cham: Springer, 435–470.Google Scholar
Kertész, A., and Rákosi, Cs. (2019). The uncertainty of syntactic theorizing. In Kertész, A., Moravcsik, E., and Rákosi, Cs. (eds.), Current approaches to syntax: A comparative handbook. Berlin; Boston: de Gruyter Mouton, 469–492.Google Scholar
Kertész, A., and Rákosi, Cs. (eds.) (2014). The evidential basis of linguistic argumentation. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kertész, A., Rákosi, Cs., and Csatár, P. (2012). Data, problems, heuristics and results in cognitive metaphor research. Language Sciences 34, 715–724.Google Scholar
Kertész, A., Moravcsik, E., and Rákosi, Cs. (eds.) (2019). Current approaches to syntax: A comparative handbook. Berlin; Boston: de Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klausenburger, J. (1983). Review of Botha, R., On the ‘Galilean style’ of linguistic inquiry. Language 59, 434.Google Scholar
Kloeke, W. van L. (1982). Deutsche Phonologie und Morphologie. Merkmale und Markiertheit. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Kuhlmann, M. (2017). Allgemeine Wissenschaftsphilosophie und die Philosophien der Einzelwissenschaften. In Lohse, S., and Reydon, T. (eds.), Grundriss Wissenschaftsphilosophie. Philosophien der Einzelwissenschaften. Hamburg: Meiner, 17–50.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1970 [1962]). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1970a). History of science and its rational reconstructions. PSA: Proceedings of the biennial meeting of the philosophy of science association, 1970, 91–136.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1970b). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In Lakatos, I., and Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 91–195.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1978). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In Worrall, J., and Currie, G. (eds.), The methodology of scientific research programmes (Philosophical Papers: Volume 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 8–101. (= Lakatos [1970b])Google Scholar
Larson, R. K. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335–391.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems: Towards a theory of scientific growth. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lohse, S., and Reydon, T. (eds.) (2017). Grundriss Wissenschaftsphilosophie. Philosophien der Einzelwissenschaften. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
Machamer, P. (2017). Galileo Galilei. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/galileo.Google Scholar
Meheus, J. (2002). Preface. In Meheus, J. (ed.), Inconsistency in science. Dordrecht: Kluwer, vii–ix.Google Scholar
Meurers, W. D. (2007). Advancing linguistics between the extremes: Some thoughts on Geoffrey R. Sampson’s ‘Grammar without grammaticality’. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3, 49–55.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, E. (2006). An introduction to syntactic theory. London; New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, E. (2010). Conflict resolution in syntactic theory. Studies in Language 34, 636–669.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, E. (2011). Coming to grips with exceptions. In Simon, H. J., and Wiese, H. (eds.), Expecting the unexpected – exceptions in grammar. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 31–56.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. (2007). Commentary on Sam Featherston, ‘Data in generative grammar: The stick and the carrot’. Theoretical Linguistics 33(3), 395–399.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. (2011). Three approaches to exceptionality in syntactic typology. In Simon, H. J., and Wiese, H. (eds.), Expecting the unexpected – exceptions in grammar. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 255–282.Google Scholar
Nickles, T. (2000). Lakatos. In Newton-Smith, W. H. (ed.), A companion to the philosophy of science. Oxford: Blackwell, 207–212.Google Scholar
Nickles, T. (2002). From Copernicus to Ptolemy: Inconsistency and method. In Meheus, J. (ed.), Inconsistency in science. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1–33.Google Scholar
Nübling, D. (2011). How do exceptions arise? On different paths to morphological irregularity. In Simon, H. J., and Wiese, H. (eds.), Expecting the unexpected – exceptions in grammar. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 139–162.Google Scholar
Nola, R., and Irzik, G. (2005). Philosophy, science, education and culture. Berlin; Heidelberg; New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Penke, M., and Rosenbach, A. (2004). What counts as evidence in linguistics? Studies in Language 28(3), 480–526.Google Scholar
Penke, M., and Rosenbach, A. (2007). What counts as evidence in linguistics? An introduction. In Penke, M., and Rosenbach, A. (eds.), What counts as evidence in linguistics? Amsterdam; Philadelphia: Benjamins, 1–50.Google Scholar
Penke, M., and Rosenbach, A. (eds.) (2007). What counts as evidence in linguistics? Amsterdam; Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pitt, J. C. (2001). The dilemma of case studies: Toward a heraclitian philosophy of science. Perspectives on Science 9(4), 373–382.Google Scholar
Pollock, J. L. (2001). Defeasible reasoning with variable degrees of justification. Artificial Intelligence 133, 233–282.Google Scholar
Postal, P. (1974). On raising: One rule of English grammar and its theoretical implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Postal, P. (1988). Advances in linguistic rhetoric. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 129–137.Google Scholar
Priest, G. (1998). What is so bad about contradictions? The Journal of Philosophy 95, 410–426.Google Scholar
Priest, G. (2002a). Inconsistency and the empirical sciences. In Meheus, J. (ed.), Inconsistency in science. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 119–128.Google Scholar
Priest, G. (2002b). Paraconsistent logic. In Gabbay, D. M., and Guenthner, F. (eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 287–393.Google Scholar
Priest, G., Beall, J. C., and Armour-Garb, B. (eds.) (2004). The law of non-contradiction. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Priest, G., Tanaka, K., and Weber, Z. (2018). Paraconsistent logic. In Zalta, E. N. (ed)., The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/.Google Scholar
Prinz, M., and Wiese, R. (1991). Die Affrikaten des Deutschen und ihre Verschriftung. Linguistische Berichte 133, 165–189.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K. (2007 ). Ungrammaticality, rarity, and corpus use. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3, 33–47.Google Scholar
Rabin, S. (2019). Nicolaus Copernicus. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/copernicus.Google Scholar
Rákosi, Cs. (2011a). Metatheoretical reconstruction of psycholinguistic experiments. Part I. Sprachtheorie und germanistische Linguistik 21(1), 55–93.Google Scholar
Rákosi, Cs. (2011b). Metatheoretical reconstruction of psycholinguistic experiments. Part II. Sprachtheorie und germanistische Linguistik 21(2), 159–187.Google Scholar
Rákosi, Cs. (2012). The fabulous engine: Strengths and flaws of psycholinguistic experiments. Language Sciences 34(6), 682–702.Google Scholar
Rákosi, Cs. (2014a). Inconsistency in two approaches to German affricates. Part 1: The basic inconsistency of German affricates in Wurzel’s approach. Sprachtheorie und germanistische Linguistik 24(1), 77–105.Google Scholar
Rákosi, Cs. (2014b). Inconsistency in two approaches to German affricates. Part 2: The basic inconsistency of German affricates in Prinz & Wiese’s approach. Sprachtheorie und germanistische Linguistik 24(2), 151–182.Google Scholar
Rákosi, Cs. (2017a). Replication of psycholinguistic experiments and the resolution of inconsistencies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 46(5), 1249–1271.Google Scholar
Rákosi, Cs. (2017b). ‘Experimental complexes’ in psycholinguistic research on metaphor processing. Sprachtheorie und germanistische Linguistik 27(1), 3–32.Google Scholar
Rescher, N. (1988). Rationality: A philosophical inquiry into the nature and the rationale of reason. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Rescher, N., and Brandom, R. (1980). The logic of inconsistency: A study in non-standard possible-world semantics and ontology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rescher, N., Manor, R. (1970). On inference from inconsistent premises. Theory and Decision 1, 179–217.Google Scholar
Riemer, N. (2009). Grammaticality as evidence and as prediction in a Galilean linguistics. Language Sciences 31, 612–633.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1978). A restructuring rule in Italian syntax. In Keysar, S. J. (ed.), Recent transformational studies in European languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roland, D., and Jurafsky, D. (2002). Verb sense and verb subcategorization probabilities. In Stevenson, S., and Merlo, P. (eds.), The lexical basis of sentence processing: Formal, computational, and experimental issues. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 325–346.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Ruphy, S. (2016). Scientific pluralism reconsidered: A new approach to the (dis)unity of science. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Saddock, J. M. (1991). Autolexical syntax: A theory of parallel grammatical representations. Chicago; London, The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A. (1987). Grammatical hierarchy and linear precedence: Discontinuous constituency. In Huck, G., and Ojeda, A. E. (eds.), Discontinuous constituency. Orlando: Academic Press, 303–340.Google Scholar
Sampson, G. R. (2007a). Grammar without grammaticality. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3, 1–32.Google Scholar
Sauer, T., and Scholl, R. (eds.) (2016). The philosophy of historical case studies. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Schindler, S., Drożdżowicz, A., and Brøcker, K. (eds.) (2020). Linguistic intuitions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schlesewsky, M. (2009). Linguistische Daten aus experimentellen Umgebungen: Eine multiexperimentelle und multimodale Perspektive. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 28, 169–178.Google Scholar
Scholl, R., and Räz, T. (2016). Towards a methodology for integrated history and philosophy of science. In Sauer, T., and Scholl, R. (eds.), The philosophy of historical case studies. Cham: Springer, 69–91.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. T. (1996). The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H. J., and Wiese, H. (eds.) (2011). Expecting the unexpected – exceptions in grammar. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Smith, G. (2008). Isaac Newton. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/newton/.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (2007). Linguistics beyond grammaticality. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3, 57–71.Google Scholar
Sternefeld, W. (ed.) (2007). Data in generative grammar (Special issue of Theoretical Linguistics 33(3).Google Scholar
Tanaka, K., Berto, F., Mares, E., and Paoli, F. (2013). Paraconsistency: Introduction. In Tanaka, K., Berto, F., Mares, E., and Paoli, F. (eds.), Paraconsistency: Logic and applications. Dordrecht: Springer, 1–12.Google Scholar
Turner, R., and Angius, N. (2017). The philosophy of computer science. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computer-science/.Google Scholar
Vogel, R. (2011). Disagreement, variation, markedness, and other apparent exceptions. In Simon, H. J., Wiese, H. (eds.), Expecting the unexpected – exceptions in grammar. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 339–360.Google Scholar
Wasow, T., Jaeger, F. T., and Orr, D. (2011). Lexical variation in relativizer frequency. In Simon, H. J., and Wiese, H. (eds.), Expecting the unexpected – exceptions in grammar. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 175–196.Google Scholar
Weinberg, S. (1976). The forces of nature. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 29, 13–29.Google Scholar
White, J. R. (1997). Result clauses and the structure of degree phrases. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 9, 1–20.Google Scholar
Willems, K. (2012). Intuition, introspection and observation in linguistic inquiry. Language Sciences 34, 665–681.Google Scholar
Wurzel, W. U. (1981). Phonologie: Segmentale Struktur. In Heidolph, K. E. et al. (eds.), Grundzüge einer deutschen Grammatik. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 898–990.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L. (1982). On the relationship of the lexicon to syntax. PhD dissertation. MIT.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L. (1987). Levels of representation in the lexicon and in the syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar