Abe, J. (2014). A Movement Theory of Anaphora. Studies in Generative Grammar, vol. 120. Boston, MA, and Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Abney, S. (1987). The English noun-phrase in its sentential aspect. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Abrahamsson, N. (2012). Age of onset and native-like L2 ultimate attainment of morphosyntactic and phonetic intuition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34: 187–214.Google Scholar

Adger, D. (2013). Constructions are not explanations. Lingbuzz 001675. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001675Google Scholar

Aitchison, J. (2003). Psycholinguistic perspectives on language change. In Joseph, B. and Janda, R., eds, The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, pp. 736–43. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Akhtar, N. and Tomasello, M. (1997). Young children’s productivity with word order and verb morphology. Developmental Psychology 33 (6): 952–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Alario, F.-X., Costa, A., Ferreira, S. V. and Pickering, M. J. (2006). Architectures, representations and processes of language production. Language and Cognitive Processes 21: 777–89.Google Scholar

Allen, J. and Seidenberg, M. S. (1999). The emergence of grammaticality in connectionist networks. In MacWhinney, B, ed., The Emergence of Language, pp. 115–52. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Altmann, G. T. M. (1989). Parsing and interpretation: An introduction. Language and Cognitive Processes 4: SI1–SI19.Google Scholar

Altmann, G. T. M. (1998). Ambiguity in sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Science 2 (4): 146–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Alves, M. (1999). What’s so Chinese about Vietnamese? In Thurgood, G., ed., Papers from the Ninth Annual Meeting of the South East Asian Linguistics Society 1999, pp. 221–41. Arizona: Arizona State University.Google Scholar

Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., Chang, F. and Bidgood, A. (2013). The retreat from overgeneralization in child language acquisition: Word learning, morphology, and verb argument structure. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 4 (1): 47–62.Google Scholar

Andersen, H. (1978). Perceptual and conceptual factors in abductive innovations. In Fisiak, J., ed., Recent Developments in Historical Phonology, pp. 1–22. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Andersson, L.-G. (1998). Some languages are harder than others. In Bauer, L. and Trudgill, P., eds, Language Myths, pp. 50–7. London: Penguin.Google Scholar

Andics, A., Gábor, A., Gácsi, M., Faragó, T., Szabó, D. and Miklósi, Á. (2016). Neural mechanisms for lexical processing in dogs. Science 353 (6303): 1030–32.Google Scholar

Andreou, G. and Katsarou, D. (2013). Language learning in children with Down Syndrome: Receptive and expressive morphosyntactic abilities. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences 93: 921–4.Google Scholar

Aoun, J., Hornstein, N., Lightfoot, D. and Weinberg, A. (1987). Two types of locality. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 537–78.Google Scholar

Aoun, J. and Li, Y.-H. A. (1989). Scope and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 141–72.Google Scholar

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

Aronoff, M. (1976). Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Authier, J.-M. (1992). Iterated CPs and embedded topicalization. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 329–36.Google Scholar

Axel, K. and Kitziak, T. (2007). Contributing to the extraction/parenthesis debate: Judgement data and historical data. In Featherston, S. and Sternefeld, W., eds, Roots: Linguistics in Search of its Evidential Base, pp. 29–52. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Bacon, R. (Nolan, E., ed.) (1902). Grammatica Graeca [Greek Grammar]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bailey, C.-J. N. and Maroldt, K. (1977). The French lineage of English. In Meisel, J., ed., Pidgins – Creoles – Languages in Contact, pp. 21–53. Tübingen: Günther Narr.Google Scholar

Baillargeon, R. (1987). Object permanence in 3½-and 4½-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology 23: 655–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baillargeon, R. (2002). The acquisition of physical knowledge in infancy: A summary in eight lessons. In Goswami, U., ed., Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development, pp. 46–83. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Baillargeon, R., Scott, R. M. and Bian, L. (2016). Psychological reasoning in infancy. Annual Review of Psychology 67: 159–86.Google Scholar

Baker, M. (2001). The Atoms of Language: The Mind’s Hidden Rules of Grammar. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Baker, M. (2008). The macroparameter in a microparametric world. In Biberauer, T., ed., The Limits of Syntactic Variation, pp. 351–73. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Baker, M., Johnson, K. and Roberts, I. (1989). Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 219–51.Google Scholar

Baltin, M. (1987). Do antecedent-contained deletions exist? Linguistic Inquiry 18: 579–95.Google Scholar

Barlow, M. and Kemmer, S. (2000). Usage-Based Models of Language. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar

Barton, E. (1986). Interacting models: Constituent structures and constituent utterances. In Farley, A. M., Farley, P. T. and McCullough, K.-E., eds, CLS 22: Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory, pp. 140–51. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Basbøll, H. (2005). The Phonology of Danish. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bates, E. and Goodman, J. C. (1997). On the inseparability of grammar and the lexicon: Evidence from acquisition, aphasia and realtime processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 12 (5/6): 507–84.Google Scholar

Bauer, H. H. (1994). Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar

Behme, C. (2013). Remarks on recursive misrepresentations by Legate et al. (2013). Lingbuzz 001840. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001840Google Scholar

Behme, C. (2014). A ‘Galilean’ science of language. Journal of Linguistics 50: 671–704.Google Scholar

Berent, I., Brem, A.-K., Zhao, X., Seligson, E., Pan, H., Epstein, J., Stern, E., Galaburda, A. M. and Pascual-Leone, A. (2015). Role of the motor system in language knowledge. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112: 1983–8.Google Scholar

Berk, S. (2003). Why why is different. In Beachley, B., Brown, A. and Conlin, F., eds, Boston University Conference on Language Development, vol. 27, pp. 127–37. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

Berko, J. (1958). The child’s learning of English morphology. Word 14: 150–77.Google Scholar

Berko, J. and Brown, R. (1960). Word association and the acquisition of grammar. Child Development 31: 1–14.Google Scholar

van Berkum, J. J. A. (1996). The Psycholinguistics of Grammatical Gender. Nijmegen: Nijmegen University Press.Google Scholar

Bernstein, B. (2004). Class, Codes and Control, vol. 2: Applied Studies Towards a Sociology of Language. Abingdon, UK, and New York: Routledge. Originally published 1973.Google Scholar

Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In Hays, J. R, ed., The Development of Language, pp. 279–362. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Bever, T. G. and McElree, B. (1988). Empty categories access their antecedents during comprehension. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 34–43.Google Scholar

Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis 20: 3–49.Google Scholar

Bley-Vroman, R., Felix, S. and Ioup, G. (1988). The accessibility of Universal Grammar in adult language learning. Second Language Research 4: 1–32.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Bobaljik, J. (2012). Universals of Comparative Morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bobaljik, J. (2015). Distributed morphology. Manuscript, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar

Bobaljik, J. and Wurmbrand, S. (2008). Case in GB/minimalism. In Malchukov, A. and Spencer, A., eds, Handbook of Case, pp. 44–58. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bock, K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18: 355–87.Google Scholar

Boeckx, C. (2006). Linguistic Minimalism: Origins, Concepts, Methods and Aims. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Boeckx, C. (2008). Bare Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Boeckx, C. (2009). Language in Cognition: Uncovering Mental Structures and the Rule Behind Them. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Bolhuis, J. J., Okanoya, K. and Scharff, C. (2010). Twitter evolution: Converging mechanisms in birdsong and human speech. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11: 747–59.Google Scholar

Bölte, J. and Connine, C. M. (2004). Grammatical gender in spoken word recognition in German. Perception & Psychophysics 66: 1018–32.Google Scholar

Bonet, E. and Harbour, D. (2012). Contextual allomorphy. In Trommer, J., ed., The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence, pp. 195–235. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bonneville-Roussy, A., Rentfrow, P. J., Xu, M. K. and Potter, J. (2013). Music through the ages: Trends in musical engagement and preferences from adolescence through middle adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 105: 703–17.Google Scholar

Borer, H. (1988). On the morphological parallelism between compounds and constructs. Yearbook of Morphology 1: 45–66.Google Scholar

Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought?: Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology 43: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, L. A. and Phillips, W. (2003). Sex, syntax, and semantics. In Gentner, D. and Goldin-Meadow, S., eds, Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Cognition, pp. 61–79. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Borsche, T. (1990). Wilhelm Von Humboldt. Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar

Bouton, L. F. (1970). Antecedent-contained pro-forms. In Campbell, M. A., Lindholm, J., Davison, A., Fisher, W., Furbee, L., Lovins, J., Maxwell, E., Reighard, J. and Straight, S., eds, Proceedings of Sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 154–67. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Bowerman, M. (1982). Reorganizational processes in lexical and syntactic development. In Wanner, E. and Gleitman, L., eds, Language Acquisition: The State of the Art, pp. 319–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bowerman, M. (1988). The ‘no negative evidence’ problem: How do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar? In Hawkins, J. A., ed., Explaining Language Universals, pp. 73–104. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Bowerman, M. and Choi, S. (2001). Shaping meanings for language: Universal and language-specific in the acquisition of spatial semantic categories. In Bowerman, M. and Levinson, S., eds, Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development, pp. 475–511. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bransford, J. D. and Franks, J. J. (1971). The abstraction of linguistic ideas. Cognitive Psychology 2: 231–350.Google Scholar

Bresnan, J. (1971). Sentence stress and syntactic transformations. Language 47 (2): 257–81.Google Scholar

Brooks, P. J., Tomasello, M., Dodson, K. and Lewis, L. B. (1999). Young children’s overgeneralizations with fixed transitivity verbs. Child Development 70: 1325–37.Google Scholar

Brown, C. (1997). Acquisition of segmental structure: Consequences for speech perception and second language acquisition. PhD thesis, Department of Linguistics, McGill University.Google Scholar

Brown, C. (2000). The interrelation between speech perception and phonological acquisition from infant to adult. In Archibald, J., ed., Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory, pp. 4–63. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Bruening, B. and Tran, T. (2006). Wh-questions in Vietnamese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15: 319–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bryson, B. (2005). A Short History of Nearly Everything. New York: Broadway Books/Random House.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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

Bybee, J. and Hopper, P. J. (2001b). Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. In Bybee, J. L. and Hopper, P. J., eds, Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, pp. 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. and Thompson, S. A. (1997). Three frequency effects in syntax. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Structure, pp. 378–88. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

Byrne, D. (2010). Song lyrics are overrated. CNN Online.Google Scholar

Cahill, L. and Gazdar, G. (1999). German noun inflection. Journal of Linguistics 35: 1–42.Google Scholar

Cahill, T. (1995). How the Irish Saved Civilization: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Heroic Role from the Fall of Rome to the Rise of Medieval Europe. New York and London: Anchor Books/Doubleday.Google Scholar

Cai, Z., Sturt, P. and Pickering, M. (2011/2012). The effect of non-adopted analyses on sentence processing. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 27: 1286–311.Google Scholar

Callahan, S. M., Shapiro, L. P. and Love, T. (2010). Parallelism effects and verb activation: The sustained reactivation hypothesis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 39: 101–18.Google Scholar

Campbell, J. (2013). Thou Art That: Transforming Religious Metaphor. Novato, CA: New World Library.Google Scholar

Campbell, L. (1998). Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Campbell, R. N. (2006). Language development: Pre-scientific studies. In Brown, K., ed., Encyclopedia of Languages and Linguistics, pp. 391–4. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Cappelen, H. and Lepore, E. (2005). A tall tale: In defense of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. In Preyer, G. and Peter, G., eds, Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning, and Truth, pp. 197–220. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carnie, A. (2011). Syntax: A Generative Introduction, second edition. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Cedergren, H. J., Levac, L. and Perreault, H. (1992). Durational effects of prosodic structure in spontaneous spoken French. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 91 (4): 2387.Google Scholar

Cedergren, H. J., and Perreault, H. (1994). Speech rate and syllable timing in spontaneous speech. In Proceedings of ICSLP ’94, Yokohama, vol. 3, 1087–90. Tokyo: Acoustical Society of Japan.Google Scholar

Chien, Y.-C. and Wexler, K. (1990). Children’s knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition 1: 225–95.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G. (1995). Dynamics of Meaning: Anaphora, Presupposition and the Theory of Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Choi, S. ([2009] 2015). Language specific spatial semantics and cognition: Developmental patterns in English and Korean. In Lee, C., Simpson, G. B. and Kim, Y., eds, The Handbook of East Asian Psycholinguistics, pp. 107–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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

Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language 35: 26–58.Google Scholar

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

Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. and Rosenbaum, P., eds, Readings in Transformational Grammar, pp. 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Co.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, S. R. and Kiparsky, P., eds, A Festschrift for Morris Halle, pp. 232–85. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1977). Essays on Form and Interpretation. Amsterdam: Elsevier/North-Holland.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures, vol. 9. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1985). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and Problems of Knowledge: The Managua Lectures. Current Studies in Linguistics, vol. 16. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phrase. In Kenstowicz, M., ed., Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2008). On phases. In Freidin, R., Otero, C. and Zubizarreta, M. L., eds, Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, pp. 133–66. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2010). Poverty of Stimulus: Some Unfinished Business. Paris: CNRS Images.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N., Belletti, A. and Rizzi, L. (2002). On Nature and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Chorost, M. (2014). Your brain on metaphors. Chronicle of Higher Education. http://chronicle.com/article/Your-Brain-on-Metaphors/148495/Google Scholar

Christiansen, M. H. and Chater, N. (2008). Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31: 489–509.Google Scholar

Christodoulou, C. and Wexler, K. (2016). The morphosyntactic development of case in Down Syndrome. Lingua 184: 25–52.Google Scholar

Chung, S. and McCloskey, J. (1987). Government, barriers and small clauses in Modern Irish. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 173–237.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. (2002). Mapping Functional Structure. In Cinque, G., ed., Functional Structure in the IP and DP, pp. 3–11. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cinque, G. (2005). Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 315–32.Google Scholar

Clahsen, H. and Featherston, S. (1999). Antecedent priming at trace positions: Evidence from German scrambling. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28: 415–37.Google Scholar

Clahsen, H. and Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics 27: 3–42.Google Scholar

Clahsen, H. and Muysken, P. (1986). The availability of Universal Grammar to adult and child learners: A study of the acquisition of German word order. Second Language Research 2: 93–119.Google Scholar

Clark, E. V. (1993). The Lexicon in Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cocker, E. (1736). Cocker’s Arithmetick, Perused and Published by J. Hawkins, 48th edition. London: John Hawkins.Google Scholar

Cohen, D. (2008). Equations from God: Pure Mathematics and Victorian Faith. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Collins, C. (1991). Why and how come. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, pp. 31–45. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar

Collins, J. (2011). The Unity of Linguistic Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Coltheart, M. (2013). How can functional neuroimaging inform cognitive theories? Perspectives on Psychological Science 8: 98–103.Google Scholar

Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R. and Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review 108: 204–56.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. (1981). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology, second edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Conroy, A. and Lidz, J. (2007). Production/comprehension asymmetry in children’s why questions. In Belikova, A. et al., eds, Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Language Acquisition North America (Galana), pp. 73–83. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

Conroy, A. and Thornton, R. (2005). Children’s knowledge of Principle C in discourse. In Otsu, Y., ed., Proceedings of the Sixth Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, pp. 69–94. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobu.Google Scholar

Conway Morris, S. (2003). Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cook, V. (1991). The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multicompetence. Second Language Research 7: 103–17.Google Scholar

Cook, V. (1995). Multicompetence and effects of age. In Singleton, D. and Lengyl, Z., eds, The Age Factor in Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Cooper, J. (1991). Drug-Related Problems in Geriatric Nursing Home Patients. New York: Pharmaceutical Products Press.Google Scholar

Cooper, M. and Chalfant, H. (1984). Subway Art. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar

Corbett, G. G. (1991). Gender, Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Corbett, G. and Fraser, N. (1993). Network morphology: A DATR account of Russian nominal inflection. Journal of Linguistics 29: 113–42.Google Scholar

Cornips, L. and Corrigan, K., eds (2005). Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological and the Social. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Craik, K. J. W. (1967). The Nature of Explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original edition, 1943.)Google Scholar

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

Crain, S. (1993). Language acquisition in the absence of experience. In Bloom, P., ed., Language Acquisition: Core Readings, pp. 364–409. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar

Crain, S. and McKee, C. (1985). The acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora. In Berman, S., Choe, J.-W. and McDonough, J., eds, Proceedings of NELS 15, pp. 94–110. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar

Crain, S. and Nakayama, M. (1987). Structure dependence in grammar formation. Language 63: 522–43.Google Scholar

Crain, S. and Pietroski, P. (2001). Nature, nurture and Universal Grammar. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 139–86.Google Scholar

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

Crisma, P. (1990). Functional categories inside the noun phrase: A study on the distribution of nominal modifiers. Tesi di Laurea, University of Venice.Google Scholar

Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Culicover, P. (1993). Evidence against ECP accounts of the that-trace effect. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 557–61.Google Scholar

Culicover, P. (1998). The minimalist impulse. In Culicover, P. W. and McNally, L., eds, The Limits of Syntax, pp. 44–77. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Culicover, P. (1999). Syntactic Nuts: Hard Cases, Syntactic Theory and Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Culicover, P. and Jackendoff, R. (2005). Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cutler, A., ed. (2005). Twenty-First Century Psycholinguistics: Four Cornerstones. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Cutler, A. (2015). Native Listening: Language Experience and the Recognition of Spoken Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Cutler, A., Dahan, D. and Van Donselaar, W. (1997). Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Language and Speech 40: 141–201.Google Scholar

Cutler, A. and Norris, D. (1988). The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 14: 113–21.Google Scholar

Cutler, A. and Otake, T. (1994). Mora or phoneme? Further evidence for language-specific listening. Journal of Memory and Language 33: 824–844.Google Scholar

Dabrowska, E. (2001). Learning a morphological system without a default: the Polish genitive. Journal of Child Language 28: 545–74.Google Scholar

Dabrowska, E. and Street, J. (2006). Individual differences in language attainment: Comprehension of passive sentences by native and non-native English speakers. Language Sciences 28: 604–15.Google Scholar

Dahan, D., Swingley, D., Tanenhaus, M. and Magnuson, J. S. (2000). Linguistic gender and spoken-word recognition in French. Journal of Memory and Language 42: 465–80.Google Scholar

Darwin, E. (1794). Zoonomia, or the Laws of Organic Life, vol. II (third edition 1801). London: J. Johnson. Cited in Ridley (1999: 12).Google Scholar

de Carvalho, A., Lidz, J., Tieu, L., Bleam, T. and Christophe, A. (2016). English-speaking preschoolers can use phrasal prosody for syntactic parsing. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 139 (6): EL216–EL22.Google Scholar

de Villiers, J. D. and Pyers, J. E. (2002). Complements to cognition: A longitudinal study of the relationship between complex syntax and false-belief-understanding. Cognitive Development 17: 1037–60.Google Scholar

Dehaene, S. and Cohen, L. (1991). Two mental calculation systems: A case study of severe acalculia with preserved approximation. Neuropsychologia 29: 1045–54.Google Scholar

Deprez, V. and Pierce, A. (1993). Negation and functional projections in early grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 25–67.Google Scholar

Desai, R. H., Binder, J. R., Conant, L. L., Mano, Q. R. and Seidenberg, M. S. (2011). The neural career of sensory-motor metaphors. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 23: 2376–86.Google Scholar

Devlin, K. (1998). The Language of Mathematics: Making the Invisible Visible. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar

Dixon, J. A., Mahoney, B. and Cocks, R. (2002). Accents of guilt? Effects of regional accent, ‘race’ and crime type on attributions of guilt. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 21: 162−8.Google Scholar

Dobler, T. (2013). Ever the twain shall meet? Croatian Journal of Philosophy XIII (38): 293–311.Google Scholar

Doherty, C. (1994). The syntax of subject contact relatives. In Beals, K., ed., Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 55–65. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Doherty, C. (2013). Clauses without ‘That’: The Case for Bare Sentential Complementation in English. Abingdon, UK, and New York: Routledge. Originally published in 2000 by Garland Publishing.Google Scholar

Dromi, E. (1987). Early Lexical Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Duffield, N. (1993). On Case-checking and NPI licensing in Hiberno-English. Rivista di Linguistica 5: 215–44.Google Scholar

Duffield, N. (1996). On structural invariance and lexical diversity in VSO languages: Arguments from Irish noun-phrases. In Borsley, R. and Roberts, I., eds, The Syntax of the Celtic Languages, pp. 314–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Duffield, N. (2003). Measures of competent gradience. In van Hout, R., Hulk, A., Kuiken, F. and Towell, R., eds, The Lexicon–Syntax Interface in Second Language Acquisition, pp. 97–127. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Duffield, N. (2004). Implications of competent gradience. Moderne Sprachen 45: 95–117.Google Scholar

Duffield, N. (2010). Roll up for the mystery tour! Lingua 120: 2673–5.Google Scholar

Duffield, N. (2013). On polarity emphasis, assertion and mood in English and Vietnamese. Lingua 137: 248–70.Google Scholar

Duffield, N. (2014). Shake can well. Lingbuzz 002119. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002119Google Scholar

Duffield, N. (2015). On what projects. Lingbuzz 002429. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002429Google Scholar

Duffield, N. (2016). Seeing names, hearing faces: A cross-modal investigation of perceptual narrowing in second language learners. Paper presented at PacSLRF 2016, Chuo University, Tokyo.Google Scholar

Duffield, N. (2017a). On what projects in Vietnamese. Journal of East Asian Lingusitics (in press).Google Scholar

Duffield, N. (2017b). Which Other Race Effect? Cross-linguistic and cross-modal asymmetries in perceptual narrowing. Manuscript, Konan University.Google Scholar

Duffield, N., Matsuo, A. and Roberts, L. (2010). Factoring out the parallelism effect in VP-ellipsis: English vs. Dutch contrasts. Second Language Research 25 (4), 427–67.Google Scholar

Durham, M. (2011). Right dislocation in Northern England: Frequency and use – perception meets reality. English World-Wide 32 (3): 257–79.Google Scholar

Durrell, M. (2011). Hammer’s German Grammar and Usage, fifth edition. Abingdon, UK, and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Eco, U. (1993). La Ricerca Della Lingua Perfetta. Rome and Bari: Editori Laterza.Google Scholar

Edwards, H. T. and Kirkpatrick, A. G. (1999). Metalinguistic awareness in children: A developmental progression. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28: 313–29.Google Scholar

Einstein, A. (1934). On the method of theoretical physics: The Herbert Spencer lecture. Philosophy of Science 1 (2): 163–9.Google Scholar

Eisenbeiss, S. (2000). The acquisition of the determiner phrase in German child language. In Friedemann, M.-A. and Rizzi, L., eds, The Acquisition of Syntax. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Eisenbeiss, S. (2002). Merkmalsgesteuerter Grammatikerwerb: Eine Untersuchung zum Erwerb der Struktur und Flexion von Nominalphrasen. PhD dissertation, Linguistics Department, Heinrich Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf.Google Scholar

Ellegård, A. (1953). The Auxiliary Do: The Establishment and Regulation of Its Use in English. Gothenburg Studies in English, vols 2, 3. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar

Ellis, A. W. and Young, A. W. (1988). Human Cognitive Neuropsychology. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Elman, J. L. (1993). Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of starting small. Cognition 48: 71–99.Google Scholar

Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D. and Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Embick, D. and Marantz, A. (2005). Cognitive neuroscience and the English past tense: Comments on the paper by Ullman et al. Brain and Language 93: 243–7.Google Scholar

Embick, D. and Noyer, R. (2007). Distributed morphology and the syntax–morphology interface. In Ramchand, G. and Reiss, C., eds, Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, pp. 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Embick, D. and Poeppel, D. (2015). Towards a computational(ist) neurobiology of language: Correlational, integrated, and explanatory neurolinguistics. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30: 357–66.Google Scholar

Eppler, E. D. and Ozón, G. (2013). English Words and Sentences: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Epstein, S. D., Flynn, S. and Martohardjono, G. (1996). Second language acquisition: Theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research. Brain and Behavioral Sciences 19: 677–714.Google Scholar

Epstein, S. D. and Seely, T. D. (2006). Derivations in Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Erteschik-Shir, N. (1997). The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Etcoff, N. (1999). Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty. London: Abacus Books.Google Scholar

Evans, G. (1982). The Varieties of Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Evans, N. and Levinson, S. (2009). The myth of Language Universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32: 429–92.Google Scholar

Everett, D. L. (2005). Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã. Current Anthropology 46: 621–46.Google Scholar

Everett, D. L. (2009). Pirahã culture and grammar: A response to some criticisms. Language 85: 405–42.Google Scholar

Everett, D. L. (2013). Language: The Cultural Tool. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar

Eysenck, M. (1984). A Handbook of Cognitive Psychology. London and Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Fabri, R. (1993). Kongruenz und die Grammatik des Maltesischen [Agreement and the Grammar of Maltese]. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar

Fassi Fehri, A. (1999). Arabic modifying adjectives and DP structures. Studia Linguistica 53: 105–54.Google Scholar

Fay, D. and Cutler, A. (1977). Malapropisms and the structure of the mental lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 505–20.Google Scholar

Fearon, J. D. (2003). Ethnic and cultural diversity by country. Journal of Economic Growth 8: 195–222.Google Scholar

Featherston, S. (2001). Empty Categories in Sentence Processing. Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, vol. 43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

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

Ferreira, F., Ferraro, V. and Bailey, K. G. D. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science 11: 11–5.Google Scholar

Ferreira, F. and Patson, N. D. (2007). The ‘good enough’ approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass 1: 71–83.Google Scholar

Ferreira, V. S. (2006). How are speakers’ linguistic choices affected by ambiguity? In Meyer, A. S., Krott, A. and Wheeldon, L. R., eds, Automaticity and Control in Language Processing, pp. 63–92. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Ferreira, V. S. and Bock, K. (2006). The functions of structural priming. Language and Cognitive Processes 21: 1011–29.Google Scholar

Ferreira, V. S. and Dell, G. S. (2000). The effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology 40: 296–340.Google Scholar

Ferreira, V. S., Slevc, L. R. and Rogers, E. S. (2005). How do speakers avoid ambiguous linguistic expressions? Cognition 96: 263–94.Google Scholar

Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P. and O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and Idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64: 501–38.Google Scholar

Fisher, S. E. and Scharff, C. (2009). FOXP2 as a molecular window into speech and language. Trends in Genetics 25: 166–77.Google Scholar

Fisher, S. E., Vargha-Khadem, F., Watkins, K. E., Monaco, A. P. and Pembrey, M. E. (1998). Localisation of a gene implicated in a severe speech and language disorder. Nat Genet 18: 168–70.Google Scholar

Flege, J. E., Takagi, N. and Mann, V. (1996). Lexical familiarity and English-language experience affects Japanese adults’ perception of /ɹ/ and /L/. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 99: 1161–73.Google Scholar

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

Fodor, J. A. (1975). The Language of Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. A. (1981). The present status of the innateness controversy. In RePresentations: Philosophical Essays on the Foundations of Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. A. (1998). Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. A., Bever, T. G. and Garrett, M. F. (1974). The Psychology of Language. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. A. and Garrett, M. F. (1967). Some syntactic determinants of sentential complexity. Perception & Psychophysics 2: 289–96.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. D. (1998). Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 27: 285–319.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. D. (2002). Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. In Hirotani, M., ed., Proceedings of NELS 32, vol. 1, pp. 113–32. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar

Foley, W. A. and Van Valin, R. D. (1984). Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Frank, S. L., Bod, R. and Christiansen, M. H. (2012). How hierarchical is language use? Proceedings of the Royal Society B 279: 4522–31.Google Scholar

Fraser, N. and Corbett, G. (1997). Defaults in Arapesh. Lingua 103: 25–57.Google Scholar

Frazier, L. (1990). Exploring the architecture of the language processing System. In Altmann, G. T. M., ed., Cognitive Models of Speech Processing, pp. 409–33. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Frazier, L. and Flores d’Arcais, G. (1989). Filler driven parsing: A study of gap filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language 28: 331–44.Google Scholar

Frazier, L., Taft, L., Roeper, T., Clifton, C. and Ehrlich, K. (1984). Parallel structure: A source of facilitation in sentence comprehension. Memory and Cognition 12: 421–30.Google Scholar

Freeborn, D. (2005). From Old English to Standard English: A Course Book in Language Variations across Time. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Frege, G. ([1892] 1952). On sense and reference. In Geach, P. and Black, M., eds, Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Friederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6: 78–84.Google Scholar

Fromkin, V. and Rodman, R. (1993). An Introduction to Language, fifth edition. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar

Fruchter, J., Stockall, L. and Marantz, A. (2013). MEG masked priming evidence for form-based decomposition of irregular verbs. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7: 798.Google Scholar

Fujita, K. (1996). Double objects, causatives and derivational economy. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 146–73.Google Scholar

Gabrielli, L. H., Cardenas, J., Poitras, C. B. and Lipson, M. (2009). Cloaking at optical frequencies. arXiv:0904.3508v1 [physics.optics].Google Scholar

Gardner, R. C. (2010). Motivation and Second Language Acquisition. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Gass, S. M. and Selinker, L. (2001). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. Abingdon, UK, and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Gattuso, J. (2005). The Lotus Still Blooms: Sacred Buddhist Teachings for the Western Mind. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin USA.Google Scholar

Gauvenet, H., Hassan, M., Gross, H. and Mason, B. (1963). Bonjour Line: An Audio-Visual French Course for Children Starting at Primary Level. London: G.G. Harrap.Google Scholar

van Gelderen, E. (2000). The absence of verb-movement and the role of C: Some negative constructions in Shakespeare. Studia Linguistica 54: 412–23.Google Scholar

Gentner, D. and Stevens, A. L., eds (1983). Mental Models. New York and London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Geuder, W. and Weisgerber, M. (2006). Manner and causation in movement verbs. In Ebert, C. and Endriss, C., eds, Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 10, pp. 125–38. ZAS Papers in Linguistics. Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung.Google Scholar

Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S. T. and Fedorenko, E. (2013). Quantitative methods in syntax/semantics research: A response to Sprouse and Almeida (2013). Language and Cognitive Processes 28: 229–40.Google Scholar

Gladwell, M. (2013). David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits and the Art of Battling Giants. New York: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar

Gleitman, H. and Gleitman, L. R. (1979). Language use and language judgment. In Fillmore, C. J., Kempler, D. and Wang, W. S., eds, Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behavior, pp. 103–26. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Goddard, C. and Wierzbicka, A. (2002). Semantic primes and Universal Grammar. In Goddard, C and Wierzbicka, A, eds, Meaning and Universal Grammar: Theory and Empirical Findings, pp. 41–85. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Goethe, J. W. von ([1821] 1907). Maximen und Reflexionen, Aphorismen und Aufzeichnungen: Nach den Handschriften des Goethe-und-Schiller-Archivs, vol. 3: Aus Kunst und Altertum. Edited by Hecker, M. Weimar: Verlag der Goethe- Gesellschaft.Google Scholar

Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Construction Grammar: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gombert, J. E. (1992). Metalinguistic Development. Translated by T. Pownall. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar

Goodluck, H. and Zweig, E. (2013). Introduction: Formal vs. processing explanations of linguistic phenomena. Language and Cognitive Processes 28: 1–8.Google Scholar

Gopnik, M. (1990). Feature-blind grammar and dysphasia. Nature 344: 715.Google Scholar

Gopnik, M. and Crago, M. B. (1991). Familial aggregation of a developmental language disorder. Cognition 39: 1–50.Google Scholar

Goto, H. (1971). Auditory perception by normal Japanese adults of the sounds ‘L’ and ‘R’. Neuropsychologia 9: 317–23.Google Scholar

Gould, S. J. (1987). An Urchin in the Storm. London: W. W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar

Gould, S. J. (2002). The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Gould, S. J. and Eldredge, N. (1977). Punctuated equilibria: The tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology 3: 115–51.Google Scholar

Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. H, ed., Universals of Language, pp. 58–90. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Greenleaf, A., Lassas, M. and Uhlmann, G. (2003). Anisotropic conductivities that cannot be detected by EIT. Physiol. Meas. 24: 413–19.Google Scholar

Gregg, K. R. (1984). Krashen’s monitor and Occam’s razor. Applied Linguistics 5: 79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grice, H. P. ([1975] 1989). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L, eds, Syntax and Semantics III: Speech Acts, pp. 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Guasti, M.-T. (2004). Language Acquisition: The Growth of Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Gussenhoven, C. (1984). On the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Hackl, M., Koster-Hale, J. and Varvoutis, J. (2012). Quantification and ACD: Evidence from real time sentence processing. Journal of Semantics 29: 145–206.Google Scholar

Haden, E. F. (1955). The uvular r in French. Language 31: 504–10.Google Scholar

Haeberli, E. and Ihsane, T. (2016). Revisiting the loss of verb movement in the history of English. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34: 497–542.Google Scholar

Haiman, J. and Thompson, S. A., eds (1988). Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Typological Studies in Language, vol. 18. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. (1970). A Course in Spoken English: Intonation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. (2005). On Grammar. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar

Hambrich, D. Z., Macnamara, B.N., Campitelli, G., Ullén, F., and Mosing, M. A. (2016). Beyond born vs. made: a new look at expertise. In B. H. Hall, ed., Psychology of Learning and Motivation, vol. 64, pp. 1–55. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Han, C.-H. (2000). The evolution of do-support in English imperatives. In Pintzuk, S., Tsoulas, G and Warner, A. R., eds, Diachronic Syntax: Models and Mechanisms, pp. 275–95. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Han, C.-H. and Kroch, A. S. (2000). The rise of do-support in English: Implications for clause-structure. In Hirotani, M., Coetzee, A., Hall, N. and Kim, J.-Y., eds, Proceedings of NELS 30, pp. 311–26. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar

Hankamer, J. (1971). Deletion in coordinate structures. PhD dissertation, Yale University.Google Scholar

Hankamer, J. (1979). Deletion in Coordinate Structures. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Hankamer, J. and Sag, I. (1976). Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7: 391–428.Google Scholar

Hansell, M. (2007). Built by Animals: The Natural History of Animal Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Harbour, D. (2015). Untitled (segment). More than Words: Morphology and the Universality of language. Symposium at NYU Abu Dhabi Institute. www.youtube.com/watch?v=39Gpbm9qgzsGoogle Scholar

Hardt, D. (1993). Verb phrase ellipsis: Form, meaning and processing. PhD dissertation, Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Harley, H. (1995). Subjects, events, and licensing. PhD dissertation, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Harmon, D. and Loh, J. (2010). The index of linguistic diversity: A new quantitative measure of trends in the status of the world’s languages. Language Documentation & Conservation 4: 97–151.Google Scholar

Harris, M. and Coltheart, M. (1986). Language Processing in Adults and Children. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Hartshorne, J. K. and Ullman, M. T. (2006). Why do girls say ‘holded’ more than boys? Developmental Science 9: 21–32.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, M. (2000). Why can’t we talk to each other? Lingua 110: 235–55.Google Scholar

Hawkins, J. A. (1983). Word Order Universals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Hawkins, J. A. (1995). A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, vol. 73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hawkins, J. A. (2001). Why are categories adjacent? Journal of Linguistics 37: 1–34.Google Scholar

Hawkins, P. R. (2004). Hesitation phenomena and pausing. In Bernstein, B., ed., Class, Codes and Control, vol. 2: Applied Studies Towards a Sociology of Language. Taylor & Francis (originally published 1973).Google Scholar

Hayes, B. (1982). Extrametricality and English stress. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 227–76.Google Scholar

Hegarty, M. (2005). A Feature-Based Syntax of Functional Categories. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. and Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33: 61–135.Google Scholar

Henry, A. (1995). Dialect Variation and Parameter-Setting: A Study of Belfast English and Standard English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Heycock, C. (2013). The syntax of predication. In M. den Dikken, ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax, pp. 322–52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hill, T. (2015). Geometry and Faith: A Supplement to the Ninth Bridgewater Treatise – Scholar’s Choice Edition. BiblioLife.Google Scholar

Hiramatsu, K. and Lillo-Martin, D. (1998). Children who judge ungrammatical what they produce. Paper presented at Boston University Conference on Child Language Development.Google Scholar

Hoffman, A. (2016). Dogs know when you’re praising them: That doesn’t mean they understand human speech. The Smithsonian, 2 September 2016. www .smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-say-dogs-understand-human- speech-how-can-we-be-sure-180960336/Google Scholar

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

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

Hogenboom, M. (2014). Spectacular real virgin births. BBC Online. www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141219-spectacular-real-virgin-birthsGoogle Scholar

Hogg, R. and Denison, D., eds (2006). A History of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hopper, P. J. (1987). Emergent grammar. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

Hornstein, N. (2012). Why this blog? Faculty of Language. http://facultyoflanguage.blogspot.com/2012_09_01_archive.htmlGoogle Scholar

Hovdhaugen, E. (1990). Una et eadem: Some observations on Roger Bacon’s Greek grammar. In Bursill-Hall, G. L., Ebbesen, S. and Koerner, E. F. K., eds, De Ortu Grammaticae: Studies in Medieval Grammar and Linguistic Theory in Memory of Jan Pinborg. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Huang, C.-T. J. (1984). On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 531–44.Google Scholar

Huddleston, R., Pullum, G. et al. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hurford, J. R., Heasley, B. and Smith, M. B. (2007). Semantics: A Coursebook, second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ibrahim, M. H. (1973). Grammatical Gender: Its Origin and Development. The Hague and Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar

Imai, M., Kita, S., Nagumo, M. and Okada, H. (2008). Sound symbolism facilitates early verb learning. Cognition 109: 54–65.Google Scholar

Inagaki, S. (2001). Motion verbs with goal PPs in the L2 acquisition of English and Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23: 153–70.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. (1992). Babe Ruth homered his way into the hearts of America. In Stowell, T. and Wehrli, E, eds, Syntax and the Lexicon, pp. 155–78. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Jacobson, P. and Gibson, E. (2014). Processing of ACD gives no evidence of QR. In Proceedings of SALT 24, pp. 156–76.Google Scholar

Jakobson, R. ([1959] 2000). On linguistic aspects of translation. In Venuti, L., ed., The Translation Studies Reader, pp. 138–43. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

James, A. (2000). States and sovereignty. In Salmon, T., ed., Issues in International Relations, pp. 1–24. Abingdon, UK, and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Jawaid, B. and Ahmed, T. (2009). Hindi to Urdu conversion: Beyond simple transliteration. In Proceedings of the Conference on Language & Technology 2009. Lahore, Pakistan: National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences.Google Scholar

Jespersen, O. (1949). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles: I-VII. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar

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

Johnson, K. (1991). Object positions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9: 577–636.Google Scholar

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference and Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Johnson-Laird, P. N. and Stevenson, R. (1970). Memory for syntax. Nature 227 (5256): 412.Google Scholar

Johnston, J. and Slobin, D. I. (1979). The development of locative expressions in English, Italian, Serbo-Croatian, and Turkish. Journal of Child Language 16: 531–47.Google Scholar

Jones, S. (1993). The Language of the Genes: Biology, History and the Evolutionary Future. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar

Joos, M. (1957). Readings in Linguistics: The Development of Descriptive Linguistics in America since 1925. Washington, DC: American Council of Learned Societies.Google Scholar

Juffs, A. and Harrington, M. (1995). Parsing effects in second language sentence processing: Subject and object asymmetries in wh-extraction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17: 483–516.Google Scholar

Juffs, A. and Harrington, M. (1996). Garden path sentences and error data in second language sentence processing. Language Learning 46: 283–326.Google Scholar

Juffs, A. and Rodríguez, G. A. (2015). Second Language Sentence Processing. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Jung, C. G. ([1954] 1981). Collected Works of C. G. Jung, vol. 17: Development of Personality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Kabuzono, H. (2006). Phonetic and phonological organization of speech. In Nakayama, M., Mazuka, R. and Shirai, Y., eds, The Handbook of East Asian Psycholinguistics, pp. 191–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kacinik, N. A. (2014). Sticking your neck out and burying the hatchet: What idioms reveal about embodied simulation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8: 689.Google Scholar

Kay, J., Lesser, R. and Coltheart, M. (1992). Psycholinguistic Assessments of Language Processing in Aphasia (Palpa). Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Kayne, R. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kayne, R. and Pollock, J.-Y. (2008). Toward an analysis of French hyper-complex inversion. In Brugè, L., Cardinaletti, A., Giusti, G., Munaro, N. and Poletto, C., eds, Functional Heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Keenan, E. (2003). An historical explanation of some binding theoretic facts in English. In Moore, J. and Polinsky, M., eds, The Nature of Explanation in Linguistic Theory, pp. 152–89. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Kellerman, E. and van Hoof, A. (2003). Manual accents. International Review of Applied Linguistics 41: 251–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kerswill, P. (1996). Children, adolescents and language change. Language Variation and Change 8: 177–202.Google Scholar

Kiefer, F. (1980). Yes-no questions as wh-questions. In Searle, J. R., Kiefer, F. and Bierwisch, M., eds, Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics, pp. 97–120. Dordrecht, Boston and London: D. Reidel.Google Scholar

Kilbury, J. (2001). German noun inflection revisited. Journal of Linguistics 37: 339–53.Google Scholar

Kimberley, A. (2015). On the supposed incompatability of truth-conditional semantics and semantic underdetermination. Conference presentation. https://eastanglia.academia.edu/AdamKimberleyGoogle Scholar

Kiparsky, P. (2013). Towards a null theory of the passive. Lingua 125: 7–33.Google Scholar

Kita, S. and Özyürek, A. (2003). What does cross-linguistic variation in semantic coordination of speech and gesture reveal?: Evidence for an interface representation of spatial thinking and speaking. Journal of Memory and Language 48: 16–32.Google Scholar

Klein, W. and Perdue, C. (1997). The basic variety (Or: Couldn’t natural language be much simpler?). Second Language Research 14: 301–47.Google Scholar

Klima, E. (1964). Negation in English. In Fodor, J. and Katz, J., eds, The Structure of Language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Kluender, R. and Kutas, M. (1993). Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes 8: 573–640.Google Scholar

Knoeferle, P. and Crocker, M. W. (2009). Constituent order and semantic parallelism in online comprehension: Eye-tracking evidence from German The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 62: 2338–71.Google Scholar

Krashen, S. (1977). Some issues relating to the monitor model. In Brown, H. D., Yorio, C. A. and Crymes, R. H., eds, On TESOL ’77: Teaching and Learning English as a Second Language: Trends in Research and Practice. Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar

Krauss, M. (1992). The world’s languages in crisis. Language 68: 4–10.Google Scholar

Krifka, M., Pelletier, F. J., Carlson, G. N., ter Meulen, A., Chierchia, G. and Link, G. (1995). Genericity: An introduction. In Carlson, G. N. and Pelletier, F. J., eds, The Generic Book, pp. 1–124. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

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

Kroch, A. S. (2003). Syntactic Change. In Baltin, M. and Collins, C., eds, Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Kuhl, P. (2004). Early language acquisition: Cracking the speech code. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 5: 831–43.Google Scholar

Kuhl, P. K., Tsao, F.-M. and Liu, H.-M. (2003). Foreign-language experience in infancy: Effects of short-term exposure and social interaction on phonetic learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100: 9096–101.Google Scholar

Kuhl, P. K., Williams, K. A., Lacerda, F., Stevens, K. N. and Lindblom, B. (1992). Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. Science 255: 606–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Labov, W. (1981). Resolving the Neogrammarian controversy. Language 57: 267–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Labov, W. (1994). Principles of Linguistic Change, three volumes. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Labov, W. and Labov, T. (1978). Learning the syntax of questions. In Campbell, R. and Smith, P., eds, Recent Advances in the Psychology of Language III, pp. 1–44. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar

Ladd, D. R. ([1996] 2008). Intonational Phonology, second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Laenzlinger, C. (2005). French adjective ordering: Perspectives on DP-internal movement types. Lingua 115: 645–89.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. ([1965] 1970). On the nature of syntactic irregularity. Dissertation, Indiana University. Published as Irregularity in Syntax (1970), New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. (1986). Frame semantic control of the co-ordinate structure constraint. In Farley, A. M., Farley, P. T. and McCullough, K.-E., eds, CLS 22: Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory, pp. 152–67. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors We Live By. London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Land, F. (1974). The Language of Mathematics. London: John Murray.Google Scholar

Langacker, R. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Lardiere, D. (2016). Missing the trees for the forest: Morphology in second language acquisition. Second Language 15: 5–28.Google Scholar

Larson, B. (2015). Right node raising and non-grammaticality. Lingbuzz 002421. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002421Google Scholar

Larson, R. K. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–91.Google Scholar

Leopold, W. (1949). Speech Development of a Bilingual Child, vol. 4. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar

Lev-Ari, S. and Keysar, B. (2010). Why don’t we believe non-native speakers? The influence of accent on credibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46: 1093–6.Google Scholar

Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Levin, B. and Rappaport Hovav, M. (2007). Reflections on the complementarity of manner and result (handout of a talk on 21 November 2007, Berlin). Manuscript, Stanford University. http://web.stanford.edu/~bclevin/pubs.htmlGoogle Scholar

Levinson, S. C. and Evans, N. (2010). Time for a sea-change in linguistics. Lingua 120: 2733–58.Google Scholar

Lewis, B. A., Shriberg, L. D., Freebairn, L. A., Hansen, A. J., Stein, C. M., Taylor, H. J. and Iyengar, S. K. (2006). The genetic bases of speech sound disorders: Evidence from spoken and written language. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 49: 1249–312.Google Scholar

Lewis, C. S. ([1960] 2013). Studies in Words, third edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lieberman, P. (2015). Review of The Science of Language: Interviews with James McGilvray (Chomsky). Modern Language Review 110: 222–4.Google Scholar

Lieven, E., Tomasello, M., Behrens, H. and Speares, J. (2003). Early syntactic creativity: A usage-based approach. Journal of Child Language 30: 333–370.Google Scholar

Lightfoot, D. (1991). How to Set Parameters: Arguments from Language Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Lightfoot, D. (1992). Why UG needs a learning theory. In Jones, C., eds, Historical Linguistics, pp. 191–213. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. and Bhatia, T. K., eds, Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, pp. 413–68. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Loschky, L. (2008). Comprehensible input and second language acquisition: What is the relationship? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16: 303–23.Google Scholar

Losonsky, M., ed. (1999). Humboldt: On Language. Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lyons, J. ([1965] 1996). On competence and performance and related notions. In Brown, G., Malmkjaer, K. and Williams, J., eds, Performance and Competence in Second Language Acquisition, pp. 9–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

MacDonald, M.-E. C., Pearlmutter, N. J. and Seidenberg, M. A. (1994). Syntactic ambiguity resolution as lexical ambiguity resolution. In Clifton, C. Jr, Frazier, L. and Rayner, K., eds, Perspectives on Sentence Processing, pp. 123–54. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

MacWhinney, B. (2000). Connectionism and language learning. In Barlow, M. and Kemmer, S., eds, Usage-Based Models of Language, pp. 121–50. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

MacWhinney, B. and Bates, E. (1989). The Cross-Linguistic Study of Sentence Processing. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

MacWhinney, B. and Chang, F. (1995). Connectionism and language learning. In Nelson, C. A., ed., Basic and Applied Perspectives on Learning, Acquisition and Development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

MacWhinney, B. and Leinbach, J. (1991). Implementations are not conceptualizations: Revising the verb learning model. Cognition 40: 121–57.Google Scholar

Mameli, M. and Bateson, P. (2006). Innateness and the sciences. Biology and Philosophy 21: 155–88.Google Scholar

Marcus, G. F. (2014). The trouble with brain science. New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2014/07/12/opinion/the-trouble-with-brain-science.htmlGoogle Scholar

Marcus, G. F., Brinkmann, U., Clahsen, H., Wiese, R. and Pinker, S. (1995). German inflection: The exception that proves the rule. Cognitive Psychology 29: 189–256.Google Scholar

Marcus, G. F., Pinker, S., Ullman, M., Hollander, M., Rosen, T. J. and Xu, F. (1992). Over-regularization in language acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 57.Google Scholar

Marcus, R. B. (1961). Modalities and intensional languages. Synthese 13: 303–22.Google Scholar

Margolis, E. and Laurence, S. (2011). Learning matters: The role of learning in concept acquisition. Mind & Language 26: 507–639.Google Scholar

Marr, D., Ullman, S. F. and Poggio, T. A., eds ([1982] 2010). Vision. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Marslen-Wilson, W., Tyler, L. K. and Seidenberg, M. (1978). Sentence processing and the clause-boundary. In Levelt, W. J. M. and Flores d’Arcais, G., eds, Studies in the Perception of Language, pp. 219–46. London: Wiley.Google Scholar

Marslen-Wilson, W., Tyler, L. K., Waksler, R. and Older, L. (1994). Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review 101: 3–33.Google Scholar

Martens, M. A., Wilson, S. J. and Reutens, D. C. (2008). Research review: Williams Syndrome: A critical review of the cognitive, behavioral, and neuroanatomical phenotype. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 49: 576–608.Google Scholar

Martin, A., Peperkamp, S. and Dupoux, E. (2014). Learning phonemes with a proto-lexicon. Cognitive Science 37: 103–24.Google Scholar

Matsuo, A. (1998). A comparative study of tense and ellipsis. PhD dissertation, Department of Linguistics, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar

Max Planck Society (2016). Language is in the genes. https://www.mpg.de/10751617/simon-fisher-language-researchGoogle Scholar

May, R. (1977). The grammar of quantification. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

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

McCloskey, J. (1997). A global silencing. The Poetry Ireland Review 52: 41–6.Google Scholar

McCloskey, J. (2001). The morphosyntax of WH-extraction in Irish. Journal of Linguistics 37: 67–100.Google Scholar

McDaniel, D., McKee, C. and Cairns, H. S. (1996). Methods for Assessing Children’s Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

McGilvray, J. ([1999] 2014). Chomsky: Language, Mind and Politics. Malden, MA, and Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

McLaurin, M. A. (2009). Marines of Montford Point: America’s First Black Marines. Charlotte, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Menand, L. (2004). Bad comma. New Yorker. www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/06/28/bad-commaGoogle Scholar

Mendívil Giró, J. L. (2012). The myth of language diversity. In Boeckx, C., Horno Chéliz, M. and Mendívil Giró, J. L, eds, Language, from a Biological Point of View: Current Issues in Biolinguistics, pp. 85–134. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar

Merchant, J. (2001). The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Merchant, J. (2005). Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 661–738.Google Scholar

Miller, G. A. and Chomsky, N. (1963). Finitary models of language users. In Luce, R. D., Bush, R. R. and Galanter, E., eds, Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, pp. 419–91. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Miller, G. A. and McKean, K. O. (1964). A chronometric study of some relations between sentences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 16: 297–308.Google Scholar

Millward, C. M. (1989). A Biography of the English Language. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Milroy, J. (1998). Children can’t speak or write properly anymore. In Trudgill, P. and Bauer, L., eds, Language Myths, pp. 58–65. London: Penguin.Google Scholar

Milsark, G. L. (1977). Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis 3: 1–29.Google Scholar

Miyawaki, K., Strange, W., Verbugge, R., Liberman, A., Jenkins, J. and Fujimura, O. (1975). An effect of linguistic experience: The discrimination of [r] and [l] by native speakers of Japanese and English. Perception & Psychophysics 18: 331–40.Google Scholar

Monsell, S. (1987). On the relation between lexical input and output pathways for speech. In Allport, A., MacKay, D., Prinz, W. and Scheerer, E., eds, Language Perception and Production, pp. 271–311. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Moore, T. and Carling, C. (1982). Understanding language: Towards a post-Chomskyan linguistics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Morgan, J. (1973). Sentence fragments and the notion ‘sentence’. In Kachru, B. B., Lees, R. B., Malkiel, Y., Pietrangeli, A. and Saporta, S., eds, Issues in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Henry and Renée Kahane, pp. 719–52. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar

Morgan-Short, K. and Tanner, D. (2014). Event-related potentials. In Jegerski, J. and van Patten, B., eds, Research Methods in Second Language Psycholinguistics, pp. 127–52. New York and Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

Morris, J. (2012). Baby Talk. Harlequin (ebook).doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.04.006.Google Scholar

Müller, S. (2015). Deriving island constraints with Searle and Grice. Studia Linguistics 69 (1): 1–57.Google Scholar

Munafò, M. R., Yalcin, B., Willis-Owen, S. A. and Flint, J. (2007). Association of the dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) gene and approach-related personality traits: Meta-analysis and new data. Biological Psychiatry 63: 197–206.Google Scholar

Neusner, J., ed. (1995). Judaism in Late Antiquity, part 1: The Literary and Archaeological Sources. Leiden: E. J. Brill.doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.04.006.Google Scholar

Nevins, A., Pesetsky, D. and Rodriguez, C. (2009). Piraha exceptionality: A reassessment. Language 85: 355–404.Google Scholar

Newman, A. J. (2014). Functional magnetic resonance imaging (FMRI). In Jegerski, J. and van Patten, B, eds, Research Methods in Second Language Psycholinguistics, pp. 153–84. New York and Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

Newman, S. (1946). On the stress system of English. Word 2: 171–87.Google Scholar

Newmeyer, F. (1983). Grammatical Theory: Its Limits and Possibilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Newmeyer, F. (1999). Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Nichol, J. and Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18: 5–20.Google Scholar

Ogura, M. (1993). The development of periphrastic do in English: A case of lexical diffusion in syntax. Diachronica 10: 51–85.Google Scholar

O’Grady, W. (2003). The radical middle: Nativism without Universal Grammar. In Doughty, C. J. and Long, M. H., eds, The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, pp. 43–62. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Otake, T., Hatano, G., Cutler, A. and Mehler, J. (1993). Mora or syllable? Speech segmentation in Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language 32: 258–78.Google Scholar

Oxford, University of (2016). Charles F. Hockett. www.revolvy.com/main/index .php?s=Charles F. Hockett&uid=1575Google Scholar

Palmer, D. C. (2006). On Chomsky’s appraisal of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. The Behavior Analyst 29: 253–67.Google Scholar

Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and Procedural Determinants of Second Languages. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Parker, D. and Phillips, C. (2016). Negative polarity illusions and the format of hierarchical encodings in memory. Cognition 157: 321–39.Google Scholar

Partee, B. (1991). Topic, focus and quantification. In Moore, S and Wyner, A. Z, eds, Proceedings of SALT 1, pp. 159–87. Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar

Patsiurko, N., Campbell, J. L. and Hall, J. A. (2012). Measuring cultural diversity: Ethnic, linguistic and religious fractionalization in the OECD. Ethnic and Racial Studies 35: 195–217.Google Scholar

Patterson, K. and Shewell, C. (1987). Speak and spell: Dissociations and word-class effects. In Coltheart, M., Sartori, G. and Job, R., eds, The Cognitive Neuropsychology of Language, pp. 273–94. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Paul, H. (1880). Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte (second edition 1886; third edition 1898). Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Payne, T. E. (1997). Describing Morphosyntax: A Guide for Field Linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Peacocke, C. (1986). Explanation in computational psychology: Language, perception and Level 1.5. Mind & Language 1: 101–23.Google Scholar

Pepper, J. (1981). John Pepper’s Ulster–English Dictionary, 1995 edition. Belfast: Appletree Press.Google Scholar

Perez, F. (2016). Nearly 20 years in the making, dictionary awakens Mutsun language. BenitoLink. http://goo.gl/3yJgyNGoogle Scholar