Two roads diverged in a linguistic wood, and we have to travel both

References

1. Broekhuis, Hans & NorbertCorver (2016). Syntax of Dutch: Verbs and verb phrases (vol. 3). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_614910
   [Google Scholar]
2. Chen, Zhong, YuhangXu & ZhiguoXie (2020). Assessing introspective linguistic judgments quantitatively: The case of The Syntax of Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics29(3), 311-336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-020-09210-y
   [Google Scholar]
3. Chacón, Dustin (2021). Acceptability judgments (and other) experiments for studying comparative syntax. In: GrantGoodall (ed.), Cambridge handbook of experimental syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 181-208. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108569620.008
   [Google Scholar]
4. Gibson, Edward & EvelinaFedorenko (2013). The need for quantitative methods in syntax and semantic research. Language and Cognitive Processes28(1–2), 88-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.515080
   [Google Scholar]
5. de Hoop, Helen (2016). Woordvolgordevariatie: theorie versus empirie?Nederlandse Taalkunde21(2), 275–284. https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2016.2.HOOP
   [Google Scholar]
6. Hubers, Ferdy, CatiaCucchiarini, HelmerStrik & TonDijkstra (2019). Normative data on Dutch idiomatic expressions: Subjective judgments you can bank on. Frontiers in Psychology10, Article 1075. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01075
   [Google Scholar]
7. Kruglanski, Arie & IcekAjzen (1983). Bias and error in human judgment. European Journal of Social Psychology13(1), 1-44. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420130102
   [Google Scholar]
8. Kruglanski, Arie & TallieFreund (1983). The freezing and unfreezing of lay-inferences: Effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology19(5), 448-468. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(83)90022-7
   [Google Scholar]
9. Linzen, Tal & YoheiOseki (2018). The reliability of acceptability judgments across languages. Glossa: A journal of general linguistics3, Article 100. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.528
   [Google Scholar]
10. Mahowald, Kyle, PeterGraff, JeremyHartman & EdwardGibson (2016). SNAP judgments: A small N acceptability paradigm (SNAP) for linguistic acceptability judgments. Language92(3), 619–635. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0052
    [Google Scholar]
11. Phillips, Colin (2010). Should we impeach armchair linguistics? In: ShoishiIwasaki, HajimeHoji, PatriciaClancy & Sung-OckSohn (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 17. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 49-64.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Schindler, Samuel, AnnaDrożdżowicz & KarenBrøcker (2020). Linguistic intuitions: Evidence and method. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198840558.001.0001
    [Google Scholar]
13. Schoenmakers, Gert-Jan (2023). Linguistic judgments in 3D: The aesthetic quality, linguistic acceptability, and surface probability of stigmatized and non-stigmatized variation. Linguistics61(3), 779-824. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2021-0179
    [Google Scholar]
14. Schoenmakers, Gert-Jan & Roelandvan Hout (this issue). Consistency and variability in acceptability judgments from naive native speakers.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Schoenmakers, Gert-Jan, MarjoleinPoortvliet & JeannetteSchaeffer (2022). Topicality and anaphoricity in Dutch scrambling. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory40(2), 541-571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-021-09516-z
    [Google Scholar]
16. Schoenmakers, Gert-Jan & IrinaStoica (submitted). The internal consistency of data from syntactic island experiments in Romance. Paper submitted for publication.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Schütze, Carson & JonSprouse (2014). Judgment data. In: RobertPodesva & DevyaniSharma (eds.), Research methods in linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 27-50. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139013734.004
    [Google Scholar]
18. Song, Sanghoun, Jae-WoongChoe & EunjeongOh (2014). FAQ: Do non-linguists share the same intuition as linguists?Language Research50(2), 357-386.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Sprouse, Jon, CarsonSchütze & DiogoAlmeida (2013). A comparison of informal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from Linguistic Inquiry 2001–2010. Lingua134, 219-248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.07.002
    [Google Scholar]
20. Weerman, Fred (this issue). Back to the future.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Zajonc, Robert (1968. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology9(2, Pt.2), 1-27.
    [Google Scholar]