Achinstein, P. (2001). The book of evidence. Oxford University Press.
Allan, K. (2003). Linguistic metatheory. Language Sciences 25, 533–60.
Allan, K. (2007). The Western classical tradition in linguistics. London and Oakville: Equinox.
Andor, J. (2004). The master and his performance: an interview with Noam Chomsky. Intercultural Pragmatics 1, 93–111.
Andrews, A. D. (1990). Case structures and control in Modern Icelandic. In J. Maling & A. Zaenen (eds.), Modern Icelandic syntax. Syntax and Semantics 24. San Diego: Academic Press, 187–234.
Aoun, J., Hornstein, N., Lightfoot, D. & Weinberg, A. (1987). Two types of locality. Linguistic Inquiry 18(4), 537–77.
Arabatzis, T. (2008). Experiment. In S. Psillos & M. Curd (eds.), The Routledge companion to philosophy of science. London and New York: Routledge, 159–70.
Arppe, A. (2009). Linguistic choices vs probabilities – how much and what can linguistic theory explain? In Featherston & Winkler (eds.), 1–24.
Arppe, A. & Järvikivi, J. (2007). Take empiricism seriously! In support of methodological diversity in linguistics. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3, 99–109.
Bach, E. (1965). Structural linguistics and the philosophy of science. Diogenes 51, 11–28.
Bader, M. & Häussler, J. (2010). Toward a model of grammaticality judgments. Journal of Linguistics 46(2), 273–330.
Basin, D. & Matthews, S. (2002). Logical frameworks. In D. M. Gabbay & F. Guenther (eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic, vol. 9. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 89–164.
Beall, J. C. & Restall, G. (2000). Logical pluralism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 78, 475–93.
Benoit, W. L., Hample, D. & Benoit, P. J. (eds.) (1992). Readings in argumentation. Berlin and New York: Foris Publications.
Bierwisch, M. & Lang, E. (1989a). Somewhat longer – much deeper – further and further: epilogue to the Dimensional Adjective Project. In Bierwisch & Lang (eds.), 471–514.
Bierwisch, M. & Lang, E. (eds.) (1989b). Dimensional adjectives: grammatical structure and conceptual interpretation. Berlin: Springer.
Blank, G. D. (1988). Metaphors in the lexicon. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 3, 21–36.
Blasko, D. G. & Connine, C. M. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 12, 295–308.
Bogen, J. (2002). Experiment and observation. In P. Machamer & M. Silberstein (eds.), The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of science. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell, 128–48.
Borsley, R. D. (2005a). Introduction. In Borsley (ed.), 1475–80.
Borsley, R. D. (ed.) (2005b). Data in theoretical linguistics. Special issue of Lingua.
Bowdle, B. F. & Gentner, D. (1999). Metaphor comprehension: from comparison to categorization. Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 90–5.
Bowdle, B. F. & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review 112(1), 193–216.
Braithwaite, R. (1953). Scientific explanation. Cambridge University Press.
Cantor, G. (1989). The rhetoric of experiment. In D. Gooding, T. Pinch & S. Schaffer (eds.), The uses of experiment: studies in the natural sciences. Cambridge University Press, 159–80.
Carnap, R. (1956). The methodological character of theoretical concepts. In H. Feigl & M. Scriven (eds.), The foundations of science and the concepts of psychology and psychoanalysis. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 1. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 38–76.
Chomsky, N. (1975 [1957]). Syntactic structures. The Hague and Paris: Mouton.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1966 [1964]). Current issues in linguistic theory. London, The Hague and Paris: Mouton & Co.
Chomsky, N. (1969). Language and philosophy. In S. Hook (ed.), Language and philosophy: a symposium. New York University Press, 51–94.
Chomsky, N. (1980a). Rules and representations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Chomsky, N. (1980b). On binding. Linguistic Inquiry 11, 1–46.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.
Chomsky, N. (2002). On nature and language. Cambridge University Press.
Cole, P. & Sung, L-M. (1994). Head movement and long distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 25, 355–406.
Comrie, B. (1981). Language universals and linguistic typology: syntax and morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Copi, I. M. & Cohen, C. (1990 [1953]). Introduction to logic. New York and London: Macmillan.
Dodge, E. & Lakoff, G. (2005). Image schemas: from linguistic analysis to neural grounding. In B. Hampe (ed.), From perception to meaning: image schemas in cognitive linguistics. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 57– 89.
Duhem, P. (1974 [1906]). The aim and structure of physical theory. New York: Atheneum.
Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K. D. & Gentner, D. (1989). The structure-mapping engine: algorithm and examples. Artificial Intelligence 41, 1–63.
Faltz, L. M. (1985). Reflexivisation: a study in universal syntax. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Fanselow, G. (1987). Konfigurationalität: Untersuchungen zur Universalgrammatik am Beispiel des Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.
Fanselow, G. (2009). Die (generative) Syntax in den Zeiten der Empiriediskussion. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 28, 133–9.
Featherston, S. (2005). The decathlon model: design features for an empirical syntax. In Kepser & Reis (eds.), 187–208.
Featherston, S. (2007). Data in generative grammar: the stick and the carrot. In Sternefeld (ed.), 269–318.
Featherston, S. (2009a). Relax, lean back, and be a linguist. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 28, 127–32.
Featherston, S. (2009b). A scale for measuring well-formedness: why syntax needs boiling and freezing points. In Featherston & Winkler (eds.), 47–73.
Featherston, S. & Winkler, S. (eds.) (2009). The fruits of empirical linguistics, vol. 1: Process. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fehér, M. (1990). The essential tension. (On the role of inconsistencies in science.) Studies in Soviet Thought 39, 231–9.
Fillmore, C. J. (1992). ‘Corpus linguistics’ vs ‘computer-aided armchair linguistics’. In Directions in corpus linguistics. Proceedings from a 1992 Nobel Symposium on Corpus Linguistics, Stockholm. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 35–60.
Fodor, J. A. (1985). Some notes on what linguistics is about. In J. J. Katz (ed.), Philosophy of linguistics. Oxford University Press, 146–60.
Foster, J. (2007). Real bad grammar: realistic grammatical description with grammaticality. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3, 73–86.
Gabbay, D. M., Johnson, R. H., Ohlbach, H. J. & Woods, J. (eds.) (2002). Handbook of the logic of argument and inference. Amsterdam, Boston and London: Elsevier.
Geeraerts, D. (2006). Methodology in cognitive linguistics. In Kristiansen, Achard, Dirven & Mendoza Ibáñez (eds.), 21–49.
Gehweiler, E. (2006). Review of Kepser and Reis (2005). Linguist List 17, 1540.
Gentner, D. & Bowdle, B. (2008). Metaphor as structure-mapping. In R. W. Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge University Press, 109–28.
Gentner, D. & Wolff, P. (1997). Alignment in the processing of metaphor. Journal of Memory and Language 37, 331–55.
Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W. & Perlman, M. (2006). The contested impact of cognitive linguistic research on the psycholinguistics of metaphor understanding. In Kristiansen, Achard, Dirven & Mendoza Ibáñez (eds.), 211–28.
Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Science 7(2), 92–6.
Glucksberg, S. & McGlone, M. (2001). Understanding figurative language: from metaphors to idioms. Oxford University Press.
Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M. S. & Manfredi, D. (1997). Property attribution in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 36(1), 50–67.
Goldman, A. (1986). Epistemology and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gooding, D. C. (2000). Experiment. In W. H. Newton-Smith (ed.). A companion to the philosophy of science. Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell, 117–26.
Goodman, N. (1983 [1955]). Fact, fiction, and forecast. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Greenberg, J. H. (ed.) (1978). Universals of human language, 4 vols. Stanford University Press.
Grewendorf, G. (1995). German: a grammatical sketch. In J. Jakobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld & T. Vennemann (eds.), Syntax: an international handbook of contemporary research. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1288–319.
Hample, D. (1992 [1985]). A third perspective on argument. In Benoit, Hample & Benoit (eds.), 91–116.
Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of discovery. Cambridge University Press.
Harman, G. (2002). Internal critique: a logic is not a theory of reasoning and a theory of reasoning is not a logic. In Gabbay, Johnson, Ohlbach & Woods (eds.), 171–86.
Haspelmath, M. (2009). Welche Fragen können wir mit herkömmlichen Daten beantworten? Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 28, 157–62.
Head, B. F. (1978). Respect degrees in pronominal reference. In Greenberg (ed.), vol. 3, 151–212.
Hempel, C. G. (1952). Fundamentals of concept formation in empirical science. University of Chicago Press.
Hempel, C. G. (1958). The theoretician's dilemma. In M. Feigl, M. Scriven & G. Maxwell (eds.), Concepts, theories, and the mind–body problem. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 2. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 37–98.
Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays. New York: Free Press.
Hempel, C. G. (1966a). Philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hempel, C. G. (1966b). Recent problems of induction. In R. G. Colodny (ed.), Mind and cosmos: essays in contemporary science and philosophy. University of Pittsburgh Press, 112–34.
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.
Householder, F. W. Jr (1973). On arguments from asterisks. Foundations of Language 10(3), 365–76.
Howson, C. (2000). Evidence and confirmation. In W. H. Newton-Smith (ed.), A companion to the philosophy of science. Oxford: Blackwell, 108–16.
Itkonen, E. (2005). Analogy as structure and process: approaches in linguistics, cognitive psychology and philosophy of science. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Johnson, K. (2008). Quantitative methods in linguistics. Malden, MA, Oxford and Carlton: Blackwell.
Kallmeyer, W. & Zifonun, G. (eds.) (2007). Sprachkorpora – Datenmengen und Erkenntnisfortschritt. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter (Institut für Deutsche Sprache – Jahrbuch 2006).
Kepser, S. & Reis, M. (2005a). Evidence in linguistics. In Kepser & Reis (eds.), 1–6.
Kepser, S. & Reis, M. (eds.) (2005b). Linguistic evidence: empirical, theoretical and computational perspectives. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kertész, A. (1991). Die Modularität der Wissenschaft: Konzeptuelle und soziale Prinzipien linguistischer Erkenntnis. Braunschweig and Wiesbaden: Vieweg.
Kertész, A. (1993). Heuristik der deutschen Phonologie: eine elementare Einführung in Strategien der Problemlösung. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Kertész, A. (2004a). Philosophie der Linguistik: Studien zur naturalisierten Wissenschaftstheorie. Tübingen: Narr.
Kertész, A. (2004b). Cognitive semantics and scientific knowledge: case studies in the cognitive science of science. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Kertész, A. & Rákosi, Cs. (2005a). Remarks on the cognitive base of pragmatic principles. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 52, 5–40.
Kertész, A., Rákosi, Cs. (2005b). Whole--part and part--whole inferences in generative and cognitive linguistics. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 52, 221–80.
Kertész, A. & 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.
Kertész, A. & Rákosi, Cs. (2008a). Daten und Evidenz in linguistischen Theorien: ein Forschungsüberblick. In Kertész & Rákosi (eds.), 21–60.
Kertész, A. & Rákosi, Cs. (2008b). Conservatism vs. innovation in the debate on data in generative grammar. In Kertész & Rákosi (eds.), 85–108.
Kertész, A. & Rákosi, Cs. (2008c). Conservatism vs. innovation in the (un)grammaticality debate. In Kertész & Rákosi (eds.), 61–84.
Kertész, A. & Rákosi, Cs. (eds.) (2008d). New approaches to linguistic evidence: pilot studies. Frankfurt am Main etc.: Lang.
Kertész, A. & Rákosi, Cs. (2009a). On the metascientific representation of inconsistency in linguistic theories. In B. van Heusden & W. Wildgen (eds.), Meta-representation, self-organization and art. Frankfurt am Main etc.: Lang, 233–64.
Kertész, A. & Rákosi, Cs. (2009b). Cyclic vs circular argumentation in the Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Cognitive Linguistics 20(4), 703–32.
Kertész, A., Rákosi, Cs. (2009c). On current approaches to linguistic data and evidence. Sprachtheorie und germanistische Linguistik 19, 125–70.
Kiefer, F. (2007). Jelentéselmélet. [The theory of meaning]. 2nd, revised edition. Budapest: Corvina.
Kienpointner, M. (1992). Alltagslogik. Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Stuttgart-Bad Canstatt: frommann-holzboog.
Kristiansen, G., Achard, M., Dirven, R. & de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. R. (eds.) (2006). Cognitive linguistics: current applications and future perspectives. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kuhn, Th. S. (1962/1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge University Press, 91–196.
Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations. Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, R. (1989). The way we were; or; the real truth about generative semantics: a memoir. Journal of Pragmatics 13, 939–88.
Lang, E. (1989). The semantics of dimensional designation. In Bierwisch & Lang (eds.), 263–458.
Lasnik, H. & Saito, M. (1984). On the nature of proper government. Linguistic Inquiry 15(2), 235–89.
Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems: toward a theory of scientific growth. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.
Lehmann, C. (2004). Data in linguistics. The Linguistic Review 21, 175–210.
Lehmann, C. (2007). Daten – Korpora – Dokumentation. In Kallmeyer & Zifonun (eds.), 9–27.
Lemnitzer, L. & Zinsmeister, H. (2006). Korpuslinguistik: eine Einführung. Tübingen: Narr.
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: the theory of generalised conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA, and London: MIT Press.
Łukasiewicz, J. (1970 [1912]). Creative elements in science. In J. Łukasiewicz, Selected works. Amsterdam: North Holland, 12–44.
MacFarlane, J. G. (2000). What does it mean to say that logic is formal? PhD dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
Manning, C. D. (2003). Probabilistic syntax. In J. Bod, J. Hay & S. Jannedy (eds.), Probabilistic linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 289–341.
McEnery, T. & Wilson, A. (1996). Corpus linguistics: an introduction. Edinburgh University Press.
Meheus, J. (ed.) (2002). Inconsistency in science. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Mereu, L. (2004). Linguistic data as complex items. The Linguistic Review 21, 211–33.
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.
Moravcsik, E. (1969). Determination. Working papers on language universals 1, 63–98a.
Moravcsik, E. (1993). Why is syntax complicated? In M. Eid & G. Iverson (eds.), Principles and prediction: the analysis of natural language. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins, 73–92.
Moravcsik, E. (2006). An introduction to syntactic theory. London and New York: Continuum.
Moravcsik, E. (2010). Conflict resolution in syntactic theory. Studies in Language 34(3), 636–69.
Murphy, G. L. (1996). On metaphoric representation. Cognition 60, 173–204.
Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Newmeyer, F. J. (1980). Linguistic theory in America: the first quarter-century of transformational generative grammar. New York: Academic Press.
Nickles, T. (2002). From Copernicus to Ptolemy: inconsistency and method. In Meheus (ed.), 1–33.
Nickles, T. (1980). Scientific discovery, logic and rationality. In T. Nickles (ed.), Scientific discovery, logic, and rationality. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1–59.
Onishi, K. H. & Murphy, G. L. (1993). Metaphoric reference: when metaphors are not understood as easily as literal expressions. Memory and Cognition 21, 763–72.
Penke, M. & Rosenbach, A. (2004a). What counts as evidence in linguistics? In Penke & Rosenbach (eds.), 480–526.
Penke, M. & Rosenbach, A. (eds.) (2004b). What counts as evidence in linguistics? Special issue of Studies in Language. [= Studies in Language 28(3): 481–747]
Penke, M. & Rosenbach, A. (2007a). Preface. In Penke & Rosenbach (eds.), vii–ix.
Penke, M. & Rosenbach, A. (eds.) (2007b). What counts as evidence in linguistics? Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Perry, Th. A. (ed.) (1980). Evidence and argumentation in linguistics. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Politzer, G. & Bourmaud, G. (2002). Deductive reasoning from uncertain conditionals. British Journal of Psychology 93, 345–81.
Pollock, J. L. (2001). Defeasible reasoning with variable degrees of justification. Artificial Intelligence 133, 233–82.
Polya, G. (1948). How to solve it. Princeton University Press.
Polya, G. (1954). Patterns of plausible inference. London: Oxford University Press.
Polya, G. (1981). Mathematical discovery. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.
Priest, G. (2002). Paraconsistent Logic. In D. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of paraconsistent logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 287–393.
Priest, G., Beall, J. C. & Armour-Garb, B. (eds.) (2004). The law of non-contradiction. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Prince, A. & Smolenksy, P. (2004). Optimality theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Pullum, G. K. (2007). Ungrammaticality, rarity, and corpus use. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3, 33–47.
Rákosi, Cs. (2005). Nyelvészet és argumentációelmélet. [Linguistics and argumentation theory]. Debrecen: DE Kossuth Egyetemi Kiadó.
Rákosi, Cs. (forthcoming). The fabulous engine: strengths and flaws of psycholinguistic experiments. Language Sciences.
Rákosi, Cs. (in preparation). On the rhetoric of psycholinguistic experiments.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and prediction: an analysis of the foundations and the structure of knowledge. University of Chicago Press.
Reis, M. et al. (1998). Linguistische Datenstrukturen: theoretische und empirische Grundlagen der Grammatikforschung. Universität Tübingen.
Rescher, N. (1973). The coherence theory of truth. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rescher, N. (1976). Plausible reasoning. Assen and Amsterdam: Van Gorcum.
Rescher, N. (1977a). Methodological pragmatism. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rescher, N. (1977b). Dialectics: a controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Rescher, N. (1979). Cognitive systematisation. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rescher, N. (1980). Induction: an essay on the justification of inductive reasoning. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rescher, N. (1987). How serious a fallacy is inconsistency? Argumentation 1, 303–16.
Rescher, N. & Brandom, R. (1980). The logic of inconsistency. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rigotti, E. (2007a). Relevance of context bound loci to topical potential in the argumentation stage. Argumentation 22, 519–40.
Rigotti, E. (2007b). Can classical topics be revived within the contemporary theory of argumentation? In A. Blair, Ch. A. Willard & B. Garssen (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam: Sic Sat, 1155–63.
Ringen, J. D. (1975). Linguistic facts: a study of the empirical scientific status of transformational generative grammars. In D. Cohen & J. R. Wirth (eds.), Testing linguistic hypotheses. Washington, DC: Hemisphere, 1–41.
Rizzi, L. (1978). A restructuring rule in Italian syntax. In S. J. Keyser (ed.), Recent transformational studies in European languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rohrer, T. (2006). Three dogmas of embodiment: cognitive linguistics as a cognitive science. In Kristiansen, Achard, Dirven & Mendoza Ibáñez (eds.), 119–46.
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Sampson, G. R. (1975). The form of language. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.
Sampson, G. R. (2007). Reply. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3, 111–29.
Schlesewsky, M. (2009). Linguistische Daten aus experimentellen Umgebungen: eine multiexperimentelle und multimodale Perspektive. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 28, 169–78.
Schütze, C. T. (1996). The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. University of Chicago Press.
Schütze, C. T. (2009). Web searches should supplement judgements, not supplant them. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 28, 151–6.
Simon, H. J. (1997). Die Diachronie der deutschen Anredepronomina aus Sicht der Universalienforschung. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 50, 267–81.
Simone, R. (2004). The object, the method, and the ghosts: remarks on a terra incognita. The Linguistic Review 21, 235–56.
Sorace, A. & Keller, F. (2005). Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua 115(11), 1497–525.
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. Th. (eds.) (2007). Grammar without grammaticality. (Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3(1)).
Stegmüller, W. (1970). Theorie und Erfahrung. Berlin, Heidelberg and New York: Springer.
Sternefeld, W. (ed.) (2007). Data in generative grammar (= Theoretical Linguistics 33(3)).
Subbarao, K. V. (1998). Linguistic theory and syntactic typology: a proposal for a symbiotic relationship. In L. V. Khokhlova & A. Sawani (eds.), Vaagbhaarati: Proceedings of the International Conference on South Asian Languages. 5--23. Moscow: Institute of Asian and African Languages, Moscow State University.
Swinney, D. & Cutler, A. (1979). The access and processing of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18, 523–34.
Walton, D. (1991). Begging the question: circular reasoning as a tactic of argumentation. New York, Westport and London: Greenwood Press.
Walton, D. (1992). Rules for plausible reasoning. Informal Logic 1992 (1), 33–51.
Walton, D. (1995). A pragmatic theory of fallacy. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Walton, D. (2001). Abductive, presumptive and plausible arguments. Informal Logic 21, 141–69.
Walton, D. & Reed, C. (2005). Argumentation schemes and enthymemes. Synthese 145, 339–70.
Walton, D., Reed, C. & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press.
Weskott, T. & Fanselow, G. (2009). Scaling issues in the measurement of linguistic acceptability. In Featherston & Winkler (eds.), 229–46.
Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford University Press.
Winkler, S. & Featherston, S. (eds.) (2009). The fruits of empirical linguistics, vol. 2: Product. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wolff, P. & Gentner, D. (1992). The time course of metaphor comprehension. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Wunderlich, D. (ed.) (1976). Wissenschaftstheorie der Linguistik. Kronberg: Scriptor.
Wurzel, W. U. (1981). Phonologie: Segmentale Struktur. In K. E. Heidolph et al. (eds.), Grundzüge einer deutschen Grammatik. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 898–990.
Yan, J., Forbus, K. & Gentner, D. (2003). A theory of rerepresentation in analogical matching. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Wheat Ridge: Cognitive Science Society.
Zubizarreta, M. L. (1982). On the relationship of the lexicon to syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Loading metrics...
