@phdthesis{Knospe2018,
  author    = {Knospe, Gloria-Mona},
  title     = {Processing of pronouns and reflexives in Turkish-German bilinguals},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43644},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-436442},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {xxii, 410},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Previous studies on native language (L1) anaphor resolution have found that monolingual native speakers are sensitive to syntactic, pragmatic, and semantic constraints on pronouns and reflexive resolution. However, most studies have focused on English and other Germanic languages, and little is currently known about the online (i.e., real-time) processing of anaphors in languages with syntactically less restricted anaphors, such as Turkish. We also know relatively little about how 'non-standard' populations such as non-native (L2) speakers and heritage speakers (HSs) resolve anaphors. This thesis investigates the interpretation and real-time processing of anaphors in German and in a typologically different and as yet understudied language, Turkish. It compares hypotheses about differences between native speakers' (L1ers) and L2 speakers' (L2ers) sentence processing, looking into differences in processing mechanisms as well as the possibility of cross-linguistic influence. To help fill the current research gap regarding HS sentence comprehension, it compares findings for this group with those for L2ers. To investigate the representation and processing of anaphors in these three populations, I carried out a series of offline questionnaires and Visual-World eye-tracking experiments on the resolution of reflexives and pronouns in both German and Turkish. In the German experiments, native German speakers as well as L2ers of German were tested, while in the Turkish experiments, non-bilingual native Turkish speakers as well as HSs of Turkish with L2 German were tested. This allowed me to observe both cross-linguistic differences as well as population differences between monolinguals' and different types of bilinguals' resolution of anaphors. Regarding the comprehension of Turkish anaphors by L1ers, contrary to what has been previously assumed, I found that Turkish has no reflexive that follows Condition A of Binding theory (Chomsky, 1981). Furthermore, I propose more general cross-linguistic differences between Turkish and German, in the form of a stronger reliance on pragmatic information in anaphor resolution overall in Turkish compared to German. As for the processing differences between L1ers and L2ers of a language, I found evidence in support of hypotheses which propose that L2ers of German rely more strongly on non-syntactic information compared to L1ers (Clahsen \& Felser, 2006, 2017; Cunnings, 2016, 2017) independent of a potential influence of their L1. HSs, on the other hand, showed a tendency to overemphasize interpretational contrasts between different Turkish anaphors compared to monolingual native speakers. However, lower-proficiency HSs were likely to merge different forms for simplified representation and processing. Overall, L2ers and HSs showed differences from monolingual native speakers both in their final interpretation of anaphors and during online processing. However, these differences were not parallel between the two types of bilingual and thus do not support a unified model of L2 and HS processing (cf. Montrul, 2012). The findings of this thesis contribute to the field of anaphor resolution by providing data from a previously unexplored language, Turkish, as well as contributing to research on native and non-native processing differences. My results also illustrate the importance of considering individual differences in the acquisition process when studying bilingual language comprehension. Factors such as age of acquisition, language proficiency and the type of input a language learner receives may influence the processing mechanisms they develop and employ, both between and within different bilingual populations.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{JaegerBenzRoeseretal.2015,
  author    = {J{\"a}ger, Lena Ann and Benz, Lena and Roeser, Jens and Dillon, Brian W. and Vasishth, Shravan},
  title     = {Teasing apart retrieval and encoding interference in the processing of anaphors},
  series = {Frontiers in psychology},
  volume    = {6},
  journal   = {Frontiers in psychology},
  publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {1664-1078},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00506},
  pages     = {18},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Two classes of account have been proposed to explain the memory processes subserving the processing of reflexive-antecedent dependencies. Structure-based accounts assume that the retrieval of the antecedent is guided by syntactic tree-configurational information without considering other kinds of information such as gender marking in the case of English reflexives. By contrast, unconstrained cue-based retrieval assumes that all available information is used for retrieving the antecedent. Similarity-based interference effects from structurally illicit distractors which match a non-structural retrieval cue have been interpreted as evidence favoring the unconstrained cue-based retrieval account since cue-based retrieval interference from structurally illicit distractors is incompatible with the structure-based account. However, it has been argued that the observed effects do not necessarily reflect interference occurring at the moment of retrieval but might equally well be accounted for by interference occurring already at the stage of encoding or maintaining the antecedent in memory, in which case they cannot be taken as evidence against the structure-based account. We present three experiments (self-paced reading and eye-tracking) on German reflexives and Swedish reflexive and pronominal possessives in which we pit the predictions of encoding interference and cue-based retrieval interference against each other. We could not find any indication that encoding interference affects the processing ease of the reflexive-antecedent dependency formation. Thus, there is no evidence that encoding interference might be the explanation for the interference effects observed in previous work. We therefore conclude that invoking encoding interference may not be a plausible way to reconcile interference effects with a structure-based account of reflexive processing.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{JaegerBenzRoeseretal.2015,
  author    = {J{\"a}ger, Lena Ann and Benz, Lena and Roeser, Jens and Dillon, Brian W. and Vasishth, Shravan},
  title     = {Teasing apart Retrieval and Encoding Interference in the Processing of Anaphors},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-78714},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Two classes of account have been proposed to explain the memory processes subserving the processing of reflexive-antecedent dependencies. Structure-based accounts assume that the retrieval of the antecedent is guided by syntactic tree-configurational information without considering other kinds of information such as gender marking in the case of English reflexives. By contrast, unconstrained cue-based retrieval assumes that all available information is used for retrieving the antecedent. Similarity-based interference effects from structurally illicit distractors which match a non-structural retrieval cue have been interpreted as evidence favoring the unconstrained cue-based retrieval account since cue-based retrieval interference from structurally illicit distractors is incompatible with the structure-based account. However, it has been argued that the observed effects do not necessarily reflect interference occurring at the moment of retrieval but might equally well be accounted for by interference occurring already at the stage of encoding or maintaining the antecedent in memory, in which case they cannot be taken as evidence against the structure-based account. We present three experiments (self-paced reading and eye-tracking) on German reflexives and Swedish reflexive and pronominal possessives in which we pit the predictions of encoding interference and cue-based retrieval interference against each other. We could not find any indication that encoding interference affects the processing ease of the reflexive-antecedent dependency formation. Thus, there is no evidence that encoding interference might be the explanation for the interference effects observed in previous work. We therefore conclude that invoking encoding interference may not be a plausible way to reconcile interference effects with a structure-based account of reflexive processing.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{JaegerBenzRoeseretal.2015,
  author    = {J{\"a}ger, Lena Ann and Benz, Lena and Roeser, Jens and Dillon, Brian W. and Vasishth, Shravan},
  title     = {Teasing apart retrieval and encoding interference in the processing of anaphors},
  series = {Frontiers in psychology},
  volume    = {6},
  journal   = {Frontiers in psychology},
  number    = {506},
  publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {1664-1078},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00506},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Two classes of account have been proposed to explain the memory processes subserving the processing of reflexive-antecedent dependencies. Structure-based accounts assume that the retrieval of the antecedent is guided by syntactic tree-configurational information without considering other kinds of information such as gender marking in the case of English reflexives. By contrast, unconstrained cue-based retrieval assumes that all available information is used for retrieving the antecedent. Similarity-based interference effects from structurally illicit distractors which match a non-structural retrieval cue have been interpreted as evidence favoring the unconstrained cue-based retrieval account since cue-based retrieval interference from structurally illicit distractors is incompatible with the structure-based account. However, it has been argued that the observed effects do not necessarily reflect interference occurring at the moment of retrieval but might equally well be accounted for by interference occurring already at the stage of encoding or maintaining the antecedent in memory, in which case they cannot be taken as evidence against the structure-based account. We present three experiments (self-paced reading and eye-tracking) on German reflexives and Swedish reflexive and pronominal possessives in which we pit the predictions of encoding interference and cue-based retrieval interference against each other. We could not find any indication that encoding interference affects the processing ease of the reflexive-antecedent dependency formation. Thus, there is no evidence that encoding interference might be the explanation for the interference effects observed in previous work. We therefore conclude that invoking encoding interference may not be a plausible way to reconcile interference effects with a structure-based account of reflexive processing.},
  language  = {en}
}