@phdthesis{Schunack2017,
  author    = {Schunack, Silke},
  title     = {Processing of non-canonical word orders in an L2},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-103750},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {xvii, 443 Seiten},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {This thesis investigates the processing of non-canonical word orders and whether non-canonical orders involving object topicalizations, midfield scrambling and particle verbs are treated the same by native (L1) and non-native (L2) speakers. The two languages investigated are Norwegian and German. 32 L1 Norwegian and 32 L1 German advanced learners of Norwegian were tested in two experiments on object topicalization in Norwegian. The results from the online self-paced reading task and the offline agent identification task show that both groups are able to identify the non-canonical word order and show a facilitatory effect of animate subjects in their reanalysis. Similarly high error rates in the agent identification task suggest that globally unambiguous object topicalizations are a challenging structure for L1 and L2 speakers alike. The same participants were also tested in two experiments on particle placement in Norwegian, again using a self-paced reading task, this time combined with an acceptability rating task. In the acceptability rating L1 and L2 speakers show the same preference for the verb-adjacent placement of the particle over the non-adjacent placement after the direct object. However, this preference for adjacency is only found in the L1 group during online processing, whereas the L2 group shows no preference for either order. Another set of experiments tested 33 L1 German and 39 L1 Slavic advanced learners of German on object scrambling in ditransitive clauses in German. Non-native speakers accept both object orders and show neither a preference for either order nor a processing advantage for the canonical order. The L1 group, in contrast, shows a small, but significant preference for the canonical dative-first order in the judgment and the reading task. The same participants were also tested in two experiments on the application of the split rule in German particle verbs. Advanced L2 speakers of German are able to identify particle verbs and can apply the split rule in V2 contexts in an acceptability judgment task in the same way as L1 speakers. However, unlike the L1 group, the L2 group is not sensitive to the grammaticality manipulation during online processing. They seem to be sensitive to the additional lexical information provided by the particle, but are unable to relate the split particle to the preceding verb and recognize the ungrammaticality in non-V2 contexts. Taken together, my findings suggest that non-canonical word orders are not per se more difficult to identify for L2 speakers than L1 speakers and can trigger the same reanalysis processes as in L1 speakers. I argue that L2 speakers' ability to identify a non-canonical word order depends on how the non-canonicity is signaled (case marking vs. surface word order), on the constituents involved (identical vs. different word types), and on the impact of the word order change on sentence meaning. Non-canonical word orders that are signaled by morphological case marking and cause no change to the sentence's content are hard to detect for L2 speakers.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Stone2020,
  author    = {Stone, Kate},
  title     = {Predicting long-distance lexical content in German verb-particle constructions},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-47679},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-476798},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {A large body of research now supports the presence of both syntactic and lexical predictions in sentence processing. Lexical predictions, in particular, are considered to indicate a deep level of predictive processing that extends past the structural features of a necessary word (e.g. noun), right down to the phonological features of the lexical identity of a specific word (e.g. /kite/; DeLong et al., 2005). However, evidence for lexical predictions typically focuses on predictions in very local environments, such as the adjacent word or words (DeLong et al., 2005; Van Berkum et al., 2005; Wicha et al., 2004). Predictions in such local environments may be indistinguishable from lexical priming, which is transient and uncontrolled, and as such may prime lexical items that are not compatible with the context (e.g. Kukona et al., 2014). Predictive processing has been argued to be a controlled process, with top-down information guiding preactivation of plausible upcoming lexical items (Kuperberg \& Jaeger, 2016). One way to distinguish lexical priming from prediction is to demonstrate that preactivated lexical content can be maintained over longer distances. In this dissertation, separable German particle verbs are used to demonstrate that preactivation of lexical items can be maintained over multi-word distances. A self-paced reading time and an eye tracking experiment provide some support for the idea that particle preactivation triggered by a verb and its context can be observed by holding the sentence context constant and manipulating the predictabilty of the particle. Although evidence of an effect of particle predictability was only seen in eye tracking, this is consistent with previous evidence suggesting that predictive processing facilitates only some eye tracking measures to which the self-paced reading modality may not be sensitive (Staub, 2015; Rayner1998). Interestingly, manipulating the distance between the verb and the particle did not affect reading times, suggesting that the surprisal-predicted faster reading times at long distance may only occur when the additional distance is created by information that adds information about the lexical identity of a distant element (Levy, 2008; Grodner \& Gibson, 2005). Furthermore, the results provide support for models proposing that temporal decay is not major influence on word processing (Lewandowsky et al., 2009; Vasishth et al., 2019). In the third and fourth experiments, event-related potentials were used as a method for detecting specific lexical predictions. In the initial ERP experiment, we found some support for the presence of lexical predictions when the sentence context constrained the number of plausible particles to a single particle. This was suggested by a frontal post-N400 positivity (PNP) that was elicited when a lexical prediction had been violated, but not to violations when more than one particle had been plausible. The results of this study were highly consistent with previous research suggesting that the PNP might be a much sought-after ERP marker of prediction failure (DeLong et al., 2011; DeLong et al., 2014; Van Petten \& Luka, 2012; Thornhill \& Van Petten, 2012; Kuperberg et al., 2019). However, a second experiment in a larger sample experiment failed to replicate the effect, but did suggest the relationship of the PNP to predictive processing may not yet be fully understood. Evidence for long-distance lexical predictions was inconclusive. The conclusion drawn from the four experiments is that preactivation of the lexical entries of plausible upcoming particles did occur and was maintained over long distances. The facilitatory effect of this preactivation at the particle site therefore did not appear to be the result of transient lexical priming. However, the question of whether this preactivation can also lead to lexical predictions of a specific particle remains unanswered. Of particular interest to future research on predictive processing is further characterisation of the PNP. Implications for models of sentence processing may be the inclusion of long-distance lexical predictions, or the possibility that preactivation of lexical material can facilitate reading times and ERP amplitude without commitment to a specific lexical item.},
  language  = {en}
}