@article{BoxellFelserCunnings2017,
  author    = {Boxell, Oliver and Felser, Claudia and Cunnings, Ian},
  title     = {Antecedent contained deletions in native and non-native sentence processing},
  series = {Linguistic approaches to bilingualism},
  volume    = {7},
  journal   = {Linguistic approaches to bilingualism},
  number    = {5},
  publisher = {John Benjamins Publishing Co.},
  address   = {Amsterdam},
  issn      = {1879-9264},
  doi       = {10.1075/lab.15006.box},
  pages     = {554 -- 582},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {We report the results from an eye-movement monitoring study investigating native (L1) and non-native (L2) speakers' real-time processing of antecedent-contained deletion (ACD), a type of verb phrase ellipsis in which the ellipsis gap forms part of its own antecedent. The resulting interpretation problem is traditionally thought to be solved by quantifier raising, a covert scope-shifting operation that serves to remove the gap from within its antecedent. Our L2 group comprised advanced, native German-speaking L2 learners of English. The analysis of the eye-movement data showed that both L1 and L2 English speakers tried to recover the missing verb phrase after encountering the gap. Only the native speakers showed evidence of ellipsis resolution being affected by quantification, however. No effects of quantification following gap detection were found in the L2 group, by contrast, indicating that recovery of the elided material was accomplished independently from the object's quantificational status in this group.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{JessenFelser2018,
  author    = {Jessen, Anna and Felser, Claudia},
  title     = {Reanalysing object gaps during non-native sentence processing},
  series = {Second language research},
  volume    = {35},
  journal   = {Second language research},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Sage Publ.},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {0267-6583},
  doi       = {10.1177/0267658317753030},
  pages     = {285 -- 299},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {The present study used event related potentials (ERPs) to investigate how native (L1) German-speaking second-language (L2) learners of English process sentences containing filler-gap dependencies such as Bill liked the house (women) that Bob built some ornaments for __ at his workplace. Using an experimental design which allowed us to dissociate filler integration from reanalysis effects, we found that fillers which were implausible as direct objects of the embedded verb (e.g. built the women) elicited similar brain responses (an N400) in L1 and L2 speakers when the verb was encountered. This confirms findings from behavioral and eye-movement studies indicating that both L1 and L2 speakers immediately try to integrate a filler with a potential lexical licensor. L1/L2 differences were observed when subsequent sentence material signaled that the direct-object analysis was in fact incorrect, however. We found reanalysis effects, in the shape of a P600 for sentences containing fillers that were plausible direct objects only for L2 speakers, but not for the L1 group. This supports previous findings suggesting that L2 comprehenders recover from an initially plausible first analysis less easily than L1 speakers.},
  language  = {en}
}