@article{LaurinaviehyuteChrabaszczFarizovaetal.2016, author = {Laurinaviehyute, Anna K. and Chrabaszcz, Anna V. and Farizova, Nina O. and Tolkacheva, Valeria A. and Dragoy, Olga V.}, title = {Влияние сенсомоторных стереотипоВ на понимание пространстВенных конструкций}, series = {Voprosy Jazykoznanij}, journal = {Voprosy Jazykoznanij}, number = {3}, publisher = {Nauka}, address = {Moskva}, issn = {0373-658X}, doi = {10.31857/S0373658X0001002-1}, pages = {99 -- 109}, year = {2016}, abstract = {In an eye-tracking study we tested the hypothesis that comprehension is facilitated by a match between the order of the verb and its arguments in a sentence and the order of the actual sensorimotor interaction with these objects (for example, in the phrase put the bag into the box, the order of the arguments corresponds to the order of motor actions: take the bag, put it into the box) could facilitate comprehension of such constructions. We tested 40 native Russian speakers in a visual world sentence-picture matching task. In prepositional constructions, there was no difference between conditions that matched or mismatched sensorimotor stereotypes, whereas in instrumental constructions, sensorimotor stereotypes facilitated comprehension.}, language = {ru} } @misc{LogačevVasishth2016, author = {Logačev, Pavel and Vasishth, Shravan}, title = {Understanding underspecification}, doi = {10.1080/17470218.2015.1134602}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-93441}, pages = {996 -- 1012}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Swets et al. (2008. Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory and Cognition, 36(1), 201-216) presented evidence that the so-called ambiguity advantage [Traxler et al. (1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(4), 558-592], which has been explained in terms of the Unrestricted Race Model, can equally well be explained by assuming underspecification in ambiguous conditions driven by task-demands. Specifically, if comprehension questions require that ambiguities be resolved, the parser tends to make an attachment: when questions are about superficial aspects of the target sentence, readers tend to pursue an underspecification strategy. It is reasonable to assume that individual differences in strategy will play a significant role in the application of such strategies, so that studying average behaviour may not be informative. In order to study the predictions of the good-enough processing theory, we implemented two versions of underspecification: the partial specification model (PSM), which is an implementation of the Swets et al. proposal, and a more parsimonious version, the non-specification model (NSM). We evaluate the relative fit of these two kinds of underspecification to Swets et al.'s data; as a baseline, we also fitted three models that assume no underspecification. We find that a model without underspecification provides a somewhat better fit than both underspecification models, while the NSM model provides a better fit than the PSM. We interpret the results as lack of unambiguous evidence in favour of underspecification; however, given that there is considerable existing evidence for good-enough processing in the literature, it is reasonable to assume that some underspecification might occur. Under this assumption, the results can be interpreted as tentative evidence for NSM over PSM. More generally, our work provides a method for choosing between models of real-time processes in sentence comprehension that make qualitative predictions about the relationship between several dependent variables. We believe that sentence processing research will greatly benefit from a wider use of such methods.}, language = {en} } @misc{Schmidt2016, type = {Master Thesis}, author = {Schmidt, Andreas}, title = {Udmurt as an OV language}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-89465}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {iii, 94}, year = {2016}, abstract = {This is the first study to investigate Hubert Haider's (2000, 2010, 2013, 2014) proposed systematic differences between OV and VO language in a family other than Germanic. Its aim is to gather evidence on whether basic word order is predictive of further properties of a language. The languages under investigation are the Finno-Ugric languages Udmurt (as an OV language) and Finnish (as a VO language). Counter to Kayne (1994), Haider proposes that the structure of a sentence with a head-final VP is fundamentally different from that of a sentence with a head-initial VP, e.g., OV languages do not exhibit a VP-shell structure, and they do not employ a TP layer with a structural subject position. Haider's proposed structural differences are said to result in the following empirically testable differences: (a) VP: the availability of VP-internal adverbial intervention and scrambling only in OV-VPs; (b) subjects: the lack of certain subject-object asymmetries in OV languages, i.e., lack of the subject condition and lack of superiority effects; (c) V-complexes: the availability of partial predicate fronting only in OV languages; different orderings between selecting and selected verbs; the intervention of non-verbal material between verbs only in VO languages; (d) V-particles: differences in the distribution of resultative phrases and verb particles. Udmurt and Finnish behave in line with Haider's predictions with regard to the status of the subject, with regard to the order of selecting and selected verbs, and with regard to the availability of partial predicate fronting. Moreover, Udmurt allows for adverbial intervention and scrambling, as predicted, whereas the status of these properties in Finnish could not be reliably determined due to obligatory V-to-T. There is also counterevidence to Haider's predictions: Udmurt allows for non-verbal material between verbs, and the distribution of resultative phrases and verb particles is essentially as free as the distribution of adverbial phrases in both Finno-Ugric languages. As such, Haider's theory is not falsified by the data from Udmurt and Finnish (except for his theory on verb particles), but it is also not fully supported by the data.}, language = {en} } @misc{AdeltHanneStadie2016, author = {Adelt, Anne and Hanne, Sandra and Stadie, Nicole}, title = {Treatment of sentence comprehension and production in aphasia}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-96365}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Exploring generalisation following treatment of language deficits in aphasia can provide insights into the functional relation of the cognitive processing systems involved. In the present study, we first review treatment outcomes of interventions targeting sentence processing deficits and, second report a treatment study examining the occurrence of practice effects and generalisation in sentence comprehension and production. In order to explore the potential linkage between processing systems involved in comprehending and producing sentences, we investigated whether improvements generalise within (i.e., uni-modal generalisation in comprehension or in production) and/or across modalities (i.e., cross-modal generalisation from comprehension to production or vice versa). Two individuals with aphasia displaying co-occurring deficits in sentence comprehension and production were trained on complex, non-canonical sentences in both modalities. Two evidence-based treatment protocols were applied in a crossover intervention study with sequence of treatment phases being randomly allocated. Both participants benefited significantly from treatment, leading to uni-modal generalisation in both comprehension and production. However, cross-modal generalisation did not occur. The magnitude of uni-modal generalisation in sentence production was related to participants' sentence comprehension performance prior to treatment. These findings support the assumption of modality-specific sub-systems for sentence comprehension and production, being linked uni-directionally from comprehension to production.}, language = {en} } @phdthesis{Engelmann2016, author = {Engelmann, Felix}, title = {Toward an integrated model of sentence processing in reading}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-100864}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {xiii, 143}, year = {2016}, abstract = {In experiments investigating sentence processing, eye movement measures such as fixation durations and regression proportions while reading are commonly used to draw conclusions about processing difficulties. However, these measures are the result of an interaction of multiple cognitive levels and processing strategies and thus are only indirect indicators of processing difficulty. In order to properly interpret an eye movement response, one has to understand the underlying principles of adaptive processing such as trade-off mechanisms between reading speed and depth of comprehension that interact with task demands and individual differences. Therefore, it is necessary to establish explicit models of the respective mechanisms as well as their causal relationship with observable behavior. There are models of lexical processing and eye movement control on the one side and models on sentence parsing and memory processes on the other. However, no model so far combines both sides with explicitly defined linking assumptions. In this thesis, a model is developed that integrates oculomotor control with a parsing mechanism and a theory of cue-based memory retrieval. On the basis of previous empirical findings and independently motivated principles, adaptive, resource-preserving mechanisms of underspecification are proposed both on the level of memory access and on the level of syntactic parsing. The thesis first investigates the model of cue-based retrieval in sentence comprehension of Lewis \& Vasishth (2005) with a comprehensive literature review and computational modeling of retrieval interference in dependency processing. The results reveal a great variability in the data that is not explained by the theory. Therefore, two principles, 'distractor prominence' and 'cue confusion', are proposed as an extension to the theory, thus providing a more adequate description of systematic variance in empirical results as a consequence of experimental design, linguistic environment, and individual differences. In the remainder of the thesis, four interfaces between parsing and eye movement control are defined: Time Out, Reanalysis, Underspecification, and Subvocalization. By comparing computationally derived predictions with experimental results from the literature, it is investigated to what extent these four interfaces constitute an appropriate elementary set of assumptions for explaining specific eye movement patterns during sentence processing. Through simulations, it is shown how this system of in itself simple assumptions results in predictions of complex, adaptive behavior. In conclusion, it is argued that, on all levels, the sentence comprehension mechanism seeks a balance between necessary processing effort and reading speed on the basis of experience, task demands, and resource limitations. Theories of linguistic processing therefore need to be explicitly defined and implemented, in particular with respect to linking assumptions between observable behavior and underlying cognitive processes. The comprehensive model developed here integrates multiple levels of sentence processing that hitherto have only been studied in isolation. The model is made publicly available as an expandable framework for future studies of the interactions between parsing, memory access, and eye movement control.}, language = {en} } @phdthesis{Trutkowski2016, author = {Trutkowski, Ewa}, title = {Topic Drop and Null Subjects in German}, series = {Linguistics \& Philosophy ; 6}, journal = {Linguistics \& Philosophy ; 6}, publisher = {de Gruyter}, address = {Berlin}, isbn = {978-3-11-044413-1}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {248}, year = {2016}, abstract = {This study presents new insights into null subjects, topic drop and the interpretation of topic-dropped elements. Besides providing an empirical data survey, it offers explanations to well-known problems, e.g. syncretisms in the context of null-subject licensing or the marginality of dropping an element which carries oblique case. The book constitutes a valuable source for both empirically and theoretically interested (generative) linguists.}, language = {en} } @article{JacobKirkici2016, author = {Jacob, Gunnar and Kirkici, Bilal}, title = {The processing of morphologically complex words in a specific speaker group A masked-priming study with Turkish heritage speakers}, series = {The mental lexicon}, volume = {11}, journal = {The mental lexicon}, publisher = {John Benjamins Publishing Co.}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {1871-1340}, doi = {10.1075/ml.11.2.06jac}, pages = {308 -- 328}, year = {2016}, abstract = {The present study investigates to what extent morphological priming varies across different groups of native speakers of a language. In two masked-priming experiments, we investigate the processing of morphologically complex Turkish words in Turkish heritage speakers raised and living in Germany. Materials and experimental design were based on K\&\#305;rk\&\#305;c\&\#305; and Clahsen's (2013) study on morphological processing in Turkish native speakers and L2 learners, allowing for direct comparisons between the three groups. Experiment 1 investigated priming effects for morphologically related prime-target pairs. Heritage speakers showed a similar pattern of results as the L1 comparison group, with significant priming effects for prime-target pairs with inflected primes (e.g. 'sorar-sor' asks-ask) as well as for prime-target pairs with derived primes (e.g. 'sa\&\#287;l\&\#305;k-sa\&\#287;' health-healthy). In Experiment 2, we measured priming effects for prime-target pairs which were semantically and morphologically unrelated, but only related with regard to orthographic overlap (e.g. 'devre-dev' period-giant). Unlike both L1 speakers raised in Turkey and highly proficient L2 learners, heritage speakers also showed significant priming effects in this condition. Our results suggest that heritage speakers differ from both native speakers and L2 learners in that they rely more on (orthographic) surface form properties of the stimulus during early stages of word recognition, at the expense of morphological decomposition.}, language = {en} } @article{OPUS4-50337, title = {The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure}, editor = {F{\´e}ry, Caroline and Ishihara, Shinichiro}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {978-0-19-964267-0}, doi = {10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.001.0001}, pages = {xxiv, 966}, year = {2016}, abstract = {This book offers a clear, critical, and comprehensive overview of theoretical and experimental work on information structure. Different chapters examine the main theories of information structure in syntax, phonology, and semantics as well as perspectives from psycholinguistics and other relevant fields. Following the editors' introduction the book is divided into four parts. The first, on theories of and theoretical perspectives on information structure, includes chapters on topic, prosody, and implicature. Part II covers a range of current issues in the field, including focus, quantification, and sign languages, while Part III is concerned with experimental approaches to information structure, including processes involved in its acquisition and comprehension. The final part contains a series of linguistic case studies drawn from a wide variety of the world's language families}, language = {en} } @misc{Adak2016, author = {Adak, H{\"u}lya}, title = {Teaching the Armenian Genocide in Turkey: Curriculum, Methods, and Sources}, series = {PMLA : Publications of the Modern Language Association}, volume = {131}, journal = {PMLA : Publications of the Modern Language Association}, publisher = {Modern Language Association of America}, address = {New York}, issn = {0030-8129}, pages = {1515 -- 1518}, year = {2016}, language = {en} } @article{Fanselow2016, author = {Fanselow, Gisbert}, title = {Syntactic and Prosodic Reflexes of Information Structure}, series = {The Oxford handbook of information structure}, journal = {The Oxford handbook of information structure}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {978-0-19-964267-0}, pages = {621 -- 641}, year = {2016}, language = {en} }