@article{HoehleFritzscheMessetal.2020,
  author    = {H{\"o}hle, Barbara and Fritzsche, Tom and Meß, Katharina and Philipp, Mareike and Gafos, Adamantios I.},
  title     = {Only the right noise?},
  series = {Developmental Science},
  volume    = {23},
  journal   = {Developmental Science},
  number    = {5},
  publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {1363-755X},
  doi       = {10.1111/desc.12950},
  pages     = {1 -- 16},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Seminal work by Werker and colleagues (Stager \& Werker [1997]Nature, 388, 381-382) has found that 14-month-old infants do not show evidence for learning minimal pairs in the habituation-switch paradigm. However, when multiple speakers produce the minimal pair in acoustically variable ways, infants' performance improves in comparison to a single speaker condition (Rost \& McMurray [2009]Developmental Science, 12, 339-349). The current study further extends these results and assesses how different kinds of input variability affect 14-month-olds' minimal pair learning in the habituation-switch paradigm testing German learning infants. The first two experiments investigated word learning when the labels were spoken by a single speaker versus when the labels were spoken by multiple speakers. In the third experiment we studied whether non-acoustic variability, implemented by visual variability of the objects presented together with the labels, would also affect minimal pair learning. We found enhanced learning in the multiple speakers compared to the single speaker condition, confirming previous findings with English-learning infants. In contrast, visual variability of the presented objects did not support learning. These findings both confirm and better delimit the beneficial role of speech-specific variability in minimal pair learning. Finally, we review different proposals on the mechanisms via which variability confers benefits to learning and outline what may be likely principles that underlie this benefit. We highlight among these the multiplicity of acoustic cues signalling phonemic contrasts and the presence of relations among these cues. It is in these relations where we trace part of the source for the apparent paradoxical benefit of variability in learning.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{FanselowZimmermannPhilipp2022,
  author    = {Fanselow, Gisbert and Zimmermann, Malte and Philipp, Mareike},
  title     = {Assessing the availability of inverse scope in German in the covered box paradigm},
  series = {Glossa : a journal of general linguistics},
  volume    = {7},
  journal   = {Glossa : a journal of general linguistics},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Open Library of Humanities},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {2397-1835},
  doi       = {10.16995/glossa.5766},
  pages     = {1 -- 24},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {This paper presents the results of a novel experimental approach to relative quantifier scope in German that elicits data in an indirect manner. Applying the covered-box method (Huang et al. 2013) to scope phenomena, we show that inverse scope is available to some extent in the free constituent order language German, thereby validating earlier findings on other syntactic configurations in German (Rado \& Bott 2018) and empirical claims on other free constituent order languages (Japanese, Russian, Hindi), as well as recent corpus findings in Webelhuth (2020). Moreover, the results of the indirect covered-box experiment replicate findings from an earlier direct-query experiment with comparable target items, in which participants were asked directly about the availability of surface scope and inverse scope readings. The configuration of interest consisted of canonical transitive clauses with deaccented existential subject and universal object QPs, in which the restriction of the universal QP was controlled for by the context.},
  language  = {en}
}