@phdthesis{Shipova2024,
  author    = {Shipova, Evgeniya},
  title     = {Formal analysis of {\`e}to-clefts in Russian: syntax and semantics},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-63014},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-630149},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {219},
  year      = {2024},
  abstract  = {{\`E}to-clefts are Russian focus constructions with the demonstrative pronoun {\`e}to 'this' at the beginning: "{\`E}to Mark vyigral gonku" ("It was Mark who won the race"). They are often being compared with English it-clefts, German es-clefts, as well as the corresponding focus-background structures in other languages. In terms of semantics, {\`e}to-clefts have two important properties which are cross-linguistically typical for clefts: existence presupposition ("Someone won the race") and exhaustivity ("Nobody except Mark won the race"). However, the exhaustivity effects are not as strong as exhaustivity effects in structures with the exclusive only and require more research. At the same time, the question if the syntactic structure of {\`e}to-clefts matches the biclausal structure of English and German clefts, remains open. There are arguments in favor of biclausality, as well as monoclausality. Besides, there is no consistency regarding the status of {\`e}to itself. Finally, the information structure of {\`e}to-clefts has remained underexplored in the existing literature. This research investigates the information-structural, syntactic, and semantic properties of Russian clefts, both theoretically (supported by examples from Russian text corpora and judgments from native speakers) and experimentally. It is determined which desired changes in the information structure motivate native speakers to choose an {\`e}to-cleft and not the canonical structure or other focus realization tools. Novel syntactic tests are conducted to find evidence for bi-/monoclausality of {\`e}to-clefts, as well as for base-generation or movement of the cleft pivot. It is hypothesized that {\`e}to has a certain important function in clefts, and its status is investigated. Finally, new experiments on the nature of exhaustivity in {\`e}to-clefts are conducted. They allow for direct cross-linguistic comparison, using an incremental-information paradigm with truth-value judgments. In terms of information structure, this research makes a new proposal that presents {\`e}to-clefts as structures with an inherent focus-background bipartitioning. Even though {\`e}to-clefts are used in typical focus contexts, evidence was found that {\`e}to-clefts (as well as Russian thetic clefts) allow for both new information focus and contrastive focus. {\`E}to-clefts are pragmatically acceptable when a singleton answer to the implied question is expected (e.g. "It was Mark who won the race" but not "It was Mark who came to the party"). Importantly, {\`e}to in Russian clefts is neither dummy, nor redundant, but is a topic expression; conveys familiarity which triggers existence presupposition; refers to an instantiated event, or a known/perceivable situation; finally, {\`e}to plays an important role in the spoken language as a tool for speech coherency and a focus marker. In terms of syntax, this research makes a new monoclausal proposal and shows evidence that the cleft pivot undergoes movement to the left peripheral position. {\`E}to is proposed to be TopP. Finally, in terms of semantics, a novel cross-linguistic evaluation of Russian clefts is made. Experiments show that the exhaustivity inference in {\`e}to-clefts is not robust. Participants used different strategies in resolving exhaustivity, falling into 2 groups: one group considered {\`e}to-clefts exhaustive, while another group considered them non-exhaustive. Hence, there is evidence for the pragmatic nature of exhaustivity in {\`e}to-clefts. The experimental results for {\`e}to-clefts are similar to the experimental results for clefts in German, French and Akan. It is concluded that speakers use different tools available in their languages to produce structures with similar interpretive properties.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{Hauenstein2023,
  type      = {Master Thesis},
  author    = {Hauenstein, Silke},
  title     = {„Auf einmal der Hund hat sich mies erschrocken." Eine korpuslinguistische Analyse von V3-Deklarativa mono- und bilingualer L1-Sprecher:innen sowie fortgeschrittener Lernender des Deutschen},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-58314},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-583140},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {111},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {V3-Deklarativa - wie z.B. ‚Auf einmal der Hund hat sich mies erschrocken' - kommen sowohl bei bilingualen als auch bei monolingualen L1-Sprecher:innen des Deutschen vor. Im Rahmen einer korpuslinguistischen Analyse anhand des RUEG-Korpus (Wiese et al. 2021) untersucht diese Masterarbeit die folgende Fragestellung: In welchen Kontexten verwenden mono- und bilinguale Sprecher:innen des Deutschen genuines V3? Dabei bezieht sich der Begriff ‚Kontext' sowohl auf das Setting, in dem die V3-Deklarativa produziert werden (mediale und konzeptionelle M{\"u}ndlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit), als auch den linguistischen Kontext (syntaktische, semantische, informationsstrukturelle und phonologische Eigenschaften der pr{\"a}verbalen Konstituenten). Die Korpusuntersuchung ergibt, dass V3-Belege in allen Settings und in allen Sprecher:innengruppen auftreten. Die bilingualen Sprecher:innen verwenden insgesamt h{\"a}ufiger V3 als die monolingualen, wobei jedoch große Frequenzunterschiede je nach Heritage-Sprache vorliegen. Hinsichtlich der pr{\"a}verbalen Konstituenten best{\"a}tigt sich die bereits in der vorherigen Forschung identifizierte Tendenz zur syntaktischen Abfolge Adverbial-Subjekt und zur semantischen Abfolge Zeit-Person. Neben Temporaladverbialen erscheinen insbesondere Satzadverbiale als initiale Konstituente. Auf Ebene der Informationsstruktur kann den initialen Adverbialen zu fast 94\% die Funktion eines Diskurslinkers oder Framesetters zugeschrieben werden, was die These einer informationsstrukturellen Motivation der V3-Stellung bekr{\"a}ftigt. Eine zweite Korpusanalyse anhand des Korpus Falko der Humboldt-Universit{\"a}t zu Berlin zeigt, dass sich auch bei V3-Deklarativa fortgeschrittener DaF-Lernender eine informationsstrukturelle Motivation der Syntax geltend machen l{\"a}sst. Insgesamt pl{\"a}diert die Masterarbeit somit f{\"u}r einen ressourcenorientierten Blick auf V3-Strukturen.},
  language  = {de}
}
@phdthesis{Chen2022,
  author    = {Chen, Hui Ching},
  title     = {Acquisition of focus - in a cross-linguistic perspective},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-55345},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-553458},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {xiii, 130},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {In dieser Dissertation untersuchen wir, wie chinesischen Muttersprachler und deutschen Muttersprachler, sowohl die Erwachsenen als auch die Kinder, verschiedene linguistische Mittel, wie z. B. Wortstellungsinformationen, prosodische und lexikalische Mittel im Sprachverst{\"a}ndnis korrekt interpretieren.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Atasoy2022,
  author    = {Atasoy, Atilla},
  title     = {Production, perception, and processing of focus in Turkish},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-54815},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-548156},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {xxiii, 267},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {The main goal of this dissertation is to experimentally investigate how focus is realised, perceived, and processed by native Turkish speakers, independent of preconceived notions of positional restrictions. Crucially, there are various issues and scientific debates surrounding focus in the Turkish language in the existing literature (chapter 1). It is argued in this dissertation that two factors led to the stagnant literature on focus in Turkish: the lack of clearly defined, modern understandings of information structure and its fundamental notion of focus, and the ongoing and ill-defined debate surrounding the question of whether there is an immediately preverbal focus position in Turkish. These issues gave rise to specific research questions addressed across this dissertation. Specifically, we were interested in how the focus dimensions such as focus size (comparing narrow constituent and broad sentence focus), focus target (comparing narrow subject and narrow object focus), and focus type (comparing new-information and contrastive focus) affect Turkish focus realisation and, in turn, focus comprehension when speakers are provided syntactic freedom to position focus as they see fit. To provide data on these core goals, we presented three behavioural experiments based on a systematic framework of information structure and its notions (chapter 2): (i) a production task with trigger wh-questions and contextual animations manipulated to elicit the focus dimensions of interest (chapter 3), (ii) a timed acceptability judgment task in listening to the recorded answers in our production task (chapter 4), and (iii) a self-paced reading task to gather on-line processing data (chapter 5). Based on the results of the conducted experiments, multiple conclusions are made in this dissertation (chapter 6). Firstly, this dissertation demonstrated empirically that there is no focus position in Turkish, neither in the sense of a strict focus position language nor as a focally loaded position facilitating focus perception and/or processing. While focus is, in fact, syntactically variable in the Turkish preverbal area, this is a consequence of movement triggered by other IS aspects like topicalisation and backgrounding, and the observational markedness of narrow subject focus compared to narrow object focus. As for focus type in Turkish, this dimension is not associated with word order in production, perception, or processing. Significant acoustic correlates of focus size (broad sentence focus vs narrow constituent focus) and focus target (narrow subject focus vs narrow object focus) were observed in fundamental frequency and intensity, representing focal boost, (postfocal) deaccentuation, and the presence or absence of a phrase-final rise in the prenucleus, while the perceivability of these effects remains to be investigated. In contrast, no acoustic correlates of focus type in simple, three-word transitive structures were observed, with focus types being interchangeable in mismatched question-answer pairs. Overall, the findings of this dissertation highlight the need for experimental investigations regarding focus in Turkish, as theoretical predictions do not necessarily align with experimental data. As such, the fallacy of implying causation from correlation should be strictly kept in mind, especially when constructions coincide with canonical structures, such as the immediately preverbal position in narrow object foci. Finally, numerous open questions remain to be explored, especially as focus and word order in Turkish are multifaceted. As shown, givenness is a confounding factor when investigating focus types, while thematic role assignment potentially confounds word order preferences. Further research based on established, modern information structure frameworks is needed, with chapter 5 concluding with specific recommendations for such future research.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Rauh2019,
  author    = {Rauh, Gisa},
  title     = {Erinnerungen an die Gr{\"u}ndung des Instituts f{\"u}r Linguistik an der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  series = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  journal   = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-457-9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43320},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-433202},
  pages     = {415 -- 435},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{Staudacher2019,
  author    = {Staudacher, Peter},
  title     = {Plato on nature (φύσις) and convention (συνθήκη)},
  series = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  journal   = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-457-9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43319},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-433193},
  pages     = {395 -- 411},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Wunderlich2019,
  author    = {Wunderlich, Dieter},
  title     = {{\"U}ber naturnotwendige und kulturaffine Schritte in der Sprachentstehung und -entwicklung},
  series = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  journal   = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-457-9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43318},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-433182},
  pages     = {383 -- 394},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{Stiebels2019,
  author    = {Stiebels, Barbara},
  title     = {Bienenfresserortungsversuch},
  series = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  journal   = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-457-9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43192},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-431921},
  pages     = {15 -- 26},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Bierwisch2019,
  author    = {Bierwisch, Manfred},
  title     = {Leben mit Paradoxien},
  series = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  journal   = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-457-9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43193},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-431939},
  pages     = {27 -- 36},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{Zimmermann2019,
  author    = {Zimmermann, Ilse},
  title     = {Zur Analysierbarkeit adverbieller Konnektive},
  series = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  journal   = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-457-9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43194},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-431942},
  pages     = {37 -- 60},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{BrownSchmidtWierzba2019,
  author    = {Brown, Jessica M. M. and Schmidt, Andreas and Wierzba, Marta},
  title     = {Preface},
  series = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  journal   = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-457-9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43057},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-430575},
  pages     = {xiii -- xvi},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Olsen2019,
  author    = {Olsen, Susan},
  title     = {The instrumental -er suffix},
  series = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  journal   = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-457-9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43060},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-430607},
  pages     = {3 -- 14},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Bayer2019,
  author    = {Bayer, Josef},
  title     = {On uninterpretable features},
  series = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  journal   = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-457-9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43250},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-432507},
  pages     = {231 -- 241},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Titov2019,
  author    = {Titov, Elena},
  title     = {Accusative Unaccusatives},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-457-9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43251},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-432515},
  pages     = {243 -- 256},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{FominyamTran2019,
  author    = {Fominyam, Henry and Tran, Thuan},
  title     = {Beware of 'discourse markers'},
  series = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  journal   = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-457-9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43252},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-432524},
  pages     = {257 -- 272},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BornkesselSchlesewskySchlesewsky2019,
  author    = {Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina D. and Schlesewsky, Matthias},
  title     = {Is it a bird? Is it a mammal?},
  series = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  journal   = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-457-9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43253},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-432534},
  pages     = {275 -- 286},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Zimmermann2019,
  author    = {Zimmermann, Malte},
  title     = {Im Korpus gibt's keine V{\"o}gel nicht},
  series = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  journal   = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-457-9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43254},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-432541},
  pages     = {287 -- 306},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HaeusslerMuchaSchmidtetal.2019,
  author    = {H{\"a}ussler, Jana and Mucha, Anna and Schmidt, Andreas and Weskott, Thomas and Wierzba, Marta},
  title     = {Experimenting with Lurchi},
  series = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  journal   = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-457-9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43255},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-432553},
  pages     = {307 -- 321},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Stede2019,
  author    = {Stede, Manfred},
  title     = {Noch kindlich oder schon jugendlich? Oder gar erwachsen?},
  series = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  journal   = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-457-9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43256},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-432569},
  pages     = {323 -- 334},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{Skopeteas2019,
  author    = {Skopeteas, Stavros},
  title     = {Splits and Birds},
  series = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  journal   = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-457-9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43257},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-432578},
  pages     = {335 -- 341},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Haider2019,
  author    = {Haider, Hubert},
  title     = {An anthropic principle in lieu of a "Universal Grammar"},
  series = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  journal   = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-457-9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43259},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-432590},
  pages     = {363 -- 381},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Meinunger2019,
  author    = {Meinunger, Andr{\´e}},
  title     = {Wie und wo Ambiguit{\"a}t Ungrammatikalit{\"a}t vort{\"a}uscht},
  series = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  journal   = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-457-9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43233},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-432338},
  pages     = {171 -- 184},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{Thiersch2019,
  author    = {Thiersch, Craig},
  title     = {A note on apparent sluicing in Malagasy},
  series = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  journal   = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-457-9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43234},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-432341},
  pages     = {185 -- 209},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{FeryArnhold2019,
  author    = {F{\´e}ry, Caroline and Arnhold, Anja},
  title     = {Verum focus and negation},
  series = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  journal   = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-457-9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43235},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-432356},
  pages     = {213 -- 229},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Cavar2019,
  author    = {Cavar, Damir},
  title     = {Measuring lexical semantic variation using word embeddings},
  series = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  journal   = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-457-9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43220},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-432201},
  pages     = {61 -- 74},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BacskaiAtkari2019,
  author    = {Bacskai-Atkari, Julia},
  title     = {Towards a Fanselownian analysis of degree expressions},
  series = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  journal   = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-457-9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43222},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-432222},
  pages     = {95 -- 106},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Alexiadou2019,
  author    = {Alexiadou, Artemis},
  title     = {A form-function mismatch?},
  series = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  journal   = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-457-9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43223},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-432235},
  pages     = {107 -- 117},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Błaszczak2019,
  author    = {Błaszczak, Joanna},
  title     = {Why is a predicate inversion analysis problematic?},
  series = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  journal   = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-457-9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43224},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-432240},
  pages     = {119 -- 133},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Mueller2019,
  author    = {M{\"u}ller, Gereon},
  title     = {Can unaccusative verbs undergo passivization in German?},
  series = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  journal   = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-457-9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43225},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-432257},
  pages     = {135 -- 154},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Šimik2019,
  author    = {Šim{\´i}k, Radek},
  title     = {On doubling unconditionals},
  series = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  journal   = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-457-9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43226},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-432267},
  pages     = {155 -- 169},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Georgi2019,
  author    = {Georgi, Doreen},
  title     = {Intermediate reflexes of movement},
  series = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  journal   = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-457-9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43221},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-432217},
  pages     = {77 -- 93},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Gafos2019,
  author    = {Gafos, Adamantios I.},
  title     = {Multistability in speech and other activities},
  series = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  journal   = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-457-9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43258},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-432580},
  pages     = {343 -- 360},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {en}
}
@book{OlsenStiebelsBierwischetal.2019,
  author    = {Olsen, Susan and Stiebels, Barbara and Bierwisch, Manfred and Zimmermann, Ilse and Cavar, Damir and Georgi, Doreen and Bacskai-Atkari, Julia and Alexiadou, Artemis and Błaszczak, Joanna and M{\"u}ller, Gereon and Šim{\´i}k, Radek and Meinunger, Andr{\´e} and Thiersch, Craig and Arnhold, Anja and F{\´e}ry, Caroline and Bayer, Josef and Titov, Elena and Fominyam, Henry and Tran, Thuan and Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina D. and Schlesewsky, Matthias and Zimmermann, Malte and H{\"a}ussler, Jana and Mucha, Anne and Schmidt, Andreas and Weskott, Thomas and Wierzba, Marta and Stede, Manfred and Skopeteas, Stavros and Gafos, Adamantios I. and Haider, Hubert and Wunderlich, Dieter and Staudacher, Peter and Rauh, Gisa},
  title     = {Of Trees and Birds},
  editor    = {Brown, Jessica M. M. and Schmidt, Andreas and Wierzba, Marta},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-457-9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-42654},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-426542},
  publisher      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {xvi, 435},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Gisbert Fanselow's work has been invaluable and inspiring to many ­researchers working on syntax, morphology, and information ­structure, both from a ­theoretical and from an experimental perspective. This ­volume comprises a collection of articles dedicated to Gisbert on the occasion of his 60th birthday, covering a range of topics from these areas and beyond. The contributions have in ­common that in a broad sense they have to do with language structures (and thus trees), and that in a more specific sense they have to do with birds. They thus cover two of Gisbert's major interests in- and outside of the linguistic world (and ­perhaps even at the interface).},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Burmester2019,
  author    = {Burmester, Juliane},
  title     = {Linguistic and visual salience in sentence comprehension},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-44315},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-443155},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {XI, 165},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Interlocutors typically link their utterances to the discourse environment and enrich communication by linguistic (e.g., information packaging) and extra-linguistic (e.g., eye gaze, gestures) means to optimize information transfer. Psycholinguistic studies underline that ‒for meaning computation‒ listeners profit from linguistic and visual cues that draw their focus of attention to salient information. This dissertation is the first work that examines how linguistic compared to visual salience cues influence sentence comprehension using the very same experimental paradigms and materials, that is, German subject-before-object (SO) and object-before-subject (OS) sentences, across the two cue modalities. Linguistic salience was induced by indicating a referent as the aboutness topic. Visual salience was induced by implicit (i.e., unconscious) or explicit (i.e., shared) manipulations of listeners' attention to a depicted referent. In Study 1, a selective, facilitative impact of linguistic salience on the context-sensitive OS word order was found using offline comprehensibility judgments. More precisely, during online sentence processing, this impact was characterized by a reduced sentence-initial Late positivity which reflects reduced processing costs for updating the current mental representation of discourse. This facilitative impact of linguistic salience was not replicated by means of an implicit visual cue (Study 2) shown to modulate word order preferences during sentence production. However, a gaze shift to a depicted referent as an indicator of shared attention eased sentence-initial processing similar to linguistic salience as revealed by reduced reading times (Study 3). Yet, this cue did not modulate the strong subject-antecedent preference during later pronoun resolution like linguistic salience. Taken together, these findings suggest a significant impact of linguistic and visual salience cues on sentence comprehension, which substantiates that both the information delivered via language and via the visual environment is integrated into the mental representation of the discourse; but, the way how salience is induced is crucial to its impact.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Sauermann2016,
  author    = {Sauermann, Antje},
  title     = {Impact of the type of referring expression on the acquisition of word order variation},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-330-5},
  issn      = {1869-3822},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-89409},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {This dissertation examines the impact of the type of referring expression on the acquisition of word order variation in German-speaking preschoolers. A puzzle in the area of language acquisition concerns the production-comprehension asymmetry for non-canonical sentences like "Den Affen f{\"a}ngt die Kuh." ("The monkey, the cow chases."), that is, preschoolers usually have difficulties in accurately understanding non-canonical sentences approximately until age six (e.g., Dittmar et al., 2008) although they produce non-canonical sentences already around age three (e.g., Poeppel \& Wexler, 1993; Weissenborn, 1990). This dissertation investigated the production and comprehension of non-canonical sentences to address this issue. Three corpus analyses were conducted to investigate the impact of givenness, topic status and the type of referring expression on word order in the spontaneous speech of two- to four-year-olds and the child-directed speech produced by their mothers. The positioning of the direct object in ditransitive sentences was examined; in particular, sentences in which the direct object occurred before or after the indirect object in the sentence-medial positions and sentences in which it occurred in the sentence-initial position. The results reveal similar ordering patterns for children and adults. Word order variation was to a large extent predictable from the type of referring expression, especially with respect to the word order involving the sentence-medial positions. Information structure (e.g., topic status) had an additional impact only on word order variation that involved the sentence-initial position. Two comprehension experiments were conducted to investigate whether the type of referring expression and topic status influences the comprehension of non-canonical transitive sentences in four- and five-year-olds. In the first experiment, the topic status of the one of the sentential arguments was established via a preceding context sentence, and in the second experiment, the type of referring expression for the sentential arguments was additionally manipulated by using either a full lexical noun phrase (NP) or a personal pronoun. The results demonstrate that children's comprehension of non-canonical sentences improved when the topic argument was realized as a personal pronoun and this improvement was independent of the grammatical role of the arguments. However, children's comprehension was not improved when the topic argument was realized as a lexical NP. In sum, the results of both production and comprehension studies support the view that referring expressions may be seen as a sentence-level cue to word order and to the information status of the sentential arguments. The results highlight the important role of the type of referring expression on the acquisition of word order variation and indicate that the production-comprehension asymmetry is reduced when the type of referring expression is considered.},
  language  = {en}
}
@inproceedings{KarvovskayaKimmelmanRoehretal.2013,
  author    = {Karvovskaya, Lena and Kimmelman, Vadim and R{\"o}hr, Christine Tanja and Stavropoulou, Pepi and Titov, Elena and van Putten, Saskia},
  title     = {Information structure : empirical perspectives on theory},
  editor    = {Balbach, Maria and Benz, Lena and Genzel, Susanne and Grubic, Mira and Renans, Agata and Schalowski, S{\"o}ren and Stegenwallner, Maja and Zeldes, Amir},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-64804},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {The papers collected in this volume were presented at a Graduate/Postgraduate Student Conference with the title Information Structure: Empirical Perspectives on Theory held on December 2 and 3, 2011 at Potsdam-Griebnitzsee. The main goal of the conference was to connect young researchers working on information structure (IS) related topics and to discuss various IS categories such as givenness, focus, topic, and contrast. The aim of the conference was to find at least partial answers to the following questions: What IS categories are necessary? Are they gradient/continuous? How can one deal with optionality or redundancy? How are IS categories encoded grammatically? How do different empirical methods contribute to distinguishing between the influence of different IS categories on language comprehension and production? To answer these questions, a range of languages (Avatime, Chinese, German, Ishkashimi, Modern Greek, Old Saxon, Russian, Russian Sign Language and Sign Language of the Netherlands) and a range of phenomena from phonology, semantics, and syntax were investigated. The presented theories and data were based on different kinds of linguistic evidence: syntactic and semantic fieldwork, corpus studies, and phonological experiments. The six papers presented in this volume discuss a variety of IS categories, such as emphasis and contrast (Stavropoulous, Titov), association with focus and topics (van Putten, Karvovskaya), and givenness and backgrounding (Kimmelmann, R{\"o}hr).},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Mueller2010,
  author    = {M{\"u}ller, Anja},
  title     = {Wie interpretieren Kinder nur? : Experimentelle Untersuchungen zum Erwerb von Informationsstruktur},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-57767},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2010},
  abstract  = {Im Zentrum der Arbeit steht die Frage, wie sechsj{\"a}hrige monolingual deutsche Kinder S{\"a}tze mit der Fokuspartikel nur interpretieren. In 5 Experimenten wurde untersucht, welchen Einfluss die Oberfl{\"a}chenposition der Fokuspartikel auf das Satzverst{\"a}ndnis hat und ob die kontextuelle Einbettung der nur-S{\"a}tze zu einer zielsprachlichen Interpretation f{\"u}hrt. Im Gegensatz zu den Ergebnissen bisheriger Studien (u.a. Crain, et al. 1994; Paterson et al. 2003) zeigen die Daten der Arbeit, dass die getesteten Kinder die pr{\"a}sentierten nur-S{\"a}tze zielsprachlich interpretierten, wenn diese in einen ad{\"a}quaten Kontext eingebettet waren. Es zeigte sich weiterhin, dass die Kinder mehr Fehler bei der Interpretation von S{\"a}tzen mit nur vor dem Subjekt (Nur die Maus hat einen Ball.) als mit nur vor dem Objekt (Die Maus hat nur einen Ball.) machten. Entgegen dem syntaktisch basierten Ansatz von Crain et al. (1994) und dem semantisch-pragmatisch basierten Ansatz von Paterson et al. (2003) werden in der Arbeit informationsstrukturelle Eigenschaften bzw. Unterschiede der nur-S{\"a}tze f{\"u}r die beobachteten Leistungen verantwortlich gemacht. Der in der Arbeit postulierte Topik-Default Ansatz nimmt an, dass die Kinder das Subjekt eines Satzes immer als Topik analysieren. Dies f{\"u}hrt im Fall der S{\"a}tze mit nur vor dem Subjekt zu einer falschen informationsstrukturellen Repr{\"a}sentation des Satzes. Basierend auf den Ergebnissen der Arbeit und dem postulierten Topik-Default Ansatz wird in der Arbeit abschließend ein Erwerbsmodell f{\"u}r das Verstehen von S{\"a}tzen mit der Fokuspartikel nur entworfen und diskutiert.},
  language  = {de}
}
@misc{Meinhardt2010,
  type      = {Master Thesis},
  author    = {Meinhardt, Miriam},
  title     = {Der Einfluss der Informationsstruktur auf das Verst{\"a}ndnis von Aktiv- und Passivs{\"a}tzen im ungest{\"o}rten Spracherwerb},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-59563},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2010},
  abstract  = {Kinder erwerben Passivstrukturen sp{\"a}ter als die meisten anderen syntaktischen Strukturen. Die vorliegende Studie besch{\"a}ftigt sich mit der Frage, ob dies auf informationsstrukturelle Faktoren zur{\"u}ckzuf{\"u}hren sein k{\"o}nnte. Probleme beim Erwerb von Passivs{\"a}tzen wurden in vorhergehenden Studien unter anderem auf ihre geringe Inputfrequenz oder bestimmte syntaktische Charakteristika von Passivs{\"a}tzen zur{\"u}ckgef{\"u}hrt. Jedoch konnte bisher keiner dieser Ans{\"a}tze ihr sp{\"a}tes Erwerbsalter umfassend erkl{\"a}ren. W{\"a}hrend Aktivs{\"a}tze, die kanonische, unmarkierte Satzstruktur im Deutschen, in jeglichem Diskurskontext verwendet werden k{\"o}nnen, werden Passivs{\"a}tze fast ausschließlich dann verwendet, wenn der Patiens der beschriebenen Handlung schon vorerw{\"a}hnt war und/ oder als Topik eines Satzes fungieren soll. Passivs{\"a}tze sind also nicht in jedem Kontext informationsstrukturell ad{\"a}quat. Kinder haben im Gegensatz zu Erwachsenen aufgrund ihrer geringeren syntaktischen F{\"a}higkeiten Probleme, S{\"a}tze zu verarbeiten, die nicht in einem ad{\"a}quaten Kontext stehen. Der Einfluss dieser Kontextbedingungen auf das Satzverst{\"a}ndnis wurde in der vorliegenden Studie bei deutschsprachigen Kindern untersucht. Kindern zwischen 3;0 und 4;11 Jahren wurden Aktiv- oder Passivs{\"a}tze pr{\"a}sentiert, denen informationsstrukturell ad{\"a}quate, inad{\"a}quate oder neutrale Kontexts{\"a}tze vorangingen. Wie erwartet verstanden die Kinder Aktivs{\"a}tze besser als Passivs{\"a}tze und 4-j{\"a}hrige Kinder zeigten bessere Leistungen als 3-j{\"a}hrige. Es gab Tendenzen, dass die 3-j{\"a}hrigen Kinder Passivs{\"a}tze besser, aber Aktivs{\"a}tze schlechter verstanden, wenn ihr Subjekt vorerw{\"a}hnt wurde. Statistisch signifikante Kontexteffekte fanden sich jedoch im Gegensatz zu einer vergleichbaren Studie mit englischsprachigen Kindern (Gourley und Catlin, 1978) in keiner Testbedingung. Außerdem zeigte sich, dass die Kinder Passivs{\"a}tze insgesamt besser und Aktivs{\"a}tze insgesamt schlechter verstanden als englischsprachige Kinder in anderen Studien. Die Ergebnisse werden mit dem Competition Modell (Mac Whinney und Bates, 1987) und einer Sprachverarbeitungstheorie von Stromswold (2002) erkl{\"a}rt. Außerdem wird diskutiert, warum die deutschsprachigen Kinder in der vorliegenden Studie andere Sprachverst{\"a}ndnisleistungen zeigten als englischsprachige Kinder.},
  language  = {de}
}
@phdthesis{SennemaSkowronek2009,
  author    = {Sennema-Skowronek, Anke},
  title     = {The use of focus markers in second language word processing},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-37237},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2009},
  abstract  = {There are many factors which make speaking and understanding a second language (L2) a highly complex challenge. Skills and competencies in in both linguistic and metalinguistic areas emerge as parts of a multi-faceted, flexible concept underlying bilingual/multilingual communication. On the linguistic level, a combination of an extended knowledge of idiomatic expressions, a broad lexical familiarity, a large vocabulary size, and the ability to deal with phonetic distinctions and fine phonetic detail has been argued necessary for effective nonnative comprehension of spoken language. The scientific interest in these factors has also led to more interest in the L2's information structure, the way in which information is organised and packaged into informational units, both within and between clauses. On a practical level, the information structure of a language can offer the means to assign focus to a certain element considered important. Speakers can draw from a rich pool of linguistic means to express this focus, and listeners can in turn interpret these to guide them to the highlighted information which in turn facilitates comprehension, resulting in an appropriate understanding of what has been said. If a speaker doesn't follow the principles of information structure, and the main accent in a sentence is placed on an unimportant word, then there may be inappropriate information transfer within the discourse, and misunderstandings. The concept of focus as part of the information structure of a language, the linguistic means used to express it, and the differential use of focus in native and nonnative language processing are central to this dissertation. Languages exhibit a wide range of ways of directing focus, including by prosodic means, by syntactic constructions, and by lexical means. The general principles underlying information structure seem to contrast structurally across different languages, and they can also differ in the way they express focus. In the context of L2 acquisition, characteristics of the L1 linguistic system are argued to influence the acquisition of the L2. Similarly, the conceptual patterns of information structure of the L1 may influence the organization of information in the L2. However, strategies and patterns used to exploit information structure for succesful language comprehension in the native L1, may not apply at all, or work in different ways or todifferent degrees in the L2. This means that L2 learners ideally have to understand the way that information structure is expressed in the L2 to fully use the information structural benefit in the L2. The knowledge of information structural requirements in the L2 could also imply that the learner would have to make adjustments regarding the use of information structural devices in the L2. The general question is whether the various means to mark focus in the learners' native language are also accessible in the nonnative language, and whether a L1-L2 transfer of their usage should be considered desirable. The current work explores how information structure helps the listener to discover and structure the forms and meanings of the L2. The central hypothesis is that the ability to access information structure has an impact on the level of the learners' appropriateness and linguistic competence in the L2. Ultimately, the ability to make use of information structure in the L2 is believed to underpin the L2 learners' ability to effectively communicate in the L2. The present study investigated how use of focus markers affects processing speed and word recall recall in a native-nonnative language comparison. The predominant research question was whether the type of focus marking leads to more efficient and accurate word processing in marked structures than in unmarked structures, and whether differences in processing patterns can be observed between the two language conditions. Three perception studies were conducted, each concentrating on one of the following linguistic parameters: 1. Prosodic prominence: Does prosodic focus conveyed by sentence accent and by word position facilitate word recognition? 2. Syntactical means: Do cleft constructions result in faster and more accurate word processing? 3. Lexical means: Does focus conveyed by the particles even/only (German: sogar/nur) facilitate word processing and word recall? Experiments 2 and 3 additionally investigated the contribution of context in the form of preceding questions. Furthermore, they considered accent and its facilitative effect on the processing of words which are in the scope of syntactic or lexical focus marking. All three experiments tested German learners of English in a native German language condition and in English as their L2. Native English speakers were included as a control for the English language condition. Test materials consisted of single sentences, all dealing with bird life. Experiment 1 tested word recognition in three focus conditions (broad focus, narrow focus on the target, and narrow focus on a constituent than the target) in one condition using natural unmanipulated sentences, and in the other two conditions using spliced sentences. Experiment 2 (effect of syntactic focus marking) and Experiment 3 (effect of lexical focus marking) used phoneme monitoring as a measure for the speed of word processing. Additionally, a word recall test (4AFC) was conducted to assess the effective entry of target-bearing words in the listeners' memory. Experiment 1: Focus marking by prosodic means Prosodic focus marking by pitch accent was found to highlight important information (Bolinger, 1972), making the accented word perceptually more prominent (Klatt, 1976; van Santen \& Olive, 1990; Eefting, 1991; Koopmans-van Beinum \& van Bergem, 1989). However, accent structure seems to be processed faster in native than in nonnative listening (Akker\& Cutler, 2003, Expt. 3). Therefore, it is expected that prosodically marked words are better recognised than unmarked words, and that listeners can exploit accent structure better for accurate word recognition in their L1 than they do in the L2 (L1 > L2). Altogether, a difference in word recognition performance in L1 listening is expected between different focus conditions (narrow focus > broad focus). Results of Experiments 1 show that words were better recognized in native listening than in nonnative listening. Focal accent, however, doesn't seem to help the German subjects recognize accented words more accurately, in both the L1 and the L2. This could be due to the focus conditions not being acoustically distinctive enough. Results of experiments with spliced materials suggest that the surrounding prosodic sentence contour made listeners remember a target word and not the local, prosodic realization of the word. Prosody seems to indeed direct listeners' attention to the focus of the sentence (see Cutler, 1976). Regarding the salience of word position, VanPatten (2002; 2004) postulated a sentence location principle for L2 processing, stating a ranking of initial > final > medial word position. Other evidence mentions a processing adantage of items occurring late in the sentence (Akker \& Cutler, 2003), and Rast (2003) observed in an English L2 production study a trend of an advantage of items occurring at the outer ends of the sentence. The current Experiment 1 aimed to keep the length of the sentences to an acceptable length, mainly to keep the task in the nonnative lnaguage condition feasable. Word length showed an effect only in combination with word position (Rast, 2003; Rast \& Dommergues, 2003). Therefore, word length was included in the current experiment as a secondary factor and without hypotheses. Results of Experiment 1 revealed that the length of a word doesn't seem to be important for its accurate recognition. Word position, specifically the final position, clearly seems to facilitate accurate word recognition in German. A similar trend emerges in condition English L2, confirming Klein (1984) and Slobin (1985). Results don't support the sentence location principle of VanPatten (2002; 2004). The salience of the final position is interpreted as recency effect (Murdock, 1962). In addition, the advantage of the final position may benefit from the discourse convention that relevant background information is referred to first, and then what is novel later (Haviland \& Clark, 1974). This structure is assumed to cue the listener as to what the speaker considers to be important information, and listeners might have reacted according to this convention. Experiment 2: Focus marking by syntactic means Atypical syntactic structures often draw listeners' attention to certain information in an utterance, and the cleft structure as a focus marking device appears to be a common surface feature in many languages (Lambrecht, 2001). Surface structure influences sentence processing (Foss \& Lynch, 1969; Langford \& Holmes, 1979), which leads to competing hypotheses in Experiment 2: on the one hand, the focusing effect of the cleft construction might reduce processing times. On the other, cleft constructions in German were found to be used less to mark fo than in English (Ahlemeyer \& Kohlhof, 1999; Doherty, 1999; E. Klein, 1988). The complexity of the constructions, and the experience from the native language might work against an advantage of the focus effect in the L2. Results of Experiment 2 show that the cleft structure is an effective device to mark focus in German L1. The processing advantage is explained by the low degree of structural markedness of cleft structures: listeners use the focus function of sentence types headed by the dummy subject es (English: it) due to reliance on 'safe' subject-prominent SVO-structures. The benefit of cleft is enhanced when the sentences are presented with context, suggesting a substantial benefit when focus effects of syntactic surface structure and coherence relation between sentences are integrated. Clefts facilitate word processing for English native speakers. Contrary to German L1, the marked cleft construction doesn't reduce processing times in English L2. The L1-L2 difference was interpreted as a learner problem of applying specific linguistic structures according to the principles of information structure in the target language. Focus marking by cleft did not help German learners in native or in nonnative word recall. This could be attributed to the phonological similarity of the multiple choice options (Conrad \& Hull, 1964), and to a long time span between listening and recall (Birch \& Garnsey, 1995; McKoon et al., 1993). Experiment 3: Focus marking by lexical means Focus particles are elements of structure that can indicate focus (K{\"o}nig, 1991), and their function is to emphasize a certain part of the sentence (Paterson et al., 1999). I argue that the focus particles even/only (German: sogar/nur) evoke contrast sets of alternatives resp. complements to the element in focus (Ni et al., 1996), which causes interpretations of context. Therefore, lexical focus marking isn't expected to lead to faster word processing. However, since different mechanisms of encoding seem to underlie word memory, a benefit of the focusing function of particles is expected to show in the recall task: due to focus particles being a preferred and well-used feature for native speakers of German, a transfer of this habitualness is expected, resulting in a better recall of focused words. Results indicated that focus particles seem to be the weakest option to mark focus: Focus marking by lexical particle don't seem to reduce word processing times in either German L1, English L2, or in English L1. The presence of focus particles is likely to instantiate a complex discourse model which lets the listener await further modifying information (Liversedge et al., 2002). This semantic complexity might slow down processing. There are no indications that focus particles facilitate native language word recall in German L1 and English L1. This could be because focus particles open sets of conditions and contexts that enlarge the set of representations in listeners rather than narrowing it down to the element in the scope of the focus particle. In word recall, the facilitative effect of focus particles emerges only in the nonnative language condition. It is suggested that L2 learners, when faced with more demanding tasks in an L2, use a broad variety of means that identify focus for a better representation of novel words in the memory. In Experiments 2 and 3, evidence suggests that accent is an important factor for efficient word processing and accurate recall in German L1 and English L1, but less so in English L2. This underlines the function of accent as core speech parameter and consistent cue to the perception of prominence native language use (see Cutler \& Fodor, 1979; Pitt \& Samuel, 1990a; Eriksson et al., 2002; Akker \& Cutler, 2003); the L1-L2 difference is attributed to patterns of expectation that are employed in the L1 but not (yet?) in the L2. There seems to exist a fine-tuned sensitivity to how accents are distributed in the native language, listeners expect an appropriate distribution and interpret it accordingly (Eefting, 1991). This pleads for accent placement as extremely important to L2 proficiency; the current results also suggest that accent and its relationship with other speech parameters has to be newly established in the L2 to fully reveal its benefits for efficient processing of speech. There is evidence that additional context facilitates processing of complex syntactic structures but that a surplus of information has no effect if the sentence construction is less challenging for the listener. The increased amount of information to be processed seems to impede better word recall, particularly in the L2. Altogether, it seems that focus marking devices and context can combine to form an advantageous alliance: a substantial benefit in processing efficiency is found when parameters of focus marking and sentence coherence are integrated. L2 research advocates the beneficial aspects of providing context for efficient L2 word learning (Lawson \& Hogben, 1996). The current thesis promotes the view that a context which offers more semantic, prosodic, or lexical connections might compensate for the additional processing load that context constitutes for the listeners. A methodological consideration concerns the order in which language conditions are presented to listeners, i.e., L1-L2 or L2-L1. Findings suggest that presentation order could enforce a learning bias, with the performance in the second experiment being influenced by knowledge acquired in the first (see Akker \& Cutler, 2003). To conclude this work: The results of the present study suggest that information structure is more accessible in the native language than it is in the nonnative language. There is, however, some evidence that L2 learners have an understanding of the significance of some information-structural parameters of focus marking. This has a beneficial effect on processing efficiency and recall accuracy; on the cognitive side it illustrates the benefits and also the need of a dynamic exchange of information-structural organization between L1 and L2. The findings of the current thesis encourage the view that an understanding of information structure can help the learner to discover and categorise forms and meanings of the L2. Information structure thus emerges as a valuable resource to advance proficiency in a second language.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Engels2004,
  author    = {Engels, Eva},
  title     = {Adverb placement : an optimality theoretic approach},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-2453},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2004},
  abstract  = {Adverb positioning is guided by syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic considerations and is subject to cross-linguistic as well as language-specific variation. The goal of the thesis is to identify the factors that determine adverb placement in general (Part I) as well as in constructions in which the adverb's sister constituent is deprived of its phonetic material by movement or ellipsis (gap constructions, Part II) and to provide an Optimality Theoretic approach to the contrasts in the effects of these factors on the distribution of adverbs in English, French, and German. In Optimality Theory (Prince \& Smolensky 1993), grammaticality is defined as optimal satisfaction of a hierarchy of violable constraints: for a given input, a set of output candidates are produced out of which that candidate is selected as grammatical output which optimally satisfies the constraint hierarchy. Since grammaticality crucially relies on the hierarchic relations of the constraints, cross-linguistic variation can be traced back to differences in the language-specific constraint rankings. Part I shows how diverse phenomena of adverb placement can be captured by corresponding constraints and their relative rankings: - contrasts in the linearization of adverbs and verbs/auxiliaries in English and French - verb placement in German and the filling of the prefield position - placement of focus-sensitive adverbs - fronting of topical arguments and adverbs Part II extends the analysis to a particular phenomenon of adverb positioning: the avoidance of adverb attachment to a phonetically empty constituent (gap). English and French are similar in that the acceptability of pre-gap adverb placement depends on the type of adverb, its scope, and the syntactic construction (English: wh-movement vs. topicalization / VP Fronting / VP Ellipsis, inverted vs. non-inverted clauses; French: CLLD vs. Cleft, simple vs. periphrastic tense). Yet, the two languages differ in which strategies a specific type of adverb may pursue to escape placement in front of a certain type of gap. In contrast to English and French, placement of an adverb in front of a gap never gives rise to ungrammaticality in German. Rather, word ordering has to obey the syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic principles discussed in Part I; whether or not it results in adverb attachment to a phonetically empty constituent seems to be irrelevant: though constraints are active in every language, the emergence of a visible effect of their requirements in a given language depends on their relative ranking. The complex interaction of the diverse factors as well as their divergent effects on adverb placement in the various languages are accounted for by the universal constraints and their language-specific hierarchic relations in the OT framework.},
  subject      = {Adverb},
  language  = {en}
}