@article{HoernigWeskottKliegletal.2006,
  author    = {H{\"o}rnig, Robin and Weskott, Thomas and Kliegl, Reinhold and Fanselow, Gisbert},
  title     = {Word order variation in spatial descriptions with adverbs},
  issn      = {0090-502X},
  doi       = {10.3758/BF03193264},
  year      = {2006},
  abstract  = {Previous research has shown that in a three-term spatial reasoning task, the second premise of a German premise pair is especially easy to comprehend if (1) the prepositional object rather than the grammatical subject denotes the given entity, and if (2) the term denoting the given entity precedes the term denoting the new entity. Accordingly, the second premise is easiest to comprehend with noncanonical word order-that is, with the prepositional object in preverbal position denoting the given entity (e.g., To the right of the given object is the new subject). This finding is explained in terms of contextual licensing of noncanonical word order. Here, we discuss and tested two alternative accounts of contextual licensing, given-new and partially ordered set relations (Poset). The given-new account claims that noncanonical word order is licensed by the term denoting the given entity preceding the term denoting the new entity. On the Poset account, noncanonical word order is licensed if the preverbal constituent introduces a new entity that stands in a transitive, irreflexive, and asymmetric relation to a given entity. Comprehension times for second premises with spatial adverbs in four different word orders support both accounts of contextual licensing; Poset licensing was stronger than given-new licensing.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SchlesewskyFanselowKliegletal.2000,
  author    = {Schlesewsky, Matthias and Fanselow, Gisbert and Kliegl, Reinhold and Krems, J.},
  title     = {The subject preference in the processing of locally ambiguous Wh-questions in german},
  isbn      = {0-7923-6104- 0},
  year      = {2000},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Fanselow2007,
  author    = {Fanselow, Gisbert},
  title     = {The restricted access of Information Structure to syntax : a minority report},
  isbn      = {978-3-939469-88-9},
  year      = {2007},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Fanselow2007,
  author    = {Fanselow, Gisbert},
  title     = {The restricted access of information structure to syntax},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-19713},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {This paper sketches the view that syntax does not directly interact with information structure. Therefore, syntactic data are of little help when one wants to narrow down the interpretation of terms such as "focus", "topic", etc.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Fanselow2004,
  author    = {Fanselow, Gisbert},
  title     = {The MLC and Interface Economy},
  isbn      = {3-11-017961-X},
  year      = {2004},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KlieglMayrJunkeretal.1999,
  author    = {Kliegl, Reinhold and Mayr, Ulrich and Junker, Martina and Fanselow, Gisbert},
  title     = {Testing age invariance in language processes},
  isbn      = {0-7923-8526-8},
  year      = {1999},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{FanselowKlingelMayretal.1999,
  author    = {Fanselow, Gisbert and Klingel, Rheinhold and Mayr, Ulrich and Junker, Martina},
  title     = {Test age invariance in language processing},
  year      = {1999},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BlaszczakDipperFanselowetal.2007,
  author    = {Blaszczak, Joanna and Dipper, Stefanie and Fanselow, Gisbert and Ishihara, Shinishiro and Petrova, Svetlana and Skopeteas, Stavros and Weskott, Thomas and Zimmermann, Malte},
  title     = {Syntax},
  series = {Interdisciplinary studies on information structure : ISIS},
  journal   = {Interdisciplinary studies on information structure : ISIS},
  number    = {7},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  issn      = {1614-4708},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-22253},
  pages     = {95 -- 133},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {The guidelines for syntactic annotation contain the layers that are especially relevant for queries related to the interaction of information structure with syntax. The layers of this level are constituent structure, grammatical functions, and semantic roles.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{FanselowKlieglSchlesewsky2008,
  author    = {Fanselow, Gisbert and Kliegl, Reinhold and Schlesewsky, Matthias},
  title     = {Syntactic variation in German wh-questions},
  year      = {2008},
  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}
}
@article{HaeusslerGrantFanselowetal.2015,
  author    = {H{\"a}ussler, Jana and Grant, Margaret and Fanselow, Gisbert and Frazier, Lyn},
  title     = {Superiority in English and German: Cross-Language Grammatical Differences?},
  series = {Syntax : a journal of theoretical, experimental and interdisciplinary research},
  volume    = {18},
  journal   = {Syntax : a journal of theoretical, experimental and interdisciplinary research},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {1368-0005},
  doi       = {10.1111/synt.12030},
  pages     = {235 -- 265},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Do the grammars of English and German contain a ban on moving the lower of two wh-phrases (Superiority), or is the lower acceptability due simply to the complexity of processing the longer dependency that results when the lower wh-phrase is moved? The results of four acceptability-judgment studies suggest that a pure processing account is inadequate. Crossing wh-dependencies lower the acceptability of both German and English questions but with a significantly larger penalty in English than in German (experiment 1). The larger penalty in English cannot be attributed to greater sensitivity to violations in English, because relative clause island violations result in similar effects in the two languages (experiment 2). A pure processing account might claim long dependencies are easier to process in German than in English because of richer case, but a control experiment did not support this possibility (experiment 4). We suggest that moving the lower of two wh-phrases is banned in the grammar of English but not in the grammar of German. This predicts that there should be a penalty for crossing dependencies in English even in helpful (Bolinger) contexts, as confirmed in experiment 3, and even in short easy-to-process sentences, as confirmed by simple six-word sentences in Clifton, Fanselow \& Frazier 2006. Finally, if German grammar does not contain a ban on crossing, it is not surprising that the penalty in German is smaller than in English or that like animacy of the two wh-phrases plays a larger role in German than in English because feature similarity generally gives rise to difficulty in processing, whereas in English a grammatical ban on crossing will reduce acceptability regardless of whether there is processing difficulty.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{FanselowMahajan1996,
  author    = {Fanselow, Gisbert and Mahajan, Annop},
  title     = {Some wh-asymmetries, successive cyclicity, and feature attraction},
  year      = {1996},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{FanselowKlieglSchlesewsky1999,
  author    = {Fanselow, Gisbert and Kliegl, Reinhold and Schlesewsky, Matthias},
  title     = {Processing difficulty and principles of grammar},
  year      = {1999},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{FanselowMahajan1996,
  author    = {Fanselow, Gisbert and Mahajan, Annop},
  title     = {Partial movement and successive cyclicity},
  year      = {1996},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BesnardFanselowSchaub2002,
  author    = {Besnard, Philippe and Fanselow, Gisbert and Schaub, Torsten H.},
  title     = {Optimality theory as a family of cumulative logics},
  year      = {2002},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Fanselow2000,
  author    = {Fanselow, Gisbert},
  title     = {Optimal Exceptions},
  year      = {2000},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{WeskottFanselow2011,
  author    = {Weskott, Thomas and Fanselow, Gisbert},
  title     = {On the informativity of different measures of linguistic acceptability},
  series = {Language : journal of the Linguistic Society of America},
  volume    = {87},
  journal   = {Language : journal of the Linguistic Society of America},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Linguistic Society of America},
  address   = {Washington},
  issn      = {0097-8507},
  pages     = {249 -- 273},
  year      = {2011},
  abstract  = {This article deals with the claim that the MAGNITUDE ESTIMATION (ME) method of gathering acceptability judgments produces data that are more informative for linguists than binary or n-point scale judgments. We performed three acceptability-rating experiments that directly compared ME data to binary and seven-point scale data. The results clearly falsify the hypothesis that data gathered by the ME method carry a larger amount of information about the acceptability of a given linguistic phenomenon. The three measures are largely equivalent with respect to informativity. Moreover, ME judgments are shown to be more liable to producing spurious variance under certain circumstances.*},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{FeryFanselowPaslawska2007,
  author    = {F{\´e}ry, Caroline and Fanselow, Gisbert and Paslawska, Alla},
  title     = {Nominal Split Construction in Ukrainian},
  year      = {2007},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Fanselow2003,
  author    = {Fanselow, Gisbert},
  title     = {M{\"u}nchhausen-Style Head movement and the analysis of verb-second},
  year      = {2003},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Fanselow2004,
  author    = {Fanselow, Gisbert},
  title     = {M{\"u}nchhausen-style head movement and the analysis of verb second},
  series = {Linguistics in Potsdam},
  volume    = {22},
  journal   = {Linguistics in Potsdam},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  issn      = {1864-1857},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-32497},
  pages     = {9 -- 49},
  year      = {2004},
  abstract  = {Content: 1 Introduction 2 A restrictive theory of head movement 2.1 Preliminary Remarks 2.2 Theoretical Problems of Head Movement 2.3 Remnant Phrasal Movement 2.4 M{\"u}nchhausen Style Head Movement 3 Verb Second Movement 3.1 Introductory Remarks 3.2 Problems of V/2 constructions: Does V really move to Comp? 3.3 The preverbal position 3.4 The Second Position 4 References},
  language  = {en}
}