@article{FanselowSchlesewskyVogeletal.2011,
  author    = {Fanselow, Gisbert and Schlesewsky, Matthias and Vogel, Ralf and Weskott, Thomas},
  title     = {Animacy effects on crossing wh-movement in German},
  series = {Linguistics : an interdisciplinary journal of the language sciences},
  volume    = {49},
  journal   = {Linguistics : an interdisciplinary journal of the language sciences},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {De Gruyter Mouton},
  address   = {Berlin},
  issn      = {0024-3949},
  doi       = {10.1515/LING.2011.021},
  pages     = {657 -- 683},
  year      = {2011},
  abstract  = {This article presents several acceptability rating experiments concerned with crossing wh-movement in German multiple questions. Our results show that there is no general superiority effect in German, thus refuting claims to the contrary by Featherston (2005). However, acceptability is reduced when a wh-phrase crosses a wh-subject with which it agrees in animacy. We explain this finding in terms of the availability of different sorting keys for the answers to the multiple questions.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HoehleHoernigWeskottetal.2014,
  author    = {H{\"o}hle, Barbara and Hoernig, Robin and Weskott, Thomas and Knauf, Selene and Krueger, Agnes},
  title     = {Effects of focus and definiteness on children's word order: evidence from German five-year-olds' reproductions of double object constructions},
  series = {Journal of child language},
  volume    = {41},
  journal   = {Journal of child language},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Cambridge Univ. Press},
  address   = {New York},
  issn      = {0305-0009},
  doi       = {10.1017/S0305000913000196},
  pages     = {780 -- 810},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {Two experiments tested how faithfully German children aged 4; 5 to 5; 6 reproduce ditransitive sentences that are unmarked or marked with respect to word order and focus (Exp1) or definiteness (Exp2). Adopting an optimality theory (OT) approach, it is assumed that in the German adult grammar word order is ranked lower than focus and definiteness. Faithfulness of children's reproductions decreased as markedness of inputs increased; unmarked structures were reproduced most faithfully and unfaithful outputs had most often an unmarked form. Consistent with the OT proposal, children were more tolerant against inputs marked for word order than for focus; in conflict with the proposal, children were less tolerant against inputs marked for word order than for definiteness. Our results suggest that the linearization of objects in German double object constructions is affected by focus and definiteness, but that prosodic principles may have an impact on the position of a focused constituent.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HoernigWeskott2010,
  author    = {H{\"o}rnig, Robin and Weskott, Thomas},
  title     = {Given and new information in spatial statements},
  isbn      = {978-0-19-957095-9},
  year      = {2010},
  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{FeryKaiserHoernigetal.2009,
  author    = {F{\´e}ry, Caroline and Kaiser, Elsi and H{\"o}rnig, Robin and Weskott, Thomas and Kliegl, Reinhold},
  title     = {Perception of intonational contours on given and new referents : a completion study and an eye-movement experiment},
  isbn      = {978-3-11-021922-7},
  year      = {2009},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Weskott2005,
  author    = {Weskott, Thomas},
  title     = {Stopn bashing givenness! a note on Elke Kasimir's "Question-answer test and givenness"},
  isbn      = {3-937786-01-5},
  year      = {2005},
  language  = {en}
}
@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}
}