@article{RubergRothweilerVerissimoetal.2019,
  author    = {Ruberg, Tobias and Rothweiler, Monika and Ver{\´i}ssimo, Jo{\~a}o Marques and Clahsen, Harald},
  title     = {Childhood bilingualism and Specific Language Impairment},
  series = {Bilingualism: Language and Cognition},
  volume    = {23},
  journal   = {Bilingualism: Language and Cognition},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Cambridge Univ. Press},
  address   = {Cambridge},
  issn      = {1366-7289},
  doi       = {10.1017/S1366728919000580},
  pages     = {668 -- 680},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {This study addresses the question of whether and how growing up with more than one language shapes a child's language impairment. Our focus is on Specific Language Impairment (SLI) in bilingual (Turkish-German) children. We specifically investigated a range of phenomena related to the so-called CP (Complementizer Phrase) in German, the hierarchically highest layer of syntactic clause structure, which has been argued to be particularly affected in children with SLI. Spontaneous speech data were examined from bilingual children with SLI in comparison to two comparison groups: (i) typically-developing bilingual children, (ii) monolingual children with SLI. We found that despite persistent difficulty with subject-verb agreement, the two groups of children with SLI did not show any impairment of the CP-domain. We conclude that while subject-verb agreement is a suitable linguistic marker of SLI in German-speaking children, for both monolingual and bilingual ones, 'vulnerability of the CP-domain' is not.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{YadavHusainFutrell2021,
  author    = {Yadav, Himanshu and Husain, Samar and Futrell, Richard},
  title     = {Do dependency lengths explain constraints on crossing dependencies?},
  series = {Linguistics vanguard : multimodal online journal},
  volume    = {7},
  journal   = {Linguistics vanguard : multimodal online journal},
  publisher = {De Gruyter Mouton},
  address   = {Berlin ; New York, NY},
  issn      = {2199-174X},
  doi       = {10.1515/lingvan-2019-0070},
  pages     = {15},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {In syntactic dependency trees, when arcs are drawn from syntactic heads to dependents, they rarely cross. Constraints on these crossing dependencies are critical for determining the syntactic properties of human language, because they define the position of natural language in formal language hierarchies. We study whether the apparent constraints on crossing syntactic dependencies in natural language might be explained by constraints on dependency lengths (the linear distance between heads and dependents). We compare real dependency trees from treebanks of 52 languages against baselines of random trees which are matched with the real trees in terms of their dependency lengths. We find that these baseline trees have many more crossing dependencies than real trees, indicating that a constraint on dependency lengths alone cannot explain the empirical rarity of crossing dependencies. However, we find evidence that a combined constraint on dependency length and the rate of crossing dependencies might be able to explain two of the most-studied formal restrictions on dependency trees: gap degree and well-nestedness.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BarthWeingartenKuettnerRaymond2021,
  author    = {Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar and K{\"u}ttner, Uwe-Alexander and Raymond, Chase Wesley},
  title     = {Pivots revisited},
  series = {Open linguistics},
  volume    = {7},
  journal   = {Open linguistics},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {de Gruyter},
  address   = {Warsaw},
  issn      = {2300-9969},
  doi       = {10.1515/opli-2020-0152},
  pages     = {613 -- 637},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {The term "pivot" usually refers to two overlapping syntactic units such that the completion of the first unit simultaneously launches the second. In addition, pivots are generally said to be characterized by the smooth prosodic integration of their syntactic parts. This prosodic integration is typically achieved by prosodic-phonetic matching of the pivot components. As research on such turns in a range of languages has illustrated, speakers routinely deploy pivots so as to be able to continue past a point of possible turn completion, in the service of implementing some additional or revised action. This article seeks to build on, and complement, earlier research by exploring two issues in more detail as follows: (1) what exactly do pivotal turn extensions accomplish on the action dimension, and (2) what role does prosodic-phonetic packaging play in this? We will show that pivot constructions not only exhibit various degrees of prosodic-phonetic (non-)integration, i.e., differently strong cesuras, but that they can be ordered on a continuum, and that this cline maps onto the relationship of the actions accomplished by the components of the pivot construction. While tighter prosodic-phonetic integration, i.e., weak(er) cesuring, co-occurs with post-pivot actions whose relationship to that of the pre-pivot tends to be rather retrospective in character, looser prosodic-phonetic integration, i.e., strong(er) cesuring, is associated with a more prospective orientation of the post-pivot's action. These observations also raise more general questions with regard to the analysis of action.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HeinMurphy2022,
  author    = {Hein, Johannes and Murphy, Andrew},
  title     = {VP-nominalization and the Final-over-Final Condition},
  series = {Linguistic inquiry},
  volume    = {53},
  journal   = {Linguistic inquiry},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {MIT Press},
  address   = {Cambridge},
  issn      = {0024-3892},
  doi       = {10.1162/ling_a_00407},
  pages     = {337 -- 370},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {The Final-over-Final Condition has emerged as a robust and explanatory generalization for a wide range of phenomena (Biberauer, Holmberg, and Roberts 2014, Sheehan et al. 2017). In this article, we argue that it also holds in another domain, nominalization. In languages that show overt nominalization of VPs, one word order is routinely unattested, namely, a head-initial VP with a suffixal nominalizer. This typological gap can be accounted for by the Final-over-Final Condition, if we allow it to hold within mixed extended projections. This view also makes correct predictions about agentive nominalizations and nominalized serial verb constructions.},
  language  = {en}
}