@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} } @article{TriarchiHerrmann2009, author = {Triarchi-Herrmann, Vassilia}, title = {Zur F{\"o}rderung und Therapie der Sprache bei Mehrsprachigkeit}, series = {Spektrum Patholinguistik}, volume = {2}, journal = {Spektrum Patholinguistik}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, issn = {1866-9085}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-32611}, pages = {31 -- 50}, year = {2009}, abstract = {Inhalt: 1. Einf{\"u}hrung 2. Sprachf{\"o}rderung von mehrsprachigen Kindern 2.1 Sprachf{\"o}rdermaßnahmen 2.2 Qualit{\"a}tskriterien bei einer Sprachf{\"o}rderung 3. Sprachdiagnostik 3.1 Sprachtherapie mehrsprachiger Kinder 3.2 Differentialdiagnostik 4. Zusammenfassung 5. Literatur}, language = {de} } @article{Schuebel2009, author = {Sch{\"u}bel, Adelbert}, title = {Von der Norm zur Vielfalt}, series = {Sprachwandel und Entwicklungstendenzen als Themen im Deutschunterricht : fachliche Grundlagen - Unterrichtsanregungen - Unterrichtsmaterialien}, journal = {Sprachwandel und Entwicklungstendenzen als Themen im Deutschunterricht : fachliche Grundlagen - Unterrichtsanregungen - Unterrichtsmaterialien}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, isbn = {978-3-86956-003-8}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-37032}, pages = {25 -- 46}, year = {2009}, language = {de} } @article{Kessler2009, author = {Keßler, Christine}, title = {Beschreibung von Textsortenwandel}, series = {Sprachwandel und Entwicklungstendenzen als Themen im Deutschunterricht: fachliche Grundlagen - Unterrichtsanregungen - Unterrichtsmaterialien}, journal = {Sprachwandel und Entwicklungstendenzen als Themen im Deutschunterricht: fachliche Grundlagen - Unterrichtsanregungen - Unterrichtsmaterialien}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, isbn = {978-3-86956-003-8}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-37071}, pages = {103 -- 120}, year = {2009}, language = {de} } @article{Sayatz2009, author = {Sayatz, Ulrike}, title = {Von Denkm{\"a}lern und Denkmalen, Balkons und Balkonen, Anf{\"a}ngen dieses Jahres und diesen Jahres}, series = {Sprachwandel und Entwicklungstendenzen als Themen im Deutschunterricht: fachliche Grundlagen - Unterrichtsanregungen - Unterrichtsmaterialien}, journal = {Sprachwandel und Entwicklungstendenzen als Themen im Deutschunterricht: fachliche Grundlagen - Unterrichtsanregungen - Unterrichtsmaterialien}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, isbn = {978-3-86956-003-8}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-37055}, pages = {65 -- 82}, year = {2009}, language = {de} } @article{WolfBleiss2009, author = {Wolf-Bleiß, Birgit}, title = {Neologismen}, series = {Sprachwandel und Entwicklungstendenzen als Themen im Deutschunterricht : fachliche Grundlagen - Unterrichtsanregungen - Unterrichtsmaterialien}, journal = {Sprachwandel und Entwicklungstendenzen als Themen im Deutschunterricht : fachliche Grundlagen - Unterrichtsanregungen - Unterrichtsmaterialien}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, isbn = {978-3-86956-003-8}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-37063}, pages = {83 -- 101}, year = {2009}, language = {de} } @article{Berner2009, author = {Berner, Elisabeth}, title = {Einleitung II}, series = {Sprachwandel und Entwicklungstendenzen als Themen im Deutschunterricht: fachliche Grundlagen - Unterrichtsanregungen - Unterrichtsmaterialien}, journal = {Sprachwandel und Entwicklungstendenzen als Themen im Deutschunterricht: fachliche Grundlagen - Unterrichtsanregungen - Unterrichtsmaterialien}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, isbn = {978-3-86956-003-8}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-37029}, pages = {15 -- 24}, year = {2009}, language = {de} } @article{Woolford2009, author = {Woolford, Ellen}, title = {Aspect splits and parasitic marking}, series = {Linguistics in Potsdam}, journal = {Linguistics in Potsdam}, number = {28}, issn = {1616-7392}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-32236}, pages = {39 -- 72}, year = {2009}, abstract = {Aspect splits can affect agreement, Case, and even preposition insertion. This paper discusses the functional 'why' and the theoretical 'how' of aspect splits. Aspect splits are an economical way to mark aspect by preserving or suppressing some independent element in one aspect. In formal terms, they are produced in the same way as coda conditions in phonology, with positional/contextual faithfulness.This approach captures the additive effects of cross-cutting splits. Aspect splits are analyzed here from Hindi, Nepali, Yucatec Maya, Chontal, and Palauan.}, language = {en} } @article{Zeijlstra2009, author = {Zeijlstra, Hedde}, title = {Hard and soft conditions on the faculty of language}, series = {Linguistics in Potsdam}, journal = {Linguistics in Potsdam}, number = {28}, issn = {1616-7392}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-32221}, pages = {9 -- 38}, year = {2009}, abstract = {In this paper I argue that both parametric variation and the alleged differences between languages in terms of their internal complexity straightforwardly follow from the Strongest Minimalist Thesis that takes the Faculty of Language (FL) to be an optimal solution to conditions that neighboring mental modules impose on it. In this paper I argue that hard conditions like legibility at the linguistic interfaces invoke simplicity metrices that, given that they stem from different mental modules, are not harmonious. I argue that widely attested expression strategies, such as agreement or movement, are a direct result of conflicting simplicity metrices, and that UG, perceived as a toolbox that shapes natural language, can be taken to consist of a limited number of markings strategies, all resulting from conflicting simplicity metrices. As such, the contents of UG follow from simplicity requirements, and therefore no longer necessitate linguistic principles, valued or unvalued, to be innately present. Finally, I show that the SMT does not require that languages themselves have to be optimal in connecting sound to meaning.}, language = {en} } @article{Salzmann2009, author = {Salzmann, Martin}, title = {Variation in resumption requires violable constraints}, series = {Linguistics in Potsdam}, journal = {Linguistics in Potsdam}, number = {28}, issn = {1616-7392}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-32251}, pages = {99 -- 132}, year = {2009}, abstract = {Variation in dative resumption among and within Alemannic varieties of German strongly favors an Evaluator component that makes use of optimality-theoretic evaluation rather than filters as in the Minimalist Program (MP). At the same time, the variation is restricted to realizational requirements. This supports a model of syntax like the Derivations and Evaluations framework (Broekhuis 2008) that combines a restrictive MP-style Generator with an Evaluator that includes ranked violable (interface) constraints.}, language = {en} } @article{Schaden2009, author = {Schaden, Gerhard}, title = {Say hello to markedness}, series = {Linguistics in Potsdam}, journal = {Linguistics in Potsdam}, number = {28}, issn = {1616-7392}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-32247}, pages = {73 -- 97}, year = {2009}, abstract = {In this paper, it will be shown that Bi-directional Optimality Theory (BOT) runs into problems of undergeneration when confronted with a certain class of partial-blocking phenomena. The empirical problem used to illustrate this is the cross-linguistic variation of one-step past-referring tenses. It will be argued that the well-known 'present perfect puzzle' is a sub-problem of it. The solution to the cross-linguistic variation of these tenses involves blocking of the marked tense. The relevant notion of 'markedness', while underivable synchronically, is argued to be linked to diachronic learning processes similar to those investigated by Benz (2006).}, language = {en} } @article{Komen2009, author = {Komen, Erwin R.}, title = {Branching constraints}, series = {Linguistics in Potsdam}, journal = {Linguistics in Potsdam}, number = {28}, issn = {1616-7392}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-32273}, pages = {157 -- 186}, year = {2009}, abstract = {Rejecting approaches with a directionality parameter, mainstream minimalism has adopted the notion of strict (or unidirectional) branching. Within optimality theory however, constraints have recently been proposed that presuppose that the branching direction scheme is language specific. I show that a syntactic analysis of Chechen word order and relative clauses using strict branching and movement triggered by feature checking seems very unlikely, whereas a directionality approach works well. I argue in favor of a mixed directionality approach for Chechen, where the branching direction scheme depends on the phrase type. This observation leads to the introduction of context variants of existing markedness constraints, in order to describe the branching processes in terms of optimality theory. The paper discusses how and where the optimality theory selection of the branching directions can be implemented within a minimalist derivation.}, language = {en} } @article{GrovePutnam2009, author = {Grove, Kyle Wade and Putnam, Mike}, title = {Deriving pairedness in vP structure}, series = {Linguistics in Potsdam}, journal = {Linguistics in Potsdam}, number = {28}, issn = {1616-7392}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-32284}, pages = {187 -- 210}, year = {2009}, abstract = {Minimalist accounts lack a natural theory of markedness, whereas Optimality-Theoretical accounts fundamentally encode markedness. We think the duality of interfaces assumed in Minimalism is a step towards explaining pairedness behavior, where a given language exhibits a marked/ unmarked pair of items occupying the same niche. We argue that while Minimalism articulates the derivational aspect of language, and underlies grammaticality, an Optimality Theoretic articulation of PF and LF is conceptually natural and explains pairedness behavior. We adopt this 'hybrid' account, first, to explain the existence of marked (often termed 'reflexive') and unmarked anticausatives in German, recently studied in depth by Sch¨afer [2007].}, language = {en} } @article{Nunes2009, author = {Nunes, Jairo}, title = {Preposition insertion in the mapping from spell-out to PF}, series = {Linguistics in Potsdam}, journal = {Linguistics in Potsdam}, number = {28}, issn = {1616-7392}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-32262}, pages = {133 -- 156}, year = {2009}, abstract = {This paper discusses three case studies on the realization of spurious prepositions and argues that they illustrate a general interaction of convergence requirements of the morphological component with an economy condition that enforces faithfulness between the lexical items present in the numeration and the lexical items present in the PF output.}, language = {en} } @article{Wahl2009, author = {Wahl, Michael}, title = {Zwei Sprachen = Zwei Systeme?}, series = {Spektrum Patholinguistik}, volume = {2}, journal = {Spektrum Patholinguistik}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, issn = {1866-9433}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-32602}, pages = {9 -- 30}, year = {2009}, abstract = {Inhalt: 1. Einf{\"u}hrung 1.1 Methoden zur Untersuchung sprachlicher F{\"a}higkeiten 1.2 Die Anf{\"a}nge der Erforschung von Mehrsprachigkeit 2. Funktionelle Bildgebung 2.1 Einfluss des Erwerbsalters 2.2 Einfluss der Sprachkompetenz 3. Elektrophysiologische Daten 3.1 Einfluss des Erwerbsalters 3.2 Einfluss der Sprachkompetenz 4. Neurokognitive Modelle 4.1 Lexikalisch-semantische Modelle 4.2 Lexikalisch-Grammatikalisches Modell 4.3 Implizit-Explizites Modell 5. Schlussfolgerung 6. Literatur}, language = {de} } @article{Frank2009, author = {Frank, Ulrike}, title = {Therapie bei tracheotomierten Patienten mit schwerer Dysphagie}, series = {Spektrum Patholinguistik}, volume = {2}, journal = {Spektrum Patholinguistik}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, issn = {1866-9085}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-32654}, pages = {95 -- 112}, year = {2009}, abstract = {Inhalt: 1. Einleitung 2. Fragestellungen 3. Methoden 3.1 Methodisches Vorgehen: Interdisziplin{\"a}re Trachealkan{\"u}lenentw{\"o}hnung und Dekan{\"u}lierungsentscheidung im Basler Ansatz 3.2 Methodisches Vorgehen: Probanden und Messverfahren 4. Ergebnisse 4.1 Effektivit{\"a}t und Effizienz des multidisziplin{\"a}ren Ansatzes: Dekan{\"u}lierungs- und Komplikationsraten und Therapiedauer bis zur Dekan{\"u}lierung 4.2 Einfluss der Dekan{\"u}lierung auf den Rehabilitationsverlauf funktioneller F{\"a}higkeiten: Vergleich der funktionellen Selbst{\"a}ndigkeit vor vs. nach der Dekan{\"u}lierung 4.3 Entwicklung der Schluckfunktion und oralen Nahrungsaufnahme nach der Dekan{\"u}lierung 5. Diskussion 6. Fazit 7. Literatur 8. Danksagung}, language = {de} } @article{Grimm2009, author = {Grimm, Angela}, title = {Die Entwicklung des Prosodischen Wortes im Deutschen}, series = {Spektrum Patholinguistik}, volume = {2}, journal = {Spektrum Patholinguistik}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, issn = {1866-9433}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-32628}, pages = {51 -- 68}, year = {2009}, abstract = {Inhalt: 1. Einleitung 2. Hintergrund 2.1 Die prosodische Organisation des Deutschen 2.2 Implikationen f{\"u}r den Erwerb der Wortprosodie im Deutschen 3. Methode 3.1 Datenerhebung 3.2 Empirische Analyse 4. Ergebnisse: Die Entwicklung des Prosodischen Wortes im Deutschen 5. Analyse der empirischen Daten 5.1 Grundannahmen 5.2 Analyse der Entwicklungsstufen 6. Zusammenfassung und Diskussion 7. Literatur}, language = {de} } @article{Kulik2009, author = {Kulik, Sylvia}, title = {..., dass einen der Satzbau immer wieder {\"u}berraschen kann}, series = {Spektrum Patholinguistik}, volume = {2}, journal = {Spektrum Patholinguistik}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, issn = {1866-9433}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-32647}, pages = {79 -- 94}, year = {2009}, language = {de} } @article{Heide2009, author = {Heide, Judith}, title = {Mehrsprachigkeit in der fr{\"u}hen Kindheit}, series = {Spektrum Patholinguistik}, volume = {2}, journal = {Spektrum Patholinguistik}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, issn = {1866-9085}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-32597}, pages = {1 -- 8}, year = {2009}, abstract = {Inhalt: - 1. Mythos Mehrsprachigkeit - 2. „Ein Kopf - ein Chor": Sprachmischung bei bilingualen Sprechern - 3. Doppelter Erstspracherwerb (2L1) - 4. Fr{\"u}her L2-Erwerb - 5. Quellen im Text - 6. Literaturempfehlungen von Prof. Dr. Rosemarie Tracy}, language = {de} } @inproceedings{OPUS4-2990, title = {Optimality theory and minimalism : interface theories}, editor = {Broekhuis, Hans and Vogel, Ralf}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, isbn = {978-3-940793-61-4}, issn = {1616-7392 print}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-27577}, pages = {212}, year = {2009}, abstract = {The papers contained in this issue share the insight that the different components of the grammar sometimes impose conflicting requirements on the grammar's output, and that, in order to handle such conflicts, it seems advantageous to combine aspects from minimalist and OT modelling. The papers show that this can be undertaken in a multiplicity of ways, by using varying proportions of each framework, and offer a broad range of perspectives for future research.}, language = {en} } @misc{BaerHenney2009, type = {Master Thesis}, author = {Baer-Henney, Dinah}, title = {On natural and probabilisic effects during acquisition of morphophonemic alternations}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-36819}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, year = {2009}, abstract = {The acquisition of phonological alternations consists of many aspects as discussions in the relevant literature show. There are contrary findings about the role of naturalness. A natural process is grounded in phonetics; they are easy to learn, even in second language acquisition when adults have to learn certain processes that do not occur in their native language. There is also evidence that unnatural - arbitrary - rules can be learned. Current work on the acquisition of morphophonemic alternations suggests that their probability of occurrence is a crucial factor in acquisition. I have conducted an experiment to investigate the effects of naturalness as well as of probability of occurrence with 80 adult native speakers of German. It uses the Artificial Grammar paradigm: Two artificial languages were constructed, each with a particular alternation. In one language the alternation is natural (vowel harmony); in the other language the alternation is arbitrary (a vowel alternation depends on the sonorancy of the first consonant of the stem). The participants were divided in two groups, one group listened to the natural alternation and the other group listened to the unnatural alternation. Each group was divided into two subgroups. One subgroup then was presented with material in which the alternation occurred frequently and the other subgroup was presented with material in which the alternation occurred infrequently. After this exposure phase every participant was asked to produce new words during the test phase. Knowledge about the language-specific alternation pattern was needed to produce the forms correctly as the phonological contexts demanded certain alternants. The group performances have been compared with respect to the effects of naturalness and probability of occurrence. The natural rule was learned more easily than the unnatural one. Frequently presented rules were not learned more easily than the ones that were presented less frequently. Moreover, participants did not learn the unnatural rule at all, whether this rule was presented frequently or infrequently did not matter. There was a tendency that the natural rule was learned more easily if presented frequently than if presented infrequently, but it was not significant due to variability across participants.}, language = {en} } @article{Berner2009, author = {Berner, Elisabeth}, title = {Niederdeutsch - Brandenburgisch - Berlinisch - Standardsprache}, series = {Sprachwandel und Entwicklungstendenzen als Themen im Deutschunterricht: fachliche Grundlagen - Unterrichtsanregungen - Unterrichtsmaterialien}, journal = {Sprachwandel und Entwicklungstendenzen als Themen im Deutschunterricht: fachliche Grundlagen - Unterrichtsanregungen - Unterrichtsmaterialien}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, isbn = {978-3-86956-003-8}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-37080}, pages = {121 -- 140}, year = {2009}, language = {de} } @article{Giers2009, author = {Giers, Ursula}, title = {Entwicklung der Rechtschreibnormen}, series = {Sprachwandel und Entwicklungstendenzen als Themen im Deutschunterricht: fachliche Grundlagen - Unterrichtsanregungen - Unterrichtsmaterialien}, journal = {Sprachwandel und Entwicklungstendenzen als Themen im Deutschunterricht: fachliche Grundlagen - Unterrichtsanregungen - Unterrichtsmaterialien}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, isbn = {978-3-86956-003-8}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-37046}, pages = {47 -- 64}, year = {2009}, language = {de} } @article{Wotschack2009, author = {Wotschack, Christiane}, title = {Zum Einfluss von Lesestrategien auf Effekte der kognitiven Kontrolle}, series = {Spektrum Patholinguistik}, volume = {2}, journal = {Spektrum Patholinguistik}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, issn = {1866-9085}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-32636}, pages = {69 -- 78}, year = {2009}, abstract = {Inhalt: 1. Einleitung 1.1 Blickbewegungen beim Lesen 1.2 Kognitive Kontrolle und verteilte Verarbeitung 2. Fragestellungen und Hypothesen 3. Methoden 3.1 Probanden 3.2 Material 3.3 Durchf{\"u}hrung und Auswertung 4. Ergebnisse 4.1 Unterschiede in Effekten der Wortvorhersagbarkeit 4.2 Unterschiede in Effekten der Wortfrequenz 5. Diskussion 6. Literatur}, language = {de} } @article{BotschKopke2009, author = {Botsch, Gideon and Kopke, Christoph}, title = {Sprache und Sprachen des Antisemitimus in der Gegenwart}, series = {Sprachwandel und Entwicklungstendenzen als Themen im Deutschunterricht: fachliche Grundlagen - Unterrichtsanregungen - Unterrichtsmaterialien}, journal = {Sprachwandel und Entwicklungstendenzen als Themen im Deutschunterricht: fachliche Grundlagen - Unterrichtsanregungen - Unterrichtsmaterialien}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, isbn = {978-3-86956-003-8}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-37107}, pages = {161 -- 173}, year = {2009}, language = {de} } @misc{TracyHeideWahletal.2009, author = {Tracy, Rosemarie and Heide, Judith and Wahl, Michael and Triarchi-Herrmann, Vassilia and Grimm, Angela and Wotschack, Christiane and Kulik, Sylvia and Frank, Ulrike and Klassert, Annegret and Gagarina, Natalʹja Vladimirovna and Kauschke, Christina and Eicher, Iris and Tsakmaki, Barbara and Akkaya, Zeynep and Castillo, Esmeralda and Groba, Agnes and H{\"o}hle, Barbara and Miertsch, Barbara and Hubert, Anja and Sauerland, Uli and Schr{\"o}der, Caroline and Stadie, Nicole and Wittler, Marion and Berendes, Karin and Gottal, Stephanie and Grabherr, Britta and Zaps, Jennifer and Ptok, Martin and Hanne, Sandra and Sekerina, Irina A. and Vasishth, Shravan and Burchert, Frank and De Bleser, Ria and Kleissendorf, Barbara and Jaecks, Petra and Stenneken, Prisca and Fischer, Ivette and Moedebeck, Petra}, title = {Spektrum Patholinguistik = Schwerpunktthema: Ein Kopf - Zwei Sprachen : Mehrsprachigkeit in Forschung und Therapie}, number = {2}, editor = {Heide, Judith and Hanne, Sandra and Brandt-Kobele, Oda-Christina and Fritzsche, Tom}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, organization = {Verband f{\"u}r Patholinguistik e. V. (vpl)}, isbn = {978-3-940793-89-8}, issn = {1869-3822}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-3086}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-30451}, year = {2009}, abstract = {"Spektrum Patholinguistik" (Band 2) ist der Tagungsband zum 2. Herbsttreffen Patholinguistik, das der Verband f{\"u}r Patholinguistik (vpl) e.V. am 22.11.2008 an der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam veranstaltet hat. Zum Schwerpunktthema "Ein Kopf - Zwei Sprachen: Mehrsprachigkeit in Forschung und Therapie" sind die drei Hauptvortr{\"a}ge und vier Abstracts von Posterpr{\"a}sentationen ver{\"o}ffentlicht. Desweiteren enth{\"a}lt der Tagungsband freie Beitr{\"a}ge, u.a. zu Satzverarbeitung und Agrammatismus, Lesestrategien und LRS, Prosodie-Entwicklung, kindlichen Aphasien, Dysphagie-Therapie sowie zu kognitiven Defiziten bei {\"a}lteren Menschen.}, language = {de} } @misc{MellWartenburgerMarschneretal.2009, author = {Mell, Thomas and Wartenburger, Isabell and Marschner, Alexander and Villringer, Arno and Reischies, Friedel M. and Heekeren, Hauke R.}, title = {Altered function of ventral striatum during reward-based decision making in old age}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-45235}, year = {2009}, abstract = {Normal aging is associated with a decline in different cognitive domains and local structural atrophy as well as decreases in dopamine concentration and receptor density. To date, it is largely unknown how these reductions in dopaminergic neurotransmission affect human brain regions responsible for reward-based decision making in older adults. Using a learning criterion in a probabilistic object reversal task, we found a learning stage by age interaction in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dIPFC) during decision making. While young adults recruited the dlPFC in an early stage of learning reward associations, older adults recruited the dlPFC when reward associations had already been learned. Furthermore, we found a reduced change in ventral striatal BOLD signal in older as compared to younger adults in response to high probability rewards. Our data are in line with behavioral evidence that older adults show altered stimulus-reward learning and support the view of an altered fronto-striatal interaction during reward-based decision making in old age, which contributes to prolonged learning of reward associations.}, language = {en} }