@article{HellmuthSkopeteas2007,
  author    = {Hellmuth, Sam and Skopeteas, Stavros},
  title     = {Information structure in linguistic theory and in speech production : validation of a Cross-Linguistic data set},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-939469-72-8},
  issn      = {1866-4725},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-19450},
  pages     = {141 -- 186},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {The aim of this paper is to validate a dataset collected by means of production experiments which are part of the Questionnaire on Information Structure. The experiments generate a range of information structure contexts that have been observed in the literature to induce specific constructions. This paper compares the speech production results from a subset of these experiments with specific claims about the reflexes of information structure in four different languages. The results allow us to evaluate and in most cases validate the efficacy of our elicitation paradigms, to identify potentially fruitful avenues of future research, and to highlight issues involved in interpreting speech production data of this kind.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{vandeKootSilvaFelseretal.2015,
  author    = {van de Koot, Hans and Silva, Renita and Felser, Claudia and Sato, Mikako},
  title     = {Does Dutch a-scrambling involve movement? Evidence from antecedent priming},
  series = {The linguistic review},
  volume    = {32},
  journal   = {The linguistic review},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {De Gruyter Mouton},
  address   = {Berlin},
  issn      = {0167-6318},
  doi       = {10.1515/tlr-2015-0010},
  pages     = {739 -- 776},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {The present study focuses on A-scrambling in Dutch, a local word-order alternation that typically signals the discourse-anaphoric status of the scrambled constituent. We use cross-modal priming to investigate whether an A-scrambled direct object gives rise to antecedent reactivation effects in the position where a movement theory would postulate a trace. Our results indicate that this is not the case, thereby providing support for a base-generation analysis of A-scrambling in Dutch.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SimikWierzba2015,
  author    = {Simik, Radek and Wierzba, Marta},
  title     = {The role of givenness, presupposition, and prosody in Czech word order: An experimental study},
  series = {Semantics and pragmatics},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {Semantics and pragmatics},
  publisher = {Linguistic Society of America},
  address   = {Washington},
  issn      = {1937-8912},
  doi       = {10.3765/sp.8.3},
  pages     = {103},
  year      = {2015},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{Schmidt2016,
  type      = {Master Thesis},
  author    = {Schmidt, Andreas},
  title     = {Udmurt as an OV language},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-89465},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {iii, 94},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {This is the first study to investigate Hubert Haider's (2000, 2010, 2013, 2014) proposed systematic differences between OV and VO language in a family other than Germanic. Its aim is to gather evidence on whether basic word order is predictive of further properties of a language. The languages under investigation are the Finno-Ugric languages Udmurt (as an OV language) and Finnish (as a VO language). Counter to Kayne (1994), Haider proposes that the structure of a sentence with a head-final VP is fundamentally different from that of a sentence with a head-initial VP, e.g., OV languages do not exhibit a VP-shell structure, and they do not employ a TP layer with a structural subject position. Haider's proposed structural differences are said to result in the following empirically testable differences: (a) VP: the availability of VP-internal adverbial intervention and scrambling only in OV-VPs; (b) subjects: the lack of certain subject-object asymmetries in OV languages, i.e., lack of the subject condition and lack of superiority effects; (c) V-complexes: the availability of partial predicate fronting only in OV languages; different orderings between selecting and selected verbs; the intervention of non-verbal material between verbs only in VO languages; (d) V-particles: differences in the distribution of resultative phrases and verb particles. Udmurt and Finnish behave in line with Haider's predictions with regard to the status of the subject, with regard to the order of selecting and selected verbs, and with regard to the availability of partial predicate fronting. Moreover, Udmurt allows for adverbial intervention and scrambling, as predicted, whereas the status of these properties in Finnish could not be reliably determined due to obligatory V-to-T. There is also counterevidence to Haider's predictions: Udmurt allows for non-verbal material between verbs, and the distribution of resultative phrases and verb particles is essentially as free as the distribution of adverbial phrases in both Finno-Ugric languages. As such, Haider's theory is not falsified by the data from Udmurt and Finnish (except for his theory on verb particles), but it is also not fully supported by the data.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Schunack2017,
  author    = {Schunack, Silke},
  title     = {Processing of non-canonical word orders in an L2},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-103750},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {xvii, 443 Seiten},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {This thesis investigates the processing of non-canonical word orders and whether non-canonical orders involving object topicalizations, midfield scrambling and particle verbs are treated the same by native (L1) and non-native (L2) speakers. The two languages investigated are Norwegian and German. 32 L1 Norwegian and 32 L1 German advanced learners of Norwegian were tested in two experiments on object topicalization in Norwegian. The results from the online self-paced reading task and the offline agent identification task show that both groups are able to identify the non-canonical word order and show a facilitatory effect of animate subjects in their reanalysis. Similarly high error rates in the agent identification task suggest that globally unambiguous object topicalizations are a challenging structure for L1 and L2 speakers alike. The same participants were also tested in two experiments on particle placement in Norwegian, again using a self-paced reading task, this time combined with an acceptability rating task. In the acceptability rating L1 and L2 speakers show the same preference for the verb-adjacent placement of the particle over the non-adjacent placement after the direct object. However, this preference for adjacency is only found in the L1 group during online processing, whereas the L2 group shows no preference for either order. Another set of experiments tested 33 L1 German and 39 L1 Slavic advanced learners of German on object scrambling in ditransitive clauses in German. Non-native speakers accept both object orders and show neither a preference for either order nor a processing advantage for the canonical order. The L1 group, in contrast, shows a small, but significant preference for the canonical dative-first order in the judgment and the reading task. The same participants were also tested in two experiments on the application of the split rule in German particle verbs. Advanced L2 speakers of German are able to identify particle verbs and can apply the split rule in V2 contexts in an acceptability judgment task in the same way as L1 speakers. However, unlike the L1 group, the L2 group is not sensitive to the grammaticality manipulation during online processing. They seem to be sensitive to the additional lexical information provided by the particle, but are unable to relate the split particle to the preceding verb and recognize the ungrammaticality in non-V2 contexts. Taken together, my findings suggest that non-canonical word orders are not per se more difficult to identify for L2 speakers than L1 speakers and can trigger the same reanalysis processes as in L1 speakers. I argue that L2 speakers' ability to identify a non-canonical word order depends on how the non-canonicity is signaled (case marking vs. surface word order), on the constituents involved (identical vs. different word types), and on the impact of the word order change on sentence meaning. Non-canonical word orders that are signaled by morphological case marking and cause no change to the sentence's content are hard to detect for L2 speakers.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{vandeKootSilvaFelseretal.,
  author    = {van de Koot, Hans and Silva, Renita and Felser, Claudia and Sato, Mikako},
  title     = {Does Dutch a-scrambling involve movement?},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-398566},
  pages     = {38},
  abstract  = {The present study focuses on A-scrambling in Dutch, a local word-order alternation that typically signals the discourse-anaphoric status of the scrambled constituent. We use cross-modal priming to investigate whether an A-scrambled direct object gives rise to antecedent reactivation effects in the position where a movement theory would postulate a trace. Our results indicate that this is not the case, thereby providing support for a base-generation analysis of A-scrambling in Dutch.},
  language  = {en}
}