@misc{BacskaiAtkariBaudisch2018,
  author    = {Bacskai-Atkari, Julia and Baudisch, Lisa},
  title     = {Clause typing in Germanic},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-406810},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {The questionnaire investigates the functional left periphery of various finite clauses in Germanic languages, with particular attention paid to clause-typing elements and the combinations thereof. The questionnaire is mostly concerned with clause typing in embedded clauses, but main clause counterparts are also considered for comparative purposes. The chief aim was to achieve comparable results across Germanic languages, though the standardised questionnaire may also be helpful in the study of other languages, too. Most questions examine the availability of various complementisers and clause-typing operators, and in some cases the movement of verbs to the left periphery is also taken into account. The questionnaire is split into seven major parts according to the types of clauses under scrutiny. All instructions were given in English and the individual questions either concern translations of given sentences from English into the target language, and/or they ask for specific details about the constructions in the target language. The present document contains the questionnaire itself (together with the instructions given at the beginning of the questionnaire and at the beginning of the individual sections, as well as the questions asking for personal data), the sociolinguistic data of the speakers, and the actual results for the individual languages. Five Germanic languages are included: Dutch, Danish, Icelandic, Norwegian and Swedish. For each language, two informants were recruited. Given the small number of informants, the present study serves as a qualitative investigation and as a basis for further, quantitative and experimental studies.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{JaegerBenzRoeseretal.2015,
  author    = {J{\"a}ger, Lena Ann and Benz, Lena and Roeser, Jens and Dillon, Brian W. and Vasishth, Shravan},
  title     = {Teasing apart retrieval and encoding interference in the processing of anaphors},
  series = {Frontiers in psychology},
  volume    = {6},
  journal   = {Frontiers in psychology},
  publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {1664-1078},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00506},
  pages     = {18},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Two classes of account have been proposed to explain the memory processes subserving the processing of reflexive-antecedent dependencies. Structure-based accounts assume that the retrieval of the antecedent is guided by syntactic tree-configurational information without considering other kinds of information such as gender marking in the case of English reflexives. By contrast, unconstrained cue-based retrieval assumes that all available information is used for retrieving the antecedent. Similarity-based interference effects from structurally illicit distractors which match a non-structural retrieval cue have been interpreted as evidence favoring the unconstrained cue-based retrieval account since cue-based retrieval interference from structurally illicit distractors is incompatible with the structure-based account. However, it has been argued that the observed effects do not necessarily reflect interference occurring at the moment of retrieval but might equally well be accounted for by interference occurring already at the stage of encoding or maintaining the antecedent in memory, in which case they cannot be taken as evidence against the structure-based account. We present three experiments (self-paced reading and eye-tracking) on German reflexives and Swedish reflexive and pronominal possessives in which we pit the predictions of encoding interference and cue-based retrieval interference against each other. We could not find any indication that encoding interference affects the processing ease of the reflexive-antecedent dependency formation. Thus, there is no evidence that encoding interference might be the explanation for the interference effects observed in previous work. We therefore conclude that invoking encoding interference may not be a plausible way to reconcile interference effects with a structure-based account of reflexive processing.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{JaegerBenzRoeseretal.2015,
  author    = {J{\"a}ger, Lena Ann and Benz, Lena and Roeser, Jens and Dillon, Brian W. and Vasishth, Shravan},
  title     = {Teasing apart Retrieval and Encoding Interference in the Processing of Anaphors},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-78714},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Two classes of account have been proposed to explain the memory processes subserving the processing of reflexive-antecedent dependencies. Structure-based accounts assume that the retrieval of the antecedent is guided by syntactic tree-configurational information without considering other kinds of information such as gender marking in the case of English reflexives. By contrast, unconstrained cue-based retrieval assumes that all available information is used for retrieving the antecedent. Similarity-based interference effects from structurally illicit distractors which match a non-structural retrieval cue have been interpreted as evidence favoring the unconstrained cue-based retrieval account since cue-based retrieval interference from structurally illicit distractors is incompatible with the structure-based account. However, it has been argued that the observed effects do not necessarily reflect interference occurring at the moment of retrieval but might equally well be accounted for by interference occurring already at the stage of encoding or maintaining the antecedent in memory, in which case they cannot be taken as evidence against the structure-based account. We present three experiments (self-paced reading and eye-tracking) on German reflexives and Swedish reflexive and pronominal possessives in which we pit the predictions of encoding interference and cue-based retrieval interference against each other. We could not find any indication that encoding interference affects the processing ease of the reflexive-antecedent dependency formation. Thus, there is no evidence that encoding interference might be the explanation for the interference effects observed in previous work. We therefore conclude that invoking encoding interference may not be a plausible way to reconcile interference effects with a structure-based account of reflexive processing.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{JaegerBenzRoeseretal.2015,
  author    = {J{\"a}ger, Lena Ann and Benz, Lena and Roeser, Jens and Dillon, Brian W. and Vasishth, Shravan},
  title     = {Teasing apart retrieval and encoding interference in the processing of anaphors},
  series = {Frontiers in psychology},
  volume    = {6},
  journal   = {Frontiers in psychology},
  number    = {506},
  publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {1664-1078},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00506},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Two classes of account have been proposed to explain the memory processes subserving the processing of reflexive-antecedent dependencies. Structure-based accounts assume that the retrieval of the antecedent is guided by syntactic tree-configurational information without considering other kinds of information such as gender marking in the case of English reflexives. By contrast, unconstrained cue-based retrieval assumes that all available information is used for retrieving the antecedent. Similarity-based interference effects from structurally illicit distractors which match a non-structural retrieval cue have been interpreted as evidence favoring the unconstrained cue-based retrieval account since cue-based retrieval interference from structurally illicit distractors is incompatible with the structure-based account. However, it has been argued that the observed effects do not necessarily reflect interference occurring at the moment of retrieval but might equally well be accounted for by interference occurring already at the stage of encoding or maintaining the antecedent in memory, in which case they cannot be taken as evidence against the structure-based account. We present three experiments (self-paced reading and eye-tracking) on German reflexives and Swedish reflexive and pronominal possessives in which we pit the predictions of encoding interference and cue-based retrieval interference against each other. We could not find any indication that encoding interference affects the processing ease of the reflexive-antecedent dependency formation. Thus, there is no evidence that encoding interference might be the explanation for the interference effects observed in previous work. We therefore conclude that invoking encoding interference may not be a plausible way to reconcile interference effects with a structure-based account of reflexive processing.},
  language  = {en}
}