@article{Paape2016,
  author    = {Paape, Dario L. J. F.},
  title     = {Filling the Silence},
  series = {Frontiers in psychology},
  volume    = {7},
  journal   = {Frontiers in psychology},
  publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {1664-1078},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00027},
  pages     = {1 -- 18},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {In a self-paced reading experiment, we investigated the processing of sluicing constructions ("sluices") whose antecedent contained a known garden-path structure in German. Results showed decreased processing times for sluices with garden-path antecedents as well as a disadvantage for antecedents with non-canonical word order downstream from the ellipsis site. A post-hoc analysis showed the garden-path advantage also to be present in the region right before the ellipsis site. While no existing account of ellipsis processing explicitly predicted the results, we argue that they are best captured by combining a local antecedent mismatch effect with memory trace reactivation through reanalysis.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{Paape2016,
  author    = {Paape, Dario L. J. F.},
  title     = {Filling the Silence},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-90480},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {In a self-paced reading experiment, we investigated the processing of sluicing constructions ("sluices") whose antecedent contained a known garden-path structure in German. Results showed decreased processing times for sluices with garden-path antecedents as well as a disadvantage for antecedents with non-canonical word order downstream from the ellipsis site. A post-hoc analysis showed the garden-path advantage also to be present in the region right before the ellipsis site. While no existing account of ellipsis processing explicitly predicted the results, we argue that they are best captured by combining a local antecedent mismatch effect with memory trace reactivation through reanalysis.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{PaapeNicenboimVasishth2017,
  author    = {Paape, Dario L. J. F. and Nicenboim, Bruno and Vasishth, Shravan},
  title     = {Does antecedent complexity affect ellipsis processing?},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-403373},
  pages     = {29},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {In two self-paced reading experiments, we investigated the effect of changes in antecedent complexity on processing times for ellipsis. Pointer- or "sharing"-based approaches to ellipsis processing (Frazier \& Clifton 2001, 2005; Martin \& McElree 2008) predict no effect of antecedent complexity on reading times at the ellipsis site while other accounts predict increased antecedent complexity to either slow down processing (Murphy 1985) or to speed it up (Hofmeister 2011). Experiment 1 manipulated antecedent complexity and elision, yielding evidence against a speedup at the ellipsis site and in favor of a null effect. In order to investigate possible superficial processing on part of participants, Experiment 2 manipulated the amount of attention required to correctly respond to end-of-sentence comprehension probes, yielding evidence against a complexity-induced slowdown at the ellipsis site. Overall, our results are compatible with pointer-based approaches while casting doubt on the notion that changes antecedent complexity lead to measurable differences in ellipsis processing speed.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{PaapeNicenboimVasishth2017,
  author    = {Paape, Dario L. J. F. and Nicenboim, Bruno and Vasishth, Shravan},
  title     = {Does antecedent complexity affect ellipsis processing?},
  series = {Glossa : a journal of general linguistics},
  volume    = {2},
  journal   = {Glossa : a journal of general linguistics},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Ubiquity Press},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {2397-1835},
  doi       = {10.5334/gjgl.290},
  pages     = {1 -- 29},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {In two self-paced reading experiments, we investigated the effect of changes in antecedent complexity on processing times for ellipsis. Pointer- or "sharing"-based approaches to ellipsis processing (Frazier \& Clifton 2001, 2005; Martin \& McElree 2008) predict no effect of antecedent complexity on reading times at the ellipsis site while other accounts predict increased antecedent complexity to either slow down processing (Murphy 1985) or to speed it up (Hofmeister 2011). Experiment 1 manipulated antecedent complexity and elision, yielding evidence against a speedup at the ellipsis site and in favor of a null effect. In order to investigate possible superficial processing on part of participants, Experiment 2 manipulated the amount of attention required to correctly respond to end-of-sentence comprehension probes, yielding evidence against a complexity-induced slowdown at the ellipsis site. Overall, our results are compatible with pointer-based approaches while casting doubt on the notion that changes antecedent complexity lead to measurable differences in ellipsis processing speed.},
  language  = {en}
}