@article{HoehleBergerSauermann2016, author = {H{\"o}hle, Barbara and Berger, Frauke and Sauermann, Antje}, title = {Information structure in first language acquisition}, series = {The Oxford handbook of information structure}, journal = {The Oxford handbook of information structure}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {978-0-19-964267-0}, pages = {562 -- 580}, year = {2016}, language = {en} } @article{BergerMuellerHoehleetal.2007, author = {Berger, Frauke and M{\"u}ller, Anja and H{\"o}hle, Barbara and Weissenborn, J{\"u}rgen}, title = {German 4-year-olds comprehension of sentences containing the focus particle "auch" (also) : evidence from eye- tracking}, year = {2007}, language = {en} } @article{SzendroiBernardBergeretal.2017, author = {Szendroi, Kriszta and Bernard, Carline and Berger, Frauke and Gervain, Judit and H{\"o}hle, Barbara}, title = {Acquisition of prosodic focus marking by English, French, and German three-, four-, five- and six-year-olds}, series = {Journal of child language}, volume = {45}, journal = {Journal of child language}, number = {1}, publisher = {Cambridge Univ. Press}, address = {New York}, issn = {0305-0009}, doi = {10.1017/S0305000917000071}, pages = {219 -- 241}, year = {2017}, abstract = {Previous research on young children's knowledge of prosodic focus marking has revealed an apparent paradox, with comprehension appearing to lag behind production. Comprehension of prosodic focus is difficult to study experimentally due to its subtle and ambiguous contribution to pragmatic meaning. We designed a novel comprehension task, which revealed that three- to six-year-old children show adult-like comprehension of the prosodic marking of subject and object focus. Our findings thus support the view that production does not precede comprehension in the acquisition of focus. We tested participants speaking English, German, and French. All three languages allow prosodic subject and object focus marking, but use additional syntactic marking to varying degrees (English: dispreferred; German: possible; French preferred). French participants produced fewer subject marked responses than English participants. We found no other cross-linguistic differences. Participants interpreted prosodic focus marking similarly and in an adult-like fashion in all three languages.}, language = {en} } @article{HoehleBergerMuelleretal.2009, author = {H{\"o}hle, Barbara and Berger, Frauke and M{\"u}ller, Anja and Schmitz, Michaela and Weissenborn, J{\"u}rgen}, title = {Focus particles in children's language : production and comprehension of auch "also" in German learners from 1 year to 4 years of age}, issn = {1048-9223}, doi = {10.1080/10489220802584550}, year = {2009}, language = {en} } @article{Berger2011, author = {Berger, Frauke}, title = {Die Fokuspartikel "auch" im Erstspracherwerb fr{\"u}h vorhanden - sp{\"a}t verstande? Methodologische Maßnahmen zum Nachweis eines fr{\"u}hen Verst{\"a}ndnisses}, year = {2011}, language = {de} } @misc{BergerHoehle2012, author = {Berger, Frauke and H{\"o}hle, Barbara}, title = {Restrictions on addition}, series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {509}, issn = {1866-8364}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-41491}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-414911}, pages = {28}, year = {2012}, abstract = {Children up to school age have been reported to perform poorly when interpreting sentences containing restrictive and additive focus particles by treating sentences with a focus particle in the same way as sentences without it. Careful comparisons between results of previous studies indicate that this phenomenon is less pronounced for restrictive than for additive particles. We argue that this asymmetry is an effect of the presuppositional status of the proposition triggered by the additive particle. We tested this in two experiments with German-learning three-and four-year-olds using a method that made the exploitation of the information provided by the particles highly relevant for completing the task. Three-year-olds already performed remarkably well with sentences both with auch 'also' and with nur 'only'. Thus, children can consider the presuppositional contribution of the additive particle in their sentence interpretation and can exploit the restrictive particle as a marker of exhaustivity.}, language = {en} } @article{Berger2011, author = {Berger, Frauke}, title = {Die Fokuspartikel ‚auch' im Erstspracherwerb: Fr{\"u}h vorhanden - sp{\"a}t verstanden?}, series = {Spektrum Patholinguistik}, journal = {Spektrum Patholinguistik}, number = {4}, issn = {1869-3822}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-54260}, pages = {135 -- 139}, year = {2011}, language = {de} } @article{BergerHoehle2012, author = {Berger, Frauke and H{\"o}hle, Barbara}, title = {Restrictions on addition}, series = {Journal of child language}, volume = {39}, journal = {Journal of child language}, number = {2}, publisher = {Cambridge Univ. Press}, address = {New York}, issn = {0305-0009}, doi = {10.1017/S0305000911000122}, pages = {383 -- 410}, year = {2012}, abstract = {Children up to school age have been reported to perform poorly when interpreting sentences containing restrictive and additive focus particles by treating sentences with a focus particle in the same way as sentences without it. Careful comparisons between results of previous studies indicate that this phenomenon is less pronounced for restrictive than for additive particles. We argue that this asymmetry is an effect of the presuppositional status of the proposition triggered by the additive particle. We tested this in two experiments with German-learning three-and four-year-olds using a method that made the exploitation of the information provided by the particles highly relevant for completing the task. Three-year-olds already performed remarkably well with sentences both with auch 'also' and with nur 'only'. Thus, children can consider the presuppositional contribution of the additive particle in their sentence interpretation and can exploit the restrictive particle as a marker of exhaustivity.}, language = {en} } @misc{CostardStadieRitteretal.2011, author = {Costard, Sylvia and Stadie, Nicole and Ritter, Christiane and Moll, Kristina and Landerl, Karin and Kohnen, Saskia and Kentner, Gerrit and Bethmann, Anja and Scheich, Henning and Brechmann, Andr{\´e} and De Kok, D{\"o}rte and Berger, Frauke and Sticher, Heike and Czepluch, Christine and M{\"a}tzener, Flurina and Wilmes, Stefanie and Hadert, Sandra and Frank, Ulrike and M{\"a}der, Mark and Westermann, Antje and Meinusch, Miriam and Neumann, Sandra and D{\"u}sterh{\"o}ft, Stefanie and Posse, Dorothea and Puritz, Caroline and Seidl, Rainer Ottis and Etzien, Maria and Machleb, Franziska and Lorenz, Antje and H{\"o}ger, Maria and Schr{\"o}der, Astrid and Busch, Tobias and Heide, Judith and Tagoe, Tanja and Watermeyer, Melanie and H{\"o}hle, Barbara and Kauschke, Christina}, title = {Spektrum Patholinguistik = Schwerpunktthema: Lesen lernen: Diagnostik und Therapie bei St{\"o}rungen des Leseerwerbs}, number = {4}, editor = {Hanne, Sandra and Fritzsche, Tom and Ott, Susan and Adelt, Anne}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, organization = {Verband f{\"u}r Patholinguistik e. V. (vpl)}, isbn = {978-3-86956-145-5}, issn = {1869-3822}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-5155}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-53146}, year = {2011}, abstract = {Am 20. November 2010 fand an der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam das 4. Herbsttreffen Patholinguistik statt. Die Konferenzreihe wird regelm{\"a}ßig seit 2007 vom Verband f{\"u}r Patholinguistik e.V. (vpl) durchgef{\"u}hrt. Der vorliegende Tagungsband ver{\"o}ffentlicht die Hauptvortr{\"a}ge des Herbsttreffens zum Thema "Lesen lernen: Diagnostik und Therapie bei St{\"o}rungen des Leseerwerbs". Des Weiteren sind die Beitr{\"a}ge promovierender bzw. promovierter PatholinguistInnen sowie der Posterpr{\"a}sentationen enthalten.}, language = {de} }