@article{JessenFestmanBoxelletal.2017,
  author    = {Jessen, Anna and Festman, Julia and Boxell, Oliver and Felser, Claudia},
  title     = {Native and non-native speakers' brain responses to filled indirect Object Gaps},
  series = {Journal of Psycholinguistic Research},
  volume    = {46},
  journal   = {Journal of Psycholinguistic Research},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {New York},
  issn      = {0090-6905},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10936-017-9496-9},
  pages     = {1319 -- 1338},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {We examined native and non-native English speakers' processing of indirect object wh-dependencies using a filled-gap paradigm while recording event-related potentials (ERPs). The non-native group was comprised of native German-speaking, proficient non-native speakers of English. Both participant groups showed evidence of linking fronted indirect objects to the subcategorizing verb when this was encountered, reflected in an N400 component. Evidence for continued filler activation beyond the verb was seen only in the non-native group, in the shape of a prolonged left-anterior negativity. Both participant groups showed sensitivity to filled indirect object gaps reflected in a P600 response, which was more pronounced and more globally distributed in our non-native group. Taken together, our results indicate that resolving indirect object dependencies is a two-step process in both native and non-native sentence comprehension, with greater processing cost incurred in non-native compared to native comprehension.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BoxellFelserCunnings2017,
  author    = {Boxell, Oliver and Felser, Claudia and Cunnings, Ian},
  title     = {Antecedent contained deletions in native and non-native sentence processing},
  series = {Linguistic approaches to bilingualism},
  volume    = {7},
  journal   = {Linguistic approaches to bilingualism},
  number    = {5},
  publisher = {John Benjamins Publishing Co.},
  address   = {Amsterdam},
  issn      = {1879-9264},
  doi       = {10.1075/lab.15006.box},
  pages     = {554 -- 582},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {We report the results from an eye-movement monitoring study investigating native (L1) and non-native (L2) speakers' real-time processing of antecedent-contained deletion (ACD), a type of verb phrase ellipsis in which the ellipsis gap forms part of its own antecedent. The resulting interpretation problem is traditionally thought to be solved by quantifier raising, a covert scope-shifting operation that serves to remove the gap from within its antecedent. Our L2 group comprised advanced, native German-speaking L2 learners of English. The analysis of the eye-movement data showed that both L1 and L2 English speakers tried to recover the missing verb phrase after encountering the gap. Only the native speakers showed evidence of ellipsis resolution being affected by quantification, however. No effects of quantification following gap detection were found in the L2 group, by contrast, indicating that recovery of the elided material was accomplished independently from the object's quantificational status in this group.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RadfordFelserBoxell2012,
  author    = {Radford, Andrew and Felser, Claudia and Boxell, Oliver},
  title     = {Preposition copying and pruning in present-day English},
  series = {English language and linguistics},
  volume    = {16},
  journal   = {English language and linguistics},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Cambridge Univ. Press},
  address   = {Cambridge},
  issn      = {1360-6743},
  doi       = {10.1017/S1360674312000172},
  pages     = {403 -- 426},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {This article investigates the nature of preposition copying and preposition pruning structures in present-day English. We begin by illustrating the two phenomena and consider how they might be accounted for in syntactic terms, and go on to explore the possibility that preposition copying and pruning arise for processing reasons. We then report on two acceptability judgement experiments examining the extent to which native speakers of English are sensitive to these types of 'error' in language comprehension. Our results indicate that preposition copying creates redundancy rather than ungrammaticality, whereas preposition pruning creates processing problems for comprehenders that may render it unacceptable in timed (but not necessarily in untimed) judgement tasks. Our findings furthermore illustrate the usefulness of combining corpus studies and experimentally elicited data for gaining a clearer picture of usage and acceptability, and the potential benefits of examining syntactic phenomena from both a theoretical and a processing perspective.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BoxellFelser2017,
  author    = {Boxell, Oliver and Felser, Claudia},
  title     = {Sensitivity to parasitic gaps inside subject islands in native and non-native sentence processing},
  series = {Bilingualism : language and cognition.},
  volume    = {20},
  journal   = {Bilingualism : language and cognition.},
  publisher = {Cambridge Univ. Press},
  address   = {New York},
  issn      = {1366-7289},
  doi       = {10.1017/S1366728915000942},
  pages     = {494 -- 511},
  year      = {2017},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{RadfordFelserBoxell2012,
  author    = {Radford, Andrew and Felser, Claudia and Boxell, Oliver},
  title     = {Preposition copying and pruning in present-day English},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {527},
  issn      = {1866-8364},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-41489},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-414898},
  pages     = {24},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {This article investigates the nature of preposition copying and preposition pruning structures in present-day English. We begin by illustrating the two phenomena and consider how they might be accounted for in syntactic terms, and go on to explore the possibility that preposition copying and pruning arise for processing reasons. We then report on two acceptability judgement experiments examining the extent to which native speakers of English are sensitive to these types of 'error' in language comprehension. Our results indicate that preposition copying creates redundancy rather than ungrammaticality, whereas preposition pruning creates processing problems for comprehenders that may render it unacceptable in timed (but not necessarily in untimed) judgement tasks. Our findings furthermore illustrate the usefulness of combining corpus studies and experimentally elicited data for gaining a clearer picture of usage and acceptability, and the potential benefits of examining syntactic phenomena from both a theoretical and a processing perspective.},
  language  = {en}
}