@article{SchlesewskyFanselowKliegletal.2000, author = {Schlesewsky, Matthias and Fanselow, Gisbert and Kliegl, Reinhold and Krems, J.}, title = {The subject preference in the processing of locally ambiguous Wh-questions in german}, isbn = {0-7923-6104- 0}, year = {2000}, language = {en} } @article{BostonHaleVasishthetal.2011, author = {Boston, Marisa Ferrara and Hale, John T. and Vasishth, Shravan and Kliegl, Reinhold}, title = {Parallel processing and sentence comprehension difficulty}, series = {Language and cognitive processes}, volume = {26}, journal = {Language and cognitive processes}, number = {3}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hove}, issn = {0169-0965}, doi = {10.1080/01690965.2010.492228}, pages = {301 -- 349}, year = {2011}, abstract = {Eye fixation durations during normal reading correlate with processing difficulty, but the specific cognitive mechanisms reflected in these measures are not well understood. This study finds support in German readers' eye fixations for two distinct difficulty metrics: surprisal, which reflects the change in probabilities across syntactic analyses as new words are integrated; and retrieval, which quantifies comprehension difficulty in terms of working memory constraints. We examine the predictions of both metrics using a family of dependency parsers indexed by an upper limit on the number of candidate syntactic analyses they retain at successive words. Surprisal models all fixation measures and regression probability. By contrast, retrieval does not model any measure in serial processing. As more candidate analyses are considered in parallel at each word, retrieval can account for the same measures as surprisal. This pattern suggests an important role for ranked parallelism in theories of sentence comprehension.}, language = {en} } @article{SkopeteasVerhoevenFanselow2022, author = {Skopeteas, Stavros and Verhoeven, Elisabeth and Fanselow, Gisbert}, title = {Discontinuous noun phrases in Yucatec Maya}, series = {Journal of linguistics : JL / publ. for the Linguistics Association of Great Britain}, volume = {58}, journal = {Journal of linguistics : JL / publ. for the Linguistics Association of Great Britain}, number = {3}, publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, address = {New York}, issn = {0022-2267}, doi = {10.1017/S0022226720000419}, pages = {609 -- 648}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Languages differ in whether or not they allow discontinuous noun phrases. If they do, they further vary in the ways the nominal projections interact with the available syntactic operations. Yucatec Maya has two left-peripheral configurations that differ syntactically: a preverbal position for foci or wh-elements that is filled in by movement, and the possibility to adjoin topics at the highest clausal layer. These two structural options are reflected in different ways of the formation of discontinuous patterns. Subextraction from nominal projections to the focus position yielding discontinuous NPs is possible, but subject to several restrictions. It observes conditions on extraction domains, and does not apply to the left branch of nominal structures. The topic position also appears to license discontinuity, typically involving a non-referential nominal expression as the topic and quantifiers/adjectives that form an elliptical nominal projection within the clause proper. Such constructions can involve several morphological and syntactic mismatches between their parts that are excluded for continuous noun phrases, and they are not sensitive to syntactic island restrictions. Thus, in a strict sense, discontinuities involving the topic position are only apparent, because the construction involves two independent nominal projections that are semantically linked.}, language = {en} } @article{VicenteBarrosMessicketal.2021, author = {Vicente, Luis and Barros, Matthew and Messick, Troy and Saab, Andres}, title = {On a nonargument for cleft sources in sluicing}, series = {Linguistic inquiry}, volume = {52}, journal = {Linguistic inquiry}, number = {4}, publisher = {MIT Press}, address = {Cambridge}, issn = {0024-3892}, doi = {10.1162/ling_a_00390}, pages = {867 -- 880}, year = {2021}, abstract = {On the basis of certain semantic intuitions, Barros (2012) argues that ellipsis does not require structural isomorphism between elided structure and its antecedent. We tackle this claim. Semantic intuitions cannot be a pointer to the analysis of silent structure. We provide empirical evidence that raises the question of to what extent semantic intuitions about plausible articulable syntax must inform one's analysis of silent structure. We conclude that the answer to this question must be crosslinguistically informed. We conjecture that ellipsis introduces ellipsis-specific interpretive mechanisms, so that intuitions about "how the unelided structure would be interpreted" are not empirically relevant.}, language = {en} } @misc{RaelingHanneSchroederetal.2016, author = {R{\"a}ling, Romy and Hanne, Sandra and Schr{\"o}der, Astrid and Keßler, Carla and Wartenburger, Isabell}, title = {Judging the animacy of words}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-98402}, pages = {11}, year = {2016}, abstract = {The age at which members of a semantic category are learned (age of acquisition), the typicality they demonstrate within their corresponding category, and the semantic domain to which they belong (living, non-living) are known to influence the speed and accuracy of lexical/semantic processing. So far, only a few studies have looked at the origin of age of acquisition and its interdependence with typicality and semantic domain within the same experimental design. Twenty adult participants performed an animacy decision task in which nouns were classified according to their semantic domain as being living or non-living. Response times were influenced by the independent main effects of each parameter: typicality, age of acquisition, semantic domain, and frequency. However, there were no interactions. The results are discussed with respect to recent models concerning the origin of age of acquisition effects.}, language = {en} } @article{HeinMurphy2022, author = {Hein, Johannes and Murphy, Andrew}, title = {VP-nominalization and the Final-over-Final Condition}, series = {Linguistic inquiry}, volume = {53}, journal = {Linguistic inquiry}, number = {2}, publisher = {MIT Press}, address = {Cambridge, Mass.}, issn = {0024-3892}, doi = {10.1162/ling_a_00407}, pages = {337 -- 370}, year = {2022}, abstract = {The Final-over-Final Condition has emerged as a robust and explanatory generalization for a wide range of phenomena (Biberauer, Holmberg, and Roberts 2014, Sheehan et al. 2017). In this article, we argue that it also holds in another domain, nominalization. In languages that show overt nominalization of VPs, one word order is routinely unattested, namely, a head-initial VP with a suffixal nominalizer. This typological gap can be accounted for by the Final-over-Final Condition, if we allow it to hold within mixed extended projections. This view also makes correct predictions about agentive nominalizations and nominalized serial verb constructions.}, language = {en} }