TY - JOUR A1 - Jäger, Lena Ann A1 - Benz, Lena A1 - Roeser, Jens A1 - Dillon, Brian W. A1 - Vasishth, Shravan T1 - Teasing apart retrieval and encoding interference in the processing of anaphors JF - Frontiers in psychology N2 - 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. KW - anaphors KW - reflexives KW - possessives KW - eye-tracking KW - German KW - Swedish KW - working-memory KW - interference Y1 - 2015 U6 - https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00506 SN - 1664-1078 VL - 6 PB - Frontiers Research Foundation CY - Lausanne ER - TY - GEN A1 - Jäger, Lena Ann A1 - Benz, Lena A1 - Roeser, Jens A1 - Dillon, Brian W. A1 - Vasishth, Shravan T1 - Teasing apart Retrieval and Encoding Interference in the Processing of Anaphors N2 - 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. T3 - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe - 275 KW - anaphors KW - reflexives KW - possessives KW - eye-tracking KW - German KW - Swedish KW - working-memory KW - interference Y1 - 2015 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-78714 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Jäger, Lena Ann A1 - Benz, Lena A1 - Roeser, Jens A1 - Dillon, Brian W. A1 - Vasishth, Shravan T1 - Teasing apart retrieval and encoding interference in the processing of anaphors JF - Frontiers in psychology N2 - 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. KW - anaphors KW - reflexives KW - possessives KW - eye-tracking KW - German KW - Swedish KW - working-memory KW - interference Y1 - 2015 U6 - https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00506 SN - 1664-1078 VL - 6 IS - 506 PB - Frontiers Research Foundation CY - Lausanne ER - TY - GEN A1 - Bacskai-Atkari, Julia A1 - Baudisch, Lisa T1 - Clause typing in Germanic BT - A questionnaire and its results N2 - 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. N2 - Der Fragebogen untersucht die funktionale linke Peripherie von sämtlichen finiten Sätzen in germanischen Sprachen, wobei Elemente und deren Kombinationen, die den Satztyp bestimmen, im Vordergrund stehen. Der Fokus liegt insbesondere auf der Satztypmarkierung in eingebetteten Sätzen, jedoch werden auch Matrixsätze zum Vergleich herangezogen. Das Hauptziel war es, vergleichbare Ergebnisse zwischen germanischen Sprachen zu erhalten, jedoch kann der standardisierte Fragebogen auch bei der Untersuchung anderer Sprachen hilfreich sein. Die meisten Fragen beziehen sich auf die Einsetzbarkeit verschiedener Komplementierer und den Satztyp bestimmender Operatoren, und in einigen Fällen wird auch die Verbbewegung zur linken Peripherie berücksichtigt. Der Fragebogen untergliedert sich in sieben größere Abschnitte, je nach untersuchtem Satztyp. Alle Anweisungen wurden auf Englisch formuliert und die einzelnen Fragen beziehen sich auf Übersetzungen von auf Englisch gegebenen Sätzen in die Zielsprache, und/oder erkundigen sich über Einzelheiten der Konstruktionen in der Zielsprache. Das vorliegende Dokument beinhaltet den Fragebogen (samt den Anweisungen am Anfang des Fragebogens und am Anfang der einzelnen Abschnitte, wie auch den Fragen bezüglich persönlichen Daten), die soziolinguistischen Daten der Informanten, und die Ergebnisse für die einzelnen Sprachen. Fünf germanische Sprachen sind enthalten: Niederländisch, Dänisch, Isländisch, Norwegisch und Schwedisch. Es gaben je zwei Informanten pro Sprache. Da die Anzahl der Informanten niedrig ist, dient die vorliegende Studie als qualitative Untersuchung und als Basis für weitere, quantitative und experimentelle Studien. KW - clause type KW - complementiser KW - Danish KW - Dutch KW - Icelandic KW - left periphery KW - Norwegian KW - operator KW - syntax KW - Swedish KW - Dänisch KW - Isländisch KW - Komplementierer KW - linke Peripherie KW - Niederländisch KW - Norwegisch KW - Operator KW - Satztyp KW - Schwedisch KW - Syntax Y1 - 2018 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-406810 ER -