TY - JOUR A1 - Brown, J. M. M. A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert A1 - Hall, Rebecca A1 - Kliegl, Reinhold T1 - Middle ratings rise regardless of grammatical construction BT - Testing syntactic variability in a repeated exposure paradigm JF - PLOS ONE / Public Library of Science N2 - People perceive sentences more favourably after hearing or reading them many times. A prominent approach in linguistic theory argues that these types of exposure effects (satiation effects) show direct evidence of a generative approach to linguistic knowledge: only some sentences improve under repeated exposure, and which sentences do improve can be predicted by a model of linguistic competence that yields natural syntactic classes. However, replications of the original findings have been inconsistent, and it remains unclear whether satiation effects can be reliably induced in an experimental setting at all. Here we report four findings regarding satiation effects in wh-questions across German and English. First, the effects pertain to zone of well-formedness rather than syntactic class: all intermediate ratings, including calibrated fillers, increase at the beginning of the experimental session regardless of syntactic construction. Second, though there is satiation, ratings asymptote below maximum acceptability. Third, these effects are consistent across judgments of superiority effects in English and German. Fourth, wh-questions appear to show similar profiles in English and German, despite these languages being traditionally considered to differ strongly in whether they show effects on movement: violations of the superiority condition can be modulated to a similar degree in both languages by manipulating subject-object initiality and animacy congruency of the wh-phrase. We improve on classic satiation methods by distinguishing between two crucial tests, namely whether exposure selectively targets certain grammatical constructions or whether there is a general repeated exposure effect. We conclude that exposure effects can be reliably induced in rating experiments but exposure does not appear to selectively target certain grammatical constructions. Instead, they appear to be a phenomenon of intermediate gradient judgments. Y1 - 2021 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251280 SN - 1932-6203 VL - 16 IS - 5 PB - PLOS CY - San Fransisco ER - TY - BOOK A1 - Skopeteas, Stavros A1 - Fiedler, Ines A1 - Hellmuth, Sam A1 - Schwarz, Anne A1 - Stoel, Ruben A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert A1 - Féry, Caroline A1 - Krifka, Manfred T1 - Questionnaire on information structure (OUIS): reference manual N2 - Contents: Chapter 1. Introduction 1 Information Structure 2 Grammatical Correlates of Information Structure 3 Structure of the Questionnaire 4 Experimental Tasks 5 Technicalities 6 Archiving 7 Acknowledgments Chapter 2. General Questions 1 General Information 2 Phonology 3 Morphology and Syntax Chapter 3. Experimental tasks 1 Changes (Given/New in Intransitives and Transitives) 2 Giving (Given/New in Ditransitives) 3 Visibility (Given/New, Animacy and Type/Token Reference) 4 Locations (Given/New in Locative Expressions) 5 Sequences (Given/New/Contrast in Transitives) 6 Dynamic Localization (Given/New in Dynamic Loc. Descriptions) 7 Birthday Party (Weight and Discourse Status) 8 Static Localization (Macro-Planning and Given/New in Locatives) 9 Guiding (Presentational Utterances) 10 Event Cards (All New) 11 Anima (Focus types and Animacy) 12 Contrast (Contrast in pairing events) 13 Animal Game (Broad/Narrow Focus in NP) 14 Properties (Focus on Property and Possessor) 15 Eventives (Thetic and Categorical Utterances) 16 Tell a Story (Contrast in Text) 17 Focus Cards (Selective, Restrictive, Additive, Rejective Focus) 18 Who does What (Answers to Multiple Constituent Questions) 19 Fairy Tale (Topic and Focus in Coherent Discourse) 20 Map Task (Contrastive and Selective Focus in Spontaneous Dialogue) 21 Drama (Contrastive Focus in Argumentation) 22 Events in Places (Spatial, Temporal and Complex Topics) 23 Path Descriptions (Topic Change in Narrative) 24 Groups (Partial Topic) 25 Connections (Bridging Topic) 26 Indirect (Implicational Topic) 27 Surprises (Subject-Topic Interrelation) 28 Doing (Action Given, Action Topic) 29 Influences (Question Priming) Chapter 4. Translation tasks 1 Basic Intonational Properties 2 Focus Translation 3 Topic Translation 4 Quantifiers Chapter 5. Information structure summary survey 1 Preliminaries 2 Syntax 3 Morphology 4 Prosody 5 Summary: Information structure Chapter 6. Performance of Experimental Tasks in the Field 1 Field sessions 2 Field Session Metadata 3 Informants’ Agreement T3 - Interdisciplinary studies on information structure : ISIS ; working papers of the SFB 632 - 4 Y1 - 2006 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-12413 SN - 978-3-939469-14-8 PB - Universitätsverlag Potsdam CY - Potsdam ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert T1 - Cyclic phonology-syntax-interaction BT - movement to first position in German JF - Interdisciplinary studies on information structure : ISIS ; working papers of the SFB 632 N2 - This paper investigates the nature of the attraction of XPs to clauseinitial position in German (and other languages). It argues that there are two different types of preposing. First, an XP can move when it is attracted by an EPP-like feature of Comp. Comp can, however, also attract elements that bear the formal marker of some semantic or pragmatic (information theoretic) function. This second type of movement is driven by the attraction of a formal property of the moved element. It has often been misanalysed as “operator” movement in the past. Japanese wh-questions always exhibit focus intonation (FI). Furthermore, the domain of FI exhibits a correspondence to the wh-scope. I propose that this phonology-semantics correspondence is a result of the cyclic computation of FI, which is explained under the notion of Multiple Spell-Out in the recent Minimalist framework. The proposed analysis makes two predictions: (1) embedding of an FI into another is possible; (2) (overt) movement of a wh-phrase to a phase edge position causes a mismatch between FI and wh-scope. Both predictions are tested experimentally, and shown to be borne out. KW - topicalization KW - focus movement KW - operator movement KW - A-bar-movement Y1 - 2004 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-8264 SN - 1866-4725 SN - 1614-4708 IS - 1 SP - 1 EP - 42 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert T1 - The restricted access of Information Structure to syntax : a minority report Y1 - 2007 SN - 978-3-939469-88-9 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Féry, Caroline A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert A1 - Krifka, Manfred T1 - Introduction Y1 - 2007 SN - 978-3-939469-88-9 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Féry, Caroline A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert A1 - Paslawska, Alla T1 - Nominal Split Construction in Ukrainian Y1 - 2007 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert T1 - Cyclic Phonology Syntax-Interaction : Movement to First Position in German Y1 - 2004 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert T1 - The MLC and Interface Economy Y1 - 2004 SN - 3-11-017961-X ER - TY - BOOK A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert A1 - Féry, Caroline A1 - Schlesewsky, Matthias A1 - Vogel, Ralf T1 - Gradience in grammar : generative perspectives Y1 - 2006 SN - 0-19-927479-7 PB - Oxford University Press CY - Oxford, New York ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert T1 - Fakten, Fakten, Fakten! Y1 - 2004 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert T1 - Free Constituent Order : a Minimalist Interface Account N2 - It has been claimed that the functional architecture of German clauses involves heads such as [Topic] that are defined by their information structure value, and that movement to the specifier position of such heads is (partially) responsible for free word order in German. This paper argues that this view is misguided. (i) There is no evidence for a syntactically defined topic position in the middle field of German clauses. (ii) The distinction between marked and unmarked serialization must also be made for structures that do not involve movement. (iii) Movement in the interest of information structure is often altruistic Y1 - 2003 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert T1 - Die Beziehung der Grammatik zur kommunikativen Funktion der Sprache Y1 - 2003 SN - 3-89323-655-4 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert T1 - Filling first positions Y1 - 2003 SN - 83-910948-6-3 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert T1 - Münchhausen-Style Head movement and the analysis of verb-second Y1 - 2003 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Schlesewsky, Matthias A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert A1 - Kliegl, Reinhold A1 - Krems, J. T1 - The subject preference in the processing of locally ambiguous Wh-questions in german Y1 - 2000 SN - 0-7923-6104- 0 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Besnard, Philippe A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert A1 - Schaub, Torsten H. T1 - Optimality theory as a family of cumulative logics Y1 - 2002 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Féry, Caroline A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert T1 - Leitthema Konfligierende Regeln : Wege zu formalen Modellen der Kognition Y1 - 2002 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Féry, Caroline A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert T1 - Grammatik mit Widersprüchen Y1 - 2002 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert T1 - Does Constituent length predict german word order in the middle field Y1 - 2000 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert T1 - Optimal Exceptions Y1 - 2000 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Kliegl, Reinhold A1 - Mayr, Ulrich A1 - Junker, Martina A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert T1 - Testing age invariance in language processes Y1 - 1999 SN - 0-7923-8526-8 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert A1 - Kliegl, Reinhold A1 - Schlesewsky, Matthias T1 - Processing difficulty and principles of grammar Y1 - 1999 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert A1 - Klingel, Rheinhold A1 - Mayr, Ulrich A1 - Junker, Martina T1 - Test age invariance in language processing Y1 - 1999 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Kliegl, Reinhold A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert T1 - Kognitive Komplexität Y1 - 1996 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert A1 - Mahajan, Annop T1 - Partial movement and successive cyclicity Y1 - 1996 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert A1 - Mahajan, Annop T1 - Some wh-asymmetries, successive cyclicity, and feature attraction Y1 - 1996 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Hörnig, Robin A1 - Weskott, Thomas A1 - Kliegl, Reinhold A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert T1 - Word order variation in spatial descriptions with adverbs N2 - Previous research has shown that in a three-term spatial reasoning task, the second premise of a German premise pair is especially easy to comprehend if (1) the prepositional object rather than the grammatical subject denotes the given entity, and if (2) the term denoting the given entity precedes the term denoting the new entity. Accordingly, the second premise is easiest to comprehend with noncanonical word order-that is, with the prepositional object in preverbal position denoting the given entity (e.g., To the right of the given object is the new subject). This finding is explained in terms of contextual licensing of noncanonical word order. Here, we discuss and tested two alternative accounts of contextual licensing, given-new and partially ordered set relations (Poset). The given-new account claims that noncanonical word order is licensed by the term denoting the given entity preceding the term denoting the new entity. On the Poset account, noncanonical word order is licensed if the preverbal constituent introduces a new entity that stands in a transitive, irreflexive, and asymmetric relation to a given entity. Comprehension times for second premises with spatial adverbs in four different word orders support both accounts of contextual licensing; Poset licensing was stronger than given-new licensing. Y1 - 2006 UR - http://www.springerlink.com/content/0090-502x/ U6 - https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193264 SN - 0090-502X ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Skopeteas, Stavros A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert T1 - Focus in Georgian and the expression of contrast N2 - This paper examines the impact of contrastive focus in Georgian syntax. In a semi-naturalistic production study, we elicited spontaneous answers to questions which have shown that contexts involving contrastive focus induce placement of the focused constituent at the immediately preverbal position more frequently than other contexts. Based on this observation we investigate the properties of Georgian grammar which may account for the different impact of contrastive vs. non-contrastive contexts on word order. We first examine the involved syntactic structures and present evidence that preverbal focus is a result of movement to the specifier position of a functional projection whose head attracts the finite verb. We then address the question whether there is evidence for an association between contrast and movement to this position and we provide evidence that the correlation between context and order in the behavioral data does not result from a biunique form-function association of the kind 'contrast <-> move-movement to the specifier position', but from an asymmetry at a discourse level such that contexts involving contrast induce answers in which focused constituents occupy the stressed position in the clause more often than contexts that do not. Y1 - 2010 UR - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00243841 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.10.012 SN - 0024-3841 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Clifton, Charles A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert A1 - Frazier, Lyn T1 - Amnestying superiority violations : processing multiple questions N2 - Two experiments investigated the acceptability of multiple questions. As expected, sentences violating the Superiority Condition were accepted less often than sentences obeying it. The status of the Superiority violations was not improved by the addition of a third wh, regardless of whether the third wh was an adjunct or an argument, though it was improved by the addition of a second question (e.g., and when). Further, in a small pilot study directly comparing a sentence with adjacent final wh-phrases that may induce a stress clash (I'd like to know who hid it where when) with a sentence violating Superiority but avoiding the final adjacent wh-phrases (I'd like to know where who hid it when), half the participants indicated that the Superiority violation sentence sounded better. This suggests that the status of some additional-wh sentences may appear to improve simply because the comparison sentence with adjacent final wh-phrases is degraded. Overall, the results of the studies suggest that there is no need to complicate syntactic theory to account for the additional-wh effect, because there is no general additional-wh effect Y1 - 2006 UR - http://mitpress.mit.edu/journal-home.tcl?issn=00243892 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1162/002438906775321139 SN - 0024-3892 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert T1 - Die (generative) Syntax in den Zeiten der Empiriediskussion Y1 - 2009 UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/zfsw U6 - https://doi.org/10.1515/Zfsw.2009.015 SN - 0721-9067 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Schlesewsky, Matthias A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert A1 - Frisch, Stefan T1 - Case as a trigger for reanalysis BT - some arguments from the processing of double case ungrammaticalities in German JF - Linguistics in Potsdam N2 - In the recent literature there is a hypothesis that the human parser uses number and case information in different ways to resolve an initially incorrect case assignment. This paper investigates what role morphological case information plays during the parser’s detection of an ungrammaticality or its recognition that a reanalysis is necessary. First, we compare double nominative with double accusative ungrammaticalities in a word by word, speeded grammaticality task and in this way show that only double nominatives lead to a so-called ”illusion of grammaticality” (a low rate of ungrammaticality detection). This illusion was found to disappear when the second argument was realized by a pronoun rather than by a full definite determiner phrase, i.e. when the saliency of the second argument was increased. Thus, the accuracy in recognizing an ungrammaticality induced by the case feature of the second argument is dependent on the type of this argument. Furthermore, we found that the accuracy in detecting such case ungrammaticalities is distance sensitive insofar as a shorter distance leads to a higher accuracy. The results are taken as support for an ”expectationdriven” parse strategy in which the way the parser uses the information of a current input item depends on the expectation resulting from the parse carried out so far. By contrast, ”input-driven” parse strategies, such as the diagnosis model (Fodor & Inoue, 1999) are unable to explain the data presented here. Y1 - 2003 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-32431 SN - 1616-7392 SN - 1864-1857 IS - 21 SP - 31 EP - 60 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert T1 - Zur Generierung der Abfolge der Satzglieder im Deutschen Y1 - 2003 SN - 3-89129- 804-8 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Skopeteas, Stavros A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert T1 - Effects of givenness and constraints on free word order Y1 - 2010 SN - 978-0-19-957095-9 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Féry, Caroline A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert T1 - Ineffability in OT Y1 - 2002 SN - 978-3-87548-314-7 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Häussler, Jana A1 - Grant, Margaret A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert A1 - Frazier, Lyn T1 - Superiority in English and German: Cross-Language Grammatical Differences? JF - Syntax : a journal of theoretical, experimental and interdisciplinary research N2 - Do the grammars of English and German contain a ban on moving the lower of two wh-phrases (Superiority), or is the lower acceptability due simply to the complexity of processing the longer dependency that results when the lower wh-phrase is moved? The results of four acceptability-judgment studies suggest that a pure processing account is inadequate. Crossing wh-dependencies lower the acceptability of both German and English questions but with a significantly larger penalty in English than in German (experiment 1). The larger penalty in English cannot be attributed to greater sensitivity to violations in English, because relative clause island violations result in similar effects in the two languages (experiment 2). A pure processing account might claim long dependencies are easier to process in German than in English because of richer case, but a control experiment did not support this possibility (experiment 4). We suggest that moving the lower of two wh-phrases is banned in the grammar of English but not in the grammar of German. This predicts that there should be a penalty for crossing dependencies in English even in helpful (Bolinger) contexts, as confirmed in experiment 3, and even in short easy-to-process sentences, as confirmed by simple six-word sentences in Clifton, Fanselow & Frazier 2006. Finally, if German grammar does not contain a ban on crossing, it is not surprising that the penalty in German is smaller than in English or that like animacy of the two wh-phrases plays a larger role in German than in English because feature similarity generally gives rise to difficulty in processing, whereas in English a grammatical ban on crossing will reduce acceptability regardless of whether there is processing difficulty. Y1 - 2015 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12030 SN - 1368-0005 SN - 1467-9612 VL - 18 IS - 3 SP - 235 EP - 265 PB - Wiley-Blackwell CY - Hoboken ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert A1 - Lenertova, Denisa T1 - Left peripheral focus mismatches between syntax and information structure JF - Natural language & linguistic theory N2 - In Czech, German, and many other languages, part of the semantic focus of the utterance can be moved to the left periphery of the clause. The main generalization is that only the leftmost accented part of the semantic focus can be moved. We propose that movement to the left periphery is generally triggered by an unspecific edge feature of C (Chomsky 2008) and its restrictions can be attributed to requirements of cyclic linearization, modifying the theory of cyclic linearization developed by Fox and Pesetsky (2005). The crucial assumption is that structural accent is a direct consequence of being linearized at merge, thus it is indirectly relevant for (locality restrictions on) movement. The absence of structural accent correlates with givenness. Given elements may later receive (topic or contrastive) accents, which accounts for fronting in multiple focus/contrastive topic constructions. Without any additional assumptions, the model can account for movement of pragmatically unmarked elements to the left periphery ('formal fronting', Frey 2005). Crucially, the analysis makes no reference at all to concepts of information structure in the syntax, in line with the claim of Chomsky (2008) that UG specifies no direct link between syntax and information structure. KW - Czech KW - German KW - Focus KW - Topic KW - Information structure KW - Intervention effects KW - Cyclic linearization KW - A-bar-movement KW - Prosody-syntax interface KW - Accentuation Y1 - 2011 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9109-x SN - 0167-806X VL - 29 IS - 1 SP - 169 EP - 209 PB - Springer CY - Dordrecht ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Skopeteas, Stavros A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert T1 - Focus and the exclusion of alternatives on the interaction of syntactic structure with pragmatic inference JF - Lingua : international review of general linguistics N2 - The claim that focus evokes a set of alternatives is a central issue in several accounts of the effects of focus on interpretation. This article presents two empirical studies that examine whether this property of focus is independent of contextual conditions. The syntactic operation at issue is object-fronting in German, Spanish, Greek, and Hungarian licensed by contexts involving focus on the object constituent. This operation evokes the intuition that the fronted referent excludes some or all relevant alternatives. The presented experiments deal with the question whether this interpretative property obligatorily accompanies the operation at issue or not. The empirical findings show that in German, Spanish, and Greek this intuition depends on properties of the context and is sensitive to the interaction with further discourse factors (in particular, the predictability of the referent). Hungarian displays a different data pattern: our data does not provide evidence that the syntactic operation at issue depends on the context or interacts with further discourse factors. This finding is in line with the view that evoking alternatives is inherent part of constituent-fronting in this language. KW - Focus KW - Word order KW - Pseudocleft KW - Exclusion of alternatives KW - Pragmatic inference Y1 - 2011 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.05.005 SN - 0024-3841 VL - 121 IS - 11 SP - 1693 EP - 1706 PB - Elsevier CY - Amsterdam ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Weskott, Thomas A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert T1 - On the informativity of different measures of linguistic acceptability JF - Language : journal of the Linguistic Society of America N2 - This article deals with the claim that the MAGNITUDE ESTIMATION (ME) method of gathering acceptability judgments produces data that are more informative for linguists than binary or n-point scale judgments. We performed three acceptability-rating experiments that directly compared ME data to binary and seven-point scale data. The results clearly falsify the hypothesis that data gathered by the ME method carry a larger amount of information about the acceptability of a given linguistic phenomenon. The three measures are largely equivalent with respect to informativity. Moreover, ME judgments are shown to be more liable to producing spurious variance under certain circumstances.* KW - acceptability judgments KW - empirical syntax KW - magnitude estimation KW - informativity Y1 - 2011 SN - 0097-8507 VL - 87 IS - 2 SP - 249 EP - 273 PB - Linguistic Society of America CY - Washington ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert A1 - Schlesewsky, Matthias A1 - Vogel, Ralf A1 - Weskott, Thomas T1 - Animacy effects on crossing wh-movement in German JF - Linguistics : an interdisciplinary journal of the language sciences N2 - This article presents several acceptability rating experiments concerned with crossing wh-movement in German multiple questions. Our results show that there is no general superiority effect in German, thus refuting claims to the contrary by Featherston (2005). However, acceptability is reduced when a wh-phrase crosses a wh-subject with which it agrees in animacy. We explain this finding in terms of the availability of different sorting keys for the answers to the multiple questions. Y1 - 2011 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2011.021 SN - 0024-3949 VL - 49 IS - 4 SP - 657 EP - 683 PB - De Gruyter Mouton CY - Berlin ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert T1 - Syntactic and Prosodic Reflexes of Information Structure JF - The Oxford handbook of information structure Y1 - 2016 SN - 978-0-19-964267-0 SP - 621 EP - 641 PB - Oxford University Press CY - Oxford ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert T1 - Scrambling as formal movement T2 - Contrasts and Positions in Information Structure Y1 - 2012 SN - 978-1-107-00198-5 SP - 267 EP - 295 PB - Cambridge University Press CY - Cambridge ER - TY - GEN A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert A1 - Lenertová, Denisa T1 - Left peripheral focus BT - mismatches between syntax and information structure T2 - Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe N2 - In Czech, German, and many other languages, part of the semantic focus of the utterance can be moved to the left periphery of the clause. The main generalization is that only the leftmost accented part of the semantic focus can be moved. We propose that movement to the left periphery is generally triggered by an unspecific edge feature of C (Chomsky 2008) and its restrictions can be attributed to requirements of cyclic linearization, modifying the theory of cyclic linearization developed by Fox and Pesetsky (2005). The crucial assumption is that structural accent is a direct consequence of being linearized at merge, thus it is indirectly relevant for (locality restrictions on) movement. The absence of structural accent correlates with given-ness. Given elements may later receive (topic or contrastive) accents, which accounts for fronting in multiple focus/contrastive topic constructions. Without any additional assumptions, the model can account for movement of pragmatically unmarked elements to the left periphery (‘formal fronting’, Frey 2005). Crucially, the analysis makes no reference at all to concepts of information structure in the syntax, in line with the claim of Chomsky (2008) that UG specifies no direct link between syntax and information structure. T3 - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe - 596 KW - Czech KW - German KW - Focus KW - Topic KW - Information structure KW - Intervention effects KW - Cyclic linearization KW - A-bar-movement KW - Prosody-syntax interface KW - Accentuation Y1 - 2020 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-428198 SN - 1866-8364 IS - 596 ER - TY - GEN A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert A1 - Schlesewsky, Matthias A1 - Cavar, Damir A1 - Kliegl, Reinhold T1 - Optimal parsing: syntactic parsing preferences and optimality theory T3 - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe - paper 255 Y1 - 1999 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-57164 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert A1 - Kliegl, Reinhold A1 - Schlesewsky, Matthias T1 - Syntactic variation in German wh-questions Y1 - 2008 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert T1 - The restricted access of information structure to syntax BT - a minority report N2 - This paper sketches the view that syntax does not directly interact with information structure. Therefore, syntactic data are of little help when one wants to narrow down the interpretation of terms such as “focus”, “topic”, etc. Y1 - 2007 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-19713 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert T1 - Münchhausen-style head movement and the analysis of verb second JF - Linguistics in Potsdam N2 - Content: 1 Introduction 2 A restrictive theory of head movement 2.1 Preliminary Remarks 2.2 Theoretical Problems of Head Movement 2.3 Remnant Phrasal Movement 2.4 Münchhausen Style Head Movement 3 Verb Second Movement 3.1 Introductory Remarks 3.2 Problems of V/2 constructions: Does V really move to Comp? 3.3 The preverbal position 3.4 The Second Position 4 References Y1 - 2004 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-32497 SN - 1864-1857 SN - 1616-7392 VL - 22 SP - 9 EP - 49 PB - Universitätsverlag Potsdam CY - Potsdam ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Trutkowski, Ewa A1 - Zugck, Marco A1 - Blaszczak, Joanna A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert A1 - Fischer, Susann A1 - Vogel, Ralf T1 - Superiorität in europäischen Sprachen BT - Zwischenbericht zu einer Datenerhebung JF - Linguistics in Potsdam N2 - Inhalt: 1. Superiorität in einfachen Sätzen 2. Transitive Sätze mit Dativ-Objekten 3. Effekte durch extrem markierte Abfolgen? Y1 - 2003 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-32485 SN - 1616-7392 SN - 1864-1857 VL - 21 SP - 123 EP - 137 PB - Universitätsverlag Potsdam CY - Potsdam ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Blaszczak, Joanna A1 - Dipper, Stefanie A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert A1 - Ishihara, Shinishiro A1 - Petrova, Svetlana A1 - Skopeteas, Stavros A1 - Weskott, Thomas A1 - Zimmermann, Malte T1 - Syntax JF - Interdisciplinary studies on information structure : ISIS N2 - The guidelines for syntactic annotation contain the layers that are especially relevant for queries related to the interaction of information structure with syntax. The layers of this level are constituent structure, grammatical functions, and semantic roles. Y1 - 2007 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-22253 SN - 1614-4708 SN - 1866-4725 IS - 7 SP - 95 EP - 133 PB - Universitätsverlag Potsdam CY - Potsdam ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Blaszczak, Joanna A1 - Dipper, Stefanie A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert A1 - Ishihara, Shinishiro A1 - Petrova, Svetlana A1 - Skopeteas, Stavros A1 - Weskott, Thomas A1 - Zimmermann, Malte T1 - Morphology JF - Interdisciplinary studies on information structure : ISIS N2 - The guidelines for morphological annotation contain the layers that are necessary for understanding the structure of the words in the object language: morphological segmentation, glossing, and annotation of part-of-speech. Y1 - 2007 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-22247 SN - 1614-4708 SN - 1866-4725 IS - 7 SP - 55 EP - 94 PB - Universitätsverlag Potsdam CY - Potsdam ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert A1 - Zimmermann, Malte A1 - Philipp, Mareike T1 - Assessing the availability of inverse scope in German in the covered box paradigm JF - Glossa : a journal of general linguistics N2 - This paper presents the results of a novel experimental approach to relative quantifier scope in German that elicits data in an indirect manner. Applying the covered-box method (Huang et al. 2013) to scope phenomena, we show that inverse scope is available to some extent in the free constituent order language German, thereby validating earlier findings on other syntactic configurations in German (Rado & Bott 2018) and empirical claims on other free constituent order languages (Japanese, Russian, Hindi), as well as recent corpus findings in Webelhuth (2020). Moreover, the results of the indirect covered-box experiment replicate findings from an earlier direct-query experiment with comparable target items, in which participants were asked directly about the availability of surface scope and inverse scope readings. The configuration of interest consisted of canonical transitive clauses with deaccented existential subject and universal object QPs, in which the restriction of the universal QP was controlled for by the context. KW - inverse scope KW - covered-box KW - free constituent order KW - German KW - experimental semantics Y1 - 2022 U6 - https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5766 SN - 2397-1835 VL - 7 IS - 1 SP - 1 EP - 24 PB - Open Library of Humanities CY - London ER - TY - BOOK A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert A1 - Féry, Caroline T1 - A short treatise of optimality theory T3 - Linguistics in Potsdam - 18 Y1 - 2002 SN - 978-3-935024-54-9 SN - 1616-7392 PB - Univ.-Bibliothek Publ.-Stelle CY - Potsdam ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Skopeteas, Stavros A1 - Verhoeven, Elisabeth A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert T1 - Discontinuous noun phrases in Yucatec Maya JF - Journal of linguistics : JL / publ. for the Linguistics Association of Great Britain N2 - 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. KW - discontinuous noun phrases KW - focus movement KW - left dislocation KW - possessor KW - extraction KW - split topicalization Y1 - 2022 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226720000419 SN - 0022-2267 SN - 1469-7742 VL - 58 IS - 3 SP - 609 EP - 648 PB - Cambridge University Press CY - New York ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Wierzba, Marta A1 - Fanselow, Gisbert T1 - Factors influencing the acceptability of object fronting in German JF - The journal of comparative Germanic linguistics N2 - In this paper, we address some controversially debated empirical questions concerning object fronting in German by a series of acceptability rating studies. We investigated three kinds of factors: (i) properties of the subject (given/new, pronoun/full DP), (ii) emphasis, (iii) register. The first factor is predicted to play a crucial role by models in which object fronting possibilities are limited by prosodic properties. Two experiments provide converging evidence for a systematic effect of this factor: we find that the relative acceptability of object fronting across subjects that require an accent (new DPs) is lower than across deaccentable subjects (pronouns and given DPs). Other models predict object fronting across full phrases (but not across pronouns) to be limited to an emphatic interpretation. This prediction is also borne out, suggesting that both types of models capture an empirically valid generalization and can be seen as complementing each other rather than competing with each other. Finally, we find support for the view that informal register facilitates object fronting. In sum, our experiments contribute to clarifying the empirical basis concerning a phenomenon influenced by a range of interacting factors. This, in turn, informs theoretical approaches to the prefield position and helps to identify factors that need to be carefully controlled in this field of research. KW - German KW - Object fronting KW - Prefield KW - Givenness KW - Emphasis KW - Register KW - Experiments KW - Acceptability Y1 - 2020 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-020-09113-1 SN - 1383-4924 SN - 1572-8552 VL - 23 IS - 1 SP - 77 EP - 124 PB - Springer CY - New York ER -