@misc{BacskaiAtkariBaudisch2018,
  author    = {Bacskai-Atkari, Julia and Baudisch, Lisa},
  title     = {Clause typing in Germanic},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-406810},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {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.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Schunack2017,
  author    = {Schunack, Silke},
  title     = {Processing of non-canonical word orders in an L2},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-103750},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {xvii, 443 Seiten},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {This thesis investigates the processing of non-canonical word orders and whether non-canonical orders involving object topicalizations, midfield scrambling and particle verbs are treated the same by native (L1) and non-native (L2) speakers. The two languages investigated are Norwegian and German. 32 L1 Norwegian and 32 L1 German advanced learners of Norwegian were tested in two experiments on object topicalization in Norwegian. The results from the online self-paced reading task and the offline agent identification task show that both groups are able to identify the non-canonical word order and show a facilitatory effect of animate subjects in their reanalysis. Similarly high error rates in the agent identification task suggest that globally unambiguous object topicalizations are a challenging structure for L1 and L2 speakers alike. The same participants were also tested in two experiments on particle placement in Norwegian, again using a self-paced reading task, this time combined with an acceptability rating task. In the acceptability rating L1 and L2 speakers show the same preference for the verb-adjacent placement of the particle over the non-adjacent placement after the direct object. However, this preference for adjacency is only found in the L1 group during online processing, whereas the L2 group shows no preference for either order. Another set of experiments tested 33 L1 German and 39 L1 Slavic advanced learners of German on object scrambling in ditransitive clauses in German. Non-native speakers accept both object orders and show neither a preference for either order nor a processing advantage for the canonical order. The L1 group, in contrast, shows a small, but significant preference for the canonical dative-first order in the judgment and the reading task. The same participants were also tested in two experiments on the application of the split rule in German particle verbs. Advanced L2 speakers of German are able to identify particle verbs and can apply the split rule in V2 contexts in an acceptability judgment task in the same way as L1 speakers. However, unlike the L1 group, the L2 group is not sensitive to the grammaticality manipulation during online processing. They seem to be sensitive to the additional lexical information provided by the particle, but are unable to relate the split particle to the preceding verb and recognize the ungrammaticality in non-V2 contexts. Taken together, my findings suggest that non-canonical word orders are not per se more difficult to identify for L2 speakers than L1 speakers and can trigger the same reanalysis processes as in L1 speakers. I argue that L2 speakers' ability to identify a non-canonical word order depends on how the non-canonicity is signaled (case marking vs. surface word order), on the constituents involved (identical vs. different word types), and on the impact of the word order change on sentence meaning. Non-canonical word orders that are signaled by morphological case marking and cause no change to the sentence's content are hard to detect for L2 speakers.},
  language  = {en}
}