Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T11:09:34.131Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Case Syncretism, Animacy, and Word Order in Continental West Germanic: Neurolinguistic Evidence from a Comparative Study on Standard German, Zurich German, and Fering (North Frisian)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2020

Alexander Dröge ,
Elisabeth Rabs ,
Jürg Fleischer ,
Sara K. H. Billion ,
Martin Meyer ,
Stephan Schmid ,
Matthias Schlesewsky  and
Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky
Alexander Dröge*
Affiliation:
University of Marburg
Elisabeth Rabs*
Affiliation:
Saarland University
Jürg Fleischer*
Affiliation:
University of Marburg
Sara K. H. Billion*
Affiliation:
University of Marburg
Martin Meyer*
Affiliation:
University of Zurich
Stephan Schmid*
Affiliation:
University of Zurich
Matthias Schlesewsky*
Affiliation:
University of South Australia
Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky*
Affiliation:
University of South Australia
*
University of Marburg, Department of Germanic Linguistics and Forschungszentrum Deutscher Sprachatlas (DSA) Pilgrimstein 16 35032 Marburg, Germany [alexander.droege@uni-marburg.de] [jfleischer@uni-marburg.de] [sara.billion@uni-marburg.de]
Saarland University, Department of Language Science and Technology Building C7.1, Room 1.17 66123 Saarbrücken Germany [erabs@coli.uni-saarland.de]
University of Marburg, Department of Germanic Linguistics and Forschungszentrum Deutscher Sprachatlas (DSA) Pilgrimstein 16 35032 Marburg, Germany [alexander.droege@uni-marburg.de] [jfleischer@uni-marburg.de] [sara.billion@uni-marburg.de]
University of Marburg, Department of Germanic Linguistics and Forschungszentrum Deutscher Sprachatlas (DSA) Pilgrimstein 16 35032 Marburg, Germany [alexander.droege@uni-marburg.de] [jfleischer@uni-marburg.de] [sara.billion@uni-marburg.de]
University of Zurich, Psychological Institute, Division of Neuropsychology Binzmühlestrasse 14/25 CH-8050 Zurich Switzerland [martin.meyer@uzh.ch]
University of Zurich, Phonetics Laboratory, Institute of Computational Linguistics Rämistrasse 71 CH-8006 Zurich Switzerland [stephan.schmid@uzh.ch]
University of South Australia, Cognitive and Systems Neuroscience Research Hub School of Psychology, Social Work and Social Policy GPO Box 2471, Adelaide SA 5001 Australia [matthias.schlesewsky@unisa.edu.au] [ina.bornkessel-schlesewsky@unisa.edu.au]
University of South Australia, Cognitive and Systems Neuroscience Research Hub School of Psychology, Social Work and Social Policy GPO Box 2471, Adelaide SA 5001 Australia [matthias.schlesewsky@unisa.edu.au] [ina.bornkessel-schlesewsky@unisa.edu.au]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To understand a sentence, it is crucial to understand who is doing what. The interplay of morphological case marking, argument serialization, and animacy provides linguistic cues for the processing system to rapidly identify the thematic roles of the arguments. The present event-related brain potential (ERP) study investigates on-line brain responses during argument identification in Zurich German, a High Alemannic dialect, and in Fering, a North Frisian variety, which both exhibit reduced case systems as compared to Standard German. Like Standard German, Zurich German and Fering are Continental West Germanic varieties, and indeed argument processing in sentences with an object-before-subject order engenders a qualitatively similar ERP pattern of a scrambling negativity followed by a P600 in all tested varieties. However, the P600 component—a late positive ERP response, which has been linked to the categorization of task-relevant stimuli—is selectively affected by the most prominent cue for argument identification in each variety, which is case marking in Standard German, but animacy in Zurich German and Fering. Thus, even closely related varieties may employ different processing strategies based on the language-specific availability of syntactic and semantic cues for argument identification.*

Keywords

Swiss GermanNorth FrisianERPN400P600language comprehension
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , September 2020 , pp. 217 - 310
Check for updates
Copyright
© Society for Germanic Linguistics 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This research project was part of the LOEWE program “Fundierung linguistischer Basiskategorien” (TP6: “Der Zusammenhang der Kasusmarkierung, Serialisierungsfixierung und Belebtheitshierarchie in den deutschen Regionalsprachen”) funded by the German State of Hesse. Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky is supported by an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (FT160100437). We would like to thank colleagues at the University of Marburg for many fruitful discussions and constructive comments, in particular Phillip Alday, Sophie Ellsäßer, Simon Kasper, Jona Sassenhagen, Oliver Schallert, Jürgen Erich Schmidt, and Alexander Werth. We are also very grateful to the many people in Zurich and on Föhr who inspired us with their comments and suggestions, and who helped us with stimulus translations, recordings, participant recruitment, and lab work, in particular Anja Betschart, Daniela Buser, and Anja Hasse at the University of Zurich, as well as Volkert F. Faltings, Kerrin Ketels, Meike Riewerts, Nele Schneider, Enken Tholund, and Heike Volkerts at the Ferring Stiftung in Alkersum/Föhr. We would also like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on the manuscript.

References

Alday, Phillip M. 2019. How much baseline correction do we need in ERP research? Extended GLM model can replace baseline correction while lifting its limits. Psychophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13451, August 12, 2019.Google ScholarPubMed
Alday, Phillip M., Matthias, Schlesewsky, & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina. 2015. Discovering prominence and its role in language processing: An individual (differences) approach. Linguistics Vanguard 1. 201–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Cynthia. 2006. Case syncretism and word order change. The handbook of the history of English, ed. by van Kemenade, Ans & Los, Bettelou, 201–223. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Altmann, Gerry, & Steedman, Mark. 1988. Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition 30. 191–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Århammar, Nils. 2000. Nordfriesisch. Minderheiten- und Regionalsprachen in Europa, ed. by Wirrer, Jan, 144–158. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
Århammar, Nils. 2001. Das Nordfriesische im Sprachkontakt (unter Einschluß der nordfriesischen Lexikologie). Handbuch des Friesischen [Handbook of Frisian Studies], ed. by Horst Haider Munske, Nils Århammar, Volkert F. Faltings, Jarich F. Hoekstra, Oebele Vries, Alastair G. H. Walker, & Ommo Wilts, 313–352. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Bader, Markus. 1994. Syntactic-function ambiguities. Folia Linguistica 28. 5–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bader, Markus, & Meng, Michael. 1999. Subject-object ambiguities in German embedded clauses: An across-the-board comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28. 121–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bader, Markus, Michael, Meng, Josef, Bayer, & Jens-Max, Hopf. 2000. Syntaktische Funktions-Ambiguitäten im Deutschen: Ein Überblick. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 19. 34–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, Dunstan, Brown, & Corbett, Greville G.. 2005. The syntax–morphology interface: A study of syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, Dale J., Roger, Levy, Christoph, Scheepers, & Tily, Harry J.. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68. 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Bates, Maechler, Martin, Bolker, Ben, & Walker, Steve. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67. 1–48.Google Scholar
Jos J. A. van, Berkum, Brown, Colin M., Zwitserlood, Pienie, Kooijman, Valesca, & Hagoort, Peter. 2005. Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 31. 443–467.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 2001. Case. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, Kretzschmar, Franziska, Tune, Sarah, Wang, Luming, Genç, Safiye, Philipp, Markus, Roehm, Dietmar, & Schlesewsky, Matthias. 2011. Think globally: Cross-linguistic variation in electrophysiological activity during sentence comprehension. Brain and Language 117. 133–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornkessel, Ina, McElree, Brian, Schlesewsky, Matthias, & Friederici, Angela D.. 2004. Multi-dimensional contributions to garden path strength: Dissociating phrase structure from case marking. Journal of Memory and Language 51. 495–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornkessel, Ina, & Schlesewsky, Matthias. 2006. The role of contrast in the local licensing of scrambling in German: Evidence from online comprehension. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 18. 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, & Schlesewsky, Matthias. 2008. An alternative perspective on “semantic P600” effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews 59. 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, & Schlesewsky, Matthias. 2009a. Processing syntax and morphology: A neurocognitive perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, & Schlesewsky, Matthias. 2009b. The role of prominence information in the real-time comprehension of transitive constructions: A cross-linguistic approach. Language and Linguistics Compass 3. 19–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, & Schlesewsky, Matthias. 2013. Neurotypology: modeling crosslinguistic similarities and differences in the neurocognition of language comprehension. Language down the garden path: The cognitive and biological basis for linguistic structures, ed. by Sanz, Montserrat, Laka, Itziar, & Michael, K. Tanenhaus, 241–252. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, & Schlesewsky, Matthias. 2014. Competition in argument interpretation: Evidence from the neurobiology of language. Competing motivations in grammar and usage, ed. by MacWhinney, Brian, Malchukov, Andrej, & Moravcsik, Edith, 107–126. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, & Schlesewsky, Matthias. 2016. The argument dependency model. Hickok & Small 2016, 357–369.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, & Schlesewsky, Matthias. 2019. Toward a neurobiologically plausible model of language-related, negative event-related potentials. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00298, February 21, 2019.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, & Schlesewsky, Matthias. 2020. Cross-linguistic neuroscience of language. The cognitive neurosciences. 6th edn., ed. by Michael, S. Gazzaniga, George, R. Mangun, & Poeppel, David. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bornkessel, Ina, Schlesewsky, Matthias, & Friederici, Angela D.. 2002. Grammar overrides frequency: Evidence from the online processing of flexible word order. Cognition 85. B21–B30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bornkessel, Ina, Schlesewsky, Matthias, & Friederici, Angela D.. 2003. Contextual information modulates initial processes of syntactic integration: The role of inter- versus intrasentential predictions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 29. 871–882.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, Staub, Adrian, & Schlesewsky, Matthias. 2016. The timecourse of sentence processing in the brain. Hickok & Small 2016, 607–620.Google Scholar
Branigan, Holly P., Pickering, Martin J., & Tanaka, Mikihiro. 2008. Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua 118. 172–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harm, Brouwer, Fitz, Hartmut, & Hoeks, John. 2012. Getting real about semantic illusions: Rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension. Brain Research 1446. 127–143.Google Scholar
Burmester, Juliane, Spalek, Katharina, & Wartenburger, Isabell. 2014. Context updating during sentence comprehension: The effect of aboutness topic. Brain and Language 137. 62–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, Rune H. B. 2018. ordinal—Regression Models for Ordinal Data. Available at http://www.cran.r-project.org/package=ordinal/, accessed on October 26, 2018.Google Scholar
Clahsen, Harald, & Featherston, Sam. 1999. Antecedent priming at trace positions: Evidence from German scrambling. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28. 415–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Andy. 2013. Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36. 181–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Seana, Coulson, King, Jonathan W., & Kutas, Marta. 1998. Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes 13. 21–58.Google Scholar
Crocker, Matthew W. 1994. On the nature of the principle-based sentence processor. Perspectives on sentence processing, ed. by Clifton, Charles, Frazier, Lyn, & Rayner, Keith, 245–266. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
DeLong, Katherine A., Urbach, Thomas P., & Kutas, Marta. 2005. Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience 8. 1117–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donchin, Emanuel. 1981. Surprise! … Surprise? Psychophysiology 18. 493–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67. 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dröge, Alexander, Fleischer, Jürg, Schlesewsky, Matthias, & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina. 2016. Neural mechanisms of sentence comprehension based on predictive processes and decision certainty: Electrophysiological evidence from non-canonical linearizations in a flexible word order language. Brain Research 1633. 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebert, Karen H. 1971. Referenz, Sprachsituation und die bestimmten Artikel in einem nordfriesischen Dialekt (Fering). Bredstedt: Nordfriisk Instituut.Google Scholar
Ebert, Karen H. 1998. Genussynkretismus im Nordseeraum: die Resistenz des Fering. Sprache in Raum und Zeit 2, ed. by Boeder, Winfried, Schroeder, Christoph, Wagner, Karl Heinz, & Wildgen, Wolfgang, 269–281. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Fahrmeir, Ludwig, Thomas, Kneib, Stefan, Lang, & Brian, Marx. 2013. Regression: Models, methods and applications. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Featherston, Sam, & Winkler, Susanne (eds.). 2009. The fruits of empirical linguistics, vol. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Federmeier, Kara D. 2007. Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology 44. 491–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felser, Claudia, Harald, Clahsen, & Münte, Thomas F.. 2003. Storage and integration in the processing of filler-gap dependencies: An ERP study of topicalization and wh-movement in German. Brain and Language 87. 345–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, Charles A. 1959. Diglossia. Word 15. 325–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Fernanda. 2003. The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology 47. 164–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleischer, Jürg, & Schmid, Stephan. 2006. Illustrations of the IPA: Zurich German. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 36. 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, Stefan L., Otten, Leun J., Giulia, Galli, & Vigliocco, Gabriella. 2015. The ERP response to the amount of information conveyed by words in sentences. Brain and Language 140. 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freunberger, Dominik, & Roehm, Dietmar. 2017. The costs of being certain: Brain potential evidence for linguistic preactivation in sentence processing. Psychophysiology 54. 824–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friederici, Angela D., & Axel, Mecklinger. 1996. Syntactic parsing as revealed by brain responses: First-pass and second-pass parsing processes. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25. 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friederici, Angela D., Axel, Mecklinger, Spencer, Kevin M., Karsten, Steinhauer, & Donchin, Emanuel. 2001. Syntactic parsing preferences and their on-line revisions: A spatio-temporal analysis of event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research 11. 305–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stefan, Frisch, Schlesewsky, Matthias, Saddy, Douglas, & Alpermann, Annegret. 2002. The P600 as an indicator of syntactic ambiguity. Cognition 85. B83–B92.Google Scholar
Friston, Karl. 2005. A theory of cortical responses. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B 360. 815–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friston, Karl. 2010. The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11. 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nathalie, Giroud, Hirsiger, Sarah, Muri, Raphaela, Kegel, Andrea, Dillier, Norbert, & Meyer, Martin. 2018. Neuroanatomical and resting state EEG power correlates of central hearing loss in older adults. Brain Structure and Function 223. 145–163.Google Scholar
Peter, Hagoort, Brown, Colin, & Groothusen, Jolanda. 1993. The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 8. 439–483.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 2010. The syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 2017. Mittelfeld phenomena: Scrambling in Germanic. The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax. 2nd edn., ed. by Everaert, Martin & Henk, C.Riemsdijk, Van. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert, & Rosengren, Inger. 1998. Scrambling (Sprache und Pragmatik 49). Lund: University of Lund.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert, & Rosengren, Inger. 2003. Scrambling: Nontriggered chain formation in OV languages. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 15. 203–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, John. 2001. A probabilistic Early parser as a psycholinguistic model. Proceedings of the Second Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. 2., 159–166. Pittsburgh, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Haupt, Friederike S., Schlesewsky, Matthias, Roehm, Dietmar, Friederici, Angela D., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina. 2008. The status of subject–object reanalyses in the language comprehension architecture. Journal of Memory and Language 59. 54–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickok, Gregory, & Steven, L.Small (eds.). 2016. Neurobiology of language. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Huang, Yanping, & Rao, Rajesh P. N.. 2011. Predictive coding. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 2. 580–593.Google Scholar
Huettel, Scott A., Song, Allen W., & McCarthy, Gregory. 2014. Functional magnetic resonance imaging. 3rd edn. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Huynh, Huynh, & Feldt, Leonard S.. 1970. Conditions under which the mean square ratios in repeated measurement designs have exact F-distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association 65. 1582–1589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1894. Progress in language with special reference to English. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ray, Johnson, Jr. 1988. The amplitude of the P300 component of the event-related potential: Review and synthesis. Advances in psychophysiology, vol. 3., ed. by Patrick, K. Ackles, Richard Jennings, J., & Michael, G. H. Coles, 69–137. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Edith, Kaan, Harris, Anthony, Gibson, Edward, & Holcomb, Phillip. 2000. The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes 15. 159–201.Google Scholar
Kaan, Edith, & Swaab, Tamara Y.. 2003. Repair, revision, and complexity in syntactic analysis: An electrophysiological differentiation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 15. 98–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamide, Yuki. 2008. Anticipatory processes in sentence processing. Language and Linguistics Compass 2. 647–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, Frank. 2000. Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. Edinburgh, UK: University of Edinburgh dissertation.Google Scholar
Kellner, Leon. 1892. Historical outlines of English syntax. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kempe, Vera, & MacWhinney, Brian. 1999. Processing of morphological and semantic cues in Russian and German. Language and Cognitive Processes 14. 129–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempen, Gerard, & Harbusch, Karin. 2004. A corpus study into word order variation in German subordinate clauses: Animacy affects linearization independently of grammatical function assignment. Multidisciplinary approaches to language production, ed. by Pechmann, Thomas & Habel, Christopher, 173–181. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kempen, Gerard, & Harbusch, Karin. 2008. Comparing linguistic judgments and corpus frequencies as windows on grammatical competence: A study of argument linearization in German clauses. The discourse potential of underspecified structures (Language, Context and Cognition 8), ed. by Steube, Anita, 179–192. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kepser, Stephan, & Reis, Marga (eds.). 2005. Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical and computational perspectives. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Albert, & Osterhout, Lee. 2005. The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language 52. 205–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kok, Albert. 2001. On the utility of P3 amplitude as a measure of processing capacity. Psychophysiology 38. 557–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolk, Herman H. J., Chwilla, Dorothee J., Marieke Van, Herten, & Oor, Patrick J. W.. 2003. Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language 85. 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuperberg, Gina R., & Jaeger, T. Florian. 2016. What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 31. 32–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuperberg, Gina R., Tatiana, Sitnikova, David, Caplan, & Holcomb, Phillip J.. 2003. Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research 17. 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kutas, Marta, DeLong, Katherine A., & Smith, Nathaniel J.. 2011. A look around at what lies ahead: Prediction and predictability in language processing. Predictions in the brain: Using our past to generate a future, ed. by Bar, Moshe, 190–207. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kutas, Marta, Federmeier, Kara D., & Urbach, Thomas P.. 2014. The negatives and positives of prediction in language. The cognitive neurosciences. 5th edn., ed. by Michael, S. Gazzaniga & George, R. Mangun, 649–656. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kutas, Marta, McCarthy, Gregory, & Donchin, Emanuel. 1977. Augmenting mental chronometry: The P300 as a measure of stimulus evaluation time. Science 197. 792–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kutas, Marta, Van Petten, Cyma, & Kluender, Robert. 2006. Psycholinguistics electrified II (1994–2005). Handbook of psycholinguistics. 2nd edn., ed. by Matthew, J. Traxler & Morton, A. Gernsbacher, 659–724. London: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexandra, Kuznetsova, Brockhoff, Per B., & Christensen, Rune H. B.. 2017. lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software 82. 1–26.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1984. Phonology: An introduction to basic concepts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lawrence, Michael A. 2016. ez: Easy Analysis and Visualization of Factorial Experiments. Available at https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ez, accessed on August 12, 2017.Google Scholar
Leckey, Michelle, & Federmeier, Kara D. 2019a. Electrophysiological methods in the study of language processing. The Oxford handbook of neurolinguistics, ed. by de Zubicaray, Greig I. & Schiller, Niels O., 72–93. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leckey, Michelle, & Federmeier, Kara D. 2019b. The P3b and P600(s): Positive contributions to language comprehension. Psychophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13351, February 25, 2019.Google Scholar
Lenerz, Jürgen. 1977. Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 5). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Lenth, Russell. 2018. emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. Available at https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans,Google Scholar
Levy, Roger. 2008. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106. 1126–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luck, Steven J. 2014. An introduction to the event-related potential technique. 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian, Bates, Elizabeth, & Kliegl, Reinhold. 1984. Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 23. 127–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anthony, Magliero, Bashore, Theodore R., Coles, Michael G. H., & Donchin, Emanuel. 1984. On the dependence of P300 latency on stimulus evaluation processes. Psychophysiology 21. 171–186.Google Scholar
Mak, Willem M., Wietske, Vonk, & Schriefers, Herbert. 2002. The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language 47. 50–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Clara D., Branzi, Francesca M., & Bar, Moshe. 2018. Prediction is Production: The missing link between language production and comprehension. Scientific Reports 8. 1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, William D. 1975. Sentence perception as an interactive parallel process. Science 189. 226–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matzke, Mike, Heinke, Mai, Wido, Nager, Jascha, Rüsseler, & Thomas, Münte. 2002. The costs of freedom: an ERP–study of non-canonical sentences. Clinical Neurophysiology 113. 844–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauchly, John W. 1940. Significance test for sphericity of a normal n-variate distribution. Annual of Mathematical Statistics 11. 204–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, Gregory, & Donchin, Emanuel. 1981. A metric for thought: A comparison of P300 latency and reaction time. Science 211. 77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nan van de, Meerendonk, Kolk, Herman H. J., Chwilla, Dorothee J., & Constance, Th. W. M. Vissers. 2009. Monitoring in language perception. Language and Linguistics Compass 3. 1211–1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1917. Caractères généraux des langues germaniques. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Meng, Michael, Markus, Bader, & Josef, Bayer. 1999. Die Verarbeitung von Subjekt-Objekt-Ambiguitäten im Kontext. Proceedings der 4. Fachtagung der Gesellschaft für Kognitionswissenschaft, ed. by Wachsmuth, Ipke & Jung, Bernhard, 244–249. St. Augustin: infix.Google Scholar
Nicola, Molinaro, Barber, Horacio A., & Carreiras, Manuel. 2011. Grammatical agreement processing in reading: ERP findings and future directions. Cortex 47. 908–930.Google Scholar
Muralikrishnan, Ramasamy, Schlesewsky, Matthias, & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina. 2015. Animacy-based predictions in language comprehension are robust: Contextual cues modulate but do not nullify them. Brain Research 1608. 108–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 1999. Optimality, markedness, and word order in German. Linguistics 34. 777–818.Google Scholar
Nieuwland, Mante S., Stephen, Politzer-Ahles, Evelien, Heyselaar, Katrien, Segaert, Emily, Darley, Nina, Kazanina, Sarah Von Grebmer Zu Wolfsthurn, Federica Bartolozzi, Vita Kogan, Aine Ito, Diane Meziere, Dale J. Barr, Guillaume A. Rousselet, Heather J. Ferguson, Simon Busch-Moreno, Xiao Fu, Jyrki Tuomainen, Eugenia Kulakova, E. Matthew Husband, David I. Donaldson, Zdenko Kohut, Shirley-Ann Rueschemeyer, & Falk Huettig. 2018. Large-scale replication study reveals a limit on probabilistic prediction in language comprehension. eLife 7. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.33468, April 3, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oldfield, Richard Charles. 1971. The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9. 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osterhout, Lee, & Holcomb, Phillip J.. 1992. Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language 31. 785–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Osterhout, Holcomb, Phillip J., & Swinney, David A.. 1994. Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: Evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20. 786–803.Google Scholar
Thomas, Pechmann, Uszkoreit, Hans, Engelkamp, Johannes, & Zerbst, Dieter. 1996. Wortstellung im deutschen Mittelfeld. Linguistische Theorie und psycholinguistische Evidenz. Perspektiven der kognitiven Linguistik: Modelle und Methoden, ed. by Habel, Christopher, Siegfried, Kanngießer, & Gert, Rickheit, 257–299. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin J., & Simon, Garrod. 2007. Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension? TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 11. 105–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Martin J., & Simon, Garrod. 2013. An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36. 329–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polich, John. 2007. Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical Neurophysiology 118. 2128–2148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polich, John. 2012. Neuropsychology of P300. The Oxford handbook of event-related potential components, ed. by Steven J. Luck & Emily S. Kappenman, 159–188. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 1999. Cases and thematic roles—Ergative, accusative and active. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 2006. Mismatches in semantic-role hierarchies and the dimensions of role semantics. Semantic role universals and argument linking: Theoretical, typological and psycholinguistic perspectives, ed. by Bornkessel, Ina, Schlesewsky, Matthias, Friederici, Angela D., & Comrie, Bernard, 53–88. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2018. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at https://www.R-project.org/, accessed on October 26, 2018.Google Scholar
Rao, Rajesh P. N., & Dana, H. Ballard. 1999. Predictive coding in the visual cortex: A functional interpretation of some extra-classical receptive field effects. Nature Neuroscience 2. 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rash, Felicity. 1998. The German language in Switzerland: Multilingualism, diglossia and variation. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Rösler, Frank, Thomas, Pechmann, Judith, Streb, Brigitte, Röder, & Erwin, Hennighausen. 1998. Parsing of sentences in a language with varying word order: Word-by-word variations of processing demands are revealed by event-related brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language 38. 150–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, John. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Google Scholar
Ruchkin, Daniel S., & Samuel Sutton. 1978. Equivocation and P300 amplitude. Multidisciplinary perspectives in event-related brain potential research, ed. by David, A. Otto, 175–177. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Jona, Sassenhagen, Schlesewsky, Matthias, & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina. 2014. The P600-as-P3 hypothesis revisited: Single-trial analyses reveal that the late EEG positivity following linguistically deviant material is reaction time aligned. Brain and Language 137. 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scaglione, Aldo. 1981. The theory of German word order from the Renaissance to the present. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Schlesewsky, Matthias, & Bornkessel, Ina. 2006. Context-sensitive neural responses to conflict resolution: Electrophysiological evidence from subject-object ambiguities in language comprehension. Brain Research 1098. 139–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlesewsky, Matthias, Bornkessel, Ina, & Stefan, Frisch. 2003. The neurophysiological basis of word order variations in German. Brain and Language 86. 116–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlesewsky, Matthias, Gisbert, Fanselow, Reinhold, Kliegl, & Josef, Krems. 2000. The subject preference in the processing of locally ambiguous wh-questions in German. German Sentence Processing, ed. by Hemforth, Barbara & Konieczny, Lars, 65–93. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Jürgen Erich. 2016. Neurodialektologie. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 83. 56–91.Google Scholar
Schumacher, Petra B., & Yu-Chen Hung. 2012. Positional influences on information packaging: Insights from topological fields in German. Journal of Memory and Language 67. 295–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, Shayle R., Speed, Fred M., & Milliken, George A.. 1980. Population marginal means in the linear model: An alternative to least squares means. The American Statistician 34. 216–221.Google Scholar
Shrier, Martha. 1965. Case systems in German dialects. Language 41. 420–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stolterfoht, Britta, & Featherston, Sam (eds.). 2012. Empirical approaches to linguistic theory: Studies in meaning and structure. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Struckmeier, Volker. 2014. Scrambling ohne Informationsstruktur? Prosodische, semantische und syntaktische Faktoren der deutschen Wortstellung (Studia Grammatica 77). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Szewczyk, Jakub M., & Herbert, Schriefers. 2013. Prediction in language comprehension beyond specific words: An ERP study on sentence comprehension in Polish. Journal of Memory and Language 68. 297–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traxler, Matthew J., Morris, Robin K., & Seely, Rachel E.. 2002. Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 47. 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uszkoreit, Hans. 1987. Word order and constituent structure in German (CSLI Lecture Notes 8). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Van Petten, Cyma, Seana, Coulson, Susan, Rubin, Elena, Plante, & Marjorie, Parks. 1999. Time course of word identification and semantic integration in spoken language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 25. 394–417.Google Scholar
Van Petten, Cyma, & Luka, Barbara J.. 2012. Prediction during language comprehension: Benefits, costs, and ERP components. International Journal of Psychophysiology 83. 176–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. 2005. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verleger, Rolf. 1988. Event-related potentials and cognition: A critique of the context updating hypothesis and an alternative interpretation of P3. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11. 343–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verleger, Rolf. 1997. On the utility of P3 latency as an index of mental chronometry. Psychophysiology 34. 131–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahrig-Burfeind, Renate. 1989. Nominales und pronominales Genus im südlichen Nordseegebiet. München: Tuduv.Google Scholar
Walker, Alastair G. H. 2001. Extent and position of North Frisian. Handbuch des Friesischen [Handbook of Frisian Studies], ed. by Horst Haider Munske, Nils Århammar, Volkert F. Faltings, Jarich F. Hoekstra, Oebele Vries, Alastair G. H. Walker, & Ommo Wilts, 263–283. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Weber, Albert. 1923. Die Mundart des Zürcher Oberlandes. Frauenfeld: Huber.Google Scholar
Weber, Albert. 1964. Zürichdeutsche Grammatik. Zürich: Schweizer Spiegel.Google Scholar
Weckerly, Jill, & Kutas, Marta. 1999. An electrophysiological analysis of animacy effects in the processing of object relative sentences. Psychophysiology 36. 559–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werlen, Iwar. 1990. Kasus und Wortstellung in alemannischen Dialekten. Alemannische Dialektologie im Computer-Zeitalter, ed. by Philipp, Marthe, 165–190. Göppingen: Kümmerle.Google Scholar
Weyerts, Helga, Penke, Martina, Münte, Thomas F., Heinze, Hans-Jochen, & Clahsen, Harald. 2002. Word order in sentence processing: An experimental study of verb placement in German. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 31. 211–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wicha, Nicole Y. Y., Bates, Elizabeth A., Moreno, Eva M., & Kutas, Marta. 2003. Potato not Pope: Human brain potentials to gender expectation and agreement in Spanish spoken sentences. Neuroscience Letters 346. 165–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wicha, Nicole Y. Y., Moreno, Eva M., & Kutas, Marta. 2004. Anticipating Words and Their Gender: An event-related brain potential study of semantic integration, gender expectancy, and gender agreement in Spanish sentence reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16. 1272–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilts, Ommo. 1995. Friesische Formenlehre in Tabelle II: Föhr. Husum: Matthiesen.Google Scholar
Wlotko, Edward W., Chia-Lin, Lee, & Federmeier, Kara D.. 2010. Language of the aging brain: Event-related potential studies of comprehension in older adults. Language and Linguistics Compass 4. 623–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfensberger, Heinz. 1967. Mundartwandel im 20. Jahrhundert, dargestellt an Ausschnitten aus dem Sprachleben der Gemeinde Stäfa. Frauenfeld: Huber.Google Scholar
Susann, Wolff, Schlesewsky, Matthias, Hirotani, Masako, & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina. 2008. The neural mechanisms of word order processing revisited: Electrophysiological evidence from Japanese. Brain and Language 107. 133–157.Google Scholar
Alessandra, Zarcone, van Schijndel, Marten, Vogels, Jorrig, & Demberg, Vera. 2016. Salience and attention in surprisal-based accounts of language processing. Frontiers in Psychology 7. 1–17.Google Scholar