1887
Volume 20, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1387-9316
  • E-ISSN: 1569-996X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
Preview this article:
Zoom in
Zoomout

The syntax and the processing of argument relations in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS), Page 1 of 1

| /docserver/preview/fulltext/sll.00006.kre-1.gif

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sll.00006.kre
2018-03-26
2019-10-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bornkessel, Ina , Brian McElree , Matthias Schlesewsky & Angela D. Friederici
    2004 Multi-dimensional contributions to garden path strength: Dissociating phrase structure from case marking. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(4). 495–522. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.06.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.06.011 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina , Kamal K. Choudhary , Alena Witzlack-Makarevich & Balthasar Bickel
    2008 Bridging the gap between processing preferences and typological distributions: Initial evidence from the online comprehension of control constructions in Hindi. In Marc Richards & Andrej L. Malchukov (eds.), Scales (Linguistische ArbeitsBerichte 86), 397–436. Leipzig: Institut für Linguistik.
  3. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina & Matthias Schlesewsky
    2009Processing syntax and morphology. A neurocognitive perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Crocker, Matthew W.
    1994 On the nature of the principle-based sentence processor. In Charles Clifton, Jr. , Lyn Frazier & Keith Rayner (eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing, 245–266. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Emmorey, Karen
    2002Language, cognition, and the brain. Insights from sign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Frazier, Lyn & Janet D. Fodor
    1978 The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition6(4). 291–325. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(78)90002‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(78)90002-1 [Google Scholar]
  7. Friedman, Lynn A.
    1976 The manifestation of subject, object, and topic in the American Sign Language. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 125–148. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Geraci, Carlo
    2013Spatial syntax in your hands. Presentation at“Language Seminar“, CNRS Institut Jean-Nicod & DEC, Paris.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Haupt, Friederike S. , Matthias Schlesewsky , Dietmar Roehm , Angela D. Friederici & Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky
    2008 The status of subject-object reanalyses in the language comprehension architecture. Journal of Memory and Language59(1). 54–96. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2008.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  10. He, Yifei
    2016Interactive processing within and beyond sentence-level: An ERP investigation of simple and complex Chinese sentences. Mainz (Germany): University of Mainz PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Krebs, Julia
    2013The processing of word order variations in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS). An ERP-study on subject preference. Salzburg (Austria): University of Salzburg Master’s thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Kretzschmar, Franziska , Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky , Adrian Staub , Dietmar Roehm & Matthias Schlesewsky
    2012 Prominence facilitates ambiguity resolution: On the interaction between referentiality, thematic roles and word order in syntactic reanalysis. In Monique Lamers & Peter de Swart (eds.), Case, word order, and prominence. Interacting cues in language production and comprehension, 239–271. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑1463‑2_11
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1463-2_11 [Google Scholar]
  13. Li, Charles N. & Sandra A. Thompson
    1976 Subject and topic: a new typology of language. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 457–461. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Liddell, Scott
    1980American Sign Language syntax. The Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Schlesewsky, Matthias , Gisbert Fanselow , Reinhold Kliegl & Josef Krems
    2000 The subject preference in the processing of locally ambiguous wh-questions in German. In Barbara Hemforth & Lars Konieczny (eds.), German sentence processing, 65–93. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑9618‑3_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9618-3_3 [Google Scholar]
  16. Wang, Luming , Matthias Schlesewsky , Balthasar Bickel & Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky
    2009 Exploring the nature of the ‘subject’-preference: Evidence from the online comprehension of simple sentences in Mandarin Chinese. Language and Cognitive Processes24(7–8). 1180–1226. doi: 10.1080/01690960802159937
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802159937 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sll.00006.kre
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/sll.00006.kre
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Abstract
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error