Chapter published in:
Typical and Impaired Processing in Morphosyntax
Edited by Vincent Torrens
[Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 64] 2020
► pp. 1134
References

References

Baayen, R. H.
(2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bausewein, K.
(1991) Haben kopflose Relativsätze tatsächlich keine Köpfe? In G. Fanselow & S. Felix (Eds.), Strukturen und Merkmale grammatischer Kategorien (pp. 144–158). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I.
(2002)  The Argument Dependency Model: A neurocognitive approach to incremental interpretation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Max Planck Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, Leipzig.
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M.
(2009) Minimality as vacuous distinctness: Evidence from cross-linguistic sentence comprehension. Lingua, 119(10), 1541–1559. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D.
(2003) Eliciting thematic reanalysis effects: The role of syntax-independent information during parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(3), 269–298. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crocker, M. W.
(1994) On the nature of the principle-based sentence processor. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 245–266). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Dröge, A., Maffongelli, L., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I.
(2014) Luigi piace a Laura? Electrophysiological evidence for thematic reanalysis with Italian dative object experiencer verbs. In A. Bachrach, I. Roy, & L. Stockall (Eds.), Structuring the argument: Multidisciplinary research on verb argument structure (pp. 83–118). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G., Schlesewsky, M., Cavar, D., & Kliegl, R.
(1999) Optimal parsing: Syntactic parsing preferences and optimality theory. In Rutgers Optimality Archive (ROA) 367. Rutgers State University of New Jersey.Google Scholar
Groos, A., & van Riemsdijk, H.
(1981) Matching effects in free relatives: A parameter of core grammar. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Theory of markedness in generative grammar. Proceedings of the 1979 GLOW Conference (pp. 171–216). Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.Google Scholar
Keenan, E., & Comrie, B.
(1977) Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63–99. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, S.
(1998) Function, selection and innateness: The emergence of language universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mathôt, S., Schreij, D., & Theeuwes, J.
(2012) OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 314–324. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mewe, J.
(2014)  Kasusmatchting bei freien Relativsätzen im Deutschen – Eine experimentelle Untersuchung (Unpublished MA thesis). University of Cologne.
Newmeyer, F. J.
(2005) Possible and probably languages. A generative perspective on linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pittner, K.
(1991) Freie Relativsätze und die Kasushierarchie. In E. Feldbusch, R. Pogarell, & C. Weiß (Eds.), Neue Fragen der Linguistik. Akten des 25. Linguistischen Kolloquiums, Paderborn 1990. Band 1. (Linguistische Arbeiten 270) (pp. 341–347). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
(2003) Kasuskonflikte bei freien Relativsätzen - Eine Korpusstudie. Deutsche Sprache, 31(3), 193–208.Google Scholar
Primus, B.
(1999) Cases and thematic roles - Ergative, accusative and active. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Grammatical relations. In T. Kiss & A. Alexiadou (Eds.), Syntax – Theory and analysis. An international handbook (2nd ed., pp. 219–247). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Prince, A., & Smolensky, P.
(2002) Optimality Theory. Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Schlesewsky, M.
(1997)  Kasusphänomene in der Sprachverarbeitung. Eine Studie zur Verarbeitung von kasusmarkierten und Relativsatzkonstruktionen im Deutschen (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Potsdam.
Sheldon, A.
(1974) The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 272–281. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Riemsdijk, H.
(2006) Free relatives. In M. Everaert & H. C. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax (Vol. II, pp. 336–378). Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, R.
(2011) Disagreement, variation, markedness and other apparent exceptions. In H. J. Simon & H. Wiese (Eds.), Expecting the unexpected: Exceptions in grammar (pp. 339–359). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, R., & Frisch, S.
(2003) The resolution of case conflicts. A pilot study. In S. Fischer, R. van de Vijver, & R. Vogel (Eds.), Linguistics in Potsdam, Vol. 21, Experimental studies in linguistics 1 (pp. 91–103). Potsdam: Potsdam University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, R., Frisch, S., & Zugck, M.
(2006) Case matching. An empirical study on the distinction between abstract case and case morphology. Linguistische Berichte, 208, 357–383.Google Scholar
Zugck, M., & Vogel, R.
(2004) Counting markedness. A corpus investigation on German free relative constructions. In S. Fischer, R. van de Vijver, & R. Vogel (Eds.), Linguistics in Potsdam, Vol. 21: Experimental studies in linguistics 1 (pp. 105–122). Potsdam: University Press.Google Scholar