Cover not available

Abstract published In: Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 20:2 (2017) ► pp.288–295

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required
Dissertation Abstracts

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

 | University of Salzburg
Published online: 26 March 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.00006.kre
References (16)
References
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina & Matthias Schlesewsky. 2009. Processing syntax and morphology. A neurocognitive perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen. 2002. Language, cognition, and the brain. Insights from sign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn & Janet D. Fodor. 1978. The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition 6(4). 291–325. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Geraci, Carlo. 2013. Spatial syntax in your hands. Presentation at “Language Seminar“, CNRS Institut Jean-Nicod & DEC, Paris.
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 Language 59(1). 54–96. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
He, Yifei. 2016. Interactive processing within and beyond sentence-level: An ERP investigation of simple and complex Chinese sentences. Mainz (Germany): University of Mainz PhD dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krebs, Julia. 2013. The 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott. 1980. American Sign Language syntax. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 Processes 24(7–8). 1180–1226. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Krebs, Julia, Ronnie B. Wilbur, Dietmar Roehm & Evie A. Malaia
2025. The interaction of syntax, non-manuals, and prosodic cues as potential topic markers in Austrian Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 28:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Krebs, Julia, Dietmar Roehm, Ronnie B. Wilbur & Evie A. Malaia
2021. Age of sign language acquisition has lifelong effect on syntactic preferences in sign language users. International Journal of Behavioral Development 45:5 ► pp. 397 ff. DOI logo
Krebs, Julia, Ronnie B. Wilbur, Phillip M. Alday & Dietmar Roehm
2019. The Impact of Transitional Movements and Non-Manual Markings on the Disambiguation of Locally Ambiguous Argument Structures in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS). Language and Speech 62:4 ► pp. 652 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue