The Subject Preference in the Processing of Locally Ambiguous WH-Questions in German

  • Matthias Schlesewsky
  • Gisbert Fanselow
  • Reinhold Kliegl
  • Josef Krems
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 24)


The processing of locally ambiguous wh-phrases has received much attention in the last years, and experimental results reported in the literature converge in at least one respect: if a clause-initial NP is locally ambiguous between a subject and an object interpretation, the human parser strongly prefers the former reading. The present chapter constitutes no exception to this general picture.


Noun Phrase Reading Time Relative Clause Matrix Clause Experimental Item 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bach, E., Brown, C., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1986). Crossed and nested dependencies in German and Dutch: A psycholinguistic study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1, 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bader, M. (1990). Syntaktische Prozesse beim Sprachverstehen: Theoretische überlegungen und experimentelle Untersuchungen. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Freiburg.Google Scholar
  3. Blaubergs, M.S., & Braine, M.D. (1974). Short term memory limitations on decoding self-embedded sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102, 745–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brueck, U. (1996). Auswirkungen erwartungsgeleiteter syntaktischer Verarbeitung bei Interrogativsätzen mit ambigen wh-Strukturen. Diploma Thesis, University of Regensburg.Google Scholar
  5. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  6. Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (1989). Comprehending sentences with long distance dependencies. In G. Carlson & M. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Linguistic structure in language processing (pp. 273–317). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cuetos, F., & Mitchell, D.C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the Late Closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30, 73–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Vincenzi, M. (1991a). Syntactic parsing strategies in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Vincenzi, M. (1991b). Filler-gap dependencies in a null subject language: Referential and nonreferential WHs. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 197–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fanselow, G., Kliegl, R., & Schlesewsky, M. (1997). Variation von experimentellen Methoden zur Untersuchung von Subjekt-Objekt-Asymmetrien. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  11. Farke, H. (1994). Grammatik und Sprachverarbeitung. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frazier, L., & Flores d’ Arcais, G. (1989). Filler-driven parsing: A study of gap filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 331–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gorrell, P., 1987. Studies of human processing: Ranked parallel versus serial models. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
  14. Gorrell, P. (in press). Parsing theory and phrase-order variation in German V2-clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.Google Scholar
  15. Haider, H. (1986). Affect a: A reply to Lasnik and Saito. Linguistic Inquiry 77,113–126.Google Scholar
  16. Hemforth, B. (1993). Kognitives Parsing: Repräsentation und Verarbeitung sprachlichen Wissens. Sankt Augustin: Infix.Google Scholar
  17. Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., & Strube, G. (1993). Incremental syntax processing and parsing strategies. Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA. 539–545.Google Scholar
  18. Kaan, E. (1997). Processing subject-object ambiguities in Dutch. Doctoral dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.Google Scholar
  19. Konieczny, L., Scheepers, C., Hemforth, B., & Strube, G. (1994). Semantikorientierte Syntaxverarbeitung. In Felix, S., Habel, C., & Rickheit, G., (Eds.), Kognitive Linguistik: Repräsentationen und Prozesse. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. Kühn, K. (1993). Syntaktische Prozesse beim Sprachverstehen: Eine empirische Studie zur Verarbeitung lokal ambiger Relativsätze im Deutschen. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Free University of Berlin.Google Scholar
  21. Lenerz, J., (1977). Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  22. Lewis, R. (1993). An architecturally-based theory of human sentence comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  23. MacWhinney, B., Bates, L., & Kliegl, R. (1984). Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 127–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Macketanz, K. (1996). Gibt es Primingeffekte bei der Verarbeitung ambiger Fragesätze? Diploma Thesis, University of Regensburg.Google Scholar
  25. Meng, M. (1995). Processing wh-questions in German and Dutch: Differential effects of disambiguation and their interpretation. Manuscript., University of Jena.Google Scholar
  26. Müller, G., & Sternefeld, W. (1993). Improper movement and unambiguous binding. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 461–507.Google Scholar
  27. Schlesewsky, M. (1996). Kasusphänomene in der Sprachverarbeitung. Doctoral dissertation, University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
  28. Schlesewsky., M. (in prep.). The nature of case reanalysis: Evidence for an attention-driven model.Google Scholar
  29. Schlesewsky, M., Fanselow, G., & Kliegl, R. (1997a). The costs of wh-move-ment in German. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  30. Schlesewsky, M., Fanselow, G., & Kliegl, R. (1997b). Extraktionen aus daß-Strukturen — eine Pilotstudie zum Priming von Objekt-Erst-Strukturen. Manuscript. University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
  31. Schriefers, H., Friederici, A., & Kühn, K. (1995). The processing of locally ambiguous relative clauses in German. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 499–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stabler, E. (1994). The finite connectivity of linguistic structure. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 303–336). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  33. Staudacher, P. (1990). Long movement from verb second complements in German. In G. Grewendorf & W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Scrambling and barriers (pp. 319–339). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  34. Thiersch, C. (1978). Topics in German syntax. Umpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  35. Travis, L. (1984). Parameters and effects of word order variation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  36. Zwart, J.W. (1993). Dutch syntax. A minimalist approach. Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics, Groningen.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthias Schlesewsky
    • 1
  • Gisbert Fanselow
    • 1
  • Reinhold Kliegl
    • 1
  • Josef Krems
    • 1
  1. 1.Innovationskolleg Formale Modelle kognitiver KomplexitätUniversity of PotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations