This study revisits the V3 linearization AdvP>Subject>finite verb in Kiezdeutsch, comparing it to resumptive verb-third Left Dislocation and Hanging Topic Left Dislocation. Using corpus data, preverbal object DPs are shown to almost never occur across verb-third distributions, yet preverbal nominative subjects and spatio-temporal elements are unproblematic. This behavior is argued to involve a low C-domain position encoding a Subject of Predication requirement (see Cardinaletti 2004) tied to aboutness and nominative Case-assigning features, but not a strict D-related subject EPP. Based on comparison with other corpora and analysis of metadata, speakers from non-German-speaking homes, namely successive bilinguals, are argued to have innovated this property. A novel account is suggested for the emergence of V3 based on claims that it results from a natural informational order (Wiese et al. 2020), which is formalized as a Minimal Default Grammar (Roeper 1999) available to children before they fully acquire CP and TP. Children acquiring a V2 language must either reject V3 or incorporate it into a V2 syntax. Lacking adequate counterevidence in their input, Kiezdeutsch speakers do the latter.*

This study explored cognitive effects on narrative macrostructure in both languages of 38 Russian-German bilinguals aged 4;6 to 5;1‚ while controlling for demographic factors (sex, socioeconomic status) and language proficiency. Macrostructure was operationalised as story structure (SS) and story complexity (SC) using the Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives. Nonverbal cognitive subtasks assessing shifting (Figure Ground), visual memory (Form Completion), and inhibition (Attention Divided) were administered. None of the cognitive skills influenced SS; however, they differentially impacted SC: Figure Ground affected Russian SC, while Form Completion affected German SC. Findings advance our understanding of how cognition affects oral narratives in bilingual preschoolers.

This article presents a description of German schon and noch as nontemporal scalar focus operators. Both items operate in a scalar model of sufficiency and signal that the focus value yields a more informative proposition than all alternatives under consideration; that is, they are special cases of scalar additives. Where the two expressions differ is in the complementary perspectives they evoke. Schon relates to higher alternatives. Noch relates to lower alternatives, but brings about an inverse (i.e., antonymically ordered) scalar model. The use of schon and noch as scalar sufficiency operators is traced back to an amalgamation of two other uses of the same items. The descriptive findings contribute to the advancement of our cross-linguistic understanding of scalar focus operators and raise fundamental questions pertaining to the typological and theoretical status of scale reversal phenomena.*

In German, it has been shown that the semantic entailments associated with telicity markers are acquired early and that speakers will turn to semantic–pragmatic principles to determine whether an overt culmination is cancellable (e.g., van Hout, 1998, 2008; Richter & van Hout, 2013; Schulz & Penner, 2002; Schulz & Ose, 2008). Here, we test the interpretation of three types of telicity markers by Portuguese L2 speakers of German, as well as Portuguese–German bilinguals and German monolinguals. A Bayesian analysis shows that Portuguese L2 speakers of German have difficulty processing telicity with resultative particles but show target-like performances with bounded DPs and adjectival markers. Our analysis also shows that bilingual and monolingual speakers display no substantial differences in their understanding of telicity entailments, albeit with some variability regarding particle markers. I argue that the existing variation may be due to effects of lexical knowledge and transparency.

We investigated syntactic priming in German children to explore crosslinguistic evidence for implicit learning accounts of language production and acquisition. Adult descriptions confirmed that German speakers (N=27) preferred to spontaneously produce active versus passive transitive and DO versus PO dative forms. We tested whether German-speaking children (N=29, Mage=5.3, 15 girls/14 boys) could be primed to produce these dispreferred forms and whether such priming effects would persist across a target phase. Children first heard a block of priming sentences and then described a block of target pictures. They demonstrated significant priming effects for passive and PO dative structures, and these priming effects did not differ between the first and second halves of the block of target trials. These patterns of German child language production are consistent with implicit learning accounts of syntactic priming.

This article presents the results of a corpus study of clausal postpositioning, that is, the occurrence of a sentential constituent in the postfield of the matrix clause to which it is syntactically linked, in German regional language. Analysis of 11,027 clauses from 60 spoken regiolect and dialect texts reveals that clausal postpositionings occur most frequently as non-relative finite clauses, followed by relative clauses, and lastly, infinitival constructions. Notably, while non-relative finite clauses comprise a smaller proportion of postpositionings in regiolect compared to dialect, relative clauses and infinitival constructions show the opposite trend. Adjunct clauses occur most frequently, followed by complement clauses, in both regiolect and dialect. Furthermore, in both varieties, postpositioning is more prevalent in verb-first and verb-second clauses than in verb-final clauses. This finding is attributed to restrictions on syntactic subordination. Finally, non-relative finite clause and relative clause types that may be embedded in both the postfield and inner field are center-embedded at mean relative frequencies of 13.42% and 28.17%, respectively. These findings shed light on contradictory claims in the literature regarding the possibility and frequency of clausal embedding in the inner field.

A subset of German control verbs allows for the discontinuous linearization of their infinitival complements, a word-order pattern known as the “third construction” pattern. Compared to alternative word-order options (notably, extraposition), third constructions are very rare in present-day German. Here we ask whether the third construction pattern’s low occurrence frequency can be accounted for by processing factors. We report the results from a self-paced reading task and a production priming task investigating whether third constructions are difficult to comprehend, difficult to produce, or both. Our results show that the third construction pattern’s local structural ambiguity impedes comprehension, and that the pattern is also resistant to priming. We conclude that this word-order pattern is an example of a “latent” construction that is grammatically licensed but strongly dispreferred in language use because easier-to-process word-order variants are available.

In this paper, we compare the comprehension of the speech act meaning of non-canonical speech acts (i.e., rhetorical questions and surprise-disapproval questions) with the comprehension of indirect speech acts (i.e., indirect requests). Both speech act types are ‘mixed’ in the sense that they involve secondary and primary illocutionary forces, but our hypothesis is that they differ in their degree of how salient their primary illocutionary force is: On the one hand, the primary illocution is signaled by non-contextual cues (non-canonical speech acts); on the other hand, it is derived via pragmatic inferencing (indirect speech acts). We thus expect their comprehension processes to be different. We conducted a judgment experiment to test whether both speech act types differ regarding how accurate the primary illocutionary force is identified and regarding how fast that force can be identified. Our results suggest that non-canonical speech acts and indirect speech acts are indeed two distinct pragmatic and psychological phenomena: While non-canonical speech acts are more accurately identified with their primary illocutionary force than indirect speech acts, participants need more time to perform this identification for non-canonical speech acts than for indirect speech acts. Our findings shed new light on the mapping between linguistic form and illocutionary force and on the pragmatic typology of speech acts in general.

The paper presents a detailed corpus-based analysis of the German prospective stehen vor NP light verb construction. The starting point of the analysis is the claim that the construction is restricted to change-of-state nouns in the NP-internal position (Fleischhauer & Gamerschlag 2019, Fleischhauer et al. 2019). Based on corpus data, I demonstrate that although the construction shows a strong preference for such nouns, other semantic types of nouns (such as state nouns or process nouns) occur in the construction as well. I argue that process nouns in particular require contextual support to be licensed within the construction. In the paper, I present an analysis of the prospective light verb construction in terms of current relevance. This analysis accounts for the observed preference for change-of-state NP-internal nouns as well as for the need to provide contextual support for process nouns. The notion current relevance is frequently employed in the analysis of the perfect aspect; the current paper represents the first attempt to extend this notion to the prospective aspect.*

Personal pronouns can potentially be resolved in logical syntax by means of variable binding (VB) or at the discourse-representational level through coreference assignment (CR). Previous research suggests that real-time reference resolution is guided more strongly by discourse-level cues in a non-native language (L2) than in a native language (L1). Here we use the VB/CR distinction to further test this hypothesis. Using eye-movement monitoring during reading and a complementary questionnaire task, we compared L1 German and L1 Russian/L2 German speakers’ resolution of object pronouns. While both our participant groups ultimately preferred CR over VB interpretations, only the L2 participants showed evidence of favouring a sentence-external CR antecedent from early on during processing. Our L1 group, by contrast, favoured a VB antecedent during processing. The observed L1/L2 processing differences reveal divergent antecedent search strategies, with L2 but not L1 speakers being primarily guided by discourse-level cues during real-time comprehension.