The guidelines for syntactic annotation contain the layers that are especially relevant for queries related to the interaction of information structure with syntax. The layers of this level are constituent structure, grammatical functions, and semantic roles.

The guidelines for semantics comprise a number of layers related to quantificational structures as well as some crucial semantic properties of NPs with respect to information structure: definiteness, countability, and animacy.

The guidelines for Information Structure include instructions for the annotation of Information Status (or ‘givenness’), Topic, and Focus, building upon a basic syntactic annotation of nominal phrases and sentences. A procedure for the annotation of these features is proposed.

In this paper, it will be shown that Bi-directional Optimality Theory (BOT) runs into problems of undergeneration when confronted with a certain class of partial-blocking phenomena. The empirical problem used to illustrate this is the cross-linguistic variation of one-step past-referring tenses. It will be argued that the well-known ‘present perfect puzzle’ is a sub-problem of it. The solution to the cross-linguistic variation of these tenses involves blocking of the marked tense. The relevant notion of ‘markedness’, while underivable synchronically, is argued to be linked to diachronic learning processes similar to those investigated by Benz (2006).

Minimalist accounts lack a natural theory of markedness, whereas Optimality-Theoretical accounts fundamentally encode markedness. We think the duality of interfaces assumed in Minimalism is a step towards explaining pairedness behavior, where a given language exhibits a marked/ unmarked pair of items occupying the same niche. We argue that while Minimalism articulates the derivational aspect of language, and underlies grammaticality, an Optimality Theoretic articulation of PF and LF is conceptually natural and explains pairedness behavior. We adopt this ‘hybrid’ account, first, to explain the existence of marked (often termed ‘reflexive’) and unmarked anticausatives in German, recently studied in depth by Sch¨afer [2007].

Content: 1 Introduction 2 Crosslinguistic Variation 3 Constraint Conflict 3.1 Conflict between Prosody and Syntax 3.2 Conflict between Economy Principles 4 OT and Minimalism

Content: 1. Introduction 2. The corpus 2.1 Subjects 2.2 Recordings 2.3 Data processing 2.4 Materials 3. Intonation in Upper Saxon German yes-no-questions 4. Intonational variation and information structure 5. Conclusions and discussion

In the recent literature there is a hypothesis that the human parser uses number and case information in different ways to resolve an initially incorrect case assignment. This paper investigates what role morphological case information plays during the parser’s detection of an ungrammaticality or its recognition that a reanalysis is necessary. First, we compare double nominative with double accusative ungrammaticalities in a word by word, speeded grammaticality task and in this way show that only double nominatives lead to a so-called ”illusion of grammaticality” (a low rate of ungrammaticality detection). This illusion was found to disappear when the second argument was realized by a pronoun rather than by a full definite determiner phrase, i.e. when the saliency of the second argument was increased. Thus, the accuracy in recognizing an ungrammaticality induced by the case feature of the second argument is dependent on the type of this argument. Furthermore, we found that the accuracy in detecting such case ungrammaticalities is distance sensitive insofar as a shorter distance leads to a higher accuracy. The results are taken as support for an ”expectationdriven” parse strategy in which the way the parser uses the information of a current input item depends on the expectation resulting from the parse carried out so far. By contrast, ”input-driven” parse strategies, such as the diagnosis model (Fodor & Inoue, 1999) are unable to explain the data presented here.

The present paper addresses a current view in the psycholinguistic literature that case exhibits processing properties distinct from those of other morphological features such as number (cf. Fodor & Inoue, 2000; Meng & Bader, 2000a/b). In a speeded-acceptability judgement experiment, we show that the low performance previously found for case in contrast to number violations is limited to nominative case, whereas violations involving accusative and dative are judged more accurately. The data thus do not support the proposal that case per se is associated with special properties (in contrast to other features such as number) in reanalysis processes. Rather, there are significant judgement differences between the object cases accusative and dative on the one hand and the subject nominative case on the other. This may be explained by the fact that nominative has a specific status in German (and many other languages) as a default case.

The present paper addresses a current view in the psycholinguistic literature that case exhibits processing properties distinct from those of other morphological features such as number (cf. Fodor & Inoue, 2000; Meng & Bader, 2000a/b). In a speeded-acceptability judgement experiment, we show that the low performance previously found for case in contrast to number violations is limited to nominative case, whereas violations involving accusative and dative are judged more accurately. The data thus do not support the proposal that case per se is associated with special properties (in contrast to other features such as number) in reanalysis processes. Rather, there are significant judgement differences between the object cases accusative and dative on the one hand and the subject nominative case on the other. This may be explained by the fact that nominative has a specific status in German (and many other languages) as a default case.