Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T00:03:54.926Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE CLAUSE-INITIAL POSITION IN L2 GERMAN DECLARATIVES : Transfer of Information Structure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2008

Ute Bohnacker  and
Christina Rosén
Ute Bohnacker*
Affiliation:
Uppsala University, Lund University
Christina Rosén
Affiliation:
Växjö University
*
Ute Bohnacker, Uppsala University, Department of Linguistics and Philology, Box 635, SE-75126 Uppsala, Sweden; e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article investigates the information structure of verb-second (V2) declaratives in Swedish, German, and nonnative German. Even though almost any type of element can occur in the so-called prefield, the clause-initial preverbal position of V2 declaratives, we have found language-specific patterns in native-speaker corpora: The frequencies of prefield constituent types differ substantially between German and Swedish, and Swedish postpones new (rhematic) information and instead fills the prefield with given (thematic) elements and elements of no or low informational value (e.g., expletives) to a far greater extent than German. We compare Swedish learners of German to native controls matched for age and genre (Bohnacker, 2005, 2006; Rosén, 2006). These learners master the syntactic properties of V2 but start their sentences in nonnative ways. They overapply the Swedish principle of rheme later in their second language German, indicating first language (L1) transfer at the interface of syntax and information structure, especially for structures that are frequent in the L1.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , December 2008 , pp. 511 - 538
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Altenberg, B. (1998). Connectors and sentence openings in English and Swedish. In Johansson, S. & Oksefjell, S. (Eds.), Corpora and cross-linguistic research (pp. 115–143). Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beneš, E. (1971). Die Besetzung der ersten Position im deutschen Aussagesatz [The first position in German declarative clauses]. In Moser, H. (Ed.), Fragen der strukturellen Syntax und der kontrastiven Grammatik: Vol. 17. Sprache der Gegenwart (pp. 160–182). Düsseldorf, Germany: Schwann.Google Scholar
Benson, S. (1974). En studie i grundlagspropositionens språk [A study of the language in proposals for a Swedish constitution]. Arkiv för nordisk filologi, 89, 214–232.Google Scholar
Benthien, I. (1990). Das Subjekt im Vorfeld: Ein deutsch-norwegischer Vergleich [Clause-initial subjects: Comparing German and Norwegian]. Unpublished master's thesis, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
Bohnacker, U. (2005). Nonnative acquisition of verb second: On the empirical underpinnings of universal L2 claims. In den Dikken, M. & Tortora, C. (Eds.), The function of function words and functional categories (pp. 41–77). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohnacker, U. (2006). When Swedes begin to learn German: From V2 to V2. Second Language Research, 22, 443–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohnacker, U. (2007). Will they keep on starting their sentences the German way? The prefield in advanced learners of Swedish. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Bohnacker, U. & Rosén, C. (2007a). How to start a declarative V2 clause: Transfer of syntax or information structure in L2 German. In Anderssen, M. & Westergaard, M. (Eds.), Nordlyd: Papers from the Language Acquisition Workshop SCL 2006 (pp. 29–56). Tromsø, Norway: CASTL.Google Scholar
Bohnacker, U. & Rosén, C. (2007b). Transferring information-structural patterns from Swedish to German. In Belikova, A., Meroni, L., & Umeda, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America 2 (pp. 27–38). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, M., Murcia-Serra, J., Watorek, M., & Bendiscioli, A. (2000). The relevance of information organization to second language: The descriptive discourse of advanced adult learners of German. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 441–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, M. & von Stutterheim, C. (2003). Typology and information organisation: Perspective taking and language-specific effects in the construal of events. In Ramat, A. Giacolone (Ed.), Typology and second language acquisition (pp. 365–402). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chafe, W.L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Li, C. N. (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25–55). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. & Muysken, P. (1986). The availability of universal grammar to adult and child learners: A study of the acquisition of German word order. Second Language Research, 2, 93–119.Google Scholar
Daneš, F. (1970). Zur linguistischen Analyse der Textstruktur. [On the linguistic analysis of text structure]. Folia Linguistica, 4, 72–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drach, E. (1937). Grundgedanken der deutschen Satzlehre [Prolegomena of German syntax]. Frankfurt: Diesterweg.Google Scholar
du Plessis, J., Solin, D., Travis, L., & White, L. (1987). UG or not UG, that is the question: A reply to Clahsen and Muysken. Second Language Research, 3, 56–75.Google Scholar
Dürscheid, C. (1989). Zur Vorfeldbesetzung in deutschen Verbzweit-Strukturen [On the prefield in German verb-second clauses]. Trier, Germany: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Ekberg, L. (1997). Diskursiva och syntaktiska mönster i återberättelser hos invandrarbarn i Rosengård [Discourse and syntactic patterns in narratives told by immigrant children in Rosengård]. In Håkansson, G., Lötmarker, L., Santesson, L., Svensson, J., & Viberg, Å. (Eds.), Svenskans beskrivning 22 (pp. 97–110). Lund, Sweden: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Ekerot, L.-J. (1979). Syntax och informationsstruktur [Syntax and information structure]. In Hyltenstam, K. (Ed.), Svenska i invandrarperspektiv (pp. 79–108). Lund, Sweden: Liber Läromedel.Google Scholar
Engel, U. (1974). Syntaktische Besonderheiten der deutschen Alltagssprache [Syntactic features of colloquial spoken German]. In Gesprochene Sprache: Vol. 26. Jahrbuch 1972 Sprache der Gegenwart (pp. 199–228). Düsseldorf: Schwann.Google Scholar
Erdmann, O. (1886). Grundzüge der deutschen Syntax und ihre geschichtliche Entwicklung [Basics of German syntax and its historical development] (Vol. 1). Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta.Google Scholar
Eriksson, M. (1997). Ungdomars berättande: En studie i struktur och interaktion [Teenage narratives: A study of structure and interaction]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, C. & Solfjeld, K. (1994). Deutsche und norwegische Sachprosa im Vergleich: Ein Arbeitsbericht [Comparing German and Norwegian nonfiction: Work in progress]. Arbeitsberichte des Germanistischen Instituts der Universität Oslo, 6.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, G. (1988). Aspekte der deutschen Syntax [Aspects of German syntax]. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G. (1997). Barnets väg till svensk syntax [Children's acquisition of Swedish syntax]. In Söderbergh, R. (Ed.), Från joller till läsning och skrivning (pp. 47–60). Malmö, Sweden: Gleerups.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G., Pienemann, M., & Sayehli, S. (2002). Transfer and typological proximity in the context of second language processing. Second Language Research, 18, 250–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herling, S.H.A. (1821). Ueber die Topik der deutschen Sprache [On topic in German]. In Abhandlungen des frankfurtischen Gelehrtenvereins für deutsche Sprache (Vol. 3, pp. 296–362). Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Hoberg, U. (1981). Die Wortstellung in der geschriebenen deutschen Gegenwartssprache [Word order in contemporary written German]. Munich: Hueber.Google Scholar
Hultman, T. & Westman, M. (1977). Gymnasistsvenska [High school Swedish]. Lund, Sweden: Liber Läromedel.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. (2001). The dimensions of topic-comment. Linguistics, 39, 641–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jörgensen, N. (1976). Meningsbyggnaden i talad svenska [Sentence structure in spoken Swedish]. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Jörgensen, N. & Svensson, J. (1986). Nusvensk grammatik [Modern Swedish grammar]. Malmö, Sweden: Gleerups.Google Scholar
Klein, W. & Perdue, C. (1992). Utterance structure: Developing grammars again. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and the mental representations of discourse referents. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lötscher, A. (1984). Satzgliedstellung und funktionale Satzperspektive [Word order and functional sentence perspective]. In Stickel, G. (Ed.), Pragmatik in der Grammatik: Jahrbuch 1983 des Instituts für deutsche Sprache (pp. 118–151). Düsseldorf, Germany: Schwann.Google Scholar
Nordman, M. (1992). Svenskt fackspråk [Swedish nonfiction and technical language]. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1982). Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Reis, M. (1980). On justifying topological frames: ‘Positional field’ and the order of nonverbal constituents in German. Documentation et Recherche en Linguistique Allemande Contemporaine, 22/23, 59–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosén, C. (2006). Warum klingt das nicht deutsch? Probleme der Informationsstrukturierung in deutschen Texten schwedischer Schüler und Studenten [Why doesn't this sound German? Problems of information structure in German L2 texts written by Swedish students]. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B.D. & Sprouse, R.A. (1994). Word order and nominative case in nonnative language acquisition: A longitudinal study of L1 Turkish German interlanguage. In Hoekstra, T. & Schwartz, B. D. (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (pp. 317–368). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B.D. & Sprouse, R.A. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B.D. & Sprouse, R.A. (2000). When syntactic theories evolve: Consequences for L2 acquisition research. In Archibald, J. (Ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 156–186). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Teleman, U., Hellberg, S., & Andersson, E. (Eds.). (1999). Svenska Akademiens grammatik: Vol. 4. Satser och meningar [The Swedish Academy grammar: Vol. 4. Clauses and sentences]. Stockholm: NorstedtsOrdbok.Google Scholar
Teleman, U. & Wieselgren, A.M. (1970). ABC i stilistik [Introduction to stylistics]. Lund, Sweden: Gleerups.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A. & Young-Scholten, M. (1994). Direct access to X' theory: Evidence from Korean and Turkish adults learning German. In Hoekstra, T. & Schwartz, B. D. (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (pp. 265–316). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vainikka, A. & Young-Scholten, M. (1996). Gradual development of L2 phrase structure. Second Language Research, 12, 7–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ventola, E. (1992). Writing scientific English: Overcoming intercultural problems. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2, 191–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westman, M. (1974). Bruksprosa [Swedish nonfiction]. Lund, Sweden: Gleerups.Google Scholar
Zifonun, G., Hoffmann, L., & Strecker, B. (1997). Grammatik der deutschen Sprache [A grammar of German]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar