Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-z4vvc Total loading time: 0.371 Render date: 2021-03-04T17:23:02.271Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

The clause-initial position in L2 Swedish declaratives: Word order variation and discourse pragmatics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2010

Ute Bohnacker
Department of Linguistics and Philology, Uppsala University, Box 635, SE-751 26 Uppsala, Sweden.
Get access


In a recent study of the clause-initial position in verb-second declaratives (the prefield), Bohnacker & Rosén (2008) found significant differences between native Swedish and German concerning the frequencies with which constituents occurred in the prefield, as well as qualitative differences concerning the mapping of information structure and linear word order: Swedish exhibited a stronger tendency than German to place new information, the so-called rheme, later in the clause. Swedish-speaking learners of German transferred these patterns from their L1 to German. Their sentences were syntactically well-formed but had Swedish-style prefield frequencies and a strong pattern of Rheme Later, which native Germans perceive as unidiomatic, as an acceptability judgment and a rewrite-L2texts task showed. The present study extends Bohnacker & Rosén's work in three ways. Learners of the reverse language combination (L1 German, L2 Swedish) are investigated to see whether similar phenomena also manifest themselves there. Secondly, written and oral data from highly advanced learners are examined to see whether the learners’ persistent problems can be overcome by extensive immersion (3, 6 and 9 years of L2 exposure). Thirdly, besides investigating theme–rheme (old vs. new information), some consideration is given to another information-structural level, background vs. focus. The learners are found to overuse the prefield at first, with non-Swedish, German-style frequency patterns (e.g. low proportions of clause-initial expletives and high proportions of clause-initial rhematic elements). This is interpreted as evidence for L1 transfer of information-structural or discourse-pragmatic preferences. After 6 and 9 years, a substantial increase in clause-initial expletive subjects, clefts and lightweight given elements is indicative of development towards the target. The findings are related to current generative theorizing on the syntax-pragmatics interface, where it is often maintained that the integration of multiple types of information is one of the hardest areas for L2 learners to master.

Research Article
Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.


Ammann, Hermann. 1928. Die menschliche Rede. Sprachphilosophische Untersuchungen 2. Teil: Der Satz. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E., Losongco, Anthony, Wasow, Thomas & Ginstrom, Ryan. 2000. Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse structure on constituent ordering. Language 76, 2855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bader, Markus & Häussler, Jana. 2010. Word order in German: A corpus study. Lingua 120, 717762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1909/1910. Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Indogermanische Forschungen 25, 110142.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana (ed.). 2004. Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 3. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana, Bennati, Elisa & Sorace, Antonella. 2007. Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: Evidence from near-native Italian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25, 657689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beneš, Eduard. 1971. Die Besetzung der ersten Position im deutschen Aussagesatz. Fragen der strukturellen Syntax und der kontrastiven Grammatik, 160182. Düsseldorf: Schwann.Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola & Poletto, Cecilia. 2004. Topic, focus, and V2: Defining the CP sublayers. In Rizzi, Luigi (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 2, 5275. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bohnacker, Ute. 2005. Nonnative acquisition of Verb Second: On the empirical underpinnings of universal L2 claims. In den Dikken, Marcel & Tortora, Christina (eds.), The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories, 4177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohnacker, Ute. 2006. When Swedes begin to learn German: From V2 to V2. Second Language Research 22 (4), 144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohnacker, Ute. 2007. On the ‘vulnerability’ of syntactic domains in Swedish and German. Language Acquisition 14 (1), 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohnacker, Ute & Rosén, Christina. 2007. How to start a declarative V2 clause: Transfer of syntax or information structure in L2 German. Nordlyd 34 (3), 2956.Google Scholar
Bohnacker, Ute & Rosén, Christina. 2008. The clause-initial position in L2 German declaratives: Transfer of information structure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 30 (4), 511538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouma, Gerlof. 2008. Starting a Sentence in Dutch: A Corpus Study of Subject- and Object-fronting. Groningen: University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Brody, Michael. 1990. Some remarks on the focus field in Hungarian. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2, 201225.Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl. 1934. Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Gustav Fischer.Google Scholar
Camacho, José. 1999. From SOV to SVO. Second Language Research 15, 115132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Mary & Lambert, Monique. 2003. Information structure in narratives and the role of grammaticised knowledge. In Dimroth, Christine & Starren, Marianne (eds.), Information Structure and the Dynamics of Language Acquisition, 268287. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Carroll, Mary & von Stutterheim, Christiane. 1993. The representation of spatial configurations in English and German and the grammatical structure of locative and anaphoric expressions. Linguistics 31, 10111041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Mary & von Stutterheim, Christiane. 2003. Typology and information organisation: Perspective taking and language-specific effects in the construal of events. In Ramat, Anna Giacolone (ed.), Typology and Second Language Acquisition, 365402. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Li, Charles N. (ed.), Subject and Topic, 2555. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A Minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 152. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Daneš, Frantiček. 1970. Zur linguistischen Analyse der Textstruktur. Folia Linguistica 4, 7279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drach, Erich. 1937. Grundgedanken der deutschen Satzlehre. Frankfurt: Diesterweg.Google Scholar
Dyhr, M. 1978. Die Satzspaltung im Dänischen und Deutschen. Eine kontrastive Analyse. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Ekberg, Lena. 1997. Diskursiva och syntaktiska mönster i återberättelser hos invandrarbarn i Rosengård. In Håkansson, Gisela, Lötmarker, Lena, Santesson, Lillemor, Svensson, Jan & Viberg, Åke (eds.), Svenskans beskrivning 22. Förhandlingar vid Tjugoandra sammankomsten för svenskans beskrivning Lund den 18–19 oktober 1996, 97110. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Ekerot, Lars-Johan. 1979. Syntax och informationsstruktur. In Hyltenstam, Kenneth (ed.), Svenska i invandrarperspektiv, 79108. Lund: Liber Läromedel.Google Scholar
Katalin, É. Kiss. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74 (2), 245273.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. Information Structure: The Syntax–Discourse Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert. 2007. The restricted access of information structure to syntax: A minority report. In Féry et al., 205–220.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 2007. Information structural notions and the fallacy of invariant correlates. In Féry et al. (eds.), 161–184.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline, Fanselow, Gisbert & Krifka, Manfred (eds.) 2007. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 6, 161184.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, Günther. 1988. Aspekte der deutschen Syntax. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K. 2002. Information structure and the use of cleft sentences in English and Norwegian. In Hasselgård, Hilde, Johansson, Stig, Behrens, Bergljot & Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine (eds.), Information Structure in a Cross-linguistic Perspective, 113128. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Håkansson, Gisela. 1997. Barnets väg till svensk syntax. In Söderbergh, Ragnhild (ed.), Från joller till läsning och skrivning, 4760. Malmö: Gleerups.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Part 1 and 2. Journal of Linguistics 3, 3781 & 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy. 2000. The referential status of clefts. Language 76 (4), 891920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertel, Tammy Jandrey. 2003. Lexical and discourse factors in the second language acquisition of Spanish word order. Second Language Research 19, 273304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoberg, Ursula. 1981. Die Wortstellung in der geschriebenen deutschen Gegenwartssprache. München: Hueber.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Huber, Stefan. 2002. Es-Clefts und det-Clefts. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Hulk, Aafke & Müller, Natascha. 2000. Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3, 227244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 1984. Funktionale Satzperspektive und Illokutionssemantik. Linguistische Berichte 91, 2558.Google Scholar
Johansson, Mats. 2001. Clefts in contrast: A contrastive study of it clefts and wh clefts in English and Swedish texts and translations. Linguistics 39, 541562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, Stig, 2007. Seeing through Multilingual Corpora: On the Use of Corpora in Contrastive Studies. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jörgensen, Nils. 1976. Meningsbyggnaden i talad svenska. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Kiese, Jörn. 1993. Fokussierende Sätze im Deutschen und Englischen. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Krashen, Stephen. 2003. Explorations in Language Acquisition and Use. Porthsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In Féry et al. (eds.), 13–55.Google Scholar
Kroll, Barbara (ed.). 2003. Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1987. Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse, and Empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liceras, Juana. 1988. Syntax and stylistics: More on the pro-drop parameter. In Pankhurst, James, Sharwood-Smith, Michael & Van Buren, Paul (eds.), Learnability and Second Languages: A Book of Readings, 7193. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Lozano, Cristóbal. 2006. Focus and split-transitivity: The acquisition of word order alternations in non-native Spanish. Second Language Research 22, 145187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 1996. Discourse competence: Evidence from thematic development in native and non-native texts. In Ventola, Eija & Mauranen, Anna (eds.), Academic Writing, 195230. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, Ad & van de Koot, Hans. 2008. Dutch scrambling and the nature of discourse templates. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 11 (2), 137189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, Ana Teresa & Glass, William. 1999. Null anaphora in Spanish second language acquisition: Probabilistic versus generative approaches. Second Language Research 15, 220249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platzack, Christer. 2001. The vulnerable C-domain. Brain and Language 77, 364377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polinsky, Maria & Kluender, Robert. 2007. Linguistic typology and theory construction: Common challenges ahead. Linguistic Typology 11, 273283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given–new information. In Cole, Peter (ed.), Radical Pragmatics, 249264. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1998. On the limits of syntax, with reference to left dislocation and topicalization. In Culicover, Peter [W.] & McNally, Louise (eds.), The Limits of Syntax (Syntax and Semantics 39), 281302. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rahkonen, Matti. 2000. Topikalisering av icke-subjekt i svenska påståendesatser. Språk och stil 10, 3785.Google Scholar
Rahkonen, Matti. 2006. Some aspects of topicalization in active Swedish declaratives: A quantitative corpus study. Linguistics 44 (1), 2355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1982. Pragmatics and linguistics: A analysis of sentence topic. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1–38.Google Scholar
Reis, Marga. 1980. On justifying topological frames: ‘Positional field’ and the order of nonverbal constituents in German. Documentation et Recherche en Linguistique Allemande Contemporaine 22/23, 5985.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax, 281337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robach, Inger-Britt. 2003. Satsklyvning i franska och svenska. In Ringqvist, Eva Larsson (ed.), Ordföljd och informationsstruktur i franska och svenska, 4572. Växjö: Växjö University Press.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1, 75116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosén, Christina. 2006. Warum klingt das nicht deutsch? Probleme der Informationsstrukturierung in deutschen Texten schwedischer Schüler und Studenten. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Rothman, Jason. 2009. Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences? L2 pronominal subjects and the syntax–pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 951973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 1993. On the interplay of factors in the determination of word order. In Jacobs, Joachim, von Stechow, Arnim, Sternefeld, Wolfgang & Vennemann, Theo (eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, 826846. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael, 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Dixon, Robert M. W. (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, 112171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Sorace, Antonella. 2005. Syntactic optionality at interfaces. In Cornips, Leonie & Corrigan, Karen (eds.), Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological and the Social, 5580. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, Antonella & Filiaci, Francesca. 2006. Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research 22, 339368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, Antonella & Serratrice, Ludovica. 2009. Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism 13 (2), 195210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stemmer, Brigitte, 1999. An on-line interview with Noam Chomsky: On the nature of pragmatics and related issues. Brain and Language 68 (3), 393401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teleman, Ulf, Hellberg, Staffan & Andersson, Erik (eds.). 1999. Svenska Akademiens grammatik, vol. 4: Satser och meningar. Stockholm: NordstedtsOrdbok.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, Ianthi & Sorace, Antonella. 2006. Differentiating interfaces: L2 performance in syntax–semantics and syntax–discourse phenomena. In Bamman, David, Magnitskaia, Tatiana & Zaller, Colleen (eds.), 30th Boston University Conference on Language Development, vol. 2, 653664. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Tomlin, Russell S., Forrest, Linda, Pu, Ming Ming & Kim, Myung Hee. 1997. Discourse semantics. In van Dijk, Teun A. (ed.), Discourse as Structure and Process, 63111. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, Elena. 2006. L2 end state grammars and incomplete acquisition of Spanish CLLD constructions. In Slabakova, Roumyana, Montrul, Silvina & Prévost, Philippe (eds.), Inquiries in Linguistics Development, 283304. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Stutterheim, Christiane. 2003. Linguistic structure and information organisation: The case of very advanced learners. In Foster-Cohen, Susan & Doehler, Simone Pekarek (eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook 3, 183206. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
von Stutterheim, Christiane & Klein, Wolfgang. 1989. Text structure and referential movement. In Dietrich, Rainer & Graumann, Carl F. (eds.), Language Processing in Social Context, 3976. Amsterdam: North Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Andrea & Müller, Karin. 2004. Word order variation in German main clauses: A corpus analysis. 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 71–77, Geneva.Google Scholar
White, Lydia. 2009. Grammatical theory: Interfaces and L2 knowledge. In Ritchie, William C. & Bhatia, Taj K. (eds.), The New Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 4968. Leeds: Emerald.Google Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Hoffmann, Ludger & Strecker, Bruno et al. (eds.). 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache, vol. 2. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 10
Total number of PDF views: 90 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 4th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The clause-initial position in L2 Swedish declaratives: Word order variation and discourse pragmatics
Available formats

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The clause-initial position in L2 Swedish declaratives: Word order variation and discourse pragmatics
Available formats

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The clause-initial position in L2 Swedish declaratives: Word order variation and discourse pragmatics
Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *