When Swedes begin to learn German: from V2 to V2

By U. Bohnacker. 2006

146 citations recorded by the source corpus.

This article investigates verb placement, especially Verb second (V2), in post-puberty second language (L2) learners of two closely related Germanic V2 languages: Swedish and German. Håkansson, et al. (2002) have adduced data from first language (L1) Swedish-speaking learners of German in support of the claim that the syntactic property of V2 never transfers from the L1 to L2 interlanguage grammars. Regardless of L1, learners are said to follow a hypothe-sized universal developmental path of L2 German verb placement, where V2 is mastered very late (only after Object–Verb, OV, has been acquired), if ever. Explanations include the notion of Subject–Verb–Object (SVO) being a more basic, ‘canonical’ word order (e.g. Clahsen and Muysken, 1986), so-called ‘vulnerability’ of the C-domain (Platzack, 2001), and ‘processability’, according to which SVX and Adv–SVX (i.e. V3) are easier to process (i.e. produce) than XVS (i.e. V2) (e.g. Pienemann, 1998). However, the empirical data comes exclusively from Swedes learning German as a third language, after substantial exposure to English. When these learners violate V2, syntactic transfer from English, a non-V2 language, cannot be ruled out. In order to control for this potential confound, I compare new oral production data from six adult Swedish ab initio learners of German, three with prior knowledge of English and three without. With an appropriate elicitation method, the informants can be shown to productively use non-subject-initial V2 in their German after four months of exposure, at a point when their interlanguage syntax elsewhere is non-targetlike (VO instead of OV). Informants who do not know English never violate V2 (0%), indicating transfer of V2-L1 syntax. Those with prior knowledge of English are less targetlike in their L3-German productions (45% V2 violations), indicating interference from non-V2 English. These results suggest that, contra Håkansson et al. (2002), learners do transfer the property of V2 from their L1, and that L2 knowledge of a non-V2 language (English) may obscure this V2 transfer. The findings also suggest that V2 is not difficult to acquire per se, and that V2 is not developmentally dependent on target headedness of the VP (German OV) having been acquired first.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Gender Studies, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/867ea7c68842fdb1adac10be22e553dc1afebfb0

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Gender Studies

In Language and Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

Clitics and object expression in the L3 acquisition of Brazilian Portuguese: Structural similarity matters for transfer (2011, background): “…in the three languages involved structural similarity and/or ‘psychotypology’ (Kellerman, 1979; Rothman, 2011) also play a role in L3 acquisition, as it does in lexical acquisition (Singleton and O’Laorie, 2004, 2005), contrary to what others have claimed (Bohnacker, 2006; Bardel and Falk, 2007).”
The role of the second language in third language acquisition: the case of Germanic syntax (2007, background): “Most studies dealing with L2 influence concentrate on vocabulary, but some syntactic studies have also emerged in recent years (Bardel, 2000; 2006; Falk, 2002; Leung, 2002; 2003; 2005a; 2005b; Sjögren, 2002; Bardel and Falk, 2004; Flynn et al., 2004; Bohnacker, 2005; 2006).”
What variables condition syntactic transfer? A look at the L3 initial state (2010, background): “While this has changed in recent years (e.g. Flynn et al., 2004; Leung 2005; 2006; 2007a; 2007b; Bardel, 2006; Bohnacker, 2006; Bardel and Falk, 2007; Jaensch, 2008; 2009; Cabrelli Amaro et al., 2009), such studies comprise an infinitesimal part of all generative studies investigating adult non-prim”