The present study investigates whether second language (L2) speakers are sensitive to the information-structural constraints and frequency distributions at the syntax–discourse interface in the L2. L1-German–L2-English and L1-English–L2-German speakers completed a speeded naturalness judgment task. For sentences presented in broad or narrow-focus contexts, they judged the naturalness of fronted locative (LP) and temporal (TP) adverbial phrases and fronted objects in both English and German. English and German differ in the frequency with which they employ these constructions. With high-frequency fronted-LP and TP sentences, both the L2 English and L2 German speakers exhibited equivalent judgments as their L1 counterparts, in spite of differences in the perceived naturalness and relative frequency of these constructions in English vs. German. Like L1 speakers, L2 English and L2 German speakers also judged the less-frequent fronted objects as more natural in narrow-focus than broad-focus contexts, showing successful acquisition at the syntax–discourse interface. However, they judged fronted object sentences as more natural overall than their respective L1 counterparts in both English and German. Together, these findings suggest that convergence at the L2 syntax–discourse interface is possible per se, but that lower construction frequency in the input entails persistent overgeneralization of non-canonical options in the L2.
BaayenRHDavidsonDJBatesDM (2008) Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language59: 390–412.
2.
BaderMHäusslerJ (2010) Word order in German: A corpus study. Lingua120: 717–62.
3.
BaderMMengM (1999) Subject–object ambiguities in German embedded clauses: An across-the-board comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research28: 121–43.
4.
BaderMEllsiepenEKoukouliotiVPorteleY (2017) Filling the prefield: Findings and challenges. In: FreitagCBotOSchloterbeckF (eds) Two perspectives on V2: The invited talks of the DGfS 2016 workshop “V2 in grammar and processing: Its causes and its consequences”. Konstanz : University of Konstanz, pp. 27–49.
5.
BarrDJLevyRScheepersCTilyHJ (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language68: 255–278.
6.
BellettiABennatiESoraceA (2007) Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: Evidence from near-native Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory25: 657–89.
7.
BirnerBJWardG (1998) Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
8.
BohnackerU (2010) The clause-initial position in L2 Swedish declaratives: Word order variation and discourse pragmatics. Nordic Journal of Linguistics33: 105–143.
9.
BohnackerURosénC (2008) The clause-initial position in L2 German declaratives: Transfer of information structure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition30: 511–38.
10.
CarrollMMurcia-SerraJWatorekMBendiscioliA (2000) The relevance of information organization to second language acquisition studies: The descriptive discourse of advanced adult learners of German. Studies in Second Language Acquisition22: 441–66.
11.
ChafeWL (1974) Language and consciousness. Language50: 111–33.
12.
ChomskyN (1977) On wh-movement. In: CulicoverPWWasowTAkmajianA (eds) Formal syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 71–132.
13.
CollinsCTrofimovichPWhiteJCardosoWHorstM (2009) Some input on the easy/difficult grammar question: An empirical study. Modern Language Journal93: 336–53.
14.
DohertyM (2005) Topic-worthiness in German and English. Linguistics43: 181–206.
15.
DonaldsonB (2011) Left-dislocation in near-native French. Studies in Second Language Acquisition33: 399–432.
16.
DonaldsonB (2012) Syntax and discourse in near-native French: Clefts and focus. Language Learning62: 902–30.
17.
É KissK (1998) Identificational focus vs. information focus. Language74: 245–73.
18.
É KissK (1999) The English cleft construction as a focus phrase. In: MereuL (ed.) Boundaries of morphology and syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 217–229.
19.
FrascarelliMRamagliaF (2013) (Pseudo) clefts at the syntax–prosody–discourse interface. In: HartmannKVeenstraT (eds) The structure of clefts. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 97–140.
20.
GregoryMMichaelisL (2001) Topicalization and left dislocation: A functional opposition revisited. Journal of Pragmatics33: 1665–1706.
21.
GundelJK (1988) The role of topic and comment in linguistic theory: Outstanding dissertations in linguistics. New York: Garland.
22.
HaegemanLMeinungerAVercautenA (2015) The syntax of it-clefts and the left periphery of the clause. In: ShlonskyU (ed.) Beyond functional sequence: The cartography of syntactic Structures: Volume 10. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 73–90.
23.
HelbigGBuschaJ (2001) Deutsche Grammatik: Ein Handbuch fur den Ausländerunterricht [German grammar: A handbook for foreigner education]. Munich: Langenscheidt.
24.
HoppH (2009) The syntax–discourse interface in near-native L2 acquisition: Off-line and on-line performance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition12: 463–83.
25.
HoppH (2010) Ultimate attainment in L2 inflectional morphology: Performance similarities between non-native and native speakers. Lingua120: 901–31.
26.
IvanovI (2012) L2 acquisition of Bulgarian clitic-doubling: A test case for the interface hypothesis. Second Language Research28: 345–68.
27.
JackendoffR (1972) Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28.
JacksonCNRufH (2017) The priming of word order in second language German. Applied Psycholinguistics38: 315–45.
29.
KamCDFranzeseRJ (2007) Modeling and interpreting interactive hypotheses in regression analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
30.
KrasT (2008) Anaphora resolution in near-native Italian grammars: Evidence from native speakers of Croatian. EUROSLA Yearbook8: 107–34.
31.
KrifkaM (2008) Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica55: 243–76.
32.
LambrechtK (1994) Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33.
LealTSlabakovaRFarmerTA (2017) The fine-tuning of linguistic expectations over the course of L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition39: 493–525.
34.
LemhöferKBroersmaM (2012) Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid lexical test for advanced learners of English. Behavior Research Methods44: 325–43.
35.
MeinungerA (1998) A monoclausal structure for (pseudo-)cleft sentences. In: TamanjiPNKusumotoK (eds) Proceedings of NELS (North East Linguistic Society)28. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association, pp. 283–98.
36.
O’BrienMGFéryC (2015) Dynamic localization in second language English and German. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition18: 400–18.
37.
PickeringMJGarrodS (2013) An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences36: 329–47.
Psychology Software Tools, Inc. (2012). E-Prime 2.0.
40.
RobertsLGullbergMIndefreyP (2008) Online pronoun resolution in L2 discourse: L1 influence and general learner effects. Studies in Second Language Acquisition30: 333–57.
41.
RolandDDickFElmanJL (2007) Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language57: 348–79.
42.
SerratriceLSoraceAFiliaciFBaldoM (2009) Bilingual children’s sensitivity to specificity and genericity: Evidence from metalinguistic awareness. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition12: 239–57.
43.
SlabakovaR (2015) The effect of construction frequency and native transfer on second language knowledge of the syntax–discourse interface. Applied Psycholinguistics36: 671–99.
44.
SlabakovaRKempchinskyPRothmanJ (2012) Clitic-doubled left dislocation and focus fronting in L2 Spanish: A case of successful acquisition at the syntax–discourse interface. Second Language Research28: 319–43.
45.
SmeetsL (2017) The acquisition of object movement in Dutch: L1 transfer and ultimate attainment. In: LaMendolaMScottJ (eds) Proceedings of the 41th Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 588–601.
46.
SoraceA (2005) Selective optionality in language development. In: CornipsLCorriganKP (eds) Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 55–80.
47.
SoraceA (2011) Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism1: 1–33.
48.
SoraceAFiliaciF (2006) Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research22: 339–68.
49.
TooleyKMBockK (2014) On the parity of structural persistence in language production and comprehension. Cognition132: 102–36.
50.
ValenzuelaE (2006) L2 end state grammars and incomplete acquisition of the Spanish CLLD constructions. In: SlabakovaRMontrulSPrévostP (eds) Inquiries in linguistic development: In honor of Lydia White. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 283–304.
51.
VerhoevenE (2015) Thematic asymmetries do matter!: A corpus study of German word order. Journal of Germanic Linguistics27: 45–104.
52.
WardG (1988) The semantics and pragmatics of preposing. New York/London: Garland Publishing.
53.
WeberAMüllerK (2004) Word order variation in German main clauses: A corpus analysis. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Geneva, pp. 71–77.
54.
WeskottTHörnigRFanselowGKlieglR (2011) Contextual licensing of marked OVS word order in German. Linguistische Berichte225: 3–18.
55.
WilsonF (2009) Processing at the syntax–discourse interface in second language acquisition. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
