This study investigates whether and to what extent native Russian-speaking and Dutch-speaking second-language learners of German can acquire lexical and distributional constraints on permissible structural variation in infinitival complementation. The results from an elicited written production task and a scalar acceptability judgement task showed that, in both experiments, the two non-native speaker groups behaved differently both from German native speakers and from each other. We attribute the observed group differences to the influence of first language (L1) word-order constraints on second language (L2) infinitival linearization preferences. Our findings support the hypothesis that structural surface-level overlap between the L1 and L2 facilitates cross-linguistic influence on L2 word-order choices and judgements. We also observed task effects indicating that L1 performance profiles can be approached more closely in L2 production than in metalinguistic judgements, which shows that L1 constraints do not necessarily affect all language modalities to the same extent.
AzazM (2020) Structural surface overlap and derivational complexity in crosslinguistic transfer: Acquisition of English genitive alternation by Egyptian Arabic-speaking learners. Second Language Research36(4): 529–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658319834860
BailynJF (2012) The Syntax of Russian. Cambridge University Press.
4.
BarkingMMosMBackusA (2022) Comparing forward and reverse transfer from Dutch to German. International Journal of Bilingualism26(4): 389–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069211052517
5.
BarrDJLevyRScheepersC, et al. (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language68(3): 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
6.
BatenKDe CuypereL (2014) The dative alternation in L2 German? Conceptualization transfer from L1 Dutch. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics11: 9–40.
7.
BayerJSchmidTBaderM (2005) Clause union and clausal position. In: den DikkenMTortoraC (eds) The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories. John Benjamins, pp. 79–113.
8.
BechG (1983 [1955]) Studien über das deutsche Verbum infinitum [Studies on the German Infinitive Verb]. Niemeyer.
9.
BoschSDe CesareIDemskeU, et al. (2023) Word-order variation and coherence in German infinitival complementation. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics26: Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10828-023-09140-8
10.
BoschSDe CesareIFelserC, et al. (2022) A multi-methodological approach to word order variation in German infinitival complementation. In: FeatherstonSHörnigRKonietzkoA, et al. (eds) Linguistic Evidence 2020 Proceedings: Linguistic Theory Enriched by Experimental Data. University of Tübingen, pp. 281–298.
11.
BroekhuisHden BestenHRuttenJ, et al. (1995) Infinitival complementation in Dutch: On remnant extraposition. The Linguistic Review12: 93–122. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1995.12.2.93
12.
BürknerPC (2017) Brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software80: 1–28. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v080.i01/
13.
ChristensenRHB (2018) Cumulative link models for ordinal regression with the R package ordinal. Journal of Statistical Software35: 1–46.
14.
De CuypereLDe CosterEBatenK (2014) The acquisition of the English dative alternation by Russian foreign language learners. PHRASIS (GENT): Studies in Language and Literature2: 187–212.
15.
Den BestenHRuttenJ (2019) On verb raising, extraposition and free word order in Dutch. In: JaspersDKloosterWPutseysYSeurenP (eds) Sentential Complementation and the Lexicon: Studies in Honour of Wim de Geest. De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 41–56.
16.
EllisNC (1994) Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages. Academic Press.
17.
EllisNC (2013) Second language acquisition. In: TrousdaleGHoffmannT (eds) Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press, pp. 365–378.
18.
EversA (1975) The Transformational Cycle in Dutch and German. Indiana University Linguistics Club.
19.
GriesSTWulffS (2013) The genitive alternation in Chinese and German ESL learners: Towards a multifactorial notion of context in learner corpus research. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics18(3): 327–356. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.3.04gri
20.
HaiderH (2010) The Syntax of German. Cambridge Syntax Guides. Cambridge University Press.
21.
HulkAMüllerN (2000) Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition3(3): 227–244. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728900000353
22.
JäschkeKPlagI (2016) The dative alternation in German-English interlanguage. Studies in Second Language Acquisition38(3): 485–521. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000261
LalekoO (2022) Word order and information structure in heritage and L2 Russian: Focus and unaccusativity effects in subject inversion. International Journal of Bilingualism26(6): 749–766. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069211063674
25.
LindgrenEMuñozC (2013) The influence of exposure, parents, and linguistic distance on young European learners’ foreign language comprehension. International Journal of Multilingualism10(1): 105–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2012.679275.
26.
LuchkinaTIoninTGoldshteinM, et al. (2025) Word order and prosody effects in perception of sentence focus in Russian by native speakers and adult L2 learners. Journal of Slavic Linguistics33: 1–16. https://ojs.ung.si/index.php/JSL/article/view/193
27.
MacWhinneyB (1997) Second language acquisition and the Competition Model. In: De GrootABMKrollJF (eds.) Tutorials in Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 113–142.
28.
PolinskyM (2013) Raising and control. In: den DikkenM (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax: Grammar and Syntax. Cambridge University Press, pp. 577–606. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511804571.021
29.
R Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: https://www.R-project.org (accessed May 2026).
30.
ReisM (2001) Bilden Modalverben im Deutschen eine syntaktische Klasse? [Do modal verbs form a syntactic class in German?] In: MüllerRReisM (eds) Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen, Linguistische Berichte9. Helmut Buske, pp. 287–318.
ScheinB (1982) Non-finite complements in Russian. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics4: 217–244.
33.
SchmidTBaderMBayerJ (2005) Coherence: An experimental approach. In: ReisMKepserS (eds) Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical and Computational Perspectives. De Gruyter, pp. 435–456.
34.
VehtariAGelmanAGabryJ (2017) Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC. Statistics and Computing27: 1413–1432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11222-016-9696-4
35.
Wöllstein-LeistenA (2001) Die Syntax der dritten Konstruktion [The syntax of the third construction]. Stauffenburg Verlag.
36.
WulffSEllisNC (2018) Usage-based approaches to second language acquisition. In: MillerDTSerratriceLRothmanJ, et al. (eds) Bilingual Cognition and Language: The State of the Science Across its Subfields. John Benjamins, pp. 37–56.
