The transfer of V2: inversion and negation in German and Dutch learners of English

Abstract

This article investigates the transfer of verb-second syntax (V2) from L1 German and Dutch into L2 English. A comparative learner corpus analysis between L1 German, Dutch and French, and native English writing reveals that the German and Dutch speakers produce distinct patterns of inversion in declarative clauses, indicating the transfer of V2. They produce non-target subject–auxiliary inversion and copula inversion. However, other reflexes of V2 in interrogatives or with sentential negation are not produced. This is analysed as evidence that the German and Dutch learners have mastered the syntax of English but transfer continues to occur at the level of discourse-pragmatics, where L1 preferences for topicalization structures continue to transfer. This is in line with predictions of the Interface Hypothesis in second language acquisition, which assumes that the interfaces of syntax with other modules of the grammar are more difficult to acquire and may continue to show L1 effects even after the narrow syntax has been mastered.

Syntactic complexity in college-level English writing: Differences among writers with diverse L1 backgrounds

“…As mentioned in Section 1, L1-related differences in various structural and discourse aspects of L2 writing have been well documented in the L2 writing literature (e.g., Carson & Kuehn, 1992;Edelsky, 1982;Jarvis & Crossley, 2012;Lally, 2000;Lefrancois, 2001;Liu, 2008;Rankin, 2012;Uysal, 2008; van Vuuren, Table 5 Mean values and standard deviations of C/T, CT/T, DC/C, and DC/T measurements across different L1 groups. Note: see Table 1 for definitions of C/T, CT/T, DC/C, and DC/T.…”

“…Meanwhile, there is already a growing body of literature on L1-related differences in various aspects of L2 writing (e.g., Carson & Kuehn, 1992;Edelsky, 1982;Jarvis & Crossley, 2012;Lally, 2000;Lefrançois, 2001;Liu, 2008;Paquot, 2013;Rankin, 2012;Uysal, 2008;van Vuuren, 2013;van Weijen, van den Bergh, Rijlaarsdam, & Sanders, 2009). Examples of the aspects examined include idea generation (Lally, 2000), information structure (van Vuuren, 2013), rhetoric patterns (Liu, 2008;Uysal, 2008), syntactic structures (Rankin, 2012), and lexical bundles (Paquot, 2013). In a comprehensive review, Lefrançois (2001) reported that in addition to orthographic and lexical knowledge, aspects of grammatical and syntactic processing, general strategies, and cultural schemata in the L1 could all influence L2 writing.…”

The asymmetric nature of V2: Evidence from learner languages

“…Despite numerous claims within the Initial Hypothesis of Syntax that V2 word order would not transfer into an L2 (e.g., Platzack 2001), many studies have found evidence of considerable and relatively persistent V2 effects in the L2 (e.g., Robertson & Sorace 1999;Westergaard 2003;Bohnacker 2006;Rankin 2012). An important fi nding is that subject-initial and non-subject-initial declaratives behave differently in this respect: In the acquisition of L2 English by Norwegian L1 learners, target-consistent non-V2 word order is in place relatively early in non-subject-initial declaratives, while V-Neg/Adv word order in subject-initial declaratives lasts considerably longer, often into a stage of near-nativeness.…”

Syntactic development in early foreign language learning: Effects of L1 transfer, input, and individual factors

“…In L2 and FL acquisition, evidence of L1 syntactic transfer is abundant across learning contexts and across language combinations. For instance, L1 German child and adult learners of English initially transfer the underlying OV (object-verb) word order of German to the L2 (Weigl, 1999;see Sağin-Şimşek, 2006;Sánchez, 2011, for child L2A) and they continue to display persistent transfer of the German verb-second (V2) property in main clauses (Kaltenbacher, 2001;Rankin, 2012;Robertson & Sorace, 1999) as well as in wh-questions and relative clauses (Rankin, 2013(Rankin, , 2014; see also Hopp, 2017).…”