On the L2 Acquisition of Spanish Subject-Verb Inversion by Dutch Speakers
This study examines the L2 acquisition of Spanish subject-verb inversion in whquestions by Dutch speakers. In Spanish, subject-verb inversion occurs in matrix and
embedded wh-questions. However, the argument vs. adjunct status of the wh-element
determines whether this is obligatory or not. Interestingly, Dutch also has subject-verb
inversion, yet this is only obligatory in matrix clauses and is not subject to argumental
restrictions.
With respect to inversion, the main differences between the two languages are: in
Dutch, there is always subject-verb inversion in matrix interrogatives, independent of the
argument/adjunct status of the wh-element. Secondly, Dutch is a V2 language and Spanish is
not; thus, Dutch subject-verb inversion only occurs in matrix clauses, never in embedded
ones, while in Spanish, with argument wh-questions, the main verb must always appear
before the subject in both types of clauses. Given the fact that this contrast between the two
languages is never explicitly addressed in the classroom context, it is particularly interesting
to determine how Dutch speakers learning Spanish acquire these rules and where they may
encounter difficulties in their application.
The empirical basis of this study comes from an experiment conducted with 46
participants: 13 advanced and 20 beginner L2 learners and 13 Spanish native speakers, tested on
a Grammaticality Judgment Task and a Dehydrated Sentence Test. Results from the GJT show
that with argumental wh-words, L2 learners do not seem to detect the ungrammaticality of noninversion in either embedded or matrix interrogatives. As expected, this effect i s more
evident i n embedded questions; it is precisely in this type of interrogatives that Spanish and
Dutch differ. However, the fact that the L2s do not reject matrix non-inverted sentences
correctly shows that they cannot be fully relying on their L1 grammar. Results also indicate a
significant variability in the preference for inversion with the different wh- words, with ‘Por
qué’ being the odd one out among the adjuncts. Findings will be discussed in light of the Full
Access Full Transfer Model.
Selected References:
Barbosa, P. (2001). On inversion in wh-questions in Romance. In A. Hulk & J. Y. Pollock
(Eds). Subject inversion in Romance and the theory of universal grammar. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Goodall, G (2004). On the syntax and processing of Spanish wh-questions. In B. Schmeiser, V.
Chand, A. Kelleher, & A. Rodriguez (Eds), Proceedings of WCCFL (Vol. 23, pp. 101-114)
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Rutten, N. Coopmans, P. and Slagter, P. (1995). Over de verwerving van subject –werkwoord
inversie in het Spaans in het Spaans als tweede taal. Unpublished Manuscript, Utrecht University.
Ordóñez, F. (1997). Word Order and Clause Structure in Spanish and Other Romance
Languages. Ph.D. Dissertation, The City University of New York.
Rizzi, L. (1996). Residual verb second and the wh-criterion. In A. Belletti & L.Rizzi (Eds),
Parameters and functional heads (pp.63-90). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Suñer, M. (1994). V-Movement and the Licensing of Argumental Wh-Phrases in Spanish. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 12, 335-372.
Torrego, E. (1984). On inversion in Spanish and some of its effects. Linguistic Inquiry, 15,
103-129.
Zagona, K. (2002). The syntax of Spanish. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Zubizarreta, M. L. (1998). Prosody, focus and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.