L2 Syntax Meets Information Structure: Word Order at the
Interfaces

Cristóbal Lozano and Amaya Mendikoetxea
Universidad de Granada and Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
1. Introduction
This study is part of a research program seeking to unveil the general
processes underlying the production of non-canonical word order constructions
in non-native grammars (see WOSLAC project webpage: www.uam.es/woslac).
An in-depth investigation into word order in non-native grammars will reveal
interesting results regarding, for instance, the relative difficulty of acquiring
lexicon-syntax and syntax-discourse interface properties, as well as issues to do
with transfer and the role of input which are very much at the centre of debate in
second language acquisition (SLA) theory.
We focus on the analysis of V(erb) S(ubject) structures using experimental
data from L2 Spanish, as well as corpus data from L2 English. One of the most
important conclusions of the research presented here is that a full account of
word order acquisition needs to take into account properties at three interfaces:
lexicon-syntax, syntax-discourse and syntax-phonology. In this paper, we show
that learners of Romance (L1 English/Greek – L2 Spanish) as well as Romance
learners of English (L1 Spanish/L1 Italian – L2 English) are sensitive to
discourse status (focus) in their L2, but they show residual (yet persistent)
problems when encoding information status syntactically. Our studies suggest
that learners’ deficits are not located at the interfaces, but rather in the
computational system (narrow syntax).
2. Word Order in neutral and non-neutral contexts
Spanish and Italian have ‘free’ word order: VS order is found ‘freely’ with
all classes of Vs, with or without preverbal elements and requiring no special
intonation pattern. This is illustrated in (1) for Spanish, with a transitive V like
comprar ‘to buy’ (1a) and both types of intransitive Vs: unergative (1b) and
unaccusative (1c).

This work has been supported by research grants from the Spanish Ministry of
Education and Science (HUM2005-0127/FILO) and from the Autonomous Region of
Madrid & Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (09/SHD/016).
(1) Ha
comprado un libro María
has-3sg bought
a book María
‘María has bought a book.’
(transitive)
(2) Habló
Juan.
spoke-3sg Juan
‘Juan spoke’
(unergative)
(3) Llegaron
tres niñas
Arrived-3pl three girls
‘Three girls arrived.’
(unaccusative)
English, however, is a ‘fixed’ word order language: VS order can be found
in certain contexts, as in XP V S structures in (4) (corpus examples from Biber
et al. 1999: 912-913), which are highly restricted by properties operating at the
lexicon-syntax interface: they typically contain unaccusative verbs expressing
existence and appearance (see Levin & Rappaport-Hovav 1995).
(4) a.
b.
c.
On one long wall hung a row of Van Goghs.
Then came the turning point of the match.
With incorporation, and the increased size of the normal establishment
came changes which revolutionized office administration
Since Perlmutter’s (1978) Unaccusative Hypothesis two classes of
intransitive Vs have been distinguished, which differ in the position occupied by
their only argument in the base structure (or D-Structure): unergatives in (5a)
have an external argument (in <Spec, VP>, after Koopman & Sportiche’s (1991)
VP-internal subject hypothesis), but lack an internal argument. Unaccusatives in
(5b), on the other hand, have an internal argument, but no external argument.
(5) a.
unergative
‘John spoke’
b.
unaccusative
‘Three girls arrived’
The syntactic distinction between the two classes of verbs is systematically
related with a semantic distinction. Unergatives typically denote activities
controlled by an agent (speak in (5a), and also cry, cough, sweat, jump, run,
dance, work, play, etc.), while unaccusatives are associated with themes (arrive
in (5b), and also blossom, appear, exist, deteriorate, arrive, come, etc.). The rule
of NP-movement applies to promote both NPs in (5) to <Spec, IP> at SStructure (see arrowed lines), in order to satisfy their Case requirements, or,
more recently, the requirement that <Spec, IP> must be filled by an overt
element (roughly Chomsky’s (1981) Extended Projection Principle (EPP)).
While in the English sentences in (5) there is no surface manifestation of
unaccusativity, after the application of NP-movement, in languages like Spanish
and Italian, the argument of unaccusative Vs need not raise to <Spec, IP>. In
discourse-neutral contexts (e.g., in answer to questions like ¿Qué pasó? ‘What
happened?’), a distinction is found between unergative and unaccusative clauses
in Spanish, (6): SV is the favoured structure for unergatives ((6a) vs. (6b)), but
VS for unaccusatives ((6a’) vs. (6b’)).
(6) a.
b.
María gritó (unergative)
María shouted-3sg
# Gritó María.
‘María shouted’
a.’ # María llegó.
(unaccusative)
María arrived-3sg
b.’ Llegó María
‘María arrived.’
The possibility of having VS structures like (6b’) is associated with ‘free
inversion’, which is among the cluster of properties characterising languages
positively marked for the Null Subject Parameter (e.g. Spanish/Italian/Greek vs.
English) (inter alia, Rizzi 1997, Zagona 2002). It has been recently argued that
‘free’ inversion is to be governed by features operating at the syntax-discourse
interface. Indeed, it seems to be the case that inversion in Romance serves a
focalization purpose (e.g., Belletti 2001, Domínguez 2004, Vallduví 1993,
Zubizarreta 1998). Thus, in sequences like those in (7) where the wh-element
quién ‘who’ triggers narrow focus in the reply, a preverbal S, commonly
interpreted as topic in Spanish, is regarded as pragmatically odd (7Bii) (see also
similar examples for Italian in Belletti 2001, 2004).
(7) A: ¿Quién gritó/llegó?
‘Who shouted/arrived?’
B: i. Gritó/llegó Juan
shouted/arrived Juan
ii.
#Juan shouted/arrived
‘Juan shouted/arrived’
Under the assumption that there is a Focus Phrase which is located between
VP and TP (Belletti 2004), the order VS with both unergatives and
unaccusatives is the result of raising S to FocusP (as well as V to T), (8).
(8) a.
b.
[TP [T’ [T gritó] [Focus P Juan [VP Juan [V’ [V gritó] ]]]]]
[TP [T’ [T llegó] [Focus P Juan [VP [V’ [V llegó] [NP Juan] ]]]]]
The above data are confirmed by empirical studies on native speakers (e.g.,
Hertel 2003, Lozano 2006a, 2006b for Spanish; Pinto 1997 for Italian). Verb
choice (lexicon-syntax interface) interacts with information structure (syntaxdiscourse interface) to determine word order: SV is favoured with unergatives
and VS with unaccusatives in neutral contexts like (6). But VS is preferred to
SV with both unaccusatives and unergatives in narrow-focus contexts, (7). In
contrast, in English, as well as in Greek (e.g., Georgiafentis 2004),
presentational focus is marked in situ (<Spec,TP>), so the resulting order is SV.
3. L2 experimental evidence: previous studies
At the lexicon-syntax interface, it is well known that English-speaking
learners of Spanish are sensitive to the syntactic effects of the Unaccusative
Hypothesis from early stages of development (Hertel 2003) and show native-like
behaviour at advanced stages (Lozano 2006a). Learners significantly prefer SV
to VS with unergatives, but VS to SV with unaccusatives in neutral contexts, as
Spanish natives do. But, at the syntax-discourse interface, narrow focused Ss in
sentence-final position are acquired late in both L2 Spanish and L2 Italian.
Typically, native-like knowledge is never attained, as learners show optionality
by simultaneously preferring both SV and VS with both verb types, while
Spanish natives clearly prefer the pragmatically adequate order: VS, irrespective
of verb type. Similar findings are reported for Greek learners of non-native
Spanish (Lozano 2006b) and learners of L2 Italian (Belletti & Leonini 2004).
4. L2 corpus evidence
4.1. Preliminary remarks
In the corpus study, we analyse in detail the production of VS in the writing of
Spanish learners of L2 English (Lozano & Mendikoetxea, submitted 2009).
Additional evidence comes from the corpus data of Spanish and Italian learners
of English (Lozano & Mendikoetxea 2008). The purpose of these studies was to
determine whether the properties that govern the occurrence of VS order in the
non-native grammars of Spanish and Italian learners of English are the same as
those operating in native English.
Though, as pointed out in section 2, English has fixed word order
determined by lexicon-syntactic properties, VS order is found in restricted
contexts, such as inversion constructions with an opening adverbial (XP V S), as
illustrated in (4) above, and there-constructions like those in (9), (from Biber et
al. 1999:945).
(9) a.
b.
c.
Somewhere deep inside there arose a desperate hope that he would
embrace her.
In all such relations there exists a set of mutual obligations in the
instrumental and economic fields.
There came a roar of pure delight.
XP V S structures like those in (4) and there-constructions in (9) are very
similar in their properties and are governed by features operating at three
interfaces: (i) lexicon-syntax, (ii) syntax-discourse and (iii) syntax-phonology.
Regarding (i), at the lexicon–syntax interface, Vs in inversion structures
are always unaccusative and they typically express existence and appearance
(exist, come, appear, arrive….), never unergative, as shown by the contrast
between the there-constructions in (10a) and (10b).
(10) a. There arrived four girls at the station
b. *There sang four girls at the opera
(unaccusative)
(unergative)
At the syntax–discourse interface (ii), the S in inversion structures and
there-constructions is often focus or relatively unfamiliar information (EndFocus Principle, Quirk et al. 1985), while the preverbal material often links the S
to previous discourse (relatively familiar information) (see Birner 1994, 1995;
Bresnan, 1994), as in (11), an example used in Birner (1995: 237).
(11) We have complimentary soft drinks and coffee. Also complimentary is red
and white wine.
Finally, at the syntax–phonology interface (iii), choice of ordering is also
influenced by phonological or syntactic heaviness: Long and complex elements
tend to be placed towards the end of the clause. This is the End-Weight Principle
(Quirk et al. 1985), as illustrated in (12) (a corpus example from Birner 1994:
254, underlining is ours) and other examples given here (e.g. (4c), (9a-b)).
(12) Michael puts loose papers like class outlines in the large file-size pocket.
He keeps his checkbook handy in one of the three compact pockets. The six
pen and pencil pockets are always full and in the outside pocket go his
schedule book, chap stick, gum, contact lens solution and hair brush.
[Land’s End March 1989 catalog. p. 95]
The conclusion is that subjects which are focus, long and complex tend to
occur postverbally in those structures which allow them, i.e., with the right
(sub)class of unaccusatives. In contrast, as we have seen, VS order in Spanish
and Italian is not restricted by properties at the lexicon-syntax interface, as all
Vs allow VS structures (though only unaccusatives appear in VS constructions
in neutral contexts), but it seems to be governed by properties at the syntaxdiscourse interface, particularly by the End-Focus Principle. As for the syntaxphonology interface, we are aware of no specific studies in Spanish/Italian
regarding heaviness, but we are assuming that in these languages heavy subjects
tend to be postponed, as this has been shown to be a universal processing
mechanism: placing long and complex elements towards the end of the sentence
reduces the processing burden and, thus, eases comprehension by the receiver
and/or facilitates planning and production (Hawkins 1994, Wasow 1997, 2002).
If this is so, the only difference between Italian and Spanish, on the one
hand, and English, on the other hand, concerns the lexicon-syntax interface: in
English VS is found only with unaccusative Vs, while in Spanish and Italian no
such restriction applies. If transfer applied in this area, then we would expect
learners to produce VS structures with all verb classes.
4.2. The phenomenon in SLA
VS order has received considerable attention in the literature, which focuses
mostly on the production of ungrammatical VS structures in L2 English by
speakers from a variety of L1’s, but the issue has been dealt with in quite a
scattered, unsystematic and rather intuitive fashion (see, among others, White
1986, Zobl 1989, Rutherford 1989, Oshita 2004). These studies, however, show
a remarkably consistent pattern: postverbal subjects are produced only with
unaccusatives, but never with unergatives, (13).
(13) a.
b.
c.
Sometimes comes a good regular wave. (L1 Japanese; Zobl 1989: 204)
On this particular place called G… happened a story which now
appears on all Mexican history books… (L1 Spanish; Rutherford 1989:
178-179)
The bride was very attractive, on her face appeared those two red
cheeks… (L1 Arabic; Rutherford 1989: 178-179)
This adds to other types of evidence which point towards the psychological
reality of the Unaccusative Hypothesis in L2 acquisition (inter alia, Balcom
1997, Hertel 2003, Hirakawa 1999, Ju 2000, Lozano 2006a, 2006b, Montrul
2004, Oshita 2000, Sorace 1993). This is so despite the fact that English lacks
overt marking for unaccusatives, rendering the unergative-unaccusative
distinction inaccessible: unaccusatives overwhelmingly appear in SV
constructions and there is no auxiliary or morphological marker for
unaccusatives. Thus, although inversion structures with unaccusatives are found
in English (see § 2 above), the rarity of the construction (Biber et al. 1999: 945)
makes it unlikely that such VS order is sufficiently represented in the input data
to learners to count as positive evidence.
These findings provide the theoretical basis for our analysis and will be
confirmed by our results but there is a crucial difference between our study and
previous studies: previous studies focused on the errors and the differences
between natives and learners, but our study emphasises the similarities between
them. Furthermore, while former studies have focused on the nature of V
(lexicon-syntax), we turn our attention to the properties of S in VS structures
(syntax-discourse; syntax-phonology). In previous work, we conducted a corpus
analysis of VS constructions by Spanish and Italian learners of English as an L2
and found all these conditions to be significant (see Lozano & Mendikoetxea
2008). We now expand our analysis of the Spanish learners data and compare
our results with those obtained from a comparable native English corpus.
4.3. Hypotheses
Our general hypothesis is that the conditions licensing VS in L2 English are
the same as those in native English, despite differences in syntactic encoding:
that is, learners are sensitive to the licensing mechanisms for VS structures, but
do not know how to encode them syntactically, thus producing both grammatical
and ungrammatical VS structures. Furthermore, we predict that unaccusativity is
a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for the occurrence of VS structures, as
there are conditions on S, as well as on V. Thus, we formulate the following
three hypotheses, (14).
(14) a.
b.
c.
H1: at the lexicon-syntax interface, VS order will be produced with
unaccusatives only (never with unergatives), as predicted by the
Unaccusative Hypothesis.
H2: at the syntax-phonological form interface, postverbal Ss tend to be
syntactically long and heavy (while preverbal Ss tend to be light), as
predicted by the End-Weight Principle.
H3: at the syntax-discourse interface, postverbal Ss tend to be new
information, focus (but preverbal Ss tend to be topic), as predicted by
the End-Focus Principle.
4.4. Method
We took as the basis for our search the inventory of intransitive Vs
proposed by Levin (1993) and Levin & Rappaport-Hovav (1995). In total, 73
lemmas (word types) (i.e., 32 unaccusatives and 41 unergatives) were searched
in the Spanish subcorpus of ICLE (Granger et al. 2002), and a comparable
corpus of L2 English we are collecting (WriCLE), making a total of over a
quarter of a million words (Table 1). We compared them against an equivalent
English native corpus (LOCNESS). We used the software WordSmith (Scott
2004) to extract nearly 2000 usable concordances.
Table 1: Corpora details
Learner corpus
ICLE-Spanish
WriCLE
Total no. of words:
Words
200,376
63,836
264,212
Native corpus
LOCNESS USarg
Words
288,177
288,177
4.5. Results and discussion
Figure 1 shows the production of postverbal Ss with unergatives and
unaccusatives (H1: lexicon-syntax). Neither the natives nor the learners
produced VS structures with unergatives like cough, cry, shout. By contrast, a
proportion of postverbal Ss were produced with unaccusatives like exist, appear,
arise: 2.3% in the English native corpus and 7.1% in the learner corpora. This
difference is small but statistically significant (χ2=19.7, p<0.01), but the crucial
fact is that both groups produce postverbal Ss only with unaccusatives, and
never with unergatives. This finding clearly replicates previous research and
clearly confirms H1 in (14a), as predicted by the Unaccusative Hypothesis.
Frequency of production (in %)
100%
100%
100%
(181/181) (185/185)
97.8%
92.9% (703/719)
(762/820)
Learners
Natives
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
0%
(0/181)
10%
0%
SV
VS
Unergative
7.1%
(58/820)
0%
(0/185)
SV
2.3%
(16/719)
VS
Unaccusative
Figure 1: SV and VS produced with intransitives
The most frequent structure for the Spanish group was ungrammatical
insertion of expletive it, followed by ungrammatical zero (Ø) insertion, (15a,b).
By contrast, English natives produced grammatical structures, mostly locotemporal XP-insertion and there-insertion, (16a,b). The conclusion is that both
natives and learners behave alike in the sense that they produced VS only with
unaccusatives, but our learners produce mostly ungrammatical structures (64%)
and there is overproduction of VS (with a particular overproduction bias for the
unaccusative V exist).
(15) a.
b.
*In the name of religion it had occurred many important events.
*…because Ø exist the science technology and the industrialisation.
(16) a.
b.
After De Gaulle came George Pompidou in 1969.
Certainly there exists a demand for this work to be done.
Regarding H2 (syntax-phonology) in (14b), postverbal Ss are more
frequently heavy than light in both corpora (Figure 2). Importantly, learners’
production rates do not significantly differ from natives’ (p=0.65). In other
words, both natives and learners tend to produce VS order with unaccusative Vs
when S is heavy, yet SV order when S is light. This finding supports H2, as
predicted by the End-Weight Principle.
Learners
Frequency of production (in %)
100%
81.0% 81.3%
(47/58) (13/16)
90%
80%
70%
Natives
67.7% 68.1%
(65/96) (62/91)
60%
50%
32.3% 31.9%
(31/96) (29/91)
40%
19.0%
(11/58)
30%
20%
18.8%
(3/16)
10%
0%
Light
Heavy
Light
SV
Heavy
VS
Figure 2: Weight of pre-verbal vs. post-verbal Ss with unaccusatives
Consider now H3 (syntax-discourse) in (14c). Postverbal Ss with
unaccusative Vs are overwhelmingly focus (that is, new or relatively unfamiliar
information), 100% in the native corpus and around 98% in the Spanish corpus
(Figure 3). By contrast, preverbal Ss with unaccusative Vs tend to be topic (that
is, old information), around 83% for the natives and 89% for the learners.
Importantly, learners’ production rates do not significantly differ from natives’
(χ2=1.49, p=0.22). These results confirm H3: learners produce VS structures
with unaccusative Vs when S is focus, yet SV structures are produced when S is
topic, as dictated by the End-Focus Principle.
Frequency of production (in %)
100%
90%
89.6%
(86/96)
98.3% 100.0%
(57/58) (16/16)
83.5%
(76/91)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
16.5%
10.4% (15/91)
(10/96)
20%
10%
0%
Top
Foc
SV
1.7%
(1/58)
0.0%
(0/16)
Top
Foc
VS
Figure 3: Information status of pre- vs. post-verbal unaccusative Ss
Learners
Natives
A final question is whether all these results are a result of L1 influence, or
rather, whether they are universal. In previous work, we have compared L1
Italian vs. L1 Spanish learners of L2 English (Lozano & Mendikoetxea 2008).
Both groups behaved identically and followed the same three general principles
discussed above, as English natives do, though learners produce ungrammatical
structures. We also have additional (but still preliminary) data from L1 French
learners of L2 English who behave similarly to the Italian and Spanish group.
Then, learners’ behavior seems to stem from general and developmental
principles.
5. Conclusion
While information status notions such as topic and focus are universal,
different languages realize them differently via syntax, morphology, intonation
or via a combination of these (Vallduví 1993, Vallduví & Engdahl 1996). Our
experimental results for adult L1 English learners of L2 Spanish suggest that
learners are sensitive to information status but are unable to encode it
syntactically with the pragmatically most adequate order, so they choose
optionally both orders.
Regarding our corpus studies, both Spanish and Italian learners of L2
English appear to be sensitive to discourse status (and weight effects) but show
persistent problems in the syntactic encoding of the construction and overuse the
construction (particularly, it-insertion structures). It can then be concluded that
L2 learners deficits are syntactic (and not discursive) in nature, as they show
persistent problems with the syntactic encoding of information status, yet they
are aware of the discursive principles governing information packaging.
Our studies also support a substantial body of research that considers the
Unaccusative Hypothesis to be psychologically real in L2: L2 learners are aware
of the argument structure distinction between unaccusative and unergative Vs
and use this as a guiding principle to construct L2 mental grammars. But
unaccusativity is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the acceptability
and/or the production of VS structures in non-native English. Crucially,
properties operating at both the syntax-discourse and the syntax-phonology
interfaces, relevant for a variety of word order phenomena in native English,
also play a crucial role in constituent ordering in L2 English.
References
Balcom, P. (1997). Why is this happened? Passive morphology and unaccusativity.
Second Language Research, 13(1), 1-9.
Belletti, A. (2001). "Inversion" as focalization . In A. Hulk & J. Pollock (Eds.), Subject
inversion in Romance and the theory of Universal Grammar (60-90). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Belletti, A. (2004). Aspects of the lower IP area. In L. Rizzi (Ed.), The Structure of CP
and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures (Vol. 2). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Belletti, A., & Leonini, C. (2004). Subject inversion in L2 Italian. In S. Foster-Cohen, M.
Sharwood Smith, A. Sorace, & O. Mitsuhiko (Eds.), EUROSLA yearbook (Volume
4) (95-118). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman
Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Birner, B. J. (1994). Information status and word order: An analysis of English inversion.
Language, 70(2), 233-259.
Biner, B. J. (1995). Pragmatic constraints on the verb in English inversion. Lingua, 97,
223-256.
Bresnan, J. (1994). Locative inversion and the architecture of Universal Grammar.
Language, 70(1), 72-131.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government & Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Domínguez, L. (2004). Mapping Focus: The Syntax and Prosody of Focus in Spanish.
Boston University: Unpublished PhD dissertation.
Georgiafentis, M. (2004). Focus and word order variation in Greek. University of
Reading: Unpublished PhD dissertation.
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., & Meunier, F. (Eds.). (2002). International Corpus of Learner
English. Louvain: UCL Presses Universitaires de Louvain.
Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hertel, T. J. (2003). Lexical and discourse factors in the second language acquisition of
Spanish word order. Second Language Research, 19(4), 273-304.
Hirakawa, M. (1999). L2 acquisition of Japanese unaccusative verbs by speakers of
English and Chinese. In K. Kanno (Ed.), The Acquisition of Japanese as a Second
Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ju, M. K. (2000). Overpassivization errors by second language learners: The effect of
conceptualizable agents in discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22,
85-111.
Koopman, H., & Sportiche, D. (1991.). The position of subjects. Lingua, 85(1), 211-258.
Levin, B. (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levin, B., & Rappaport-Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity at the Syntax-Lexical
Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MASS: MIT Press.
Lozano, C. (2006a). Focus and split intransitivity: The acquisition of word order
alternations in non-native Spanish. Second Language Research, 22(2), 1-43.
Lozano, C. (2006b). The development of the syntax-discourse interface: Greek learners of
Spanish. In V. Torrens & L. Escobar (Eds.), The Acquisition of Syntax in Romance
Languages (371-399). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lozano, C., & Mendikoetxea, A. (2008). Postverbal subjects at the interfaces in Spanish
and Italian learners of L2 English: a corpus analysis. In G. Gilquin, S. Papp, & B.
Díez (Eds.), Linking up Contrastive and Learner Corpus Research ( 85-125).
Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Lozano, C., & Mendikoetxea, A. (submitted 2009). Postverbal subjects in L2 English: A
corpus-based study.
Montrul, S. (2004). Psycholinguistic evidence for split intransitivity in Spanish second
language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 239-267.
Oshita, H. (2000). What is happened may not be what appears to be happening: a corpus
study of 'passive' unaccusatives in L2 English. Second Language Research, 16(4),
293-324.
Oshita, H. (2004). Is there anything there when there is not there? Null expletives and
second language data. Second Language Research, 20(2), 95-130.
Perlmutter, D. (1978). Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. In
Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Berkeley: University of California.
Pinto, M. (1997). Licensing and Interpretation of Inverted Subjects in Italian. Utrecht:
LEd.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar
of the English Language. London: Longman.
Rizzi, L. (1997). A parametric approach to comparative syntax: properties of the
pronominal system. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), The New Comparative Syntax (268-285).
London: Longman.
Rutherford, W. (1989). Interlanguage and pragmatic word order. In S. Gass & J.
Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition (163182). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scott, M. (2004). Oxford WordSmith Tools (version 4.0). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Sorace, A. (1993). Incomplete vs. divergent representations of unaccusativity in nonnative grammars of Italian. Second Language Research, 9(1), 22-47.
Vallduví, E. (1993). The Informational Component. University of Pennsylvania: IRCS
Technical Reports Series.
Vallduví, E., & Engdahl, E. (1996). The linguistic realization of information packaging.
Linguistics, 34(3), 459-519.
Wasow, T. (1997), End-weight from the speaker’s perspective. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 347-361.
Wasow, T. (2002). Postverbal Behavior. Stanford, California: CSLI.
White, L. (1986). Implications of parametric variation for adult second language
acquisition: an investigation of the Pro-drop parameter. In V. J. Cook (Ed.),
Experimental Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (55-72). Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Zagona, K. (2002). The Syntax of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zobl, H. (1989). Canonical typological structures and ergativity in English L2
acquisition. In S. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic Perspectives on Second
Language Acquisition (203-221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zubizarreta, M. L. (1998). Prosody, Focus, and Word Order. Cambridge, MASS: MIT
Press.