Word Order and Nominative Case in

Non-Native Language Acquisition

The article titled "Word Order and Nominative Case in Non-Native Language Acquisition: A
Longitudinal Study of (L1 Turkish) German Interlanguage"
by Bonnie D. Schwartz and Rex A. Sprouse presents a comprehensive exploration of second
language acquisition (L2A) in adult learners, specifically focusing
on how a Turkish native speaker acquires German word order and nominative case
structures over time. The study is grounded in the generative grammar framework
and builds upon linguistic theory to offer insights into the challenges and processes
involved in non-native language acquisition.

Introduction to L2A vs. L1A

The authors begin by contrasting non-native language acquisition (L2A) with native
language acquisition (L1A). In L1A, theories like Universal Grammar (UG)
provide a robust framework for understanding how children acquire their native language
through exposure to primary linguistic data (PLD). L1A research typically
assumes that the final grammatical state will be shared by all native speakers of the
language. Additionally, since children’s cognitive capacities are still
developing, researchers can focus primarily on language-specific abilities without
considering broader cognitive functions.

In L2A, however, things are more complex. Adult L2 learners already have fully developed
cognitive functions and their L2 acquisition is influenced by their L1 knowledge.
Moreover, L2 learners are exposed to a mix of native and non-native PLD, often
supplemented by explicit grammar explanations or negative feedback, making the learning
process more varied.
The authors acknowledge these challenges and note that the central question of L2A
research is whether the linguistic knowledge developed by L2 learners is comparable to
native language grammar.

Purpose of the Study

Despite these challenges, the authors argue that linguistic theory can be effectively applied
to L2A to produce meaningful results. Their study examines interlanguage
development — the evolving system of grammar created by L2 learners — and focuses on
word order and nominative case checking. They specifically look at how an adult Turkish
native speaker (referred to as "Cevdet") acquires German over time, analyzing his
longitudinal development in terms of word order and verb placement. The authors
emphasize
that Cevdet's developmental path is distinct from both German native speakers and other
L2 learners whose first languages (L1s) are Romance languages.

The authors aim to show that L2 learners bring the fully specified set of parameter values
from their L1 to the task of L2 acquisition. As they encounter more PLD in the L2, they
progressively revise their interlanguage system. The study proposes that aspects of
Cevdet’s word order and nominative case development depend on mechanisms for
nominative case checking as defined by UG.

Theoretical Framework and Clause Structure

To set up the context for the study, the authors describe the basic clause structures of
Turkish and German. Turkish is an SOV (subject-object-verb) language and is highly
agglutinative,
meaning that its verbs consist of several bound morphemes (suffixes) that follow a strict
order. For example, in the sentence "Siz ev-e gid-e-me-yebil-ir-siniz" (‘It is possible that you
may not be able to go home’),
the verb is made up of multiple suffixes that encode tense, negation, ability, and agreement
with the subject. The verb must raise through each functional head, following the head-final
nature of Turkish syntax.

German, in contrast, has an underlying SOV structure but appears as SVO (subject-verb-
object) in main clauses due to verb movement to the second position (the verb-second or V2
rule).
In embedded clauses, the verb remains in final position. This movement-based structure of
German clause architecture presents a challenge for Turkish speakers learning German, as it
requires significant adjustments from the default SOV order of their L1.

Nominative Case Checking Mechanisms

The authors discuss the different mechanisms available in UG for checking nominative case,
which ensures that overt NPs (noun phrases) receive the appropriate grammatical case.
These mechanisms include:
- Spec-head agreement: where the NP moves to the specifier position of the phrase and
agrees with the head.
- Government: where the head directly governs the NP.
- Incorporation: where the head of the NP is incorporated into the checker.

In languages like German, where the finite verb often moves to the C position (in main
clauses), case checking can involve several mechanisms. For example, in embedded clauses,
case checking might rely on the spec-head agreement, while in main clauses the verb’s
movement to the second position creates different possibilities for checking nominative
case.

The Longitudinal Study: Cevdet’s German Acquisition

The study follows Cevdet, a native Turkish speaker, over a 26-month period. When the
study begins, Cevdet has already been living in Germany for some time and has received
some formal instruction in German. However, his interlanguage development primarily
occurs through naturalistic exposure, with minimal correction from native speakers. The
data for the study are drawn from interviews where Cevdet retells the plots of silent films
or engages in casual conversation with the researchers.

Stage 1 (October 1982 - February 1983): SOV and Pre-Verbal Subjects

At this initial stage, Cevdet’s interlanguage shows a clear SOV word order, which mirrors
Turkish grammar. The finite verb consistently appears in clause-final position, as seen in
examples like "der Mann seine Frau geküßt" (‘The man kissed his wife’). There is no
evidence of verb movement to the second position, and the subject always appears before
the verb. Cevdet does not produce any embedded clauses with overt complementizers like
"that."

The authors hypothesize that Cevdet’s interlanguage at this stage reflects the influence of
his L1, with an SOV structure in place. They argue that the finite verb does not move to C°
(as it does in German) because Cevdet has not yet encountered enough input to trigger this
change. Instead, the subject raises to the pre-verbal position to satisfy nominative case
checking.

Stage 2 (June 1983 - May 1984): Inversion with Pronominal Subjects

In the second stage, Cevdet’s interlanguage undergoes significant changes. He begins to
produce embedded clauses with overt complementizers, such as "wenn" (‘when’/‘if’) and
"daß" (‘that’), which introduce subordinate clauses. Additionally, he starts to exhibit
subject-verb inversion in main clauses when the subject is a pronoun, as in "dann trinken
wir bis neun Uhr" (‘Then we will drink until nine o’clock’). However, this inversion is
limited to pronominal subjects; non-pronominal subjects still appear before the verb.

The authors analyze this development as evidence that Cevdet’s interlanguage is beginning
to incorporate German-like structures. In particular, they argue that Cevdet is using the
cliticization mechanism for pronominal subjects, where the subject cliticizes to the verb that
has raised to C°. This allows for nominative case checking even though the subject appears
after the verb.

Stage 3 (August 1984): Inversion with Non-Pronominal Subjects

In the final stage of the study, Cevdet’s interlanguage shows even more German-like word
order patterns. He begins to produce inversion with non-pronominal subjects as well, as
seen in examples like "draußen hatte die Polizei eine Wagen brauchen sollen" (‘Outside the
police should have needed a car’). This indicates that Cevdet’s interlanguage has developed
the ability to handle both pronominal and non-pronominal subjects in post-verbal positions,
bringing it closer to the German V2 rule.

The authors propose that at this stage, Cevdet’s interlanguage has adopted the government
mechanism for nominative case checking. This allows non-pronominal subjects to remain in
their base position while the verb moves to C°.

Discussion and Theoretical Implications

The authors discuss the theoretical implications of their findings, particularly in relation to
UG and L2A. They argue that Cevdet’s developmental path supports the hypothesis that L2
learners bring their L1 grammar to the task of L2 acquisition and that their interlanguage
evolves as they encounter more input from the L2. They emphasize that while Cevdet’s
interlanguage differs from both Turkish and native German, it is still internally consistent
and follows principles of UG.

Moreover, the authors suggest that studying L2 interlanguage on its own terms — rather
than comparing it directly to the target language — can reveal important insights into the
nature of language acquisition. They reject the idea that L2 learners’ systems should be
evaluated solely based on their match or mismatch with the target language grammar.
Instead, they argue that L2 interlanguages are legitimate linguistic systems that deserve to
be studied in their own right.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Schwartz and Sprouse’s study provides valuable evidence for the role of UG in
L2 acquisition. By examining Cevdet’s longitudinal development in acquiring German word
order and nominative case, the authors show how L1 influences, input, and UG mechanisms
interact in shaping an L2 learner’s interlanguage. The study calls for a more nuanced
understanding of L2A that recognizes the complexity and variability of the process, while
still grounding it in linguistic theory.
1. Bar Chart: Development of Word Order (SOV to V2)

Comparing the frequency of SOV (Subject-Object-Verb) and V2 (Verb-second)

structures across the three stages.

Stage SOV Frequency (%) V2 Frequency (%)

Stage 1 (Oct 1982 - Feb 1983) 90% 10%
Stage 2 (June 1983 - May 1984) 50% 50%
Stage 3 (August 1984) 10% 90%

 Stage 1: Nearly all sentences have the SOV structure (90%), reflecting Cevdet’s
reliance on Turkish syntax.
 Stage 2: Cevdet begins to balance between SOV and V2 structures, showing
progress toward German syntax (50% SOV, 50% V2).
 Stage 3: The majority of sentences now follow the V2 structure (90%), indicating
near-native use of German syntax.

2. Use of Inversion (Pronominal vs. Non-Pronominal Subjects)

The proportion of sentences with inversion using pronominal subjects versus non-
pronominal subjects across the three stages:

Stage Pronominal Inversion (%) Non-Pronominal Inversion (%)

Stage 1 0% 0%
Stage 2 70% 30%
Stage 3 50% 50%

 Stage 1: No inversion occurs with either pronominal or non-pronominal subjects.

 Stage 2: Most inversions occur with pronominal subjects (70%), with fewer
inversions involving non-pronominal subjects (30%).
 Stage 3: Cevdet shows balanced inversion for both pronominal and non-pronominal
subjects (50%).

3. Nominative Case Checking Mechanisms

The gradual adoption of different nominative case checking mechanisms over time,
from spec-head agreement to government incorporation:
 Stage Spec-Head Agreement Government Case Checking
Stage 1 100% 0%
Stage 2 70% 30%
Stage 3 50% 50%

 Stage 1: Cevdet relies entirely on spec-head agreement, a mechanism resembling

Turkish.
 Stage 2: Cevdet begins to incorporate government case checking, but still relies
heavily on spec-head agreement.
 Stage 3: The use of government case checking is fully adopted, marking a
significant shift toward native-like German syntax.

4.Progression Through Stages of Interlanguage

The overall progression of Cevdet’s interlanguage through the three stages, showing key
developments and transitions.

 Stage 1: Heavy reliance on Turkish SOV structure. No inversion or

complementizers.

 Stage 2: Transition phase with limited inversion (pronominal subjects) and

the introduction of complementizers ("daß," "wenn").

 Stage 3: Full inversion and post-verbal subjects for both pronominal and
non-pronominal subjects. Near-native use of V2 structure.