German and Swedish are two closely related languages and 80 % of the Swedish words are related to the German language. Even so, the preferences of how you structure information in the two languages differ. The differences are especially visible in the so called prefield and therefore, this sentence initial position stands in focus in this study. To find out what differences there are in the prefield in German and Swedish, not only parts of the German book Die Wand and the Swedish book Isprinsessan have been examined, but also parts of the German translation Die Eisprinzessin schläft. The two books Die Wand and Isprinsessan have been compared to find out what differences there are in the prefield in the two languages. The comparison of Isprinsessan and Die Eisprinzessin schläft had the purpose to show if the translator has chosen to follow the Swedish or the German preferences of how to structure information. The main question of this study is what differences are to be found in the sentence initial position when you compare a Swedish text with its German translation. The results of the analyses showed, that the most striking differences were, that subjects and expletives are more common in the Swedish prefield than in the German, while in the German language you often find adverbials in the prefield. This was also distinct when Isprinsessan and the German translation Die Eisprinzessin schläft were compared. When a subject was found in the prefield in the Swedish text, an adverbial was often found in the German text. This shows, that German and Swedish have different preferences when it comes to structuring information in sentences.

This paper presents an explorative study of informal written narratives and oral picture descriptions in the native language as well as in the second language (L2) of six intermediate/advanced Dutch L1 learners of Swedish. Data from six Swedish L1 native controls, performing the same tasks as the learners, were also collected. Quantifications forthe following aspects of information structure were made for the transcribed oral descriptions: 1) reference introduction, including occurrences of spatial/existential constructions, 2) reference maintenance per type and finally 3) elements in the prefield. For the written material, elements in the prefield were analysed. Pronouns in all clausal positions andadverbials in the prefield were analysed in detail for both oral and written material. The following research questions were asked: Do Dutch L1 and Swedish L1 differ in their patterns of information structure within the area of referent introductions and maintenance and prefield constituents in picture descriptions? Do the L2 learners adhere to the target language(Swedish) patterns, the patterns of their mother tongue (Dutch), or does the interlanguage exhibit different patterns? In the written data, differences in percentages for prefield constituents emerged where Dutch L1 showed a more adverbial-initial pattern. No major differences were found in the oral data, where both languages exhibited a pattern of two thirds subject-initial clauses and one third adverbial-initial clauses. Some further differences were found concerning the distribution of subtypes of prefield constituents (such as place adverbials, subject pronouns, subject NP’s). Concerning the perspectives taken for referent introduction, Dutch L1 was slightly more spatial than Swedish L1. However, both languages exhibited a predominantly existential perspective. Substantial individual variation was foundin all three language varieties and for all features investigated. The learners in their Swedish L2 mainly followed the norms of the L2, but also showed patterns similar to those of their L1 as well as patterns neither connected to the L1 or the L2. The strict dichotomy ofspatial/existential perspective of referent introduction proposed by e.g. Carroll et al. (2000) was found to exclude many cases of referent introduction. Drawbacks of the present study are the small quantity of data and the lack of comparable studies; thus, this subject and language combination need to be researched further.

This paper presents an explorative ‘pilot’ study made of oral picture descriptions in the nativetongue as well as in the target language of an intermediate Dutch L1 learner of Swedish (L2).Three Swedish L1 native controls were also recorded describing the same pictures. Therecordings were transcribed, coded and quantitatively analysed for the following aspects ofinformation structure: 1) referent introduction and 2) referent maintenance per type, 3)constituents in the prefield (i.e. clause-initial position) and 4) occurrences ofspatial/existential constructions of referent introduction. The research questions were: DoDutch L1 and Swedish L1 differ in their patterns of information structure in the area ofreferent introduction and maintenance, concerning prefield constituents in picturedescriptions? Does the L2 learner adhere to the target language (Swedish) patterns, thepatterns of his mother tongue (Dutch) or does the interlanguage exhibit different patterns?Differences in frequency emerged, where the Dutch L1 data had substantially higher rates ofsubjects in the prefield than Swedish L1 and where the perspective taken for referentintroduction was largely existential. On the other hand, Swedish L1 showed a greatervariation in the prefield and a pattern of referent introduction that was both spatial andexistential. The learner followed the patterns of his native tongue, in his L2 Swedish, wherethe patterns differed from those of Swedish L1. Transfer was found to be a likely cause ofthis, even though other explanations are not excluded by the results. The strict dichotomy ofspatial/existential perspective of referent introduction proposed by e.g. Carroll et al. (2000)was found to exclude many cases of referent introduction. The main problem with the presentstudy was the small quantity of data, as well as the lack of comparable studies; it is thereforerecommended to repeat this study using a larger amount of data.