This paper investigates the structure of syntactic peripheries in the colloquial speech produced by three groups: native users of Spanish, native users of Swedish, and Swedish very advanced users of L2 Spanish. The main aspect addressed is the distribution of left- and right-periphery constituents across three categories defined in semantic terms, viz. denotative, indexical and non-referential (pragmatic) expressions. Our research questions concern (1) to what extent two typologically distinct languages such as Spanish and Swedish differ in this respect, (2) to what extent the Spanish L2 productions align with native use, and (3) whether any transfer from Swedish occurs in the Spanish L2 formulations. The analysis shows important divergences between Spanish and Swedish native use, not only with regard to the size of the respective peripheries but also in the distribution across the three semantic categories. Thus, although in all three groups the proportion of pragmatic constituents is much larger than for the two other categories, this gap is considerably wider in the Swedish L1 data. As regards the Spanish L2 data, a high degree of alignment with native use can be reported, and hardly any transfer from Swedish can be found in these highly proficient L2 speakers. However, a certain overrepresentation of indexical expressions can be observed in the L2 data.

Este estudio se propone comparar la estructura de las periferias sintácticas tal y como se presenta en el habla coloquial de tres grupos: usuarios nativos de español y de sueco, así como usuarios suecos de español L2 muy avanzados. El aspecto que nos interesa es si la distribución de los constituyentes periféricos sobre diferentes categorías semánticas incide en la producción de los tres grupos comparados. Concretamente queremos medir en qué proporciones van representadas expresiones (1) denotativas, (2) indexicales y (3) no referenciales (pragmáticas) en las dos periferias sintácticas, la izquierda, así como la derecha. Más exactamente nos importa saber:-en qué medida dos lenguas tipológicamente distintas - el sueco y el español - se diferencian al respecto;-en qué medida la producción de español L2 se adapta al uso nativo;-si en el español L2 se nota transferencia de la L1 sueca.

El análisis muestra que el español L1 y el sueco L1 difieren notablemente con respecto a la extensión de las respectivas periferias, y también en lo que se refiere a la distribución de los constituyentes periféricos sobre las tres categorías semánticas. Así, aunque en los tres grupos de estudio la proporción de constituyentes pragmáticos supera la de los otros dos tipos, ese desnivel se ve mucho más pronunciado en sueco L1. Con respecto al español L2, los datos arrojan un fuerte grado de alineamiento con el español L1 y no hay prácticamente ninguna manifestación de transferencia del sueco en esos hablantes muy proficientes. Destaca, sin embargo, una cierta sobrerrepresentación de los constityuentes indexicales en la L2.

High-proficient Swedish users of L2 French and Spanish were compared with native speakers of French, Spanish and Swedish with regard to how the syntactic peripheries in natural colloquial speech are structured. Two different though interrelated aspects were included: thus a cross-linguistic analysis comparing the three native speaker groups is combined with an analysis addressing the question of the upper limits of L2 acquisition. All left peripheral (LP) and right peripheral (RP) constituents of a corpus of 110,759 words were classified in a taxonomy relying both on syntactic and functional-pragmatic criteria. The cross-linguistic analysis showed that French and Spanish L1 speakers produced significantly longer LP sequences than the Swedish L1 speakers, who, in turn, put conspicuously more weight on the RP. Significant differences between the three languages were also found with regard to several LP and RP constituent categories. The L2 acquisition-oriented analysis showed that with few exceptions the high-proficient L2 users behaved like L1 users. Although a few interlanguage-related phenomena could be observed, no instances of any clear transfer from the speaker's L1 appeared in either L2 speaker group.

Seven groups with ten people in each participated in a simulated activity in which they played the part of employees asking their boss for two days of leave. Four groups were made up of native speakers of British English, Metropolitan French, Chilean Spanish, and Swedish, respectively; the remaining three groups being non-native speakers of British English, Metropolitan French, and Chilean Spanish, with Swedish as their L1, who were long-time residents of their respective host countries. The aim of the study was to investigate the patterns of impression management that emerged in the different participant groups. Two dimensions of comparison were in focus: one regarding intercultural differences between the native speaker groups, and the other concerning non-native speakers' alignment with local patterns of behavior. The analysis shows little variation among the three groups with regard to profession-oriented strategies, whereas divergences related to affective variables were considerably greater. The non-native speakers exhibited a generally high degree of alignment to local patterns in all three national contexts, although lower degrees of alignment appeared with regard to variables specifically reflecting common Swedish national self-images.

The last two decades have seen an increasing interestin what characterizes the left and right sentenceperipheries. This paper is the partial account of aresearch project at Stockholm University which aims atcomparing highly proficient Swedish users of L2 Frenchand Spanish with native speakers with regard to howthey structure the syntactic peripheries in naturalcolloquial speech. In the present context, however, onlySpanish and Swedish will be accounted for. Theanalysis contains two aspects: on the one hand, atypological study comparing native speakers of the twolanguages and, on the other hand, a study addressingthe question of the upper limits of L2 acquisition whilecomparing Spanish L1 and L2 speakers, the latterhaving Swedish as their L1.Results addressing the firstaspect show that native speakers of Spanish put moreweight on the left periphery than do native speakers ofSwedish, who, in turn, put considerably more weight onthe right periphery, thus showing a clear typologicaldifference. As regards the second, acquisitional aspect,the behaviour of the high-proficient L2 speakers closelyresembles that of the native speakers, with only a fewalbeit interesting exceptions. On the other hand, noclear instances of L1 transfer can be observed in theSpanish L2 productions.

Las dos últimas décadas han visto crecer el interés enlas denominadas periferias sintácticas, la de izquierdaasí como la de derecha. Deriva la presente contribuciónde un proyecto que se va realizando en Estocolmo ycuyo objetivo es comparar la actuación de suecos muyproficientes en español y francés L2 con la de hablantesnativos de una y otra lengua. En esta comunicación seenfocarán los usos del español L1 y L2 así como delsueco L1. Por un lado, se aplica una perspectivatipológica al examinar en qué aspectos difieren laspautas del español L1 de las del sueco L1. Por el otrolado, se toma en cuenta la perspectiva adquisicional alformular la pregunta de hasta qué punto llega aparecerse el comportamiento de hablantes no nativos,aunque muy proficientes, a la pauta nativa. Conrespecto al primer parámetro, resulta que la lenguaespañola muestra una tendencia considerablementemayor que la sueca a colocar elementos a la izquierdadel núcleo oracional, mientras la lengua sueca arrojauna preferencia, más clara todavía, por la colocación enperiferia de derecha. En relación con el segundoparámetro, salta al ojo la gran similitud entre loshablantes de español L1 y L2, dándose solo pocasaunque interesantes excepciones. Además, no sepuede constatar ningún indicio claro de transferenciade la L1 sueca en los hablantes de español L2.

In this study, a negotiation interaction is analysed in three groups of native speakers of British English, Chilean Spanish and Swedish and in two groups of Swedish speakers of L2 English and L2 Spanish. The participants were asked to perform a task as ‘employees’ who phone their ‘boss’ in order to ask for a two-day leave – an activity in which both argumentative and rapport management strategies are foregrounded. The non-native speakers were all long-time residents in their respective host communities (Britain and Chile), they were all highly proficient in their L2, and they could thus be expected to be highly integrated in and familiar with their corresponding socio-cultures. The study involves several planes of comparison and includes the following research questions: (1) What consistent differences can be found between the three native groups with regard to categories and distribution of argumentative and rapport management strategies? (2) To what extent do the English- and Spanish-speaking non-native speakers act like their corresponding native speaker groups? (3) Can transfer from ‘Swedish’ patterns be detected in the non-native speaker groups? (4) Are there any specific ‘L2 speaker characteristics’ to be found in the L2 productions? (5) Can alignment be found to take place more easily among the Swedish participants in one target environment than in the other? The principal aspects examined in the dialogues are the ways in which the ‘employees’ prepare the ground for their request, the extent to which emotional vs. factual arguments are used, and  the amount and nature of repair work occurring in the dialogues after an agreement has been reached by the parties.  Our results show considerable differences between the three L1 groups, especially as regards how power distance and social distance are managed both by ‘employees’ and ‘bosses’. As regards L2 speaker behavior, alignment with target community patterns largely prevails and few instances of L1 transfer do occur. Finally, communicative clashes are found to take place more often in the Swedish-Spanish encounters than in the Swedish-English ones, arguably due to a wider cultural distance between Chilean and Swedish socio-cultures.

Tras décadas de predominio de una ideología que proscribe el uso de la lengua de base en la enseñanza de lenguasextranjeras y reduce la posibilidad de aplicarle un enfoque contrastivo,se reanima hoy día el debate sobre las ventajas y desventajas de una yotra orientación pedagógica. La presente contribución contempla daruna visión de conjunto sobre el campo y abogar por un uso juicioso de la lengua de base así como también por la aplicación de una perspectiva contrastiva, no solo en la clase de lengua extranjera sino también en otros contextos, como el aicle, la clase de lengua segundaen su comunidad meta, o la enseñanza de lenguas de herencia.

After several decades in which the prevailing ideologyregarding language use in the foreign language classroom has been toproscribe the use of the L1, a posture which has practically eliminatedthe possibility of applying a contrastive approach, a new debate hasarisen about the pros and cons of the two opposing pedagogies. Thiscontribution aims at presenting an overview of the field as well asgiving strong arguments in favor of both a judicious use of the L1 anda contrastive approach in foreign and second language teaching. Itis argued that this approach is relevant not only to the FL classroombut also to other contexts such as clil education, sl classes and theteaching of heritage languages

Depuis plusieurs décennies de dominance d’uneidéologie qui bannit l’usage de la l1 dans l’enseignement des languesétrangères et réduit les possibilités d’application d’une approchecontrastive, le débat ressurgit sur les avantages et désavantages desdeux pédagogies opposées. L’objectif de la contribution présente estde donner une vue d’ensemble sur ce champ ainsi que de présenterdes arguments convaincants non seulement en appui d’un recoursjudicieux à la l1, mais aussi en défense de l’approche contrastive,dans la classe de langues. Il est soutenu qu’une telle approche pourraêtre appliquée non seulement à la classe le traditionnelle mais aussià des contextes tels que l’enseignement emile, les classes de languessecondes offertes dans la communauté cible et l’enseignement deslangues-patrimoine.

Elicited conversations with participants engaged in a problematic negotiation with their boss were analyzed in groups of native speakers of British English, Chilean Spanish and Swedish, and in groups of Swedish speakers of L2 English and L2 Spanish (longtime residents in their host community and highly proficient in their L2). Two planes of comparison were involved: cross-culturally, addressing differences between the native groups, and, inter-culturally, addressing interaction between natives and non-natives. Results show considerable distance between the three L1 groups, especially regarding how power distance and social distance are managed both by the ‘employees’ and the ‘bosses’. As regards L2 speaker behavior, alignment with target community patterns largely prevails and few instances of L1 transfer occur. Communicative clashes are found to take place more often in the Swedish-Spanish encounters than in the Swedish-English ones, arguably due to the wider cultural distance between the Chilean and Swedish socio-cultures.