In a recent study of the clause-initial position in verb-second declaratives (the prefield), Bohnacker & Rosén (2008) found significant differences between native Swedish and German concerning the frequencies with which constituents occurred in the prefield, as well as qualitative differences concerning the mapping of information structure and linear word order: Swedish exhibited a stronger tendency than German to place new information, the so-called rheme, later in the clause. Swedish-speaking learners of German transferred these patterns from their L1 to German. Their sentences were syntactically well-formed but had Swedish-style prefield frequencies and a strong pattern of Rheme Later, which native Germans perceive as unidiomatic, as an acceptability judgment and a rewrite-L2texts task showed. The present study extends Bohnacker & Rosén's work in three ways. Learners of the reverse language combination (L1 German, L2 Swedish) are investigated to see whether similar phenomena also manifest themselves there. Secondly, written and oral data from highly advanced learners are examined to see whether the learners’ persistent problems can be overcome by extensive immersion (3, 6 and 9 years of L2 exposure). Thirdly, besides investigating theme–rheme (old vs. new information), some consideration is given to another information-structural level, background vs. focus. The learners are found to overuse the prefield at first, with non-Swedish, German-style frequency patterns (e.g. low proportions of clause-initial expletives and high proportions of clause-initial rhematic elements). This is interpreted as evidence for L1 transfer of information-structural or discourse-pragmatic preferences. After 6 and 9 years, a substantial increase in clause-initial expletive subjects, clefts and lightweight given elements is indicative of development towards the target. The findings are related to current generative theorizing on the syntax-pragmatics interface, where it is often maintained that the integration of multiple types of information is one of the hardest areas for L2 learners to master.

Differentiation between a cleft of the mitral valve and the cleft of the left side of an atrioventricular septal defect – a lesion commonly found in patients with Down's syndrome – is surgically important since the distribution of the conduction tissue varies between the 2 lesions. We sought to determine if cleft of the mitral valve occurs also in patients with Down's syndrome. We studied 5 patients with Down's syndrome and cleft of the mitral valve followed in our institution. Echocardiography showed in all 5 patients a cleft dividing the anterior (aortic) leaflet of mitral valve with normal papillary muscle position, mural leaflet size, and ratio of the inlet/outlet dimension of the left ventricle. Associated cardiac lesions were present in all 5 patients: perimembranous ventricular septal defect in 3, ostium secundum atrial septal defect in 2 and patent ductus arteriosus in 2 patients. During the 5.6 years (0.2–11) of the follow-up period, surgical repair of the cleft was never indicated since the mitral regurgitation through the cleft remained mild or absent in all the patients. Two patients underwent closure of a ventricular septal defect, with atrial septal defect closure in one and ductal ligation in 2. One patient died suddenly at home, without evidence of a cardiac cause. In conclusion, a cleft of the mitral valve has important developmental and morphologic differences with atrioventricular septal defect and may occur in patients with Down's syndrome. If surgical repair of the cleft or of associated cardiac lesion is indicated, it is necessary to distinguish it from atrioventricular septal defect where the conduction axis is displaced posteriorly and may be exposed during surgery.