Microvariation as diachrony: A view from acquisition

  • Marit WestergaardEmail author
Original Paper


Based on spontaneous speech data from adults and children in an acquisition corpus, this paper discusses ‘optional’ verb-second (V2) word order in wh-questions in present-day Norwegian dialects, arguing that the variation is due to a diachronic change in progress. The argument is based on the nature of the variation and the frequencies with which the different wh-questions are attested in typical child-directed speech. The paper takes a microparametric approach to V2 which assumes the existence of many V2 grammars, differing from each other with respect to information structure and the status of the various wh-elements. These grammars are learnable because children are sensitive to minor but linguistically relevant distinctions in the acquisition process. Nevertheless, certain distinctions are vulnerable to change if the corresponding cues are expressed in the children’s input with a very low frequency. On this perspective, gradual historical development may be considered to be the result of many small I-language changes in succession.


Dialect variation Economy Information structure Input frequency Micro-cues Norwegian Subcategories Verb second (V2) Wh-questions Word order 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Åfarli, Tor. 1986. Some syntactic structures in a dialect of Norwegian. Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 93–111. University of Trondheim.Google Scholar
  2. Anderssen, Merete. 2006. The acquisition of compositional definiteness in Norwegian. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
  3. Bayer, Josef. 2004. Decomposing the left periphery: Dialectal and cross-linguistic evidence. In The syntax and semantics of the left periphery, eds. H. Lohnstein, and S. Trissler, 59–95. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  4. Bayer, Josef. 2007. Variation in der linken Satzperipherie des Bairischen (und verwandter Dialekte). Talk given at workshop on Neue Tendenzen in der deutschen Dialektologie: Morphologie und Syntax, 13–14 December, Università degli Studi di Verona.Google Scholar
  5. Bayer, Josef, and Ellen Brandner. 2008. On Wh-head movement and the doubly-filled-comp filter. WCCFL 26 Proceedings, 87–95. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
  6. Bech, Kristin. 2001. Word order patterns in old and middle english: A syntactic and pragmatic study. Doctoral dissertation, University of Bergen.Google Scholar
  7. Birner, Betty. 1995. Pragmatic constraints on the verb in English inversion. Lingua 97: 233–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bresnan, Joan, and Tatiana Nikitina. 2007. The gradience of the dative alternation. In Reality Exploration and discovery: Pattern interaction in language and life, eds. L. Uyechi, and L. H. Wee. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  9. Bull, Tove. 1990. Tromsø bymål [The Tromsø dialect]. In Den store dialektboka, ed. E. H. Jahr, 217–221. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
  10. Cardinaletti, Anna, and Michal Starke. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency: On the three grammatical classes. In Clitics in the languages of Europe 8, empirical approaches to language typology, ed. H. van Riemsdijk, 145–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. Bare phrase structure. In Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory, eds. H. Campos, and P. Kempchinsky, 51–109. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Clahsen, Harald, Sonja Eisenbeiss, and Anne Vainikka. 1994. The seeds of structure: a syntactic analysis of the acquisition of case marking. In Language acquisition studies in generative grammar, eds. T. Hoekstra, and B. D. Schwartz, 85–118. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  14. Clahsen, Harald, Sonja Eisenbeiss, and Martina Penke. 1996. Lexical learning in early syntactic development. In Generative perspectives on language acquisition: Empirical findings, theoretical considerations and crosslinguistic comparison [Language acquisition and language disorders 14], ed. H. Clahsen, 129–159. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  15. Faarlund, Jan Terje. 2004. The syntax of Old Norse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Haeberli, Eric. 2002. Inflectional morphology and the loss of verb-second in English. In Syntactic effects of morphological change, ed. D. Lightfoot, 88–106. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hinterhölzl, Roland, and Svetlana Petrova. (Eds.). 2009. Information structure and language change: New approaches to word order variation in Germanic. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. (in press)Google Scholar
  18. Iversen, Ragnvald. 1918. Syntaksen i Tromsø bymaal [The Syntax of the Tromsø Dialect]. Kristiania: Bymaalslagets forlag.Google Scholar
  19. Kroch, Anthony, and Ann Taylor. 1997. Verb movement in Old and Middle English: Dialect variation and language contact. In Parameters of morphosyntactic change, eds. A. van Kemenade, and N. Vincent, 297–325. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Lie, Svein. 1992. Ka du sei? [What are you saying?]. Maal og Minne 1992: 62–77.Google Scholar
  21. Lightfoot, David. 1999. The development of language: Acquisition, change and evolution. Malden, MA/Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  22. Lightfoot, David. 2006. How new languages emerge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lightfoot, David, and Marit Westergaard. 2007. Language acquisition and language change: Inter-relationships. Language and Linguistics Compass 15: 396–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Munaro, Nicola, Cecilia Poletto, and Jean-Yves Pollock. 2001. Eppur si mouve! On comparing French and Bellunese wh-movement. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 1: 147–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nordgård, Torbjørn. 1985. Word order, binding and the empty category principle. University of Trondheim: Cand. Philol thesis.Google Scholar
  26. Pintzuk, Susan. 1991. Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in old English word order. University of Pennsylvania: PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
  27. Platzack, Christer. 1996. The initial hypothesis of syntax: a minimalist perspective on language acquisition and attrition. In Generative perspectives on language acquisition: Empirical findings, theoretical considerations, crosslinguistic comparisons, ed. H. Clahsen, 369–414. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  28. Poletto, Cecilia, and Jean-Yves Pollock. 2004. On wh-clitics and wh-doubling in French and some North Eastern Italian dialects. Probus 16: 241–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Poletto, Cecilia, and Jean-Yves Pollock. 2009. Wh-questions in Romance: The case of Mendrisiotto and some of its consequences for the analysis of French Wh-in situ. In proceedings from going romance 2007, ed. L. Wenzel. Amsterdam: Benjamins. (in press)Google Scholar
  30. Radford, Andrew. 1990. Syntactic theory and the acquisition of English syntax. Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  31. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar: Handbook of generative syntax, ed. L. Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  32. Rizzi, Luigi. 2001. On the position “Int(errogative)” in the left periphery of the clause. In Current studies in Italian syntax, eds. G. Cinque, and G. Salvi, 287–296. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  33. Roeper, Thomas. 2007. What frequency can do and what it can’t. In Frequency effects in language acquisition: Defining the limits of frequency as an explanatory concept [Studies on Language Acquisition], eds. I. Gülzow, and N. Gagarina, 23–48. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  34. Santelmann, Lynn. 1997. Wh-less questions in early Swedish: An argument for continuity, CP and operators. In Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 15, eds. S. Someshakar, K. Yamakoshi, M. Blume, C. Foley, 217–253.Google Scholar
  35. Schönenberger, Manuela. 2006. A glimpse of doubly filled COMPs in Swiss German. In Organizing grammar. Linguistic studies in honour of Henk van Riemsdijk, eds. H. Broekhuis, N. Corver, R. Huybregts, U. Kleinhenz, and J. Koster, 572–581. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  36. Schönenberger, Manuela. 2007. ‘Optional’ doubly-filled COMPs (DFCs) in wh-complements in child and adult Swiss German. Ms., University of Oldenburg.Google Scholar
  37. Sollid, Hilde. 2003. Dialektsyntaks i Nordreisa: Språkdannelse og stabilisering i møtet mellom kvensk og norsk [Dialect syntax in Nordreisa: language creation and stabilization in a contact situation between Kven-Finnish and Norwegian]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
  38. Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1986. On verb second and the functional content of syntactic categories. In Verb second phenomena in Germanic languages, eds. H. Haider, and M. Prinzhorn, 7–25. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  39. van Gelderen, Elly. 2004. Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  40. van Kemenade, Ans. 1987. Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of English. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  41. Vangsnes, Øystein A. 2005. Microparameters for Norwegian wh-grammars. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 5: 187–226. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vangsnes, Øystein A. 2007. Pinning down fluctuating grammars: On main clause wh-syntax across Norwegian dialects. Talk given at NLVN seminar “Dialogue between paradigms”, Schæffergården 12–15 October.Google Scholar
  43. Venås, Kjell. 1993. On the choice between two written standards in Norway. In Language conflict and language planning, ed. E. H. Jahr, 263–278. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  44. Vikør, Lars S. 1995. The Nordic languages: Their status and interrelations. Nordic language secretariat publication no. 14. Oslo: Novus Press.Google Scholar
  45. Weiß, Helmut. 2001. On two types of natural languages: Some consequences for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics 27: 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Westergaard, Kristin M. 2005. En studie av ordstillingen i hv-spørsmål blant ungdom i Tromsø [A study of the word order in wh-questions among young people in Tromsø]. Project paper, Kongsbakken videregående skole, Tromsø.Google Scholar
  47. Westergaard, Erik A. 2007. En undersøkelse av spørsmålsordstilling i Tromsødialekten [A study of question word order in the Tromsø dialect]. Project paper, Kongsbakken videregående skole, Tromsø.Google Scholar
  48. Westergaard, Marit R. 2003. Word Order in wh-questions in a North Norwegian dialect: Some evidence from an acquisition study. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 26(1): 81–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Westergaard, Marit R. 2005a. Optional word order in wh-questions in two Norwegian dialects: A diachronic analysis of synchronic variation. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28(2): 269–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Westergaard, Marit R. 2005b. Norwegian child language and the history of English: The interaction of syntax and information structure in the development of word order. In Contextshistorical, social, linguistic. Studies in celebration of Toril Swan, eds. K. McCafferty, T. Bull, and K. Killie, 293–410. Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
  51. Westergaard, Marit R. 2007a. Learning and unlearning V2: On the robustness of the triggering experience in a historical perspective. In Proceedings of the XXXII Incontro di grammatica generativa, eds. M. C. Picchi, and A. Pona, 193–207. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
  52. Westergaard, Marit. 2007b. English as a mixed V2 grammar: Synchronic word order inconsistencies from the perspective of first language acquisition. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 43(2): 107–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Westergaard, Marit R., and Øystein A. Vangsnes. 2005. Wh-questions, V2, and the left periphery of three Norwegian dialects. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 8: 117–158.Google Scholar
  54. Westergaard, Marit, and Kristine Bentzen. 2007. The (non-) effect of input frequency on the acquisition of word order in Norwegian embedded clauses. In Frequency effects in language acquisition: Defining the limits of frequency as an explanatory concept [Studies on language acquisition], eds. I. Gülzow, and N. Gagarina, 271–306. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  55. Wexler, Kenneth. 1999. Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. In Language acquisition: Knowledge representation and processing, special issue of Lingua, eds. A. Sorace, C. Heycock, and R. Shillock, 23–79. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Tromsø—CASTL/NORMSTromsøNorway

Personalised recommendations