Westergaard (2009): Micro-Cues, Information Structure, and Economy #
@cite{westergaard-2009}
Marit Westergaard. The Acquisition of Word Order: Micro-Cues, Information Structure, and Economy. Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 145. John Benjamins, 2009.
Core Claim #
V2 is not a single parameter. It decomposes into micro-parameters: one per clause-type head in a split-CP (ForceP) domain. Each micro-parameter is independently settable to + (verb movement to that head) or − (no verb movement). Different Germanic languages and dialects are characterized by different profiles of + and − across these heads.
The book distinguishes two levels:
- Micro-parameters (Table 3.1): settings in the adult grammar
- Micro-cues (Ch. 3 §4, Ch. 10 §3): observable input patterns that trigger each parameter setting in acquisition
Formalization #
ForceHead: the seven clause-type heads (theory layer)V2Profile:Profile ForceHead(theory layer; set of active heads)- Language profiles: per-language Fragment files write set literals
MicroCue: syntactic templates from Ch. 3 §4- Bridge theorems to SAI data, V2 data, and GermanicV2
- Information Structure: [±FOC] conditioning of "optional" V2
Adjacent literature #
- @cite{holmberg-2015} (HSK 42 handbook entry on Verb second) is the standard recent survey of V2 covering the same Pol°/Int°/Decl° split Westergaard formalizes.
- @cite{wiklund-bentzen-hroarsdottir-hrafnbjargarson-2009} elaborates embedded-V2 micro-variation across Scandinavian that-clauses, conditioning embedded V2 on matrix predicate class — a dimension Table 3.1 collapses.
The Split-ForceP Model #
@cite{westergaard-2009} splits @cite{rizzi-1997}'s ForceP into
clause-type-specific projections. All seven heads are in the CP domain
(above FinP). Crucially, the distinctions among Decl°, Int°, Pol°, Excl°,
Imp° are finer than @cite{rizzi-1997}'s inventory — they are all
"flavors of Force" that the existing Cat enum does not distinguish.
Fin° and Wh° do correspond to existing Cat heads (.Fin and .C
respectively), but the five Force-level heads (Decl°, Int°, Pol°, Excl°,
Imp°) are all at the Force level. Note: @cite{westergaard-2009}'s Pol°
is a CP-domain head for yes/no-questions (the verb-fronting target;
y/n questions surface as V1, with Spec-PolP either empty or hosting
a covert Q-operator depending on analysis — @cite{roberts-1993},
Rizzi 1996 posit a Q-operator satisfying a wh-criterion; the V1
surface order is what .Pol records, theory-neutrally).
NOT @cite{laka-1990}'s ΣP
(which is Cat.Pol in linglib at F-value 2).
Shared types for describing V2 word order variation.
Clause types relevant to V2 variation.
- declarative : V2ClauseType
- whQuestion : V2ClauseType
- yesNoQuestion : V2ClauseType
- exclamative : V2ClauseType
- imperative : V2ClauseType
- embeddedDecl : V2ClauseType
- embeddedQuestion : V2ClauseType
Instances For
Equations
- Westergaard2009.instDecidableEqV2ClauseType x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Equations
- Westergaard2009.instDecidableEqV2Status x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- Westergaard2009.instReprV2Status = { reprPrec := Westergaard2009.instReprV2Status.repr }
A single V2 observation: what happens in a given clause type.
- sentence : String
- language : String
- clauseType : V2ClauseType
- v2Status : V2Status
- description : String
- citation : String
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- Westergaard2009.instReprV2Datum = { reprPrec := Westergaard2009.instReprV2Datum.repr }
@cite{westergaard-2009}'s Table 3.1 enumerates V2 micro-parameter
settings for six Germanic varieties (Standard Norwegian, Standard
English, Nordmøre Norwegian, Belfast English, German, Danish).
Each row is a V2Profile set literal in the corresponding Fragment
file; the theorem below pins down all six rows simultaneously, so
flipping a single field in a Fragment breaks one conjunct.
-- UNVERIFIED: page reference for Table 3.1 (cited as p. 41 in earlier
-- drafts of this file) has not been independently checked against
-- the published Benjamins edition.
Ch. 3 §4 introduces the cues — the syntactic templates in the input that trigger each micro-parameter. A micro-cue is a piece of I-language structure that children produce on exposure to the relevant input. Ch. 10 §3 (34)–(37) gives the final formulations.
The distinction from Table 3.1: micro-parameters are the *grammar's*
settings; micro-cues are the *observable evidence* in the input
that leads children to set each parameter.
Final micro-cue formulations (Ch. 10 (34)–(37)):
- (34) DeclP[XP Decl°[+V] ...] — V2 in declaratives
- (35) IntP[wh Int°[+V] ...] — V2 in wh-questions (wh-phrase in SpecIntP)
- (36) IntP[wh[Int°] ...] — non-V2 in wh-questions (wh-head *in* Int°)
- (37) TopP[DP[−FOC] Top° IntP[wh[Int°] ...]] — given subject → non-V2
NOTE: (36) and (37) are the two key innovations. (36) captures the
wh-head/phrase distinction: monosyllabic wh-words are heads that
occupy Int° directly, blocking verb movement. (37) captures the
TopP/[±FOC] mechanism: given subjects ([−FOC]) move to SpecTopP,
which is the structural basis for the information-structure
conditioning of V2 in § 10 below.
A micro-cue: a syntactic template that serves as evidence for a particular micro-parameter setting in acquisition.
- target : Minimalist.ForceHead
Which head this cue is evidence for
- template : String
The syntactic template (schematic notation)
- description : String
Description of the cue
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- Westergaard2009.instReprMicroCue = { reprPrec := Westergaard2009.instReprMicroCue.repr }
Cue for V2 in wh-questions.
Equations
- Westergaard2009.cueIntV2 = { target := Minimalist.ForceHead.Int, template := "IntP[wh Int°V]", description := "Wh-element in SpecIntP, finite verb raised to Int°" }
Instances For
Cue for V2 in declaratives.
Equations
- Westergaard2009.cueDeclV2 = { target := Minimalist.ForceHead.Decl, template := "DeclP[XP Decl°V]", description := "Non-subject XP in SpecDeclP, finite verb raised to Decl°" }
Instances For
Cue for V2 in exclamatives.
Equations
- Westergaard2009.cueExclV2 = { target := Minimalist.ForceHead.Excl, template := "ExclP[wh Excl°V]", description := "Wh-exclamative with finite verb raised to Excl°" }
Instances For
Cue for V2 in embedded questions.
Equations
- Westergaard2009.cueWhV2 = { target := Minimalist.ForceHead.Wh, template := "WhP[wh Wh°V]", description := "Embedded question with finite verb raised to Wh°" }
Instances For
Cue for non-V2 in exclamatives.
Equations
- Westergaard2009.cueExclNonV2 = { target := Minimalist.ForceHead.Excl, template := "ExclP[wh ... VP[V]]", description := "Exclamative with verb remaining in VP (no verb movement to Excl°)" }
Instances For
Cue for non-V2 in embedded questions.
Equations
- Westergaard2009.cueWhNonV2 = { target := Minimalist.ForceHead.Wh, template := "WhP[wh ... VP[V]]", description := "Embedded question with verb remaining in VP" }
Instances For
Cue for V2 in yes/no-questions.
Equations
- Westergaard2009.cuePolV2 = { target := Minimalist.ForceHead.Pol, template := "PolP[Pol°V ...]", description := "Finite verb raised to Pol° in yes/no-questions" }
Instances For
Cue for V2 in imperatives.
Equations
- Westergaard2009.cueImpV2 = { target := Minimalist.ForceHead.Imp, template := "ImpP[Imp°V ...]", description := "Finite verb raised to Imp° in imperatives" }
Instances For
Cue for wh-head-in-Int° (non-V2 in wh-questions). Ch. 10 (36): IntP[wh[Int°] ...] — the monosyllabic wh-word occupies Int° itself, blocking verb movement to that position.
Equations
- Westergaard2009.cueWhHeadInInt = { target := Minimalist.ForceHead.Int, template := "IntP[wh[Int°] ...]", description := "Wh-head occupies Int°, blocking verb movement (Ch. 10 (36))" }
Instances For
Cue for given-subject-blocking-V2 in Tromsø monosyllabic wh-questions. Ch. 10 (37): TopP[DP[−FOC] Top° IntP[wh[Int°] ...]] — the [−FOC] subject moves to SpecTopP, leaving Int° empty (verb stays low → non-V2). The TopP/[±FOC] mechanism is what derives the information-structure conditioning of "optional" V2 in § 10.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
A cue is expressed in a language iff its target head is in the
language's V2Profile. Children exposed to an expressed cue will
set the corresponding parameter to +.
Equations
- Westergaard2009.CueExpressed lang c = (c.target ∈ lang)
Instances For
Equations
- Westergaard2009.instDecidableCueExpressedOfDecidablePredForceHeadMemV2Profile lang c = id inferInstance
V2 observations from across the book, organized by language.
Non-subject-initial declaratives: V2 obligatory.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Yes/no-questions: V2 obligatory.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Wh-questions with long (polysyllabic) wh-phrases: V2 obligatory.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Wh-questions with short (monosyllabic) wh-words: V2 optional, conditioned by information structure.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Exclamatives: non-V2 obligatory.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Embedded declaratives: non-V2 (mostly).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Standard English: no V2 in declaratives (SVO base order).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Standard English: V2 in wh-questions (via SAI).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Belfast English: V2 in embedded questions too.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Danish: V2 in exclamatives (unlike Norwegian and English).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
German root declaratives: V2 obligatory.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
German embedded clauses with complementizer: verb-final (no V2).
@cite{westergaard-2009}'s analysis: the verb raises to Fin° (hence
+Fin° in Table 3.1) but not to C, surfacing clause-finally because
Westergaard tacitly assumes a head-final FinP for German embedded
clauses (Vikner-style V-to-I where the I-position itself is final).
Alternative analyses (Haider 2010; @cite{harizanov-gribanova-2019})
derive the same surface order without V-to-Fin, leaving the verb
in its base position. The codebase records the Westergaard +Fin°
side; see HarizanovGribanova2019.lean for the formal contrast.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Standard Norwegian and Standard English differ only on Decl°. Captures the classic observation that English lost V2 in declaratives but retained it in questions.
Nordmøre Norwegian is the mirror image of English on Decl° vs. Int°.
Danish differs from Standard Norwegian only on Excl°.
All six languages in @cite{westergaard-2009} Table 3.1 agree on +Pol° (verb-fronting / V1 in yes/no-questions). NOT a Germanic universal beyond this sample: Yiddish embedded y/n questions with tsi and certain colloquial registers complicate the picture, and on some analyses Pol° is epiphenomenal on Int° rather than an independent micro-parameter.
German is the only Table 3.1 language with +Fin° (V-to-I in embedded clauses).
Ch. 7 argues that monosyllabic wh-words are syntactic heads (X°) while polysyllabic wh-constituents are phrases (XP). When a wh-head occupies Int°, it blocks verb movement, making non-V2 possible. When a wh-phrase is in SpecIntP, Int° is free for the verb → V2 obligatory.
Tromsø Norwegian wh-words:
- Monosyllabic (heads): *ka* 'what' (1σ), *kem* 'who' (1σ),
*kor* 'where' (1σ)
- Polysyllabic (phrases): *korfor* 'why' (2σ), *korsen* 'how' (2σ),
*katti* 'when' (2σ)
Tromsø wh-word data: (form, gloss, syllable count).
Equations
- Westergaard2009.tromsøWhWords = [("ka", "what", 1), ("kem", "who", 1), ("kor", "where", 1), ("korfor", "why", 2), ("korsen", "how", 2), ("katti", "when", 2)]
Instances For
All monosyllabic Tromsø wh-words classify as heads.
All polysyllabic Tromsø wh-words classify as phrases.
Wh-heads block verb movement to the wh-question heads (.Int
matrix, .Wh embedded) only; phrase wh-words never block.
English SAI (from SubjectAuxInversion.lean) is the surface reflex
of +Int° and +Pol° in the English V2 profile.
English matrix wh-questions require inversion (ex01) and the profile contains Int°.
English matrix yes/no-questions require inversion (ex04) and the profile contains Pol°.
English declaratives lack V2: Decl° is not in the profile.
Belfast English embedded inversion is consistent with +Wh°.
Norwegian yes/no-questions are obligatorily V2, consistent with +Pol°.
Norwegian exclamatives are non-V2, consistent with −Excl°.
Danish exclamatives are V2, consistent with +Excl°.
German embedded clauses are verb-final (no V2), even though German has +Fin° (V-to-I). V2 = verb-to-C requires +Decl°/+Int° etc.; verb-final is consistent with −Wh° (no V-to-C in embedded contexts).
Theories/Syntax/HPSG/Inversion.lean derives English matrix/embedded
question word-order asymmetries from an [INV ±] feature on clauses,
with matrixRequiresInvPlus and embeddedRequiresInvMinus constraints.
@cite{westergaard-2009}'s English profile commits to +Int° (matrix
wh) and +Pol° (matrix y/n), which are the V-to-C steps that surface
as inversion. The two frameworks agree on the same surface contrast
via different machinery; the bridge theorem makes the agreement
visible.
Westergaard and @cite{sag-wasow-bender-2003}-style HPSG agree on
English matrix question inversion: Westergaard's V-to-C
(.Int/.Pol ∈ stdEnglish) projects the same surface order that
HPSG derives from [INV +]. Both frameworks could have committed
otherwise (Westergaard could have ascribed −Int°; HPSG could have
left matrix-question INV unconstrained), so the agreement is
non-trivial.
The same agreement on the embedded side: Westergaard records
Standard English as −Wh° (no V-to-C in embedded questions); HPSG
records embeddedRequiresInvMinus. Both frameworks predict
subject-first surface order in embedded questions for Standard
English; Belfast English breaks this on both sides
(.Wh ∈ belfastEnglish per Westergaard; @cite{henry-1995}'s
"I wonder could he come" per HPSG-style accounts).
GermanicV2.lean proves that German V2 involves head-to-head movement
of V to C, skipping T (HMC violation). This is the structural
realization of +Decl° in the V2 profile: verb movement targets the
Decl° head in the CP domain.
German +Decl° is consistent with the V-to-C movement formalized in
GermanicV2.lean.
WALS classifies German as having "no dominant order" (Typology.lean).
Westergaard's micro-parameters explain why: German has +Decl° (V2 in
root declaratives) but also +Fin° (V-to-I in embedded clauses,
yielding verb-final surface order due to SOV base). This split makes
the "basic" order indeterminate — SVO on the surface in root
clauses, SOV underlyingly and in embedded clauses.
German's "no dominant order" classification in WALS is consistent with a profile that has BOTH +Decl° (V2 in roots → surface SVO) AND +Fin° (V-to-I in embedded → surface SOV).
English is classified as SVO in WALS. Consistent with −Decl° (no verb movement in declaratives → surface SVO with SVO base) and −Fin° (no V-to-I in embedded → embedded order also SVO).
In Tromsø wh-questions with monosyllabic wh-words, V2 vs. non-V2 correlates with the discourse status of the subject:
- **[−FOC] / given subject** (pronoun) → non-V2 preferred.
Subject moves to SpecTopP; verb stays low.
- **[+FOC] / new subject** (full DP) → V2 preferred.
Subject stays in SpecIP; verb moves to Top° to check [−FOC].
The book *derives* this from TopP structure (pp. 46–47): given
subjects carry [−FOC], which triggers movement to SpecTopP, leaving
Int° empty (verb stays low). New subjects lack [−FOC], so they stay
in SpecIP and the verb moves to Top°/Int° → V2. The [±FOC] feature
already exists in `Features.lean` (`foc : Bool → FeatureVal`) but
is not yet connected to an Agree-based derivation.
TODO: Replace this stipulative pattern match with a derivation from
[±FOC] feature checking on subjects + TopP Agree/movement. The
current version captures the correct *empirical mapping* but does
not explain *why* the mapping holds — the TopP mechanism does.
Preferred V2 status given subject givenness in Tromsø monosyllabic wh-questions.
STIPULATIVE: pattern-matches on givenness directly. The book
derives this from [±FOC]/TopP (see § 10 docstring). Focus
marking belongs to a separate axis
(Features.InformationStructure.Focus); a focus-driven V2
extension would parameterize over Focus α separately.
Equations
Instances For
Given subjects predict non-V2 in Tromsø short wh-questions.
New subjects predict V2 in Tromsø short wh-questions.
@cite{westergaard-2009}'s structural economy (p. 4):
(9a) Only build as much structure as there is evidence for in the input.
(9b) Only move elements as far as there is evidence for in the input.
These principles constrain *children's grammars*: children build
minimal structure, adding projections only when input evidence forces
them.
The corollary below: languages with fewer active micro-parameters
require less structure to be built. Our own derivation, not a claim
directly stated in the book. `Profile.activeCount` instances the
polymorphic counter from `Typology/Profile.lean`.
English activates fewer micro-parameters than Standard Norwegian.
Nordmøre activates fewer micro-parameters than Standard Norwegian.