This paper discusses different approaches to language acquisition in relation to children’s acquisition of word order in wh-questions in English and Norwegian. While generative models assert that children set major word order parameters and thus acquire a rule of subject-auxiliary inversion or generalized verb second (V2) at an early stage, some constructivist work argues that English-speaking children are simply reproducing frequent wh-word + auxiliary combinations in the input. The paper questions both approaches, re-evaluates some previous work, and provides some further data, concluding that the acquisition of wh-questions must be the result of a rule-based process. Based on variation in adult grammars, a cue-based model to language acquisition is presented, according to which children are sensitive to minor cues in the input, called micro-cues. V2 is not considered to be one major parameter, but several smaller-scale cues, which are responsible for children’s lack of syntactic (over-)generalization in the acquisition process.
I argue in this paper for a novel analysis of case in Icelandic, with implications for case theory in general. I argue that structural case is the manifestation on the noun phrase of features which are semantically interpretable on verbal projections. Thus, Icelandic case does not encode features of noun phrase interpretation, but it is not uninterpretable either; case is properly seen as reflecting (interpretable) tense, aspect, or Aktionsart features. Accusative case in Icelandic is available when the two subevents introduced in a transitive verb phrase are temporally identified with each other, and dative case is available when the two parts are distinct. This analysis bears directly on the theory of feature checking in the Minimalist Program. Specifically, it is consistent with a restrictive theory of feature checking in which no features are strictly uninterpretable: all formal features come in interpretable-uninterpretable pairs, and feature checking is the matching of such pairs, driven by legibility conditions at Spell-Out.
Most Slavic prefixes can be assigned to one of two large categories, lexical and superlexical. The lexical prefixes are like Germanic particles, in having resultative meanings, often spatial, but often idiosyncratic. The superlexical prefixes are like adverbs or auxiliary verbs, having aspectual and quantificational meanings. I present a syntactic account of the two types of prefix, arguing that the lexical ones are to be analyzed essentially like the Germanic particles, and that their VP-internal position accounts for many of their properties, while the superlexical ones originate outside VP.
All Germanic languages make extensive use of verb-particle combinations (known as separable-prefix verbs in the OV languages). I show some basic differences here distinguishing the Scandinavian type from the OV West Germanic languages, with English superficially patterning with Scandinavian but actually manifesting a distinct type. Specifically, I argue that the P projection is split into p and P (in accordance with earlier work), roughly analogous to v and V in the verb phrase. In English, p is always present in PP, and enables P to assign case, if P has an internal argument (as it does in "fall in the hole"). The arguments of particle verbs are then arguments of p, external arguments of the particle (as in "throw the rock in"). OV West Germanic allows p to be missing completely, thus having a type of unaccusative particle whose inner argument must receive case from the verb (corresponding to "fall the hole in," impossible in English). Scandinavian allows p to be missing, so that there is no external argument of the particle, but provides an alternative source for case for the internal argument (giving examples corresponding to "pour in the glass"). Thus English and Scandinavian are different from OV West Germanic in lacking the unaccusative type of particle, while Scandinavian differs from OV West Germanic and English in having an alternative source of case.