Word Order Typology

(based on Comrie 1981, Song 2011)

МД

Founding father: the 60s

Joseph Greenberg (1963 talk at First Dobbs Conference on Language Universals) - ts-ts!

30 (+140) languages 1966 ‘Some universals…’ – 45 universals

Universal 1: In declarative sentences with nominal subject and object, the dominant order is almost always one in which the subject precedes the object

VSO -> prepositional (almost absolute)

Methodological preliminaries

Issue of basicness: Full NPs, prototypical definite S and O,

independent clause, stylistically neutral… Pronominal clitics misbehave Main and dependent clauses diverge Interrogative may have special orders etc.

Frequencies, morphological unmarkedness Flexible word orders not considered

Methodological preliminaries

Misnomer: Not worder order typology Rather, order of major constituents

Cf. Greenberg’s order of meaningful elements

We’ll have to live with it, though

Methodological preliminaries

A model topic for cross-linguistic research: Typological patterns with no apparent

language specific validity We may not care about what basic word order

is while describing an individual language But: present-day processing-based

theories of explanation (Hawkins) may be relevant for individual grammars

Main lines of research: Possible orders of clause constituents

SOV, SVO, VSO, VOS, OVS, OSV All attested, but unequally

Correlation: looking for universal implications between orders of different types of constituents Adpositions, adjectives, possessors,

RelClauses Explanation: looking for basic principle

of constituency Branching? Processing?

Dominant orders:kiho-ka saca-lɨl cha-ass-ta (Korean)Keeho-NOM lion-ACC kick-PST-IND‘Keeho kicked the/a lion.’

khon níi kàt maa tua nán (Thai)man this bite dog CLF that‘This man bit that dog.’

Lladdodd draig ddyn (Welsh)killed dragon man‘A dragon killed a man.’ (cited after Song 2011)

Rare orders:manasa ny lamba ny vehivavy

(Malagasy)wash the clothes the woman‘The woman is washing the clothes.’

piʔ kokampö unkiʔ (Panare)child washes woman‘The woman washes the child.’

samũũy yi qa-wùh (Nadёb)howler-monkey people eat‘People eat howler-monkeys.’ (cited after Song 2011)

From correlations to explanations

VSO / SVO / SOV ~ Pr / Po ~ NG / GN ~ NA / AN

Out of combinations only 15 attested, and only 4 widespread: VSO & Pr & NG & NA SVO & Pr & NG & NA SOV & Po & GN & AN SOV & Po & GG & NA

Invites for generalizations! From unilateral implications to language types / profiles

S as a bad predictor – S dismissed

O follows V

O precedes V

24

Lehmann (70s)

FPP: Fundamental Principle of Placement Concomitance: V & O vs. O & V Modifiers are placed on the other side of

the “Concomitant” Adj, Gen, Rel

Inconsistent languages = languages under change Profiles “VO” and “OV”rather than literal

VO/OV Persian – “VO”, but (S)OV

Vennemann (70s)

PNS: Principle of natural serialization

Head (“operand”) vs. modifiers, or dependents (“operator”)

Order <dependent,head> determined by <O,V> Theory-dependent: adpositions should be

considered heads

Vennemann (70s)

OPERATORobjectadverbialmain verbadjectiverelative clausegenitivenumeraldetermineradjectivestandard of comparisonnoun phrase

OPERANDverbverbauxiliarynounnounnounnounnouncomparison markercomparative adjectiveadposition

Vennemann (70s): Der Teufel steckt im detail - overgeneralization

VSO / SVO / SOV ~ Pr / Po ~ NG / GN ~ NA / AN Out of 24 combinations, Vennemann allows only 3:

VSO & Pr & NG & NA SVO & Pr & NG & NA SOV & Po & GN & AN SOV & Po & GN & NA

Hawkins counts that this accounts for slightly less than 50% of his sample

But: Comrie’s ammendment: scale rather than two binary classes

SVO – bad predictor (nonce in Greenberg’s universals) But: Dryer’s larger sample show that the factor is

overestimated: SVO do pattern with VSO, on the whole (SOV --- SVO – VSO)

Hawkins 1983

Make no exception for me, please! Complicated system of multi-conditioned

implications Pr -> (NA -> NG) Pr -> (NDem -> NA) Pr -> (NNum -> NA), следовательно: Pr -> (Ndem -> NG), Pr -> (NNum -> NG)

Two exceptions! Ammendment: Pr & -SVO -> (NDem -> NG) Pr & -SVO -> (NNum -> NG)

Hawkins 1983 Shift from clause to NP constituents; implications

translated into HSP: Heaviness Serialization Principle in a Prep language, the heavier the constituent, the

less likely it is located to the left of the head noun light Det,Num < Adj < Gen < Rel heavy

+ Det/Num N Gen/Rel - Gen/Rel N Det/Num

Incipient functional motivation: the ease of processing

Further elaborated in Hawkins 1994, 2004 More complicated with Post languages

+mobility principle(

Dryer 1992

Large and principled sampling 600 lgs (1500 in his WALS map) weighted for geneology

Rehabilitation of VO~OV typology Including arguing for SVO to be indeed

VO Arguing against head – dependent

explanations

Dryer 1992 Against head – dependent explanations

AN~NA order is unpredictable Article, auxiliary are predicted in a wrong way

From dependency to “patterning” V-patterners vs. O-patterners

genitives and relative clauses are O-patterners determiners and numerals are V-patterners adjective are none-patterners

Uh-uh… calls for explanation!

Dryer 1992

Branching direction theory (BDT). In a [XY] constituent:

the V-patterner is the non-branching (non-phrasal) constituent (e.g. noun, article, numeral)

the O-patterner is the branching (phrasal) consituent (e.g. genitive phrase, relative clause)

in adjective + noun, none is branching… at least, none is recursively branching

WOT cornerstones: a typology of typologies

Greenberg: order in the clause (SOV etc.) Lehman: order in the clause

(“OV”~“VO”) Vennemann: order in the clause

(OV~VO) Hawkins (early): adposition based,

implications and hierarchies Dryer: back to OV~VO

Photo stock