Word Order Typology (based on Comrie 1981, Song 2011) МД
Dec 19, 2015
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