Subject Object Verb Order - Language Studies

7/28/2019 Subject Object Verb Order - Language Studies

1/13

Chapter 81: Order of Subject, Object and Verbby MMaatttthheeww SS.. DDrryyeerr

11.. SSiixx ttyyppeess wwiitthh ddoommiinnaanntt oorrddeerrThis map shows the ordering of subject, object, and verb in a

transitive clause, more specifically declarative clauses in which

both the subject and object involve a noun (and not just a

pronoun), as in the EEnngglliisshh sentence in (1).

(1)

[The dog] chased [the cat].

S V O

EEnngglliisshh is SVO (Subject-Verb-Object), because the subject the

dog in (1) precedes the verb while the object the cat follows the

verb.

There are six logically possible orders of the three elements S,

O, and V, as shown in the feature-value table.

VVaalluueess ooff MMaapp 8811AA.. Order of Subject, Object and Verb

Subject-object-verb (SOV) 565

Subject-verb-object (SVO) 488

Verb-subject-object (VSO) 95

WALS - Chapter 81: Order of Subject, Object and Verb http://wals.info/chapt

of 13 3/14/13 12:45


2/13

Verb-object-subject (VOS) 25

Object-verb-subject (OVS) 11

Object-subject-verb (OSV) 4

Lacking a dominant word order 189

total: 1377

show map

All six of these types are attested; examples of each type are

given in (2).

(2)

a. JJaappaanneessee (KKuunnoo 11997733: 10)

John ga tegami o yon-da.

John SUBJ letter OBJ read-PS

S O V

John read the letter.

b. MMaannddaarriinn (LLii aanndd TThhoommppssoonn 11998811: 217)

Zhngsn shudo-le yi-fng xn.

Zhangsan receive-PERF one-CLF letter

S V O

Zhangsan received a letter.

c. IIrriisshh (DDiilllloonn aanndd CCrriinnnn 11996611: 166)

Lann [na sagairt] [na leabhai


of 13 3/14/13 12:45


3/13

read.PRES the.PL priest.PL the.PL book.PL

V S O

The priests are reading the books.

d. NNiiaass (AAuussttrroonneessiiaann; Sumatra, IInnddoonneessiiaa; BBrroowwnn 22000011:

538)

i-rino vakhe ina-gu

3SG.REALIS-cook ABS.rice mother-

1SG.POSS

V O S

My mother cooked rice.

e. HHiixxkkaarryyaannaa (CCaarriibb; BBrraazziill; DDeerrbbyysshhiirree 11997799: 87)

toto y-ahos-ye kamara

man 3:3-grab-

DISTANT.PST

jaguar

O V S

The jaguar grabbed the man.

f. NNaaddbb (NNaaddaahhuupp; BBrraazziill; WWeeiirr 11999944: 309)

awad kalap haph

jaguar child see.IND

O S V

The child sees the jaguar.

Although all six of these orders are attested, the last two types,

OVS and OSV, in which the object comes first, are rare.

The terms subject and object are used here in a rather

informal semantic sense, to denote the more agent-like and more


of 13 3/14/13 12:45


4/13

patient-like elements respectively. Their use here can be defined

in terms of the notions S, A, and P, where the S is the single

argument in an intransitive clause, the A is the more agent-like

argument in a transitive clause, and the P is the more

patient-like argument in a transitive clause. For the purposes of

this map, then, the term subject is used for the A while the term

object is used for the P. A language shown on the map as SOV

could thus also be equally well and perhaps more accurately

described as APV. Note that many linguists use the terms

subject and object somewhat differently from this, and some

linguists question the applicability of these terms to some

languages, but these issues do not arise with the use of these

terms here. For example, there is controversy surrounding the

question of what ought to be considered the subject in Philippine

languages, like CCeebbuuaannoo (cf. SScchhaacchhtteerr 11997766). CCeebbuuaannoo has

two common ways to express transitive clauses, one of which is

illustrated in (3).

(3) CCeebbuuaannoo (AAuussttrroonneessiiaann; own data)

gi-palit [sa babayi] [ang saging]

GOAL.FOC-buy NONTOP woman TOP banana

The woman bought the bananas.

While there is a question as to which of the two arguments in (3)

should be considered a subject (or whether neither or both

should), in both types of clauses the verb normally comes first,

followed by the A, and then the P. Hence, by the use ofsubject

and object assumed for this map, CCeebbuuaannoo is treated as a VSO

language.

Note that while the position of the subject in intransitive

clauses is generally the same as in transitive clauses, in some


of 13 3/14/13 12:45


5/13

languages this is not the case. See Chapter 8822.

Some languages can be assigned straightforwardly to one of

the six types, because all orders other than one are either

ungrammatical or used relatively infrequently and only in special

pragmatic contexts. Such languages can be said to have rriiggiiddoorrddeerr. There are many other languages in which all six orders

are grammatical. Such languages can be said to have fflleexxiibbllee

oorrddeerr. Flexible order languages are sometimes described as

having free word order, though this is misleading, since there

are often pragmatic factors governing the choice of word order.

We can further distinguish two subtypes of languages with

flexible word order. In some languages with flexible order, there

is one order which is most common and which can be describedas the ddoommiinnaanntt oorrddeerr. In other flexible order languages, the

flexibility is greater and there is no one order that is the

dominant order in terms of frequency of usage or pragmatic

neutrality. Flexible order languages in which one order is

dominant are shown on the map according to that dominant

order in other words, the map does not distinguish rigid order

languages from flexible order languages with a dominant order.

Flexible order languages lacking a dominant order are shown onthe map as lacking a dominant word order. RRuussssiiaann is an

example of a language with flexible word order in which SVO

order can be considered dominant, so RRuussssiiaann is shown on the

map as SVO. See DDeetteerrmmiinniinngg DDoommiinnaanntt WWoorrdd OOrrddeerr.

There are a number of different subtypes of languages lacking

a dominant order which are not distinguished on the map. In

some languages with highly flexible word order, all or mostorders of subject, object, and verb will be possible and common.

NNuunngggguubbuuyyuu (Gunwinyguan; northern AAuussttrraalliiaa) is an example

of such a language (HHeeaatthh 11998844: 507-513; 1986). But some

languages lack a dominant order only because just the subject or

just the object exhibits flexibility with respect to the verb. For


of 13 3/14/13 12:45


6/13

example, SSyyrriiaann AArraabbiicc allows both SVO and VSO orders and

there does not seem to be a reason (at least on the basis of the

description by CCoowweellll 11996644: 407, 411) to consider one of them

dominant. However, only these two orders are common and the

order of verb and object is relatively inflexible.

A third subtype of language lacking a dominant order consists

of languages in which different word orders occur but the choice

is syntactically determined. For example, in GGeerrmmaann and DDuuttcchh,

the dominant order is SVO in main clauses lacking an auxiliary

and SOV in subordinate clauses and clauses containing an

auxiliary (see below for examples). Because this results in both

orders being common, neither order is considered dominant here

and these two languages are shown on the map as lacking adominant word order. In general, if the word order varies

according to whether there is an auxiliary verb, the language is

shown on the map as lacking a dominant order. Another

language whose word order depends both on whether there is an

auxiliary and whether the clause is a main clause is DDiinnkkaa

(NNiilloottiicc; SSuuddaann): like GGeerrmmaann, the order is SVO in main clauses

without an auxiliary, SAuxOV in main clauses with an auxiliary,

but it is VSO in subordinate clauses without an auxiliary andAuxSOV in subordinate clauses with an auxiliary (NNeebbeell 11994488: 9,

25, 42, 75, 82).

Where languages differ in their order between main clauses and

subordinate clauses, the order in main clauses is used to classify

them on this map. For example, QQuuiilleeuuttee (CChhiimmaakkuuaann;

Washington State) is VSO in main clauses and SVO in subordinate

clauses (AAnnddrraaddee 11993333: 278), and is shown on the map as VSO.

In some languages, word order is more fixed in subordinate

clauses. For example, in MMiiyyaa (Chadic; NNiiggeerriiaa), while both SVO

and VOS are found in main clauses, only VOS order is found in

adverbial subordinate clauses and relative clauses (SScchhuuhh 11999988:

281, 291); because both SVO and VOS are common in main


of 13 3/14/13 12:45


7/13

clauses, MMiiyyaa is shown on the map as lacking a dominant order.

22.. GGeeooggrraapphhiiccaall ddiissttrriibbuuttiioonn ooff tthheeddoommiinnaanntt--oorrddeerr ttyyppeess

The most frequent of the six orders is SOV and it is widelydistributed across the globe. Perhaps the most striking region in

which SOV predominates is an area covering most of Asia, except

in Southeast Asia and the Middle East. It is also overwhelmingly

the dominant order in New Guinea, most of the exceptions being

along the north coast. It is the most common order among

languages in Australia which have a dominant order at all,

although even in languages in which SOV is dominant, the order

is generally flexible. It is clearly the dominant order in NorthAmerica outside of the Pacific Northwest and Mesoamerica.

The map shows three areas where SVO order predominates: (i)

an area covering much of sub-Saharan Africa, though with a

scattering of SOV and VSO languages; (ii) an area extending from

China and southeast Asia south into the AAuussttrroonneessiiaann languages

of Indonesia and the western Pacific; and (iii) Europe and around

the Mediterranean. SVO order is not common outside theseareas.

VSO order is scattered around various parts of the world, in

eastern Africa (among various Eastern Sudanic languages), in

North Africa (BBeerrbbeerr), in the western extremes of Europe (CCeellttiicc),

in and around the Philippines, among Polynesian languages of the

Pacific, in Mesoamerica, and in the Pacific Northwest. VOS order

is also scattered around the globe, though there are no attested

instances on the mainland of Africa or Eurasia.

There are nine OVS languages on the map, six of which are

spoken in South America, five in the Amazon basin, and one

(SSeellkknnaamm) in Tierra del Fuego. There are only four OSV

languages shown: WWaarraaoo in VVeenneezzuueellaa, NNaaddbb in BBrraazziill, WWiikk


of 13 3/14/13 12:45


8/13

NNggaatthhaannaa in northeastern AAuussttrraalliiaa, and TToobbaattii in West Papua,

IInnddoonneessiiaa. Languages without a dominant order are especially

common in North America and Australia, and to a lesser extent in

South America. The scattering of this type partly reflects the fact

that this is not a homogeneous type, since it mixes languages

with highly flexible order with languages which have more rigid

order but where there are two dominant orders. The former type,

languages with highly flexible order, is most common in North

America and Australia and relatively uncommon in Africa, Europe,

Asia, New Guinea and among AAuussttrroonneessiiaann languages.

The map in figure 1 shows the distribution of word order in

various languages of the past, though the times at which these

languages were spoken vary from 4500 years ago to 1000 yearsago. The map illustrates the fact that SVO, now a common order

in Europe and around the Mediterranean, was less common in the

past: on the one hand, there were SOV languages like Latin and

Etruscan in western Europe; on the other hand, there were many

VSO languages in what is now the Middle East, represented both

by SSeemmiittiicc languages and by Egyptian.

FFiigguurree 11: Order of Subject, Object, and Verb in Ancient

Languages


of 13 3/14/13 12:45


9/13

33.. LLaanngguuaaggeess wwiitthh ttwwoo pprriimmaarryy aalltteerrnnaattiinnggoorrddeerrss

Map 8811BB shows languages where it is not possible to identify a

single dominant order but in which it is possible to identify two

orders, neither of which is dominant relative to the other, but

which can be said to be dominant relative to other orders.

VVaalluueess ooff MMaapp 8811BB.. Languages with two dominant orders of

subject, object, and verb

SOV or SVO 29

VSO or VOS 14

SVO or VSO 13

SVO or VOS 8

SOV or OVS 3

total: 67

show map

Type 1 represents languages which are SOV/SVO, i.e. languages

in which the orders SOV and SVO are common relative to other

orders, but where neither order is dominant relative to the other.

An example of a language of this type is GGeerrmmaann, as illustrated

in (4).

(4) GGeerrmmaann


of 13 3/14/13 12:45


10/13

a. Der Lehrer trink-t das Wasser.

DEF teacher drink-3SG DEF water

The teacher is drinking the water.

b. Der Lehrer ha-t das Wasser getrunken.

DEF teacher have-3SG DEF water drink:PAST.PTCPL

The teacher has drunk the water.

Note that at the level of grammar, GGeerrmmaann is simply

verb-second, placing the inflected verb second, and when the

inflected verb is an auxiliary verb, the main verb occurs at the

end of the clause. Thus when the inflected verb is the main verb,

it is possible to get OVS order, or VSO order if an adverb orprepositional phrase precedes the verb, but SVO is apparently

more common than these. Type 1 is the most common of the

types on this map; this most likely is related to the fact that SOV

and SVO are by far the two most common types among the six

possible orders of subject, object, and verb on Map 8811AA.

Type 2 represents languages which are SVO/VSO. The fact that

there are half as many languages of this type compared toSOV/SVO languages while there are more than five times as many

SOV as VSO languages means that the ratio of SVO/VSO to VSO is

higher than the ratio of SOV/SVO to SOV. In other words, the

frequency of Type 2 is greater than we might expect. The high

number of Type 2 languages relates to Universal 6 of GGrreeeennbbeerrgg

((11996633)): All languages with dominant VSO order have SVO as an

alternative or as the only alternative basic order. Although there

may be exceptions to Greenberg's universal, the fact that VSOlanguages generally allow SVO as an alternate word order makes

it unsurprising that we would find many SVO/VSO languages. A

number of the Type 2 languages occur in genealogical groups

that also contain VSO languages, such as BBeerrbbeerr, SSeemmiittiicc, and


0 of 13 3/14/13 12:45


11/13

various subgroups ofAAuussttrroonneessiiaann.

Type 3 languages represent languages which are VSO/VOS. This

is the second-most frequent type on Map 8811BB and given the fact

that neither of the two types it is based on are among the two

more frequent orders SOV and SVO, this type is considerablymore frequent than one might otherwise expect.

Type 4 represents languages which are SVO/VOS, analogous to

Type 2, except with VOS instead of VSO. Their high frequency

despite the relative rarity of VOS languages is presumably

analogous to the factors discussed above with respect to Type 2.

Type 5 represents languages which are SOV/OVS. The three

languages in the sample of this type are WWiicchhiittaa (CCaaddddooaann;Oklahoma), AAppaallaa (CCaarriibbaann; BBrraazziill), and MMaaccuusshhii

DDeetteerrmmiinniinngg DDoommiinnaanntt WWoorrdd OOrrddeerr. Note that a number of

OVS languages are fairly rigidly OV, but allow SOV as a not

infrequent alternate order, so that in some cases there may be a

question as to whether a language should be classified as OVS or

SOV/OVS.

Some languages are described as being verb-final with the

order of subject and object pragmatically determined, suggestingthat they are of a type SOV/OSV not shown on this map, such as

AAnnaammuuxxrraa (MMaaddaanngg; PPaappuuaa NNeeww GGuuiinneeaa) (IInnggrraamm 22000011) and

MMeekkeeoo (OOcceeaanniicc; PPaappuuaa NNeeww GGuuiinneeaa) (JJoonneess 11999988aa). While

there may be some languages of this type, it has been my

experience that when one counts the frequency of SOV and OSV

order in texts for languages which are so described, SOV usually

outnumbers OSV order by well over 2 to 1, and thus the

language counts as SOV by the criteria assumed in this chapter(see DDeetteerrmmiinniinngg DDoommiinnaanntt WWoorrdd OOrrddeerr). In the absence of

such text counts, such languages are shown on Maps 8822AA and

8833AA as SV and OV, but are not shown on this map, it being

considered unknown whether they are SOV or SOV/OSV. I have


1 of 13 3/14/13 12:45


12/13

yet to find a language where text counts show SOV and OSV

occurring with comparable frequency and hence I have yet to find

a language that I would classify as SOV/OSV.

Among the languages shown on Map 8811BB, there are some

languages where the alternation between the two orders isapparently pragmatically governed while there are others where it

is grammatically governed. GGeerrmmaann is a clear example of the

latter sort. In fact, the languages where the alternation is

grammatically governed are generally of Type 1. A number of

languages (NNuueerr (EEtthhiiooppiiaa and SSuuddaann), DDiinnkkaa (SSuuddaann) both

NNiilloottiicc languages, and NNggiittii (LLeenndduu; DDeemmooccrraattiicc RReeppuubblliicc ooff

CCoonnggoo)) employ the SOV order when there is an auxiliary,

although in NNuueerr the auxiliary element is nonverbal. TheMMoorruu--MMaa''ddii languages (represented here by MMoorruu (SSuuddaann),

AAvvookkaayyaa (DDeemmooccrraattiicc RReeppuubblliicc ooff CCoonnggoo and SSuuddaann), LLooggoottii

(DDeemmooccrraattiicc RReeppuubblliicc ooff CCoonnggoo), LLuuggbbaarraa (DDeemmooccrraattiicc

RReeppuubblliicc ooff CCoonnggoo and UUggaannddaa), and MMaa''ddii (SSuuddaann and

UUggaannddaa)) have two constructions, a perfective/past construction

and an imperfective/nonpast one, the former being SVO, the

latter SOV, and when an auxiliary is employed in the SOV

construction, the order is SAuxOV.

44.. TThheeoorreettiiccaall ddiissccuussssiioonn

While the feature shown on this map is perhaps the single most

frequently cited typological feature of languages, it is now

recognized that it represents a clause type that does not occur

especially frequently in spoken language; it is more common that

at least one of the two arguments of a transitive clause will bepronominal, and in many languages pronominal subjects are

expressed by verbal affixes. It is argued by DDrryyeerr ((11999977)) that a

more useful typology is one based on two more basic features,

whether the language is OV or VO and whether it is SV or VS;

these are shown on the next two maps, in Chapters 8822 and 8833.


2 of 13 3/14/13 12:45


13/13

In addition, as noted above, the order in transitive clauses is not

always the same as the order in intransitive clauses. The feature

shown on this map is also important in that many other features

are predictable from it, at least statistically. Most of these

features correlate more specifically with the order of object and

verb (GGrreeeennbbeerrgg 11996633, DDrryyeerr 11999922; see Chapters 9955, 9966, and

9977). For a few features, SVO languages exhibit properties

intermediate between those of SOV languages and those of

verb-initial languages, though in general they are more similar to

verb-initial languages (DDrryyeerr 11999911).

ReferencesAndrade 19331.

Brown 20012.Cowell 19643.

Derbyshire 19794.

Dillon and Crinin 19615.

Dryer 19916.

Dryer 19927.

Dryer 19978.

Greenberg 19639.

Heath 198410.

Ingram 200111.

Jones 1998a12.

Kuno 197313.

Li and Thompson 198114.

Nebel 194815.

Schachter 197616.

Schuh 199817.

Weir 199418.


3 of 13 3/14/13 12:45

Documents

Subject Object Verb Order - Language Studies