Articlegreen1991

SVO languages and the OV: VO typology

163 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Linguistics

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation Historical Linguistics and Language Studies Categorization, perception, and language

Abstract

Greenberg (1963) formulated a number of implicational universals that refer to the order of various syntactic elements. He classified languages on the basis of their order of subject, object and verb into three types, which he labelled I, II and III, and which correspond to what are commonly known as VSO, SVO and SOV languages, respectively. Since that time, evidence for the existence of the three other logically possible orders, VOS, OVS and OSV, has been presented (see Keenan, 1978; Derbyshire & Pullum, 1981, 1986), thus leaving us with a typology of six types. Lehmann (1973, 1978) and Vennemann (1974, 1976) collapsed these six types into two types OV and VO. Implicit in this move is the idea that the fundamental parameter is the order of verb and object and that the position of the subject is less important. In treating VSO, VOS and SVO as subtypes of the general type VO, the claim is that these three types are similar to each other in their other word order characteristics and different from OV languages. More recently, a number of linguists, including Comrie (1981: 90, 94–95; 1989: 96, 100–101), Mallinson & Blake (1981: 379), Siewierska (1988: 18–19) and Payne (1990: 19), but most particularly Hawkins (1980: 199; 1983: 30), have criticized Lehmann and Vennemann for collapsing VSO, VOS and SVO languages into a single category VO. They all argue that the available evidence does not support the claim that SVO languages pattern like VSO and VOS languages. The purpose of this paper is to argue that, although some of these criticisms are not without merit, Lehmann and Vennemann were largely right: with certain well-defined exceptions, the word order properties of SVO languages differ little from those of VSO and VOS languages. In short, it will be shown that with respect to a large number of word order characteristics, we do find a basic split between VO and OV languages.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 163 citations exist upstream.

References

1963Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements 1987Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar 1981Mandarin Chinese 1981Language Universals and Linguistic Typology 1983Language universals and linguistic typology 1979Typology of sentence negation 1964Universals of Language 1983Word order universals

Cited by

2019The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure Is Shaped by Language Use 2004Does linguistic explanation presuppose linguistic description?2023Preverbal clitic clusters in the Tanzanian Rift Valley revisited 2003ANTISYMMETRY AND JAPANESE 2013Cognition, universal grammar, and typological generalizations 2009Austronesian verb-initial languages and wh-question strategies 2006Focused assertion of identity: A typology of intensifiers

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.