UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Some theories of language typology and language change Hawes, Lorna Joy 1975

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1975_A8 H39_4.pdf [ 5.62MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093455.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093455-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093455-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093455-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093455-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093455-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093455-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093455-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093455.ris

Full Text

SOME THEORIES OF LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY AND LANGUAGE CHANGE by LORNA JOY HAWES B.A., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1972 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of L i n g u i s t i c s We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1975 In presenting th i s thesis in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make it f ree ly ava i l ab le for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of th i s thes is for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of th is thes is fo r f inanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my written permission. n , _..„,„„ +. „r Lin g u i s t i c s Department or ^ The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada D a t e A p r i l 30, 1975 ABSTRACT Introduction This thesis considers various theories of language typology put forward over the years, with p a r t i c u l a r reference to the more recent typologies of word order and the evidence they might provide of how and why languages change. Language typology and change i s again arousing much interest i n l i n g u i s t i c c i r c l e s , but our understanding of i t i s s t i l l i n the beginning stages and much work remains to be done on lan-guage c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . In Chapter I I consider nineteenth and early twentieth century c l a s s i f i c a t o r y systems, which, for the most part, take the word as t h e i r fundamental unit. Tracing the development of typologies from the e a r l i e r purely morphological systems of von Schlegel and von Humboldt to the l a t e r morpholo-gical-conceptual system of Sapir, I compare and contrast the major c l a s s i f i c a t o r y systems of the period and indicate th e i r l i m i t a t i o n s . In Chapter I I I review the syntactic typologies proposed recently by Lehmann and Vennemann. As a r e s u l t of the upsurge of interest i n syntax, both systems take the - i i -sentence as t h e i r fundamental unit and base their c r i t e r i a on word order characteristics i n consistent verb i n i t i a l and verb f i n a l languages. I discuss the merits and inadequacies of both typologies and conclude that, as neither c l a s s i f i c a t o r y system appears to account for word order data s a t i s f a c t o r i l y , a further explanation must be sought. I suggest that perceptual strategies employed by speaker and l i s t e n e r can provide t h i s explanation. In Chapter I I I I review some major work on percep-t u a l strategies and f i n d that misinterpretation of t h e o r e t i c a l l y grammatical structures results from three causes: erroneous segmentation, discontinuity, and multiple centre embeddings. I then t r y to show how implementation of these perceptual strategies may account for or further explain the word order characteristics of Lehmann's and Vennemann's syntactic typologies. In Chapter IV I am concerned with how the syntactic typologies show evidence of diachronic word order change i n lan-guage. I review several theories of word order change and comment on hypotheses regarding evidence of older word orders. I discuss the merits of each theory but t r y to point out where i t s claims can be questioned. I conclude that although many creditable - i i i -observations and ideas have been presented within the framework of the syntactic typologies many of the connected hypotheses are subject to controversy and w i l l have to be much more rigorously tested before t h e i r v a l i d i t y can be accepted. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page INTRODUCTION • i I LANGUAGE TYPOLOGIES BASED ON MORPHOLOGY 1 II LANGUAGE TYPOLOGIES BASED ON WORD ORDER .. .. .. 16 II I PERCEPTUAL CONSTRAINTS ON GRAMMAR AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR WORD ORDER TYPES . . . . . . 38 IV THEORIES OF LANGUAGE CHANGE AND EVIDENCE OF OLDER ORDERS 68 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . 133 FOOTNOTES .. 136 LIST OF WORKS CITED . . 149 - i v -CHAPTER I LANGUAGE TYPOLOGIES BASED ON MORPHOLOGY 1.0 Despite the apparent d i v e r s i t y of the world's tongues, ever since the r i s e of the comparative method i n the middle eighteenth century l i n g u i s t s have p e r i o d i c a l l y made formal attempts to c l a s s i f y languages systematically. Language typology can be attempted at any le v e l - phonological, morphological, syntactic, l e x i c a l , semantic, and even symbolic - and i t i s perhaps t h i s l i n g u i s t i c complexity which accounts for the d i f f i c u l t y of the task and for the generally disappointing re s u l t s achieved u n t i l recently. Prior to 1971, when Winfred Lehmann proposed a structural p r i n c i p l e of language based on the surface order of major sentence elements, typological l i n g u i s t s , especially those of the nineteenth century, concentrated almost e n t i r e l y on the morphological or "word" (i . e . root + modifier) l e v e l of language, paying scant attention to the many other l e v e l s . 1.1""" The f i r s t s i g n i f i c a n t typology proposed was that of Friedric h von Schlegel (1808), i n which were posited two classes of language: one modified the root morpheme by internal change or i n f l e c t i o n ; the other modified by a f f i x a t i o n (to which was given a very broad d e f i n i t i o n , ranging from Root + bound - 1 -- 2 -derivational morpheme to Root + Root structures). Von Schlegel's typology was subsequently modified by his brother, August, who added to i t the dimensions of 'synthetic 1 and 'analytic'. For August von Schlegel, an analytic language used independent elements, such as a r t i c l e s , prepositions, pronouns, etc., to express par t i c u l a r concepts, whereas a synthetic language com-bined these concepts with the root to form a single word. 1.2 . The morphological typology established by Wilhelm von Humboldt i n 1840 was to be the most widely accepted for the next one hundred years. Rejecting von Schlegel's analytic and synthetic breakdown on the grounds that the dividing l i n e between the two was i n s u f f i c i e n t l y clear, von Humboldt expanded the i n f l e c -t i o n a l / a f f i x a t i o n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n by dividing languages into four classes: a) those which are grammatically formless, i . e . which use isolated roots but no function-marking morphemes, e.g. Chinese b) those which are completely f l e x i o n a l , i . e . which show grammatical and r e l a t i o n a l concepts by inner root modification, e.g. Hebrew c) those which are agglutinative, a term which von Humboldt describes as "intended, but incomplete f l e x i o n , a more or less mechanical a f f i x i n g , not a t r u l y organic development ..1" d) those which are incorporating, i . e . which combine a l l sentence elements (subject, verb, object and t h e i r modifiers) into a single word, e.g. Nootka. 1.3 Von Humboldt's typology was subsequently reaffirmed by August Pott and August Schleicher, although the l a t t e r reduced the four classes to three by regarding 'incorporating' languages as more extreme members of the agglutinative class; Schleicher also reintroduced von Schlegel's terms of 'synthetic' and 'analytic' to denote the various degrees of fusion between a f f i x and root. Schleicher's t r i p a r t i t e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n thus included: a) monosyllabic languages, i . e . those composed solely of 'meaning' words and no functional or derivational mor-phemes b) agglutinative languages, i . e . those which add functional and derivational morphemes to the root. According to the degree of fusion between a f f i x and root, the language may be either analytic or synthetic c) i n f l e c t i o n a l languages, i.e. those which allow a l t e r a t i o n to the root form to show modification. This t h i r d class may also be either analytic or synthetic. 1.4 S t i l l operating at the word l e v e l , Franz Bopp (1833) suggested a typology based on the formation of the word root and i t s capacity for compounding. Although Bopp c a r e f u l l y avoids - 4 -mention of the terms ' i n f l e c t i o n a l ' and 'agglutinative', his three part d i v i s i o n i n essence covers the same phenomena: a) monosyllabic roots incapable of modification and compounding (i.e. isolating) b) roots capable of modification and/or compounding, by which means the majority of t h e i r grammatical concepts are expressed (i . e . agglutinative and i n f l e c t i o n a l ) c) d i s y l l a b i c roots based on three essential consonants through which a l l word meaning i s carried and which may be modified through compounding or inner modifi-cation, e.g. Semitic ( i . e . special i n f l e c t i o n a l ) . Bopp's typology was late r supported and enlarged upon by Max Muller (1880), who provided a revised version of von Humboldt's 'formless', 1 agglutinative' and ' i n f l e c t i o n a l ' concepts to c l a s s i f y the ways i n which Bopp's roots could undergo modification. 1.5 In 1860, Heymann Steinthal put forward a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n based on word relationships. Whereas his predecessors had devoted their attentions almost e n t i r e l y inward from the word, Steinthal rather refreshingly concerns himself with sentential relationships between words. A language which expresses grammatical function by word order alone or by changeable (i . e . agreement) suffixes i s , i n Steinthal's terminology, a 'form' language. Any language not - 5 -relying upon word order or variable a f f i x e s to express sentential function i s considered by Steinthal to be 'formless'. Although such a language might perhaps be one which shows grammatical func-ti o n by unchangeable a f f i x e s , such as pure subject and object markers, t h i s i s not specified, leaving the 'formless' d e f i n i t i o n manifestly unclear. Ural-Altaic languages are c l a s s i f i e d 'formless' because thei r s u f f i x e s , being separate e n t i t i e s , do not show relationships between words; polysynthetic languages are also considered formless because they contain only one word per sentence. The two examples of formless languages appear to have l i t t l e i n common save t h e i r lack of c l a r i t y . Steinthal also c l a s s i f i e s languages according to t h e i r tendency toward 'collocating' or 'derivative' constructions, with invariable words appearing only i n collocating constructions (i . e . they can only be placed next to one another) and varying words appearing i n derivative structures (i. e . morphemes can combine to a l t e r each other). Thus Chinese i s c l a s s i f i e d as a 'form collocating' language as i t s i g n i f i e s senten-t i a l relationships by word order and juxtaposes invariable words. Sanskrit i s c l a s s i f i e d as a 'form derivative' language as i t con-tains variable suffixes which mark sentential function and deriva-t i v e suffixes which modify the root word. Although the divisions of his c l a s s i f i c a t i o n are nebulous and subjective, making his typology almost impossible to apply, Steinthal must be credited with r e a l i z i n g the importance of the t o t a l utterance and, i n so doing, moving beyond the hitherto - 6 -unbreached confines of the single word. Commenting on the nineteenth century pre d i l e c t i o n for the limited morphological viewpoint, Mauthner (1923) writes: "... the valuation [of languages] according to whether t h e i r i n f l e c t i o n s are more or less transparent i s as f o o l i s h as i f one judged the merit of European armies according to the greater or lesser v i s i b i l i t y of th e i r trouser seams." 3 Also debating the merits of morphologically based typologies, Hodge (1970) comments that the morphological cha r a c t e r i s t i c s of language may merely r e f l e c t the stage of development of a language within the hypothesized l i n g u i s t i c cycle (from analytic through agglutinative and i n f l e c t i o n a l back to analytic) and may not indicate basic dichotomies of language (the l i n g u i s t i c cycle i s discussed more f u l l y i n 4.2.0 of t h i s t h e s i s ) . In effe c t , Hodge suggests that morphological c l a s s i f i c a t o r y systems are not evidence of the fundamental patterns of language. 1.6 The early twentieth century showed l i t t l e improvement i n the breadth of typological v i s i o n , for i t was not u n t i l 1921 that Edward Sapir again broke with the style of t r a d i t i o n a l morphological typologies by introducing a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n which, although s t i l l b a s i c a l l y oriented to word structure, introduced a further dimension covering sentential relationships. Sapir's typology considered the interaction of three l i n g u i s t i c dimensions: the manner of r e l a t i o n -ship of grammatical concepts, the technical processes by which the concepts are joined, and the degree to which a language w i l l combine concepts into a single word. - 7 -Sapir specifies four ways of expressing grammatical concepts: I basic concrete concepts, i . e . those which consist of an unmodified concept, e.g. f i g h t I I derivational concepts, i . e . those which add to or change the root word, but which are independent of the rest of the sentence, e.g. f i g h t + er_ I I I concrete r e l a t i o n a l concepts, i . e . those which a f f e c t or are affected by elements outside the word, e.g. fighter + s_ (where the p l u r a l marker demands a p l u r a l verb agreement) , le_ + s^  rue + s_ e t r o i t + e_ + s_ (where both a r t i c l e and adjective are marked for agree-ment with the noun) IV pure r e l a t i o n a l concepts, i . e . those which carry no concrete meaning, but which merely operate to indicate the sentential function of a concrete concept, e.g. an agent marker or object marker. The above c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s combine to produce four language types: A simple pure r e l a t i o n a l (I and IV) B complex pure r e l a t i o n a l (I, I I and IV) C simple mixed r e l a t i o n a l ( I , I I I and IV) D complex mixed r e l a t i o n a l ( I , I I , I I I and IV). - 8 -In considering grammatical processes, or the tech-n i c a l method of combining elements, Sapir makes three d i v i s i o n s : a) i s o l a t i n g , where the word contains a single unadulterated root b) a f f i x i n g , where root modification i s practised through a f f i x a t i o n c) symbolic, where root modification i s practised through, for example, int e r n a l vowel or consonant change, reduplication, or stress/pitch change (i.e. a phonological change). Sapir further subdivides his ' a f f i x i n g ' category according to the degree of fusion existing between the root and i t s a f f i x . The degree of fusion i s evaluated on the transparency of the a f f i x and also, less c l e a r l y , on the psychological perception of the a f f i x as a separate meaning entity. The t h i r d major stratum of Sapir's typology deals with the conceptual elaborateness of a word, i . e . the extent to which concrete concepts are combined into a single word. This l a s t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s measured on a quantitative scale, with languages being marked for the degree of conceptual elaboration of t h e i r average word rather than for a plus- or minus membership of a s p e c i f i c limited class. "The elaboration scale ranges from analytic (having l i t t l e or no combination of concepts within a single word, - 9 -e.g. English) through synthetic (having a higher degree of conceptual combination, but s t i l l operating under r e s t r a i n t s , e.g. L a t i n , Sanskrit) to polysynthetic (having an extremely elaborate system of concept combination, e.g. Nootka, Algonquian). Breaking with the purely t r a d i t i o n a l linear typological approaches, Sapir's i n f i n i t e l y more complex approach provides a three dimensional matrix on which languages can be mapped, and thus offers a much broader overview of the q u a l i t i e s of any one language. Although his typology provides for no less than 2,870 d i f f e r e n t lan-4 guage types (thus allowing a separate type for almost every known language), Sapir comments that "certain l i n g u i s t i c types are more stable and frequently represented than others that are just as pos-5 si b l e from a theoretical standpoint," and notes that languages which f a l l into the same c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n his typology often show other s i m i l a r i t i e s not covered i n the c l a s s i f i c a t o r y system, thus sugges-ti n g that languages do indeed f a l l into a l i m i t e d number of natural groupings, some aspects of which his scheme of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n has successfully captured. Sapir's system does not go far enough, however, i n that i t does not capture the 'other s i m i l a r i t i e s ' existing across language, and although Sapir has set up several d i s t i n c t i v e features of typology, i t appears that he has not located a l l of them, nor has he defined the i r redundancies or implications. However, Sapir wisely entertains no delusions about the problems facing typologists, commenting: - 10 -" c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , neat constructions of the speculative mind, are slippery things. They have to be tested at every possible opportunity ..." 6 Because he feels the understanding of language to be only i n i t s infancy, he continues: " I t i s of less importance to put language i n a neat pigeonhole than to have evolved a f l e x i b l e method which enables us to place i t , from two or three independent standpoints, r e l a t i v e l y to another language. But we are too ill-i n f o r m e d as yet of the structural s p i r i t of great numbers of languages to have the ri g h t to frame a descrip-t i o n that i s other than f l e x i b l e and experimental." 7 Eor these reasons, Sapir j u s t i f i e s the inclusion of three levels within his c l a s s i f i c a t o r y system, although he admits that not a l l w i l l give equal insight into the underlying form or chara c t e r i s t i c s of language: "A purely technical c l a s s i f i c a t i o n [such] as the current one into ' i s o l a t i n g ' 'agglutinative' and ' i n f l e c t i v e , ' cannot claim to have great value as an entering wedge into the discovery of the i n t u i t i o n a l forms of language. I do not know whether the suggested c l a s s i f i c a t i o n into four conceptual groups i s l i k e l y to drive deeper or not. My own feeling i s that i t does ..." 8 In a l a t e r chapter, Sapir concludes that of his three dimensions of language (see p.6), the conceptual l e v e l i s the most fundamental. This hypothesis i s to some extent a forerunner of the language structure suggested by some of the recent transformational-generative l i n g u i s t s , who conceived three language l e v e l s , of which the semantic component i s the deepest and. thus the most basic. Langacker's model provides an example: - 11 -CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE Choice of Lexical Items Syntactic Rules SURFACE STRUCTURE Phonological Rules PHONETIC MANIFESTATION (= conceptual (Sapir)) (= isolating/agglutinative & analytic/synthetic) 1.7 Despite the omission of any word order c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , on an ov e r a l l basis Sapir's three dimensional c l a s s i f i c a t o r y system gives far more insight into the character of languages than do any suggested by his predecessors or, perhaps, by his successors. The fact that his typology can be used on a synchronic or diachronic l e v e l (see 4.1 below) also marks Sapir's work as the most perceptive yet. I f such insights into the "fundamental form i n t u i t i o n s " 1 0 of language continue to be made, then some day "we s h a l l be able to read from them the great underlying ground plans [of language] 1 , 1 1 and Sapir's prophecy w i l l be re a l i z e d . In his paper "A Quantitative Approach to the Morphological Typology of Language" (1954), Joseph Greenberg, b a s i c a l l y following - 12 -Sapir's typological system, develops a numerically based procedure for comparing language forms- In place of Sapir's i n t u i t i v e approach, Greenberg defines each feature i n terms of a unit r a t i o of two to one. The system operates on a one hundred word stretch of text, with the results being expressed through ten numerical indices: i ) degree of synthesis, indicated by the r a t i o of morphemes to the word (e.g. laugh + ed_ = 2/1). This index corresponds to Sapir's analytic/synthetic/ polysynthetic scale, i i ) index of agglutination, indicated by the r a t i o of agglutinative constructions to the number of morpheme junctures (e.g. laugh + ter = 1/1). This index corres-i i i ) ponds to Sapir 1s isolating/agglutinative/symbolic d i v i -sion. i i i ) presence or absence of derivational and concrete r e l a -t i o n a l concepts a) compositional index, indicated by the number of roots per word (e.g. drugstore = 2/1) b) derivational index, indicated by the number of derivational morphemes per word (e.g. farm + er_ = 1/D - 13 -c) gross i n f l e c t i o n a l index, indicated by the number of i n f l e c t i o n a l morphemes per word (e.g. farmer + s_ = 1/1) This corresponds to Sapir's d i v i s i o n into basic concrete through pure r e l a t i o n a l concepts, iv) index of order of subordinate elements i n r e l a t i o n to root a) p r e f i x a l index, indicated by the number of prefixes per word (e.g. pre + empt = 1/1) b) s u f f i x a l index, indicated by the number of suffixes per word (e.g. mat(t) + ed = 1/1) v) index showing devices used to relate words to each other a) i s o l a t i o n a l index, indicated by relationship through word order, i . e . containing no i n f l e c t i o n a l morphemes per related u n i t b) pure i n f l e c t i o n a l index, indicated by relationship through purely function-marking morphemes c) concordial index, indicated by relationship through a morpheme combining both function-marking and extra-word agreement. These ten indices again allow for an i n f i n i t e variety of possible combinations, but Greenberg, l i k e Sapir, i s less interested i n - 14 -assigning languages to a s p e c i f i c class or type than he i s i n indicating t h e i r various trends. He c r i t i c i z e s previous typolo-gies for assigning languages to one s p e c i f i c category, thus f a i l i n g to show th e i r other tendencies. For example, a language i n which agglutinative constructions outnumber non-agglutinative by 60:40 w i l l be c l a s s i f i e d 'agglutinative' with no indication of i t s non-agglutinative c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . I t w i l l , therefore, be considered the same type as a 99:1 agglutinative language, and a d i f f e r e n t type from a 40:60 agglutinative:non-agglutinative language, with which i t would actually seem to have a much closer t i e . Greenberg's more complex breakdown allows a l l of what he considers the most important tendencies of language to be indicated. Greenberg's c l a s s i f i c a t i o n has, however, i t s e l f been c r i t i c i z e d on the grounds that the tendencies indicated after applying the ten indices to one one-hundred word stretch of a part i c u l a r language might d i f f e r when the system i s applied to another stretch i n the same language, thus a l t e r i n g the rank ordering of languages for s p e c i f i c indices. For example, i n English a formal style and a c o l l o q u i a l style would undoubtedly y i e l d very d i f f e r e n t results due to the former's use of synthetic 12 compounds of c l a s s i c a l derivation. Householder comments that Greenberg's typology contains no provision for the syntactic characteristics of language, e.g. presence or absence of tense, - 15 -aspect, number, case systems, ergative systems and major constituent order (SOV, SVO, VSO, e t c . ) , and suggests that indices for certain of these could be added to Greenberg's predominantly morphological typology. As noted above, the same c r i t i c i s m i s , of course, equally applicable to Sapir's typology. Concentrating almost e n t i r e l y on the morphological aspects of language, c l a s s i f i c a t o r y systems up to and including that of Greenberg consistently excluded syntactic information from their considerations. That a syntactic c l a s s i f i c a t i o n based on word order had not so far been attempted seems surprising i n retrospect, and yet perhaps not, for prior to 1957 when there occurred an increased upsurge of interest i n syntax consequent to Noam Chomsky's writings, the complexities of word order had been l i t t l e comprehended by l i n g u i s t s and had, as a r e s u l t , been severely neglected. "The i n a b i l i t y to find explanations for syntactic phenomena seemed to Hermann H i r t the reason for lack of 13 interest i n syntactic studies i n his day." Chomsky's theories, however, opened the door to a greater understanding of language structure, since when enormous strides have been made i n l i n g u i s t i c s , especially i n the f i e l d of syntax. I t i s not surprising that t h i s reawakened interest i n syntax eventually caused a break through the t r a d i t i o n a l morphological l i m i t s of language typology. CHAPTER I I LANGUAGE TYPOLOGIES BASED ON WORD ORDER 2.0 A good typology should, i n Greenberg's words, "involve 14 characteristics of fundamental importance i n language." In recent years characteristics of fundamental importance i n syntax have taken precedence over those i n morphology. Work i n syntax has usually taken the sentence as i t s domain: and i t i s perhaps as a consequence of th i s that recent work on typology has been based on characteristics of the sentence, i n pa r t i c u l a r on characteris-t i c s of word order. The typologies considered below account neither for a l l known orderings across language nor for alternate syntactic orderings within s p e c i f i c languages. They account for only the unmarked orders across language and for the order within the basic sentences of these languages. Keenan believes that "we design our language i n a certain way unless there i s a specified 15 reason not to." Some deviations from the unmarked order state can be explained i n terms of the evolution from one language type to another (see Chapter IV); others can re s u l t from h i s t o r i c a l or areal contamination or even from the universal law of entropy, which demands the degeneration of any orderly state through disorder to subsequent reorder and which, applying to society and super-nova a l i k e , does not exclude language from i t s - 16 -- 17 -domain. Within a spec i f i c language, longer and more complex structures b u i l t upon basic sentences may demand reordering of the typological features manifest i n the basic sentence i n order to conform to primary perceptual strategies operating within that language. The following typological c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , therefore, are based on the unmarked order within simple sentences. 2.1.0 In 1966, Joseph Greenberg, working with a corpus of t h i r t y languages, observed certain common word order characteris-t i c s from which he subsequently extracted his now famous 'universals'. Although Greenberg himself did not formulate his observations into a syntactic typology, his work has provided the base for other l i n g u i s t s to enlarge on and expand into c l a s s i f i c a t o r y systems. The f i r s t major syntactic c l a s s i f i c a t o r y system of lan-guage to be put forward was that of Winfred Lehmann who, i n 1971, published "A Structural P r i n c i p l e of Language and i t s Implications", i n which the suggestion i s made that languages should be c l a s s i f i e d according to their ordering of various sentence elements. "There i s scarcely a more fundamental relationship i n language than that between verbs and their objects,""'''"' writes Lehmann, who considers these two elements to be the most important of the sentence. According to Lehmann, the subject of a sentence i s by no means of the same impor-tance as are the verb and object i n making syntactic classifications."'* - 18 -He comments: "Including them [subjects] among the primary elements, as i n the attempts to c l a s s i f y SVO and VSO languages as major types i n the same way as VO and OV languages, has been a source of trouble for typologists as well as for l i n g u i s t i c theorists i n general. Other evidence i n favour of excluding subjects from the basic phrase-structure rules has been given i n many recent grammatical studies ... Typological study accordingly supports t h i s point of view by i l l u s t r a t i n g that the S i n SVO formulae i s far less s i g n i f i c a n t than are the categories represen-ted by V and 0." 19 Working with data from several language families and using the word order c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s observed by Greenberg and the subsequently posited universals, Lehmann c l a s s i f i e s languages into two groups, Verb + Object (VO) and Object + Verb (OV). Noting that i n a con-sistent OV language nominal modifiers precede t h e i r head noun and verbal q u a l i f i e r s follow the verb, but i n a consistent VO language the opposite orders occur, Lehmann posits a structural p r i n c i p l e of language, stating that because of the strong bond he considers exists between the verb and the object of a sentence, a l l modifiers and q u a l i f i e r s tend to appear on the open end of the V-0 unit. This " P r i n c i p l e of Opposite Side" i s formally expressed as: A l i s t of the nominal modifiers and verbal q u a l i f i e r s which Lehmann Qf V ((N .)Mod)# considers of c l a s s i f i c a t o r y significance follows: - 19 -VO Order OV Order Nominal Modifiers Verbal Q u a l i f i e r s Noun + Adjective Noun + Genitive Noun + Relative Adjective + Standard Negative + Verb Question + Verb Causative + Verb Potential + Verb A u x i l i a r y + Verb Declarative + Verb Adjective + Noun Genitive + Noun Relative + Noun Standard + Adjective Verb + Negative Verb + Question Verb + Causative Verb + Potential Verb + A u x i l i a r y Verb + Declarative Other c r i t e r i a noted by Greenberg and Lehmann to be characteristic of the two orders are: VO Order Reflexive Pronoun Relative Pronoun Prepositions Prefixes OV Order Reflexive A f f i x NoNRelativ.evBronoun Postpositions Suffixes Not included i n the typological c r i t e r i a are markers of congruence, gender, case d i s t i n c t i o n and number, which, because of their r e s t r i c -ted occurrence i n languages, Lehmann feels to be d i f f e r e n t from universally present elements such as negative and question. - 20 -Lehmann considers a balanced syntactic pattern to be one which completely conforms to a set of VO or OV c r i t e r i a , c i t i n g Japanese and Turkish as examples of consistent OV languages, with Semitic and I r i s h as consistent VO types. From the observed data of s y n t a c t i c a l l y consistent VO or OV languages, Lehmann posits a further four c r i t e r i a for c l a s s i f i c a t i o n : VO Order OV Order + i n f l e c t i o n + agglutination umlaut ., , , . .^ vowel harmony (vowel influence operating , , . (vowel influence rig h t to l e f t ) .. .. . . ,.. operating l e f t to right) stress accent p i t c h accent CVC base s y l l a b l e CV base s y l l a b l e although he comments that the l a s t two c r i t e r i a are, at t h i s stage, only tentatively substantiated and need further investigation and testing. Languages which do not completely conform to either a VO or an OV pattern are considered by Lehmann to be i n a state of tr a n s i t i o n from one consistent base to another. Lehmann believes that once an influence - external or internal - has caused a s h i f t i n the basic verb and object sequence, the language w i l l rearrange i t s order of constituents to conform to the new base pattern. Thus languages with both VO and OV q u a l i t i e s are seen to be i n the process of rearranging elements to a new base pattern modelled on the verb and object sequence. - 21 -2.1.1 I t should be noted that while Lehmann's "Principle of Opposite Side" correctly predicts the placement of certain elements i n r e l a t i o n to thei r head words, i t does not predict the order i n which two or more modifiers to the same element w i l l occur. For example, i f both negative and question q u a l i f y the verb, their ordering i n r e l a t i o n to each other i s not specified. From Lehmann's data i n his 1971 and 1973 a r t i c l e s , the ordering of two or more modifiers does seem to show some patterning i n that, for example, the negative occupies the position nearer to the verb than does the question. I t thus appears that Lehmann has neglected to account for t h i s generalization i n his theory. I t should also be noted that Lehmann's l i s t of c r i t e r i a omits the ordering of Verb and Adverb. I f the Adverb i s considered a verbal q u a l i f i e r , i t would be expected to precede the verb i n VO languages and follow the verb i n OV languages. The reverse i s i n fact the case, for i n consistent VO languages, the adverb follows the verb whereas i n consistent OV languages i t precedes i t . Lehmann has not accounted for t h i s discrepancy i n his theory, nor has he made provision for Adverb placement should t h i s element be defined as something other than a verbal q u a l i f i e r . 20 Edith Moravcsik points out that Lehmann's typology i s based on two assumptions. The f i r s t i s the primacy of the object over the subject. However, Ross (1972) has argued for the opposite - 22 -relationship ( i .e. subject over object) and has pointed to several grammatical rules showing that i f a r u l e applies to objects, i t also applies to subjects, and that i f a rule i s l e x i c a l l y or s t r u c t u r a l l y r e s t r i c t e d for subjects, i t must also be r e s t r i c t e d for objects. On the other hand, Lehmann"s observations on the "Principle of Opposite Side" ordering suggest that the object i s indeed the primary concomitant of the verb. This argument i s only v a l i d , however, i f nominal modifiers are considered to be primarily modifiers of the object. I f the subject has equal claim to nominal modifiers, then the P r i n c i p l e of Opposite Side works for VSO and SOV languages, but not for SVO languages: VSO [Qualifier + V] + [S + Modifier] SOV [Modifier + S] + [(0)V + Qualifier] SVO [S + Modifier] + [V + Q u a l i f i e r ] . While the primary concomitant of the Subject i n SVO and SOV languages i s the VO complex, i n VSO types, one would a r b i t r a r i l y have to assume the Verb as the primary concomitant of the Subject. Moravcsik points out a further argument i n favour of the primacy of object over subject: "...we may allude to the area of definiteness. There seem to be many r e g u l a r i t i e s here which pertain to the Object but not to the Subject. Two of these I know of as being well-attested i n a number of languages. F i r s t ... the i n f l e c t i o n of the main Verb varies depending on whether the Object i s d e f i n i t e or i i n d e f i n i t e . Second, i n some languages the marking of the Object i t s e l f varies depending on whether the Object i s d e f i n i t e or i n d e f i n i t e ..." 21 - 23 -The second assumption i m p l i c i t i n Lehmann's typology i s that there must be a universal node VP, which, dominating the verb and i t s object, ensures the object as the primary concomitant of the verb. The P r i n c i p l e of Opposite Side thus operates to maintain the close bond of primary concomitants. Schwartz (1972), however, claims that evidence for a VP constituent exists only i n some SVO languages and i s far from universal. Lehmann's typological theory i s thus based on two assumptions - primacy of object over subject and u n i v e r s a l i t y of the VP node - which are s t i l l the subject of controversy. 2.2.0 Again working from Greenberg's data and his own observa-tions, Theo Vennemann agrees with Lehmann that languages appear to f a l l into two syntactic c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , which he refers to as VX and XV (where X = verb complement). Vennemann defines an XV language as one i n which the f i n i t e verb appears i n clause f i n a l p o s i t i o n , and a VX language as one where this i s not the case. Vennemann's concept of the primary importance of the verb i n the surface structure cor-relates with i t s importance i n the deep structure, as suggested by Chafe, who states: "...the entire sentence ... i s b u i l t around the verb ... the nature of the verb determines what the rest of the sentence w i l l be l i k e ..."22 Vennemann feels that Lehmann's explana-t i o n for the cha r a c t e r i s t i c orders found i n VX and XV languages i s i n s u f f i c i e n t l y revealing and claims instead that the cha r a c t e r i s t i c orders for these types can be accounted for by the Pr i n c i p l e s of - 24 -23 Natural Constituent Structure and Natural S e r i a l i z a t i o n . These princi p l e s i n essence state that i n an unmarked order semantic hi e r a r c h i c a l dependencies are d i r e c t l y reflected i n surface operator-operand relationships, which relationships must be u n i d i r e c t i o n a l l y s e r i a l i z e d . The P r i n c i p l e of Natural Constituent Structure i s a modification of Behagel's F i r s t Law, which states that what belongs together semantically w i l l be placed close together s y n t a c t i c a l l y . Renate Bartsch (1972) developed the P r i n c i p l e of Natural Constituent Structure from Richard Montague's attempt to translate natural lan-guage structures into predicate l o g i c . The P r i n c i p l e states that h i e r a r c h i c a l l y adjacent function-argument semantic elements w i l l be l i n e a r l y juxtaposed i n the surface structure. For example, for the phrase, three large brown dogs, the semantic hierarchy would be: {Adj 3} f 3 ({Adj 2| f 2 ({AdjJ f , ({NJ ))) 24 — | t h r e e ^ be (|largej be (jbrown^ be (£dogsj )) ) and for the sentence, Susan worked during the weekend because of  the r a i n , would be: {A 21 (N ( f ( H ) ) } —-> ^because of the r a i n j (^during the weekendJ ( worked (^Susanj))) The function-argument semantic hierarchies are subsequently d i r e c t l y reflected i n operator-operand surface relationships, with the function corresponding to the operator, and the argument to the operand. - 25 -Borrowing his terms from symbolic l o g i c , Vennemann defines the operator-operand relationship as corresponding to the s p e c i f i e r - s p e c i f i e d or determinant-determine relationship of a given sequence. The operator (s p e c i f i e r , determinant) delimits the range of the operand (specified, determine) to a subset; the operand determines the syntactic class of the com-bined operator-operand sequence. Thus i n the sequence A-B, A i s the operator and B i s the operand i f the syntactic category of A-B i s equal to the syntactic category of B. For example, i n the phrase golden b e l l s , the range of b e l l s i s limited by golden to a subclass of b e l l s which are golden. Golden thus acts as a s p e c i f i e r , or operator, on b e l l s . The noun b e l l s controls the syntactic class of the word sequence, i n t h i s instance also modifying the class of golden, and i s thus seen as the operand. The most basic operator-operand relationship within the proposi-t i o n a l nexus, claims Vennemann, i s that of the f i n i t e verb and i t s complement (Vennemann, l i k e Lehmann, assumes the existence of a universal VP node). Other operator-operand relationships exist between verb roots and the i r (to use Lehmann1s term) q u a l i f i e r s , i.e. negative, question, a u x i l i a r y verbs, etc. I t i s interesting to note that whereas Lehmann sees the negative, etc., as qualifying the verb, Vennemann, i n contrast, claims the verb specifies the negative, etc. In fact he considers the verbal ' q u a l i f i e r s ' to be operands on the whole propositional nexus, although he recognizes that they are frequently constructed as operands on the verb alone. - 26 -In her discussion of modals, Susan Steele agrees with Vennemann"s analysis: "Assuming ... that modals are higher predicates underlyingly, these positions are predictable from the typology of the lan-guage. Modals should occur i n i t i a l l y i n verb i n i t i a l languages ... and f i n a l l y i n verb f i n a l languages." 25 In her excellent paper, Steele provides evidence that modals also occur dependent upon the verb and, more in t e r e s t i n g l y , claims'that i n both OV and VO types l a t e r movement of sentence operands toward a common sentential position (usually second position) i s not an unusual phenomenon. This a t t r a c t i o n toward a common sentential position may well explain the deviant orders from consistent VO or OV types. I t does not, however, detract from the theory of o r i g i n a l basic orders. relationship are the noun phrase and i t s associated adposition (i . e . preposition or postposition) respectively. Included i n his l i s t of operator-operand relationships are a l l of the s i g n i f i c a n t syntactic c l a s s i f i c a t o r y c r i t e r i a noted by Lehmann plus the following: Also considered by Vennemann to be i n operator-operand VX Order (operand + operator) XV Order (operator + operand) Verb + Adverb Adverb + Verb Noun + Number Marker Number Marker + Noun Noun + Numeral Numeral + Noun 26 Comparison Marker + Adjective Stem Adjective Stem + Comparison Marker - 27 -VX Order XV Order Adjective + Adverb Adverb + Adjective Direct Object + Indirect Object + Indirect Object Direct Object Directional Adverbial + Temporal Adverbial + Temporal Adverbial Directional Adverbial The P r i n c i p l e of Natural S e r i a l i z a t i o n demands that a language r e t a i n a consistent operator-operand order for a l l syn-t a c t i c sequences having t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p , i . e . the operator-operand order must be u n i d i r e c t i o n a l , with the operator always preceding or always following the operand. For example, the sentences: 2.a (Susan) a donne sa robe jaune a sa soeur. od op od op od op_ od  od op_ od op_ 2.b Est-ce que (le garcon) a frappe l e chien? od op_ 2.c (Susan-wa) imotoni kiirono fukuo agemashita Susan s i s t e r - t o yellow dress give + past (Susan gave her yellow dress to QP od QP od_ QP od her s i s t e r ) op_ od op od - 28 -2.6. Shone-wa inuo kerimashita ka? boy dog kick + past Q (Did the boy kick the dog?) '_ op od show consistent operator-operand sequencing. The ch a r a c t e r i s t i c orderings found i n VX and XV languages are thus explained. Venne-mann formalizes the P r i n c i p l e of Natural S e r i a l i z a t i o n : ^Operatorj (^Operandj) = 4 [Operator [Operand]] / XV [[Operand] Operator] / VX I t seems, however, that i f verb and complement are considered i n an operand-operator relationship, the environments for the above formula are redundant, and the rule could be restated: ^Operatorj (joperandj) = 4 [Operator [Operand]] [[Operand] Operator] The P r i n c i p l e s of Natural Constituent Structure and Natural S e r i a l i z a t i o n , Vennemann modestly claims, "reduce the entire basic word order structure of a language to a single r u l e 27 of overwhelming transparency and s i m p l i c i t y . " Indeed, perhaps he i s r i g h t . 2.2.1 Although Vennemann proposes an integrated theory of semantic-syntactic ordering, he does not motivate his claim of correlation between the semantic and surface structures. This relationship has been discussed i n more d e t a i l by Keenan (i972), who offers a motivation to the effect that the more closely the - 29 -syntactic structure resembles the semantic structure, the more easi l y retrievable the semantic structure w i l l be and the more economical the grammar. Although.he has studied word order relationships i n a far wider number of languages, Keenan has not so far presented an o v e r a l l account of his findings. Nevertheless, for detailed word order studies i n languages other than Indo-European and for s p e c i f i c structures, Keenan's work offers insights and material not discussed i n Vennemann1s work. Vennemann does not s p e c i f i c a l l y comment on the r e l a -28 tionship between the verb and i t s subject . Although i n predicate logic verb-subject and verb-object stand i n the same relationship (i.e. verb(subject, object)), Vennemann, i n order to cover a poten-t i a l flaw i n his theory, argues that the subject and i t s predicate do not seem to stand i n operator-operand relationship, thus exempting the subject from the P r i n c i p l e of Natural S e r i a l i z a t i o n . He further contends that the subject and predicate stand i n a topic + comment relationship (see Chapter IV), for which reason the subject i s most naturally placed i n sentence i n i t i a l p osition i n both VX and XV languages, having a constant preferred s e r i a l i z a t i o n : ^Subjectj £predicatej ==^  [Subject] + [Predicate] i.e. ^Topicj |comment| =^ [Topic] + [Comment] This rather cursory disposal of a major sentence element which does not appear to f i t his theory i s a disquieting aspect of Vennemann's work. - 30 -During the early stages of the tran s l a t i o n of natural language into predicate l o g i c , Vennemann admits that there was some uncertainty as to i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the operator and operand of a given sequence, c i t i n g , for example, Montague's c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the verb as an operator on i t s d i r e c t object. This uncertainty may well account for Vennemann's extremely unclear presentation of his theory i n his only published (as of January 1, 1975) work on the subject, "Explanation i n Syntax". In t h i s a r t i c l e , Vennemann strongly implies that the.verb and i t s object (he has not yet changed his terminology to VX) do not stand i n an operator-operand relationship, thus making his theory incomplete and inadequate to account for the data. I f verb and object do not display the operator-operand relationship, their s e r i a l i z a t i o n cannot be included i n the theory and thus can have no bearing on the sequencing of other sentence elements. There i s , therefore, no way of predicting why VO and OV types choose the operand + operator and operator + operand sequences respectively. In his f i r s t a r t i c l e , Vennemann had to be content with merely stating that: "The r i g h t to l e f t order [ i . e . operator + operand] tends to be employed by SOV languages ... the l e f t to righ t order [i . e . operand + operator] tends to be employed by SVO and VSO languages. 29 According to "Explanation i n Syntax", languages could t h e o r e t i c a l l y have the following four orders: - 31 -2.1 VO order: Operator + Operand sequence I I VO order: Operand + Operator sequence I I I OV order: Operator + Operand sequence IV OV order: Operand + Operator sequence Orders I I and I I I are the most frequently found i n languages; orders I and IV are r a r e l y , i f ever, found. by Bartsch, Vennemann claims that the uncertainty of the verb and object relationship was eliminated and these elements were c l a s s i -f i e d as operand and operator respectively. Vennemann incorporates these new analyses into his l a t e r unpublished papers, on which this section i s mainly based. operator-operand relationship of the verb and i t s complement. F i r s t l y , Vennemann claims that the operator-operand categories correspond to the function-argument relationships of predicate l o g i c . This seems to be true for Adverb + Verb, Adjective + Noun, Preposition + Noun relationships, but i t does not appear to hold for the verb-object relationship. Compare: Following subsequent development of Montague's theory There are, however, arguments against accepting the Operator + Operand Operator + Operand Operand + Operator - 32 -The operator-operand relationship which corresponds to the function-argument d i s t i n c t i o n i s reversed i n the case of the verb and i t s object, and only i n t h i s case. As noted above, the subject i s not considered i n an operator-operand r e l a t i o n -ship with the verb and yet the object, l o g i c a l l y i d e n t i c a l l y positioned with the subject, i s so considered. This discrepancy i n Vennemann's argument would appear to cast doubt on his verb-object analysis. A second argument against accepting the operand-operator c l a s s i f i c a t i o n for the verb and i t s object i s that the r e s t r i c t i o n s placed on each other by these l a t t e r elements do not appear to be the same as the operator-operand r e s t r i c t i o n e x i s t i n g , for example, between adjective and noun. The true operator-operand relationship i s that of quantifier-quantified: 2.d a l l cats purr = (x 1) f (x) = of cats (x), a l l cats (x.^ purr (f) 2.e black cats purr = (Bx) f (x) = of cats (x), black cats (Bx) purr (f) The true operator-operand relationship exists between (x^)/(Bx) and (x), for i n both cases (x^) and (Bx) specify or l i m i t the number of (x) which undergo f. The range of . (x) i s thus specified. Neither - 33 -(x^) nor (Bx) have any power of q u a n t i f i c a t i o n over f_ and there-fore are not i n any operator-operand r e l a t i o n s h i p with i t . In the same way, adverbs act as operators on t h e i r verbs because they quantify or l i m i t the semantic f i e l d of the verb: 2.f talked s o f t l y = (Av) f (v) = of to t a l k (v), s o f t l y to t a l k (Av) i s the case. ( f ) . Even sentence modifiers stand i n a q u a n t i f i e r - q u a n t i f i e d r e l a t i o n -ship with the p r o p o s i t i o n a l nexus. For the sentence: 2.g Do black cats purr? the l o g i c a l expression would be: (((Bx) f (x)) Q) g (Q) = of questions (Q), the question do black cats purr (((Bx) f (x) QJ e x i s t s (g). While the object of a verb may specify the r e c i p i e n t of the a c t i o n of the verb, i n no way does i t l i m i t the q u a l i t y of the ac t i o n . I t therefore seems to stand i n a d i f f e r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p with the verb than do the other verbal modifiers. A t h i r d argument against accepting the verb-object = operand-operator r e l a t i o n s h i p i s found i n VSX languages which, although the l e a s t frequent type, i n t h e i r unmarked order place the subject between the verb and object. If the verb and object stand i n an operand-operator r e l a t i o n s h i p , the l i n e a r unity of the sequence w i l l be broken by the i n t r u s i v e subject, a d i s r u p t i o n not otherwise - 34 -30 occurring i n other operator-operand sequences. Subject i n t e r -ruption of the verb-object sequence raises the question as to whether the subject i t s e l f , i f not undergoing fronting by topica-l i z a t i o n , should be c l a s s i f i e d i n a surface operator-operand sequence, i n which case, the role of the object would become even more uncertain: i ) ? Verb + Subject + Object od op od op i i ) ? Verb + Subject + Object ? ? (no function-argument relation) od op_ Neither of the two analyses i ) and i i ) seem adequate, and both are a r b i t r a r i l y ordered. Vennemann avoids discussion of operator-operand sequences i n VSO languages. Another example of arbitrary operator-operand ordering seems to exi s t i n Vennemann's object and i n d i r e c t object sequencing (VX = Object + Indirect Object; XV = Indirect Object + Object). I have been informed by native speakers that the Japanese sentence 2.c i s equally, acceptable as either 2.c' or 2.c': 2.c (Susan-wa) imotoni kiirono fukuo agemashita. S 10 Adj. 0 V 2.c' (Susan-wa) kiirono fukuo imotoni agemashita. S Adj. 0 10 V - 35 -I f i n d equal acceptability for the English counterparts to 2.c and 2.c 1: 2.h I gave the yellow dress to my s i s t e r . 2.i I gave my s i s t e r the yellow dress. The difference between the sentences i n both languages appears to l i e i n the element of newest information, which w i l l be put i n stressed position (NP f i n a l i n English, post-topic NP i n Japanese) regardless of i t s status as object or in d i r e c t object. The semantic l e v e l of these elements i s equal: gave (I, yellow dress, my s i s t e r ) . Vennemann's ar b i t r a r y ordering of these NPs does not, therefore, seem j u s t i f i e d . In l i g h t of th i s problem, together with that of the operator-operand sequencing of verb and object, I am not s a t i s -f i e d that these major elements of the kernel sentence ( i . e . V + NPs) can be so eas i l y assigned operator-operand status with respect to each other. Despite i t s drawbacks, Vennemann's discussion of syntactic types has some advantage over Lehmann's.in that not only does i t account for the mirrored syntactic characteristics of VX and XV languages, but i t also predicts the order i n which two or more nominal modifiers or verbal q u a l i f i e r s may appear, a predic-t i o n which Lehmann's theory was unable to make. Although Vennemann's - 36 -explanation of the chara c t e r i s t i c syntactic sequences i s not completely sa t i s f a c t o r y , i t does attempt to account for the data formally, for which reason i t i s superior to Lehmann's. Although Lehmann correctly observes that languages hesitate to break the verb-object bond, he neglects to indicate why t h i s should be so and thus does not explain this i n t u i t i v e statement. Neither theory accounts for some of the 'other charac t e r i s t i c s ' of ty p i c a l VO and OV languages as noted by Greenberg and Lehmann, e.g. Reflexive A f f i x vs. Reflexive Pronoun; presence or absence of a Relative Pronoun; phonological c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , etc. As noted above, Vennemann1s theory contains discrepan-cies regarding the status of the major sentence elements i n respect to one another, and, due to t h i s uncertainty, I f e e l that language orders 2.1 and 2.IV (see p.31) might be possible to generate. I believe, and s h a l l attempt to show i n the following chapter, that the common occurrence of sequences 2.II and 2 . I l l and the (to the best of my knowledge) non-occurrence of sequences 2.1 and 2.IV i n languages may i n part or i n whole be due to the operation of perceptual constraints which specify that, because of possible misinterpretation, verb i n i t i a l and verb f i n a l languages must avoid operator-+ operand and operand + operator sequences - 37 -respectively for the ordering of th e i r nominal modifiers and verbal q u a l i f i e r s . The same perceptual constraints would also account for Lehmann's i n t u i t i o n regarding the close bond between verb and object. CHAPTER I I I PERCEPTUAL CONSTRAINTS ON GRAMMAR AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR WORD ORDER TYPES 3.0 This chapter w i l l attempt to j u s t i f y the claim made at the end of Chapter I I that perceptual constraints are respon-s i b l e for the avoidance of the t h e o r e t i c a l l y possible word order types I and IV. The f i r s t section of this chapter w i l l give a brief background of relevant work i n the f i e l d of perceptual con-st r a i n t s while the second section w i l l t r y to show how these con-st r a i n t s operate to prevent the occurrence of orders I and IV. 3.1.0 Studies indicate that certain apparently grammatical structures may not i n fact have developed from inherently gramma-t i c a l r u l es, but may have arisen through the application of per-ceptual strategies which operate, at least p a r t i a l l y , independently of grammatical rules. Bever (1970) states that between the ages of 2 and 6, a c h i l d appears to develop perceptual strategies which con-s t r a i n his l a t e r acquisition of certain l i n g u i s t i c structures. The fact that, i n adult grammar, some formally possible structures never appear suggests that the mature speaker may also have some 31 perceptual l i m i t a t i o n s on his l i n g u i s t i c system. - 38 -- 39 -A grammar which generates such acceptable sentences as 3.a-d w i l l also generate the grammatical, but much less ( i f at a l l ) acceptable sentences 3.e-h. 3.a The dog beaten by the old man escaped. b The boy the g i r l loved died. c Jane figured the problem out. d Linguists women admire speak Illongo. e The dog walked to the lamppost escaped. f The man the g i r l the boy despised loved died. g Jane figured that John wanted to take the cat out. h Men women and children annoy stay bachelors. Sentences such as 3.e-h, i f they are understood at a l l , often r e s u l t i n severe misinterpretation. In sentence 3.e, The dog walked to the  lamppost i s i n i t i a l l y misperceived as the main clause of the sentence with the r e s u l t that the complete sentence cannot be grammatically interpreted. Blumenthal (1967) showed that sentences patterned l i k e 3.f are frequently incorrectly paraphrased to a compound structure: 3.i The man, the g i r l , and the boy despised, loved, and died. In sentence 3.g the p a r t i c l e out i s often i n c o r r e c t l y assigned to the verb take rather than to the verb figure to which, i n t h i s instance, i t belongs. Sentences of the type 3.h were i n i t i a l l y misinterpreted as containing a compound subject + main verb: 3.j Men, women and children annoy ... - 40 -The remainder of the sentence again does not allow a grammatical processing of the utterance. Several theories have been advanced to account for the f act that some l i n g u i s t i c structures generated by rules of the grammar are not within the competence of the mature speaker. Selected aspects of some major works w i l l be b r i e f l y reviewed. Although the i r terminology d i f f e r s from one to the other, Bever (1968, 1970, etc.), Grosu (1972) and Kimball (1973) b a s i c a l l y agree that there exist three main factors responsible for the misinterpretation of sentences such as 3.e-h: i ) erroneous segmentation of the utterance i i ) short term memory span i i i ) perceptual complexity of intervening material i n a discontinuous utterance. 3.1.1 According to Bever, the hearer of an utterance w i l l attempt to segment as a unit any sequence whose constituents correspond to primary internal structure relations such as, for example, actor + action. Misinterpretation of sentence 3.e resu l t s from the hearer's erroneous segmentation of the i n i t i a l phrase, which f i t s the basic actor + action + object sentence pattern, i.e . The dog walked to the lamppost actor action object. - 41 -Not only i s the past p a r t i c i p l e walked misinterpreted as a f i n i t e verb, but, because the verbal form i s not marked for subordination, the i n i t i a l phrase i s inc o r r e c t l y assigned main clause status. In a series of t e s t s , Savin (1965) concluded that a sentence whose i n i t i a l verb was subordinate was percep-t u a l l y more complex than one whose i n i t i a l 'verb was part of the main clause. This," and other evidence, leads Bever to posit perceptual strategies which account for the erroneous interpre-t a t i o n of 3.e: "Any Noun Verb Noun sequence within a potential i n t e r n a l unit i n the surface structure corresponds to actor-action-object. "The f i r s t Noun Verb (Noun) sequence i s the main clause.^ unless the verb i s c l e a r l y marked for subordination." Grosu's explanation for the misinterpretation of sentence 3.e (and the i n i t i a l erroneous segmentation of 3.h) i s a modification of Chapin, Smith & Anderson's proposal, which states: "In imposing an i n i t i a l structural description on a sentence, the subject attempts at each successive point to close off a constituent at the highest l e v e l possible." 33 Grosu's modification merely adds the clause: "however, closure i s suspended u n t i l some s i g n i f i c a n t cue i s encountered." 34 . - 42 -Instead of being interpreted at the lower embedded sentence l e v e l , the i n i t i a l sequence of 3.e would thus be misinterpreted at the higher main clause l e v e l u n t i l the appearance of escaped, which would signal both the closure of the previous structure and, at the same time, the sentence's erroneous seg-mentation. According to Kimball, immediately on reception of the f i r s t acoustic signal, the l i s t e n e r begins to parse an utter-ance i n a 'top down' d i r e c t i o n , i . e . he w i l l begin his parsing structure with S, then work downward to NP, VP, etc. , e.g. 3.k The cat l i k e s f i s h . 1) The S / NP I det 2) cat S / NP A det N 3) l i k e s S NP VP A I det N V 4) f i s h S NP VP „ ^ ^ det N V NP N Fig. I - 43 -Once a phrase has been closed, i . e . when the f i n a l constituent of a node has been formed, Kimball theorizes i t i s then pushed down into a syntactic processing stage and cleared from the hearer's short term memory ( i t i s the subsequent acoustic signal which presumably denotes closure of a preceding phrase as per Grosu's modification above). Once a phrase has been processed, Kimball argues that i t i s very costly i n terms of perceptual complexity to have to retrieve i t for reorganization of i t s constituents. Sentence 3.e would be parsed as follows: 1) The S NP det' (STM) 2) dog S NP det N (STM) 3) walked NP VP V (STM) (PU) 4) to S NP VP (STM) V PP (PU) / P - 44 -5) the 6) lamppost STM = short term memory PU = processed unit Fig. I I ' At t h i s juncture the structure i s grammatically acceptable. Subsequent reception of the signal escaped i n i t i a l l y removes VP to a processed u n i t , but then causes problems for the hearer, for there i s no node which can be attached to the existing tree under which escaped can appear. The hearer i s thus forced to retrieve a l l the processed units and hold them a l l i n his short term memory while he completely restructures the utterance. Kimball's top down parsing method thus accounts for misinterpretation of the sentence. Although they explain erroneous segmentation i n varying terms, Bever, Grosu and Kimball a l l agree that the hearer w i l l - 45 -analyse an utterance at the highest l e v e l (or most basic level) possible unless or u n t i l he i s given an indication that such structuring i s incorrect. This p r i n c i p l e would seem to indicate that the natural order for.English sentence structure would be Main Clause + Subordinate Clause. In that a subordinate clause modifies some aspect of the main clause, i t i s interesting to note that t h i s ordering corresponds to the Specified + Specifier ordering generally posited for VO languages. I t i s noted that when perceptual confusion of the two clauses could arise ( i . e . when the subordinate clause precedes the main clause), the English subordinate clause i s always marked for status, either by a function word or by nominalization, e.g. 3.1 That John came late annoyed Susan, m *John came late annoyed Susan. n The croupier who worked at Monte Carlo cheats at cards. o *The croupier worked at Monte Carlo cheats at cards. p His singing upset the cat. q *He sings upset the cat. Correct sentence parsing i s thus indicated on reception of the f i r s t . 35 acoustic signal: That John S Comp • S NP etc. Fig. I l l - 46 -The croupier who S / NP A del N I s r e l F i g . IV The English system of subordination thus allows for the most economical parsing process. I suspect, but do not know, that most VO languages show subordination markers i n clause i n i t i a l 3 6 position and would thus f a l l into the same economical category. By implication, OV languages would be less e f f i c i e n t than their VO counterparts, as overt subordination markers, mirroring the VO pattern, would be clause f i n a l : 3.r.e.'g. Basque [Gurasoak i r a k u r r i (zuten + n ==}) zuten] l i b u r a the parents read past r e l . book The book that the parents read 3. s Amharic [bet - u - n (ya - w - sarra =4) ya - sarra - w] nigus house-the-acc pro.-the-made king The king who made the house In a sequence [S{0)V sub. marker] OV the l i s t e n e r could inc o r r e c t l y parse the i n i t i a l clause as the main clause u n t i l reception of the clause f i n a l subordinating marker. While a top down parsing process would have operated for the i n i t i a l clause, a bottom up adjoining process would have to be used to form the higher S node: - 47 -NP VP Fig. V The hearer would not, however, need to retrieve any processed units, as reanalysis of elements within the i n i t i a l sentence would not be necessary. One could argue that the upward addition of the main clause i s no more complex than the longer i n i t i a l downward parsing of the VO counterparts. Indeed, i f one traces the two paths of movement through the tree, the OV version seems more economical: OV S NP VP S NP VP ) = retracing l i n e Fig. VI However, the two directions of node addition, the i n i t i a l misper-ception of the subordinate clause as a main clause and the subse-quent restructuring demanded seem to mark the OV system as the 37 less preferable of the two. The need to overcome t h i s problem may - 48 -account for Steele's and Greenberg's observation that i n an OV language r e l a t i v e clauses "may precede the head noun" whereas 38 i n a VO language they "do not precede the head noun" ( i t a l i c s mine). The not uncommon post-nominal position of the r e l a t i v e clause i n OV languages would ensure that a clause formed on the object NP i s immediately i d e n t i f i e d as subordinate, due to the juxtaposition of three nominal elements: S 0 [S (0) V] V NP NP NP Because N + Relative constructions usually have a clause i n i t i a l subordinating marker (see Lehmann's 'other c r i t e r i a ' , p. 19), a post-nominal clause formed on the subject NP would also be marked immediately for i t s subordinate status and thus not misinterpreted as the main clause. Lehmann's c r i t e r i o n that Relative + N construc-tions usually contain no r e l a t i v e pronoun supports the claim that clause f i n a l subordination markers are perceptually inadequate. Some OV languages with Relative + N constructions avoid the l a t e analysis of subordination by introducing a clause i n i t i a l marker: 3 . t p 9- Hindi [Jo dhobii mere saath aayaa] vah dhobii DaakTar which washerman my-with came that washerman doctor's kaa bhaaii hai brother i s The washerman who came with me i s the doctor's brother. - 49 -Other OV languages indicate subordination e a r l i e r i n the clause by deletion of the equi-NP: 3.ue q, Japanese [Yamada-san-ga 0'ka'tte iru] sa'ru Yamada-Mr.-sbj. keep be + monkey pres. The monkey which Mr. Yamada keeps 3.v Turkish [0 sokagin asagisinda oturan] i h t i y a r adam geeen street down l i v e s old man ' l a s t hafta Bldu week died The old man who l i v e s down the street died l a s t week. Other OV languages (e.g. Lakhota) use di f f e r e n t case markers for equi-NPs i n subordinate and main clauses, while s t i l l others (e.g. Tagalog) use topic and comment markers which may, i n some way, mark out elements of lesser importance. Investigation into i n d i r e c t markers of subordination may subsequently show that OV languages usually do indicate the subordinate status of an element before the clause f i n a l position i s reached. 3.1.2 Although t h e i r various explanations are couched i n d i f f e r i n g terminologies, Bever, Grosu and Kimball generally agree that misinterpretation of sentence 3.g i s due p a r t i a l l y to the - 50 -discontinuity of sentence elements and p a r t i a l l y to the complexity of the intervening material. Bever notes that the more complex of two modifying elements w i l l , i f the choice e x i s t s , generally appear i n second 39-pos i t i o n , e.g. i ) preferred to 1 1 ) : 3.w i ) John walked b r i s k l y i n a more northerly d i r e c t i o n . i i ) John walked i n a more northerly d i r e c t i o n b r i s k l y . 3.x i ) John walked north at a s l i g h t l y brisker pace. i i ) John walked at a s l i g h t l y brisker pace north. This ordering i s presumably due to the fact that 3.w i ) and 3.x i ) adds only one word to the immediate memory load, whereas 3.w i i ) and 3.x i i ) add a complete phrase. Bever considers that a sentence such as 3.g (here repeated for convenience): 3.g Jane figured [that John wanted to take the cat] out. i s misinterpreted because either the length or the complexity of the intervening sequence may overload the l i s t e n e r ' s immediate memory. He states that the perceptual complexity of such sentences i s d i r e c t l y proportionate to the complexity of the intervening structure. In the case of 3.g s p e c i f i c a l l y , misinterpretation can also occur because the l i s t e n e r expects the more complex element to end the sentence. As John wanted to take the cat out i s grammatically acceptable, the li s t e n e r w i l l perceive out as part of the f i n a l complex phrase. - 51 -Grosu disagrees with Bever's statement that the distance between i n t e r n a l l y related elements i s proportionately related to perceptual complexity, arguing that i n discourse, even though pronouns may be widely separated from t h e i r ante-cedents, understanding can take place. His counter-argument does not, however, appear v a l i d . Whereas Bever's theory con-cerns discontinuity within a node and the subsequent immediate memory load, Grosu's examples of pronoun and antecedent are based not on the distance within nodes, but on distance between sentences. I t i s claimed that distance between sentences does not tax the immediate memory i n the same way as distance within nodes does i n that the sentence as a complete node may be put into long term memory, whereas no part of a node may be stored u n t i l thewhole i s complete. For th i s reason, Grosu's counter-examples do not prove what they claim. Although Grosu argues that some discontinuous readings are possible, he agrees with Bever that i n certain cases (e.g. pa r t i c l e s ) t h e i r accept-a b i l i t y becomes less i f the intervening structure i s complex, and further believes that where possible a continuous reading w i l l be chosen over a discontinuous one. A discontinuous reading becomes unacceptable, however, i f i t can be reanalysed and misinterpreted as continuous, (as i n sentence 3.g). Thus i n sentence 3.y, the p a r t i c l e down w i l l be analysed as part of the f a l l e n because of a possible continuous - 52 -reading, whereas i n 3.z misinterpretation w i l l not occur because arrived + down does not form a continuous reading. 3.y John pushed the l i t t l e g i r l who had f a l l e n down. 3.iz John pushed the l i t t l e g i r l who had arrived down. Grosu thus argues that the l i s t e n e r w i l l accept the simplest (i.e. continuous) interpretation of an utterance unless there i s an indication of discontinuity. Continuous structures therefore appear more natural to language than do discontinuous ones. Based on his argument that English speakers parse incoming utterances i n a right branching top down tree structure, Kimball states that misinterpretation of sentence 3.g results from the fact that terminal symbols optimally associate to the lowest leftmost non-terminal node. This p r i n c i p l e of Right Association i n effect merely'schematizes Grosu's p r i n c i p l e of 'continuous reading'. Up to the word out, sentence 3.g would be parsed as follows, with the marked phrases being processed as completed units and removed from short term memory: S, Fig. VII V NP I I take the cat - 53 -The l i s t e n e r , operating on the Right Association p r i n c i p l e , attempts to attach the p a r t i c l e out to the lowest leftmost non-terminal node, i . e . VP of S^. This he successfully accomplishes: Fig. IX In sentence 3.z, attachment of the p a r t i c l e down to the lowest leftmost non-terminal node could not be successfully accomplished. The l i s t e n e r would therefore be forced to reanalyse the complete utterance, which task would demand r e t r i e v a l of a l l the previously - 54 -processed units. According to Kimball, such r e t r i e v a l and reorganization i s very costly i n terms of perceptual complexity. Structures such as Fig. IX v i o l a t e the otherwise balanced top downward righ t branching construction of th e i r sentences, t h i s very imbalance accounting for the perceptual complexity of the utterances. 3.1.3 The fact that single centre embedded clauses (3.b) are acceptable, but that multiple embedded clauses (3.f) are frequently misinterpreted, has long provided food for l i n g u i s t i c thought. While double embedded structures may merely be special cases of discontinuity, other explanations for th e i r misinterpre-tation have been put forward. To prevent occurrence of double embedded structures, Chomsky & M i l l e r (1965) suggest a rule stating that "a perceptual 40 p r i n c i p l e may not interrupt i t s own operation more than once." Thus sentence 3.f, here repeated for convenience: 3.f [The man [the g i r l [the boy despised] loved] died]. N N N V V V 1 2 3 3 2 1 i s ungrammatical because perceptual assignment of to i s interrupted by the same relationship of to V^/ which i s , i n turn, interrupted by the same relationship of to V^. The rule does not, however, explain why one interruption i s acceptable but two or more are not. - 55 -Bever accounts for the complexity of multiple embedded sentences by a perceptual rule of double functioning. In sentence 3.f, he points out that the g i r l performs a double function i n r e l a t i o n to the other nouns. N,> the g i r l acts as subject i n r e l a t i o n to the preceding the man, i . e . the g i r l loved the man, but acts as object i n r e l a t i o n to N J the boy, i . e . the boy despised the g i r l . Bever argues that misinterpretation arises because an element i s perceived as having two separate functions on the same c l a s s i f i c a t o r y dimen-sion. Note that Bever i m p l i c i t l y accepts Chomsky's condition on the s i m i l a r i t y of the perceptual p r i n c i p l e involved. Other examples of double functioning which Bever offers are, unfortunately, much less convincing than the subject/object example above. As a single embedded sentence could not contain a double functioning element, i t appears that Bever's theory accounts for the misinter-pretation of multiple embedded sentences. Grosu, however, does not f e e l that Bever's double function p r i n c i p l e adequately explains the complexity of multiple centre embeddings. He points out that some such structures are acceptable even though they contain a double function element, e.g. 3.A' The mountain which the g i r l the bear chased climbed towered to a height of 15,000 feet. 3.B- The surgeon who the g i r l that the hoodlum raped consulted had won high honours i n medical school. - 56 -Multiple centre embeddings appear to be acceptable when semantic correlations r e s t r a i n potential grammatical units. Rejecting Bever's double function explanation, Grosu favours a numerical constraint on multiple centre embeddings, a constraint which would be tempered according to the r e s t r i c t i o n s imposed by the semantic correlations. This numerical constraint could e a s i l y be linked to Grosu's discontinuity argument? embedded structures i s again associated with the sentence parsing tree which the l i s t e n e r automatically constructs on reception of the acoustic signal. Up to the end of , sentence 3.f would be parsed: Kimball's explanation for misinterpretation of centre S the g i r l r e l NE, ;• / the boy F i g . X - 57 -At this point the constituents of three d i f f e r e n t sentences are being held i n short term memory, as no sentence can be considered a processed unit' u n t i l the rightmost of i t s immediate constituents has been introduced. Note that, although a multiple r i g h t branching structure contains more than two sentences, these sentences can be considered as processed units because the rightmost daughter of each S'.has been introduced/ e.g. 3.:G3 I saw the cat that ate the f i s h that my aunt cooked. S NP VP Fig . XI 1 To support his claim that i t i s the unclosed sentence constituent which overloads the capacity of the short term memory, Kimball points out that nominalizations of multiple centre embedded struc-tures are easier to comprehend than are t h e i r f u l l sentence counter-parts, because the former do not contain unclosed sentences, e.g. - 58 -3.D [That [that [that Joe l e f t bothered Susan] surprised Max] annoyed me.] 3.E Joe's leaving bothering Susan's surprising Max annoyed me. 3.D = 3*; = surprising Max det VP V RP / \ I | I NP tiV ' s V bothering Susan I I Joe leaving F i g . XIII - 59 -(I must, however, admit that to me neither sentence seems very comprehensible and that 3.E i s only a very s l i g h t improvement over 3.D). Kimball therefore believes that perceptual complexity i n multiple embeddings i s proportionate to the number of sentences being held i n short term memory at a given time, and his percep-t u a l r e s t r i c t i o n on multiple embeddings states that the constituents of no more than two sentences can be parsed at the same time. This p r i n c i p l e i s , however, inadequate i n that i t does not attempt to explain why two unclosed sentences form the perceptual boundary, nor does i t account for the fact that, due to semantic c o r r e l a t i o n , three stage centre embeddings are i n some instances r e l a t i v e l y easy to understand. 3.1.4 Although explanations for the misinterpretation of certain English sentences may d i f f e r somewhat and may not always be adequate, there appears to be enough evidence to show that perceptual strategies do play a part i n the formation of acceptable sentences. As mentioned above, the consensus of opinion a r i s i n g from the work of Bever, Grosu and Kimball i s that perceptual con-fusion occurs because of three main causes: erroneous segmentation of the utterance, discontinuity of single l e v e l constituents, and perceptual or short term memory li m i t a t i o n s on multiple centre embedded structures. - 60 -3.2.0 The perceptual strategies considered i n 3.1 above have a l l been concerned with English. I f , as seems probable, perceptual constraints operate i n one.language, I suggest that other languages may also be subject to such r e s t r i c t i o n s . While the perceptual strategies themselves w i l l d i f f e r from language to language, I suggest that the three major causes of perceptual mis-interpretation as noted i n 3.1.4 may be similar for a l l languages. The need to avoid these causes may influence languages i n thei r choice of an ove r a l l syntactic pattern and thus explain the preference for the cha r a c t e r i s t i c word order types noted i n Chapter I I . As noted i n Chapter I I , Vennemann's P r i n c i p l e of Natural S e r i a l i z a t i o n and the resulting u n i d i r e c t i o n a l operator-operand surface sequencing t h e o r e t i c a l l y allows for four word order types, here repeated for convenience: I VO order: Operator + Operand sequence I I VO order: Operand + Operator sequence I I I OOV order: Operator + Operand sequence IV OV order: Operand + Operator sequence Orders I I and I I I are frequently found i n d i f f e r i n g language families; orders I and IV are, to the best of my knowledge, never found. The presence of various nominal modifiers and verbal q u a l i f i e r s could t h e o r e t i c a l l y provide the following sequences for the four orders: - 61 -I V + Caus + Neg + Q // + Art + Adj + N I I Q + Neg + Caus + V // + + Adj + Art I I I Art + Adj + N , . // + V + Caus + Neg + Q ot>3 IV N + Adj + Art // + Q + Neg + Caus + V The following surface structure trees r e f l e c t the four orders: V NP V NP V Q Art Adj N Q V N Adj Art / \ V Neg Neg V MV Caus Caus MV I I I = IV = VP NP V Art Adj N V Q . A N Adj Art Q V /\ Neg V / \ Caus MV V Neg MV Caus Fig . XIV 3.2.1 In the above surface trees, the head elements of the verb and noun phrase nodes are the main verb and the noun.respec-ti v e l y ? without which the modifying elements would not be present. The int e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between these two basic sentence&elements provides the utterance with meaning. In I I and I I I the close positioning of verb and object makes their i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p - 62 -immediately apparent. In order I , where several elements intervene between the two head elements, the verb and a l l i t s q u a l i f i e r s must be retained i n short term memory u n t i l the l a s t sentence element, the noun object, i s reached i n order for the interr e l a t i o n s h i p to be correctly perceived. The same argument with reverse orderings applies to IV. The more elements separating the verb and i t s object, the more the short term memory i s taxed, e.g. • V + Tense + Caus + Neg + Q + Art + Adj [+ V + Tense + Art Head + Adj + N] + N , . ob] Head In I I basic element inter r e l a t i o n s h i p i s not considered u n t i l the verb i s encountered; as the next element i s the noun object, i n t e r -relationship i s immediately apparent and a l l preceding elements can be removed from short term memory. The same argument with reverse orderings applies to I I I . This would add a modification to Kimball's theory stating: Not u n t i l the head element of the following major sentence constituent has been processed can the preceding node be removed from short term memory. Separation of the verb and i t s object by a.series of modifiers i s another type of discontinuity which, as noted by Bever, etc., i s one of the major causes of misinterpretation. Because of the enhanced perceptual complexity caused by discontinuity of head elements of - 63 -major constituents, i t seems that languages evolve a strategy which states: The head elements of constituents immediately dominated by the same node should avoid separation by non-head elements of these constituents. 3.2.2 As noted above, misinterpretation of sentences also resulted from erroneous segmentation of constituents. I t seems l o g i c a l to assume that, where they have a choice, languages w i l l choose a word order which i s less l i a b l e to erroneous segmentation. Potential word order types I and IV juxtapose verbal and nominal modifiers. In some languages, i d e n t i c a l markers may modify both verb and noun: 3.Fe„g.. Hindi Kee os munde ne kute nu maria Q the boy dog kick+past Did the boy kick the dog? 3.G (Kee os ==¥) Kis munde ne kute nu maria NP Q-the boy dog kick+past Which boy kicked the dog? If a language has some i d e n t i c a l nominal and verbal modifiers and also juxtaposes nominal and verbal modifiers as i n orders I and IV, erroneous segmentation could e a s i l y occur: In order IV, for example, the same string can have two interpretations: - 64 -[N , . + Adj + Art + Q] [Caus + V] or [N + Adj + Art] [Q + Caus + V] According to Kimball and Grosu, the question marker i n the above example would be segmented to the noun phrase, as t h i s constituent i s not closed off u n t i l an overt verb phrase marker i s encountered. In such a language, unless an overt marker were introduced, there would be no way of forming a sentence with the question attached to the verb, i.e. a yes/no question. The same argument can be put forward for the Negative constituent, which i n the surface structure could t h e o r e t i c a l l y modify either the noun phrase or the verb phrase. Such misinterpretation results from erroneous segmentation, a l b e i t of a d i f f e r e n t type from that considered i n 3.1.1 above. Languages which order sentential and nominal modifiers on the outer side of the verb-object complex would never provide the environment for such ambiguity to arise. Thus a second reason for languages to choose the characteristic orders of II and I I I may be the desire to avoid possible erroneous segmentation which could arise from orders I and IV. 3.2.3 The desire not to encumber the capacity of the speaker's perceptual apparatus unnecessarily may provide another reason for the choice of orders I I and I I I over I and IV respectively. In order I I {the reverse orders apply to III) , the d i v i s i o n between the verb phrase and the noun phrase i s marked by two possible sequences: - 65 -[X JAdverbr + [N Y] The speaker's perceptual memory need, therefore, store only two signals of major constituent boundaries. In order I (the reverse orders apply to TV") the boundary between the verb phrase and the noun phrase can be marked by several sequences, i.e . any verbal q u a l i f i e r or the verb i t s e l f plus any nominal modifier or the noun i t s e l f . The possible sequences include: [X V |] Neg Q Tense Aux Potential Causative etc. J VP + [ r N A r t i c l e Demonstrative Number Adjective Comparative Preposition [V X] Y] NP r e l a t i v e clause etc. This unfinished l i s t of modifiers and q u a l i f i e r s alone provides f i f t y - s i x possible sequences which the speaker's perceptual memory must re t a i n i n order to i d e n t i f y correctly the boundaries between major constituents. As noted above, the capacity of the short term memory appears to play a part i n determining the occurrence and non-occurrence of certain grammatical constructions. I would suggest that what I c a l l the speaker 1s basic perceptual memory also plays a part i n determining which structures s h a l l or s h a l l not appear. Because of the much greater burden on perceptual memory demanded by the d i v i s i o n s i g n a l l i n g devices of orders I and IV, I f e e l that orders I I and I I I are chosen as the optimal syntactic systems. - 66 -3.2.4 I t can also be argued that orders I I and I I I are chosen over I and IV because they produce perceptually more complex structures than do the former. In orders I and IV r e l a t i v e clauses formed on the noun object invariably produce centre embedded clauses: I [V] [ [V [VO] 0 ] 0 ] = V + V + V + O + O + 0 IV [0 [0 [OV] V ] ] [ V ] = 0 + 0 + 0 + V + V + V The I I and I I I counterparts, on the other hand, produce r i g h t and l e f t branching structures respectively: I I [V] [0 [VO [VO] ]] = V + 0 + V + 0 + V + 0 I I I [ [ [OV] OV] 0] [V] = o + V + 0 + V + 0 + V As noted above, the perceptual complexity and resulting misinter-pretation of centre embedded structures has been variously accounted for by Chomsky, Bever, Grosu and Kimball. Whether such structures cause comprehension d i f f i c u l t i e s because of discontinuity, double-functioning or because of the number of incomplete sentences held i n short term memory i s immaterial to this argument. The fact remains that such structures are misinterpreted and in c o r r e c t l y analysed as compound constructions. I f a language has the choice between an order which produces centre embedded r e l a t i v e clauses and one which does not, i t seems l o g i c a l that, on ease of perception grounds, the non-centre embedding order w i l l be selected. Thus orders I I and I I I with perceptually less complex r e l a t i v e clause ordering w i l l be chosen over I and IV respectively. - 67 -3.3 The four reasons given above for the preferred orders of I I and i n thus complete Vennemann's and Lehmann's explanations of word order types. Lehmann's statement that languages hesitate to separate verb and object i s merely an observation of the data. Vennemann's statement that VX lan-guages tend to use operand + operator sequencing, while XV languages tend to use operator + operand order i s also merely an observation of the data. Because of the perceptual problems considered above, the reasons why languages hesitate to separate their major elements and why they choose certain u n i d i r e c t i o n a l sequencings may now be a l i t t l e clearer. CHAPTER IV THEORIES OF LANGUAGE CHANGE AND EVIDENCE OF OLDER ORDERS Languages are i n a constant state of f l u x , with changes occurring i n a l l t h e i r components through time. From the typological viewpoint, t h i s often means that languages w i l l move from one type to another. The various stages of develop-ment which languages pass through i n changing type can be ascertained by comparing e a r l i e r language forms to l a t e r ones. Why and how s p e c i f i c languages change i s , however, l o s t to history, and a l l attempts to account for change must be specula-t i v e to a greater or lesser degree. Various theories of evidence of e a r l i e r language stages and of language change have been put forward over the past f i f t y years. Although changes i n the syntactic component of lan-guage have long been noted, Edward Sapir was the f i r s t l i n g u i s t to suggest that some of these might be related as part of an o v e r a l l systematic change operating within a.specific language. Sapir claims that although l i n g u i s t i c changes often appear as random phenomena, the general l i n g u i s t i c d r i f t (Sapir 1s term) - 69 -of a language retains only those changes which seem to be part of an o v e r a l l pattern and which seem to be acting i n concert to a l t e r the language i n a single d i r e c t i o n toward a new or modified type. Although aware of d r i f t , Sapir i s unsure of the basic motivations which control i t , commenting: " l i n g u i s t i c features that are ea s i l y thinkable apart from each other, that seem to have no necessary connec-t i o n i n theory, have nevertheless a tendency to cluster or follow together i n the wake of some deep co n t r o l l i n g impulse that dominates t h e i r d r i f t ... we are at present very f a r from being able to define j u s t what these funda-mental form i n t u i t i o n s are." 41 To some degree, Sapir can i d e n t i f y t h i s d r i f t i n terms of his typological system. Working within his t r i p a r t i t e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n (see 1.6) and using old and modern stages of s p e c i f i c languages for his data, Sapir makes some s i g n i f i c a n t findings regarding d r i f t . Of the three dimensions of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , the degree of synthesis (analytic - polysynthetic) seems to be most susceptible to change; far less readily changed are modifying techniques (iso l a t i n g - agglutinating - symbolic); conceptual structures appear most resistant to change and, even when undergoing modifica-t i o n , seem to be u n i d i r e c t i o n a l l y r e s t r i c t e d , moving from the more complex to the less complex forms (i . e . from Complex Pure Rela-t i o n a l to Simple Pure Relational or from Complex Mixed Relational to Simple Mixed Relational). Because he feels i t reasonable to - 70 -suppose that the less important language characteristics are most vulnerable to change, Sapir concludes that the conceptual l e v e l , as i t i s preserved intact longest, i s the most funda-mental of his three dimensions of language. One aspect of Sapir's conclusions i s , however, disturbing. , I f , i n the conceptual c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , languages move un i d i r e c t i o n a l l y toward the invariable one concept word, one must assume that any language undergoing t h i s d r i f t exhibits conceptually more complex words i n i t s e a r l i e r stages, and that the older the stage, the more complex the word. To conceive of languages originating i n a conceptually complex form and becoming successively more simplex through time i s hardly convincing. Such an assumption would suppose that a large proportion of morphemes operating i n the language originated i n the bound stage, since to posit them a r i s i n g from autonomous roots (which l a t e r became bound) would reverse the un i d i r e c t i o n a l movement which Sapir claims to ex i s t . Talmy Givon (see 4.2 below), working with Niger Congo languages, has recently shown that many presently bound morphemes h i s t o r i c a l l y originated as free forms, which he adduces as support for the theory long ago advocated by Bopp for Indo-European that a l l bound af f i x e s arise from the compounding of free forms. This would suggest that a language depending heavily - 71 -on derivational a f f i x e s has moved i n a conceptually more complex di r e c t i o n , i .e. from S:unple|^^^jj Relational to Complex J^jj^jed^ Relational, thus throwing doubt on Sapir's claim of unidirection-a l i t y . The claim of u n i d i r e c t i o n a l i t y i s further contradicted i n the Finno-Ugric, languages i n which, Hakulinen (1961) points out, the number of cases has increased rather than decreased - a develop-ment opposite to that of"Indo-European. Whereas only f i v e cases are postulated for Proto-Finno-Ugric, the modern daughter languages show a range of from six to fourteen. Hakulinen concludes: "There i s therefore no support i n Finnish and i t s related languages for the theory that the development of a l l lan-guages generally tends towards greater analysis i n struc-ture." 42. Poppe (1965) c i t e s the A l t a i c languages as examples of the movement from analytic to synthetic. I t appears then that both language groups show the development of a morphology from freer syntactic constructions, a development i n direct opposition to Sapir's claim of u n i d i r e c t i o n a l i t y . 4.2 Talmy Givon's work on syntactic change i s b a s i c a l l y concerned with how a synchronic morphological description of a language can of f e r evidence of e a r l i e r syntactic orders. I m p l i c i t i n his writing i s his acceptance of Sapir's a f f i x i n g c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s and Greenberg/Lehmann's word order typology. As noted above, Givon - 72 -claims that a f f i x a l morphemes develop from once free forms which have since become bound. The syntactic rules which o r i g i n a l l y controlled the ordering of the free morphemes become p e t r i f i e d as l e x i c a l i z a t i o n rules when the free morphemes become fused with another stem - i. e . become derivational a f f i x e s . E a r l i e r syntactic stages of the language may thus be reconstructed on the evidence of the bound morphemes. Givon, paraphrasing Bopp 43 and Brugmann, claims: "Today's morphology i s yesterday's syntax." ;:-in_time, he speculates, the bound morphemes become so fused with the word root that they eventually lose t h e i r derivational status and are analysed as part of the semantic domain of the root word. Givon's theory of the morphological c y c l i c a l development of lan-guage types (which subsumes the analytic d r i f t noted by Sapir) can be summarized as follows: Stage 1 Isolating - every morpheme free Syntactic rules Stage 2 Agglutinative - some bound morphemes Old syntactic functioning as derivational affixes rules become or pre/postpositions l e x i c a l rules. New syntactic rules Stage 3 I n f l e c t i o n a l - bound morphemes fused Ditto with stem, so o r i g i n a l free form no longer recognizable Stage 4 Analytic and i s o l a t i n g - i f bound Syntactic rules morphemes do not become unstressed and drop, they become fused with stem and lose derivational status, so analysed as part of the semantic structure of the stem. (= Stage 1) - 73 -A similar l i n g u i s t i c cycle, postulated by many scholars of Greek, L a t i n , and Sanskrit, was questioned by Jespersen (1922) because, he claimed, the complete cycle was never evidenced within one s p e c i f i c language. However, Hodge (1970) has recently argued that the complete cycle can be seen i n the development of Egyptian and, to a 'lesser extent, i n Chinese. Hodge thus considers i t a reasonable hypothesis that the above l i n g u i s t i c cycle i s universal. Commenting on the various morphological typologies put forward over the years (see Chapter I ) , Hodge remarks that these may merely r e f l e c t "the description of the stage of development v i s a v i s the cycle" and not be indicative of "the basis for more fundamental dichotomies.'.' From the morphological evidence for e a r l i e r language orders, Givon shows that syntactic ordering does change diachroni-c a l l y , although he offers no explanation of the internal or external causes triggering such change. Unlike Vennemann, who works mostly on a broad theoretical l e v e l (see 4.4.r below) , Givon presents data from several languages to support his less sweeping claims. Within the verb phrase, Givon claims that verb-deriving a f f i x e s , tense and modality markers arise from main verbs which once dominated sentential complements. The structure then becomes a s e r i a l i z e d verb construction by predicate r a i s i n g ; - 74 -Gwari 4.a Wo l o * tnu-tnu zo l o he work working f i n i s h go He i s f i n i s h i n g work *lo = object pronoun formed from verb lo tnu-tnu zo l o lo tnu-tnu Fig. XV The Gwari example indicates that elements such as aspect may have originated from once f u l l verbs (cf. English I w i l l go, I'm going to work harder), and may, i n a synchronic morphology, indicate e a r l i e r syntactic ordering. An example of a derivative construction i s found i n the French causative s u f f i x , i r : 4.b blanch-ir white-make i r F i g . XVI - 75 -The modern V + Comp order of the French verb phrase would not generate the correct verb form after predicate r a i s i n g . I f the verb form arose from a Comp + Verb structure, however, predicate r a i s i n g would produce the desired r e s u l t : VP =="> VP blanche F i g . XVII The causative s u f f i x indicates an e a r l i e r Comp + Verb sequence for the verb phrase. For French, the Comp + Verb sequence i s attested i n C l a s s i c a l Latin. In an SVO language, a corresponding derivational p r e f i x i s un l i k e l y to occur because of the interven-t i o n of the subject NP of the lower sentence between the two verbs (see Fig. XVI above). 1 In..SVO languages, therefore, a free morpheme i s usually found. In French, the l a t e r r i s e of the p e r i -phrastic tense system from a previously purely suffixed i n f l e c -t i o n a l system i s a re s u l t of the change from a Comp + Verb to a Verb + Comp syntactic order: - 76 -4.c 4.d Comp + Verb stage - passe simple je chant - a i I sing + past = I sang NP VP I / \ j e NP ' V S a i / ^ s ^ «habeo) NP VP NP V chant Fig. X V i l l f / 4'5 Verb + Comp stage - passe compose NP je Ix sang a i (< habeo) V NP chante (<canta£o) VP NP V I chantai a i chante Fig. XIX - 77 -The verb phrase may furnish further evidence of previous syntactic orders through the positioning of independent pronominal objects and of pronominal subject and object c l i t i c s to the verb. The older L a t i n OV order i s s t i l l r eflected i n the positioning of Modern French object pronouns: 4.e Jean l a l u i a donnee. S 0 10 V = John gave i t to him. Pleonastic subject and object c l i t i c pronouns w i l l appear on the • 46 same side of the verb as the f u l l noun forms, claims Givon. As these once independent pronouns become bound to the verb, they freeze i n the old syntactic order, thus r e s i s t i n g any change which the independent forms may l a t e r make. Amharie, argued by Bach to have originated from a VO order, s t i l l r e f l e c t s t h i s e a r l i e r syntax i n the subject and object c l i t i c s present i n i t s modern S0V order: 4.f Amharie 47 [ya sabbar-ku-t] wambar [that broke-I-it] chair = the chair that I broke. In Stage 2 of the proposed language cycle (see p. 72), the subject c l i t i c may retain enough independence to la t e r follow the new syntactic position of i t s f u l l noun counterpart. I f , however, the - 78 -c l i t i c enters Stage 3 and loses i t s separate i d e n t i t y , i t w i l l become an i n f l e c t i o n incapable of separation from the verb stem. Givon thus hypothesizes that subject-verb number agreement in f l e c t i o n s also offer evidence of e a r l i e r syntactic orders, a subject + predicate language having preverbal subject agree-ment i n f l e c t i o n s , and a verb + subject order having postverbal subject agreement i n f l e c t i o n s . This claim would appear to have some support i n the Verb + Pronoun o r i g i n which has been suggested at various times for the number agreement i n f l e c t e d Indo-European verb forms. The ordering of noun phrase elements may also indicate previous syntactic stages of a language. Givon, as do others before him, believes that g e n i t i v a l and pre/post-po s i t i o n a l constructions o r i g i n a l l y arise from Noun + Noun structures. In the case of pre/postpositions, the head noun of the phrase has become so reduced semantically that i t i s no longer considered a f u l l free l e x i c a l u n i t , but becomes bound to an accompanying noun. OV languages, where nominal modifiers precede t h e i r head noun, w i l l thus produce postpositions, while VO languages w i l l produce prepositions: OV NP ==> N N N Postposition (modifier) (head) Fig . XX - 79 -VO NP =="> N N (head) (modifier) p . g > ^ In many cases, argues Givo^n, the o r i g i n a l NP producing the pre/-postposition may have i t s e l f been a genitive construction. He c i t e s the r i s e of the l a t e r English prepositional phrases, where he feels a s t r u c t u r a l reanalysis has taken place: 4.g on top of the house on [the top [of the house]] (head) (gen.) =4 [on the top of [the house]] ==^  [on top of] [the house] (prep.) (head) The g e n i t i v a l o r i g i n of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r preposition i s supported by the s t i l l e x i s ting forms housetop, rooftop, tabletop, etc. Other prepositional origins are not so transparent. This phrasal reanalysis implies that f u l l noun phrase elements such as at the bottom of the heap should also be analysed as phrasal prepositions + NP: 4.h [at the bottom of] [the heap] (prep.) (head) since a d i f f e r e n t analysis for the two expressions would appear contrary to i n t u i t i o n . Taking the argument further, the question then arises as to whether similar expressions should also be analysed phrasally, for example: - 80 -4.i at the beginning of the week j i n the middle of the garden k by the side of the chair 1 on the f i r s t of March There seems l i t t l e evidence to indicate phrasal analyses for these f u l l NP expressions. While Givon may be correct i n his phrasal analysis of on top of, a more e x p l i c i t account of where reanalysis takes place i n the continuum of [NP][NP] [Prep][NP] would perhaps c l a r i f y his argument. The synchronic analysis, however, does not detract from the older ordering suggested by prepositions and postpositions. Thus the presence of postposi-tions or Genitive + Noun constructions i n a VO language would indicate an OV syntactic order at some e a r l i e r stage. The con-verse would apply to prepositions and Noun + Genitive construct-i o n s appearing i n an OV language. Both Lehmann and Givon claim that compound words indicate e a r l i e r syntactic orderings. Object + Verb compounds in English, a VO language, are seen to r e f l e c t an older OV order, although the root words themselves need not necessarily have been i n the language during the older period: 4.m dogcatcher • ^== X dogs catches = X catches dogs dra f t evasion ^= X the draft evades = X evades the draft. - 81 -Although neither Lehmann nor Givon presents data from non-Germanic languages to support t h i s hypothesis, the fact that French and Spanish, more consistent VO languages, compound i n the same order as thei r basic sentence suggests t h a t the claim may be v a l i d : 4. n French l a porte-monnaie carry money - purse l e tire-bouchon p u l l cork = corkscrew 1*essuie-mains wipe hands = handtowel Spanish e l mondadientes pick teeth = toothpick e l metomentodo put me i n a l l = busybody e l sabelotodo know i t a l l = know-it-all As English is* a VO language, one would expect i t to be moving toward t h i s VO compounding order. Although i t does have some VO compounds (e.g. scarecrow, cutthroat), they are i n a minority, and t h i s order does not yet appear to be productive. In the movement of a language from one consistent type to another, there-fore, i t would appear that the compounding order i s one of the l a s t elements to move. - 82 -Although Givon adds only subject agreement i n f l e c -t i o n and pronominal c l i t i c order to Lehmann's l i s t of c r i t e r i a for determining language type, his explanation as to how the characteristic structures arise supplements Lehmann's work. 4.3.0 In addition to providing syntactic insights into .language types on a synchronic l e v e l , Lehmann's structural p r i n c i p l e of language can also be used to provide tentative reconstruction of older language stages and to predict future developments. Believing that languages prefer the balanced syntactic systems of VO and OV types, Lehmann sees word order change as correlating with the frequently observed tendency of languages to preserve these balanced states. The impetus for change, which Lehmann considers to be externally motivated, comes when the fundamental sentence element, the verb, reverses i t s linear sequence with i t s object: i.e. X + V + 0 + Y 1 2 3 4 ==* 1 3 2 ; 4 4' or X + 0. + V + Y 1 2 3 4 ==* 3 1 2 4<: 4 Since languages appear to have low to l e r a t i o n of imbalanced systems, subsequent movement of the minor sentence elements w i l l occur to conform to the new base pattern set by the verb and i t s - 83 -object. However, Lehmann makes no predictions as to the sequence of the l a t e r reorderings — i . e . whether verbal q u a l i f i e r s move before nominal modifiers, or vice versa. He thus believes that evidence of older ordering stages can be obtained from an imbalanced syntactic system. For example, a language with the ordering: Q + V + Art + Adj + N^.. would be c l a s s i f i e d as an old OV language which has undergone verb movement and i s presently i n the process of reordering minor elements-to conform to the new system, the present verb-object sequence always indicating the direc t i o n i n which the language i s moving. In t h i s hypothetical example, the verbal q u a l i f i e r has already moved, but the nominal modifiers, not yet having undergone change, s t i l l represent the old pattern. Lehmann i s , however, not e x p l i c i t as to the cause of the o r i g i n a l syntactic movement — i . e . the verb-object reversal. I f a language o r i g i n a l l y had an optimally balanced syntactic pattern, then an in t e r n a l impetus i s u n l i k e l y (but see 4.5 below). Under Lehmann's system, the i n i t i a l impetus for change would have to be external, r e s u l t i n g from contact with and assimilation to the ordering systems of other language types. Indeed, i n his a r t i c l e s , Lehmann often suggests s p e c i f i c external contacts to account for various language changes. - 84 -4.3.1 From the data presented i n his various a r t i c l e s , Lehmann's claim that the basic verb-object sequence i s f i r s t to undergo change i s not well documented and i s thus open to discussion. One could argue, as does Sapir (4.1 above) that the most basic elements i n language are, i n f a c t , the most stable and therefore the l a s t to undergo change, i n which case, the verb and object would be the l a s t elements to move. I t i s possible that external influences might f i r s t cause change i n the more vulnerable minor sequences before affecting the major sen-tence elements. Indeed, s p e c i f i c language data does b e l i e Lehmann's claim that word order change always originates with verb movement. Persian has the verb i n clause f i n a l p o s i t i o n , yet shows a l l other c l a s s i f i c a t o r y c r i t e r i a i n a VO ordering. According to Lehmann, t h i s would indicate that Persian was recently a VO language whose verb has now moved into clause f i n a l position. Following the new OV pattern, the remaining VO c r i t e r i a i n the noun and verb phrases would shortly be expected to change 48 to an OV order. I t i s , however, commonly accepted that e a r l i e r stages of Persian ( i . e . Proto-Indo-European) showed the verb i n clause f i n a l position and demonstrated OV ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n the noun phrase. The VO characteristics of the Persian noun phrase cannot, therefore, be explained under Lehmann's theory, as i t appears they changed order independent of the verb-object pattern - 85 -(Semitic, probably Arabic, has been cit e d as the most l i k e l y source of influence). Persian thus indicates that minor sen-tence elements may undergo change before the verb-object sequence. Evidence of older language stages based on d i s -crepancies between the verb-object and noun phrase orderings may not, therefore, be so readily analysed. The Persian example appears to support Sapir's claim that the more basic elements of language are the most resistant to and thus the l a s t affected by change. 4.4 In contrast to Sapir's and Lehmann's rather t h e o r e t i c a l and sparsely documented approach to language change, Sandra Thompson and Charles L i use very s p e c i f i c data to substantiate the i r claims regarding diachronic language development. Working mainly with Chinese, they present good arguments to show by what 49 paths Mandarin Chinese changed i t s word order type. Archaic Chinese i s an SVO language with consistent OV q u a l i t i e s i n the noun phrase and a preverbal object pronoun. This inconsistent patterning leads L i and Thompson to speculate that pre-Archaic Chinese was an SOV language which l a t e r changed to a VO order i n the verb phrase. Archaic Chinese to Modern Chinese i s evidencing a reverse movement toward an SOV type, giving an o v e r a l l movement as follows: - 86 -Pre-Archaic Chinese Archaic Chinese Modern Chinese SOV SVO ==» SOV OV type p a r t i a l VO type p a r t i a l OV type L i and Thompson claim there are several paths by which word order may change and produce evidence to show that some modern Chinese case markers and prepositions are derived from once f u l l verbs, which process re s u l t s i n a new word order sequence: i) S + V + 0 [+V] ==* S + case marker + 0 + V i i ) S + V + O [+V] ==* S + PP (==Prep + 0) + V In i ) and i i ) an SOV order i s thus effected through reduction of the verb to a bound morpheme status. Whereas Lehmann and Vennemann assume that word order change results from a reorganization of major sentence constituents within the simple sentence, L i and Thompson claim i t r e sults not from reordering within the simple sentence but from reanalysis of sentence constituents from primary to secondary status within the complex sentence. Further support for word order change originating i n complex sentences comes from Givon and Hyman's^ work on Bantu, Mande and Kwa, i n which syntactic change appears to have occurred through verb collapsing i n s e r i a l i z e d verb constructions: i i i ) S [+V] + 0 + V ===> S + V + 0 + case marker - 87 -I t should, however, be noted that word order change resulting from reanalysis of elements as primary or secondary does not occur only i n complex sentences. The development of the English, French and German post-verbal negatives resulted from reanalysis of elements within the simple sentence: 4.o Old English Nu i c ne eom wierpe papt i c beo pinusunu nemned ... 51 S Neg. V primary 4.p Middle English They ne spared not her throtes. 52 S Neg. V Neg. 0 4.q Modern English The trees are not i n blossom yet. S V Neg. X primary What appears i n the surface sentence to represent a reordering of elements i n fact results from a gradual semantic reanalysis of two related constituents, one of which subsequently reduces or drops. As a r e s u l t of thei r observations, L i and Thompson argue that the new word order resulting from spe'cific reanalyses w i l l probably ex i s t side by side with the o r i g i n a l order, thus making word order change a gradual and pervasive process rather - 88 -53 than an "abrupt and traumatic one" which, they claim, a d i r e c t reordering of major constituents within the simple sentence would be. L i and Thompson c r i t i c i z e Vennemann's language cycle schema for , among other things, not providing for the direct SVO SOV change which t h e i r evidence shows Chinese to have undergone (Vennemann posits an SVO ==> Free Word Order ==> SOV cycle i n "Explanation.in Syntax." This cycle was l a t e r revised to incor-porate an SVO ==> SOV move — see 4.5 below). A noteworthy aspect of L i and Thompson's data i s that they indicate prepositions and case markers may arise from once f u l l verbs. Whereas Vennemann and Givon see prepositions and case markers originating from the head noun of an NP and, on t h i s basis, reconstruct an e a r l i e r syntactic order, L i and Thompson's verbal preposition and case marker o r i g i n w i l l allow a d i f f e r e n t reconstruction :• Preposition derived from head noun Preposition + Noun =^= Noun + Noun (head) (modifier) Reconstruct VO order Preposition derived from verb Preposition + Noun =^= S + V + 0 [+V] Reconstruct VO order S [+V] + 0 + V Reconstruct OV order V J - 89 -Case marker derived from head noun Noun + Case Marker Noun + Noun (modifier) (head) Reconstruct OV order Case marker derived from verb Noun + Case Marker 4== r S + V + O [+V] Reconstruct VO order S [+V] + 0 + V Reconstruct OV order I t thus appears that, unless prepositional and case marker morphemes c l e a r l y indicate whether they are of nominal or verbal o r i g i n , they may be much less indi c a t i v e of e a r l i e r syntactic orders than has previously been suggested. 4.5.0 Returning to the theo r e t i c a l l e v e l , Vennemann claims that his p r i n c i p l e of natural constituent structure and unidirec-t i o n a l s e r i a l i z a t i o n on which his typology i s based can predict future syntactic developments, i n that a language not having a unid i r e c t i o n a l operator-operand sequence w i l l move toward a consistent sequence, probably that exemplified by the verb and i t s complement. Presumably, Vennemann1s typological explanation would also posit older language stages. Agreeing with Lehmann that the verb i s the most fundamental sentence element, Vennemann states that verb s h i f t i s the basic cause of a l l syntactic type changes. I f the verb moves to form a new operator-operand - 90 -sequence with i t s most important operator, the complement, the prediction i s that a l l other operator-operand sequences w i l l follow suit to conform to the p r i n c i p l e of natural s e r i a l i z a t i o n . Thus a language showing inconsistent s e r i a l i z a -t i o n i s i n a t r a n s i t i o n a l stage from one s e r i a l i z a t i o n to another, the new order being shown i n the s e r i a l i z a t i o n of the verb and i t s complement, and the older order being reflected 54 i n inconsistent operator-operand sequences. Vennemann also claims that the reordering of the noun phrase lags behind that of the verb phrase. He offers no data i n support of th i s state-ment however, and i t appears to be contradicted by the Persian example (see p. 84). Theorizing that syntactic change can be i n t e r n a l l y motivated within language, Vennemann offers a more e x p l i c i t reason for the o r i g i n a l basic verb movement than does Lehmann. Vennemann claims that the order of basic elements SXV i s the most natural for language. On the grounds that, i n unaffected speech, the subject case indicates the topic of a sentence and the object case the comment, Vennemann believes the subject w i l l naturally precede i t s object. This claim i s supported by Greenberg (1966) and Keenan, who, i n his paper "A Universal D e f i n i t i o n of 55 Subject", states "subjects normally precede the other major NPs". - 91 -According to Vennemann, a marked order would show the t o p i c a l i z e d element i n the object case. He defines " t o p i c " as "phenomena ... already established within the consciousness 56 of the speakers," ( i . e . o l d information). Keenan lends support to t h i s analysis too by sta t i n g that subject NPs are normally presupposed r e f e r e n t i a l and "normally express informa-57 t i o n known to speaker and hearer." He further contends that " i f a language has a s p e c i a l topic or old information marker, 58 i t w i l l n a t u r a l l y occur on subjects." C i t i n g Behagel's second law that sentence elements which take up preceding material n a t u r a l l y come before those which do not, Vennemann argues for the universal r u l e : ^TopicJ ^ Comment^ [Topic] + [Comment] This argument i s independently stated by Chafe (1971) who suggests that what comes from the speaker's deep memory ( i . e . old informa-tion) i s found i n sentence i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n . In languages with which he i s f a m i l i a r ( i . e . E n g l i s h and German), Vennemann .states that, although both verb and object form the sentence comment, i t i s the object which receives the intonation peak, with the verbal element functioning to show the p a r t i c u l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between subject and object. Because of the s p e c i a l topic-comment r e l a -t i o n s h i p e x i s t i n g between subject and object, Vennemann expects these elements to be juxtaposed within the sentence, and thus sees - 92 -the verb as standing outside the i n t r i n s i c S-0 complex, i.e. |V] {s-Cjj. Whereas the SXV order retains topic + comment sequencing for a l l constructions, the VSX order uses i t only : for t r a n s i t i v e verb structures, reversing i t i n t i n t r a n s i t i v e verb constructions where the verb alone forms the comment: V + S + 0 ? topic comment V + S • . comment topic An SVX order i s less than id e a l on two counts. F i r s t l y , the i n t r i n s i c topic-comment or subject-object complex i s broken by the verb. Secondly, i f an SVX language follows the not unusual practice of constructing sentence operands (modality, tense, aspect, etc.) as verbal operands, the propositional nexus of i t s sentence w i l l be interrupted: S + Modality + V + X ' * ft ^ ' propo- ' " vl s i t i o n a l nexus sentence operand For these reasons, Vennemann considers the SXV order, where topic always precedes comment, and where the propositional nexus i s never broken, to be the optimal syntactic type. In making t h i s hypothesis, however, Vennemann disagrees with Greenberg, who suggests that the dominant order i s for the verb to precede the - 93 -object. Steele interprets Greenberg's observations and other evidence (e.g. Tranel 1972) as indicating that "importance 59 attaches to the preceding as opposed to the following," and uses t h i s p r i n c i p l e to p a r t i a l l y explain the o v e r a l l importance which she feels belongs to sentence i n i t i a l position (see p.26). Vennemann's statement that stress usually f a l l s on the object NP i s not s u f f i c i e n t l y accurate. Stress i n English usually f a l l s i n sentence f i n a l p osition; i n Japanese i t usually f a l l s on the f i r s t post-topic element (see p.35). A more accurate representation of stress placement would state that stress f a l l s on the f i n a l or f i r s t elements of the comment i n VX and XV lan-guages respectively. In both language types stress f a l l s on the " comment element furthest from the verb. This appears to indicate that the verb i s of secondary importance i n the comment and that, despite i t s primacy i n the functional structure of the sentence, i t s purpose i n the topic-comment dimension may indeed be to l i n k the oldest and newest pieces of information within the sentence. 4.5.1.0 Vennemann's proposed cycle of language change, explained i n more d e t a i l below, originates and finishes with his optimal SXV type. An SXV language losing i t s i n f l e c t i o n a l markers may, v i a a Topic + V + X (TVX) stage, become only SVX. After the new operator-operand sequence has readjusted i t s e l f , new i n f l e c -tions may i n time form i n preverbal and prenominal positions, - 94 -allowing the language to revert to the optimally functional SXV order. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , an SVX language may become VSX (by a process described i n 4.5.1.2 below). The VSX type may again build up a new set of p r e f i x a l i n f l e c t i o n s which allows i t to move back to the SXV order, or i t may, through a marked s t y l i s -t i c pattern, revert to the SVX type. The various potential movements can be schematized as follows: SVX^ TVX i.e . SXV TVX SVX VSX Vennemann states that although the subject case i s the preferred one for a topicalized sentence element, the object case may also be used for t o p i c a l i z a t i o n (and the associa-ted NP fronted), r e s u l t i n g i n the following marked orders: Unmarked SXV SVX. VSX NP NP V s o NP V NP s o V NP NP s o Marked NP NP V o s NP NP V o s NP V NP o s - 95 -Of the three marked orders, only i n the SXV stage does the NP-V sequence stay the same as the unmarked order: Unmarked SXV SVX VSX NP NP V NP V NP V NP NP Marked NP NP V NP NP V NP V NP If an SXV language i s to prevent perceptual ambiguity a r i s i n g from the use of a marked order, reasons Vennemann, i t must regain a "uniform and conspicuous" system of case d i s t i n c t i o n or, a l t e r -natively, a d i s t i n c t i o n for indicating marked t o p i c a l i z a t i o n . This claim i s supported by Greenberg's Universal 41, which states: I f , i n a language, the verb follows both the nominal subject and the nominal object as the dominant order, ^ Q the language almost always has a case system. However, continues Vennemann, phonological change i n language i s constantly operative and i n time erodes unstressed elements, thus causing loss of d i s t i n c t i v e case markers. Loss of case d i s t i n c -t i o n i n an SXV language leads to ambiguity between marked and unmarked t o p i c a l i z a t i o n , thereby rendering the syntactic system inadequate. To prevent ambiguity and to solve the t o p i c a l i z a t i o n problem, the verb, which, Vennemann claims, i s the only element unable to undergo t o p i c a l i z a t i o n , moves to separate the topic from the comment. This movement takes place f i r s t i n t r a n s i t i v e verb structures and la t e r i n i n t r a n s i t i v e constructions, as the - 96 -l a t t e r contain no d i r e c t object whose marked t o p i c a l i z a t i o n could cause ambiguity. For example, an SOV t r a n s i t i v e marked t o p i c a l i z a t i o n order: NP + NP + V could be misinterpreted, whereas an i n t r a n s i t i v e structure: NP + Adverb + V wou'ld cause no problem. So develops a Topic + V + X ordering evidenced, states Vennemann, i n languages such as Old English, French, Old German, etc., i n which either subject or pronominal forms (topicalized by definition) or both may precede the verb: 4-rr Her com Swegen mid his f l o t a n to Nordwic. 61 4.s Pa gelamp h i t swa pae't hie... 62 4.t Se papa hine hSht Petrus. 63 4.u Jean l a l u i a i donne*e. 4.v J'y en a i vu. Modern Czech has two basic verb positions, one following the f i r s t t o p i c a l i z e d element of a sentence, and the other following a l l t opicalized elements, i . e . either T + V + X or T + V + X During the TVX stage, claims Vennemann, several char a c t e r i s t i c elements appear, among which are included the de f i n i t e a r t i c l e and the passive voice. Both ar i s e to f i l l the - 97 -need for a topic marker: the d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e signals a previously mentioned element, while the passive allows object t o p i c a l i z a t i o n through a d i s t i n c t i v e verb form and agent marking. Another characteristic of TVX languages i s the brace construction, which occurs when one element has shifted p o s i t i o n before i t s associated constituent, e.g. 4.w German - subordinate clause showing consistent SXV order i . " dass (Maria) mich gesehen hat. 3 2 1 4.x M dass (Hans) gestern angerufen hat. 3 2 1 - main clause showing brace construction 4.w' (Maria) hat mich gesehen 1 3 2 4.x' (Hans) hat gestern angerufen. 1 3 2 The subordinate clause shows a normal SXV order. The main clause shows mich and gestern braced by the f i n i t e verb and i t s p a r t i c i p l e , indicating movement of the f i n i t e verb, but as yet no movement of i t s associated p a r t i c i p l e or of the other XV orderings. The reason main clauses contain bracing constructions whereas subordinate clauses do not, claims Vennemann, i s that t o p i c a l i z a t i o n i s more important i n the former. Thus the main clause w i l l respond to the - 98 -t o p i c a l i z a t i o n ambiguity problem before the subordinate clause. This argument i s i n accordance with Ross's penthouse p r i n c i p l e (1973) which states that higher sentences undergo change before embedded ones. A further cha r a c t e r i s t i c of TVX languages and another example of the brace construction i s the Adjective + Comparative + Standard order found i n such phrases as: 4.y t a l l + er than John Adj. Comp. Standard The normal XV and VX orders are respectively: 4.y' Standard + Adjective + Comparative than grass green er and 4.y" Comparative + Adjective + Standard more green than grass The Adjective + Comparative + Standard order indicates that the Standard element has moved from an XV to a VX order before i t s d i r e c t l y related constituents, Adjective and Comparative, thus leaving a brace construction: Standard + Adjective + Comparative 1 2 2 J3 2 3 1 - 99 -In time, the VX movement around the Comparative pivot w i l l presumably be completed: Adjective + Comparative + Standard 2 3 1 ==> J3 3 2 1 A t h i r d example of a brace construction i s found i n the bracing negation of Middle English and Modern French. In t h i s p a r t i c u l a r example, Vennemann gives an explanation for the:,observations made by L i and Thompson regarding the s h i f t of sentence elements from primary to secondary importance and vice-versa (see pp. 86/7), 4.z Middle English For I ne kan nat fynde/A man, though bat I walked into Ynde. 64 French 4.A Je i i ' a i r i e n d i t . Because of the change i n sentence accent (see below), the preverbal negative element loses i t s stress and has to be reinforced by a postverbal emphatic p a r t i c l e (nat, r i e n ) . The semantic power of the weakened preverbal negative i s gradually transferred to the stressed postverbal emphatic element which i s subsequently reanalysed as a negative element. This transfer i s reinforced by the contemporary move toward a VX order of the Adverb + Verb sequence, which becomes Verb + Adverb (see p. 26). I f the negative i s analysed not as a sentence adverbial, but as a verb adverbial, i t w i l l be influenced by the general operand + operator movement affecting the entire - 100 -language. A bracing negation i s thus seen by Vennemann as indicating an SXV ==^  TVX movement occurring within a language. During the TVX period, the language reduces from an agglutinative through an i n f l e c t i o n a l to an i s o l a t i n g type due to the increasing redundancy of the remaining s u f f i x a l markers. This explains Lehmann's observation that VO and OV languages tend to be i n f l e c t i o n a l and agglutinative respectively. The l a s t of Vennemann's TVX chara c t e r i s t i c s to be noted here i s sentence accent. Due to the fact that an operator-operand sequence i s i n effect a new information-old information structure and that a new information element generally carries the focus, an XV operator + operand language w i l l show an accen-tual pattern of *""*** , whereas a VX operand + operator language w i l l show a s ^ pattern. During the TVX period of change, claims Vennemann, languages w i l l demonstrate both patterns, as evidenced by English: 4.B The man catches dogs. (VX) the dogcatcher (XV) 65 From the TVX stage, continues Vennemann, a language w i l l develop into an SVX type. As a sentence usually contains only one top i c a l i z e d element, and as the subject case i s usually chosen to represent the topic, new language learners confronted with the common T (=S) + V + X pattern w i l l reanalyse i t as SVX. A new functional analysis i s thus reached. 101 -4.5.1.1 To this point several c r i t i c i s m s can be made of Vennemann's theory of SXV = 4 SVX change. F i r s t l y , Vennemann does not define the terms sub- je c t and o b j e c t . ^ While i n i t i a l l y he appears to use surface case markings as his defining c r i t e r i a as, for example, when he refers to the subject 'case'aas the one most commonly chosen by a topicalized element, he l a t e r appears to be defining subject (agent?) and object as deep structure elements as, for example, when he comments that passivization allows t o p i c a l i z a t i o n of the object f o r , although passivization c e r t a i n l y t o p i c a l i z e s a deep structure object, i t brings i t out on the surface with subject case markings, i n effect preserving the S + V ordering. This lack of consistency i n the use of very v i t a l terminology con-s t i t u t e s a serious flaw i n Vennemann's argument. Secondly, having stated that a VSX language has a V + (S-0) order, where S = topic and 0 = comment, and having theorized that the verb can never i t s e l f be t o p i c a l i z e d , thus indicating that the language has a V + topic + comment [-topic] order, Vennemann then proceeds to show marked t o p i c a l i z a t i o n as N P q V + NP G. I f topic position i s post-verbal i n the VSX type, as i t surely must be according to Vennemann's analysis, there can be no j u s t i f i c a t i o n for moving the topicalized object to preverbal position. The topicalized object would presumably be moved into the post-verbal topic p o s i t i o n , i n which case the language would be as ambiguous as i t s poorly i n f l e c t e d SXV - 102 -counterpart. According to Greenberg's universals, VSX types do have alternate SVX orders. However, whether t h i s order indicates a focus construction or whether i t indicates marked t o p i c a l i z a t i o n I do not know. I f i t i s a marked topic construc-t i o n , i t would indicate that topic holds sentence i n i t i a l p o sition, thus disproving Vennemann's claim that the verb i s always [-topicl (cf. unmarked VSX constructions). I f , on the other hand, the sentence i n i t i a l NP represents a focus construc-t i o n , and the marked t o p i c a l i z a t i o n position remains postverbal, then one would expect a VSX language to have a "conspicuous and uniform" system of case markers i n order to prevent ambiguity. There i s no Greenberg universal to support t h i s expectation. Accordingly, one must assume that the sentence i n i t i a l NP i n a VSX type represents marked t o p i c a l i z a t i o n and must also assume that the verb i n a normal VSX structure represents part of the sentence topic. Marked t o p i c a l i z a t i o n would then allow the object case to be moved into sentence i n i t i a l topicpposition. In accounting for motivation of the SXV TVX movement, Vennemann has assumed (as have many others before him) that sound change - i n this case the erosion of i n f l e c t i o n s -causes and therefore occurs before syntactic change. Although i t i s highly questionable, Vennemann gives no data to support this claim. I f the case system of a language i s a viable e n t i t y , - 103 -functionally s i g n i f i c a n t morphemes would be very resistant to coalescence or erosion, as they are essential components i n the 6*7 operation of the syntactic system. Sapir-Swrites": "I believe that such influences [of the morphosyntactic structure of a language on i t s phonetic development and vice-versa] may be demonstrated and that they deserve far more careful study than they have received. I f speech sounds exi s t merely because they are the symbolic c a r r i e r s of s i g n i f i c a n t concepts and groupings of concepts, why may not a stronger d r i f t or a permanent feature i n the percep-tual sphere exercise a furthering or retarding influence on the phonetic d r i f t ? " 68 I f , however, sound change does indeed begin to threaten the syntactic system, the language can eas i l y rescue i t s system by, for example, paradigmatic borrowings, development of subject and object c l i t i c s , or c l i t i c s which indicate marked object t o p i c a l i -zation. A language i s less l i k e l y to reorder i t s basic line a r sequence to adjust to the loss. Phonological change i s a doubt-f u l cause of major syntactic change i n my opinion. On the other hand, i n f l e c t i o n a l coalescence and erosion can eas i l y r e s u l t after the occurrence of linear sequence change. Once surface subject and object are indicated by their r e l a t i v e positions to the verb, case markers become redundant and thus highly susceptible to erosion. Phonological l e v e l l i n g of case systems i s more l i k e l y to be a r e s u l t of, rather than a causal factor of, syntactic change. - 104 -Vennemann states that the loss of f i n a l s y l lables i n Germanic languages i s "a consequence of the word i n i t i a l stress 69 accent of these languages." Although La t i n and French assign primary stress (or length) to the penult or antepenult, they did not undergo i n i t i a l s y l l a b l e reduction, as would be expected from a reverse application of Vennemann1s argument for German f i n a l s y l l a b l e loss. French and Latin i n fact p a r a l l e l e d the German f i n a l s y l l a b l e loss. Stress placement does not, therefore, seem to be the major conditioning factor for t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s y l l a b l e reduction. In f a c t , German, despite i t s i n i t i a l s y l l a b l e stress, retains some case endings, whereas French retains none: 4.C German der Mann Sg. Nom. den Mann Acc. des Mannes Gen. dem Manne Dat. die Manner PI. Nom. die Manner Acc. der Manner Gen. den Mannern Dat. French l e paysan l e paysan l e paysan l e paysan les paysans les paysans les paysans les paysans In addition, i f i n i t i a l s y l l a b l e stress were responsible for the loss of Germanic case endings, one would expect a l l cases to be affected. As i t i s , only the subject and object cases have coalesced, leaving the other oblique cases i n f l e c t i o n a l l y marked (see also below). - 105 -In his s t a t i s t i c a l study of syntactic constructions from the Old English to the Modern English period, Fri e s (1940) states that: " i n a count covering more than 2,000 instances, less than 10% of Old English forms [NPs including a r t i c l e and adjective] which are synthetically nominative and accusative lack the d i s t i n c t i v e case endings, " [to 70 distinguish them from each other,;. not from other cases]. According to Vennemann, Old English i s s y n t a c t i c a l l y TVX, exhibiting main clause verb i n post topic position and having several of the posited TVX cha r a c t e r i s t i c s . Vennemann claims that "even less than 10%" of p o t e n t i a l l y ambiguous sentences i s s u f f i c i e n t impetus for a language to change i t s verb position. With t h i s statement I f i n d i t very hard to agree. Misinterpretation a r i s i n g from the less than 10% figure of subject and object coalescence would be r e s t r i c -ted to sentences showing marked t o p i c a l i z a t i o n order, as normally topicalized SVX sentences would be interpreted according to the perceptual strategy developed from the commonest order NP V NP = Subject Verb Object. Misinterpretation would be further r e s t r i c t e d to those sentences which allowed either subject or object to be semantically perceived as subject. In addition, number i n f l e c t i o n on the verb would frequently i d e n t i f y the subject NP. Misinter-pretation would thus be reduced to a figure w e l l below Fr i e s ' "less than 10%". I question whether such a small percentage of potential misinterpretations would be s u f f i c i e n t impetus for a language to reorder i t s basic syntactic pattern. - 106 -Syntactic and phonological change i s not s u f f i c i e n t l y documented i n the Indo-European languages to state whether the loss of i n f l e c t i o n s or verb movement took place f i r s t . R. Lakoff (1972) writes: "Did the loss of distinctiveness i n endings force the Romans to .abandon thei r beloved case system? Or conversely, did the decline and f a l l of the case system and consequent growth of prepositions enable the decadent Romans to slough off the endings? ... Clearly neither was caused by the other." 71 Although some SVX Indo-European languages s t i l l r e t a i n subject and object case d i s t i n c t i o n s , many no longer mark these functions by case. I t i s , however, interesting to note that i n several lan-guages which r e t a i n p a r t i a l case marking systems, i t i s the subject and object markers which have coalesced and the less common case markers which have been retained: 4.D Old English - noun class Sg. Nom. Acc. Gen. Dat. PI. Nom. Acc. Gen. Dat. German eorl eorl eorles eorle eorlas eorlas eorla eorlum longung longunge longunge longunge longunga longunga longunga longungum scip scip scipes scipe scipu scipu scipa scipum Sg. Nom. Acc. Gen. Dat. der + N den + N des + N + es dem + N + e die + N die der der das + N das des dem - 107 -PI. Nom. die die der den Acc. Gen. Dat. Serbo-Croatian Sg. Nom. prozor prozor'e prozor prozora prozoru prozorom prozoru Moc Acc. Gen. Dat. Ins. Loc. This evidence can be interpreted i n two ways: I I t could be argued that i n the SXV stage, subject and object markers were more vulnerable to coalescence or erosion due to their more frequent usage. To avoid ambiguity after the d i s -t i n c t i v e functional endings were l o s t , reordering of verb and object occurred. The less commonly used functional endings were retained. I I The counterargument to I i s that after the verb moved between subject and object, these two pa r t i c u l a r functional markers became redundant and eas i l y succumbed to phonological erosion or coalescence. Because the functions of the other oblique cases had not been affected by verb movement, these cases retained th e i r distinguishing markers as they were s t i l l essential to the operation of the syntactic system. - 108 -Of the two possible i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of SVO case evidence, I seems the weaker. F i r s t l y , more frequently used forms (in t h i s case the nominative and accusative forms of the noun) are us u a l l y l e s s vulnerable to change and are able to survive i n t a c t longer than are t h e i r l e s s frequently used counterparts. Even i f t h i s were not the case, the argument f o r the ret e n t i o n of case markers because of t h e i r l e s s frequent usage would not be strong, f o r le s s frequently occurring forms r a r e l y r e s i s t a change occurring i n the commoner forms. I f the more frequently used cases reduced to a common form because of phonetic change, I think i t u n l i k e l y that the less frequent cases would not follow s u i t and succumb to the same change. I therefore consider argument II to be the stronger and see i t as evidence for syntactic reordering before, and perhaps hastening, phonological change. the reason f o r syntactic reordering, Vennemann claims that SVX languages develop v i a TVX from SXV types whose eroded case systems i n s u f f i c i e n t l y d i s t i n g u i s h between subject and object. This explanation i s inadequate, for many languages change from SXV to SVX without l o s i n g these case markers: 4.E Icelandic Following his probably erroneous assumption regarding Strong noun c l a s s Weak noun c l a s s Sg. Nom. hestur Acc. hest Gen. hests Dat. h e s t i t i m i trma tima trma - 109 -P i . Nom. Acc. Gen. Dat. hestar hesta hesta hestum timar tima tima timum 72 Czech Sg. Nom. ten Acc. toho Gen. toho Dat. tomu Loc. torn Ins. tim PI. Nom. Acc. Gen. Dat. Loc. Ins. t i ty tech tern tech temi Old French Sg. Nom. r e i s Acc. r e i Russian, Sg. Nom. eecTPa. Acc. cecTPy^ Gen. c e C T P H Dat. c e c T p e ' 73 Hyman , c i t i n g the Niger Congo languages as examples, also notes that "many SXV languages which have never had case markings have changed to SVX." Vennemann's explanation for the SXV ===> SVX move-ment thus seems i n s u f f i c i e n t l y investigated. A t h i r d c r i t i c i s m of Vennemann's theory i s that i t has languages fluctuate between dimensions of ordering. The SXV stage shows ordering by grammatical function; the TVX stage reforms i t s e l f into a semantic topic-comment system; the SVX stage again - 110 -restructures the system, reverting to the o r i g i n a l functional model. I t i s true that Vennemann states the topic-comment d i v i s i o n exists i n the SXV stage, but the language did not order s y n t a c t i c a l l y according to this d i v i s i o n and no evidence i s presented to show that the t r a n s i t i o n a l intermediate stage underwent the perceptual remodelling of sentence elements into new categories before reverting to i t s o r i g i n a l d i v i s i o n s . While I am not claiming that the topic-comment d i v i s i o n i s i n v a l i d - on the contrary, I think i t i s a valuable insight -I f e e l that i t s emergence i n the posited TVX stage as the dominant or the only co n t r o l l i n g force i s not j u s t i f i e d . Furthermore, Vennemann does not seem to r e a l i z e that, according to his theory, marked object t o p i c a l i z a t i o n during the TVX stage would be just as ambiguous as during the inadequately inf l e c t e d SXV stage. A TVX language has the following t o p i c a l i z a t i o n p o s s i b i l i t i e s : T V X Unmarked NP V NP s o Marked NP V NP o s The marked t o p i c a l i z a t i o n pattern i s i d e n t i c a l to the unmarked form, i . e . NP V NP. Unless the NPs were adequately marked for their respective syntactic functions, ambiguity would occur as frequently as i n the SXV stage. Indeed, the very reason Vennemann - I l l -gives for the verb to change position i n the SXV ==> TVX movement i s inadequate. In the SXV stage, loss of case markings caused confusion between the respective functions of the subject and object — never did i t cause confusion between the topic and the comment f o r , according to Vennemann, the topic always remained i n f i r s t position. Even assuming phonological change was the impetus for change, the verb must have moved, not to distinguish the posi-tions of the topic and comment, about which there was never any doubt, but to distinguish between the functions played by the two NPs. Even languages that have been analysed with more certainty as topic-comment types (e.g. Tagalog, Japanese) show d e f i n i t e functional relationships: 4.F Japanese Shonen-ga inu-o kerimashita. boy+sbj. dog+obj kick+past = The boy kicked the dog. 4.G [watashi-ga sakujitsu atta] rojin-wa eigo-o oshiemasu. I + sbj. yesterday saw old man+topic English+obj. teaches = The old man I saw yesterday teaches English. Czech, according to Vennemann a prime example of a TVX language, marks subject and object i n i t s s t i l l extensive case system. Indeed, were these relationships not specified, the meaning of the utterance could not be e l i c i t e d . Such grammatical relationships must be i n d i -cated either by case endings or by s t r i c t word order. By d e f i n i t i o n , Vennemann's TVX stage rejects both types of functional s i g n a l l i n g and i s thus not a viable entity. - 112 -At one point i n his argument, Vennemann attempts to redeem t h i s oversight by claiming that during the TVX stage demonstrative pronouns which, he states, r e t a i n t h e i r case markers longer than do f u l l nouns, are increasingly used with the topicalized noun to mark that noun's grammatical function. The d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e , a marker of t o p i c a l i t y , i s thus created. This hypothesis i s , however, hardly convincing. F i r s t l y , the demonstrative pronouns which developed into a r t i c l e s i n Old English and Old French were only s l i g h t l y better marked for case than were th e i r f u l l noun counterparts: 4.H Old English Sg. Nom. se/pes PI. Nom. Demonstratives M F Acc. pone/pisne pa/pas pa/pas pa/pas Strong Nouns N M seo/peos paet/pis eorl longung scip pict/pis eorl longunge scip eorlas longunga scipu eorlas longunga scipu Weak Nouns cnapa cnapan cnapan cnapan Old French Demonstratives Nouns M Sg. Nom. I i Acc. lo PI. Nom. I i Acc. les l a l a les les M murs mur mur murs f i l l e f i l l e f i l l e s f i l l e s - 113 -Consequently, there would have been l i t t l e , i f any, advantage i n using the demonstrative pronouns were t h e i r main purpose to mark function. Secondly, i f the demonstrative pronouns were introduced into common usage to mark function, one wonders why the language did not use them to mark function i n the poorly i n f l e c t e d SXV stage, instead of s h i f t i n g the order of i t s basic sentence elements. I t seems strange to argue that the language changes i t s word order i n order to overcome the loss of functional markers, then starts to use the very func-t i o n a l markers which have always been available to i t , thus rendering superfluous the change from SXV to TVX. I therefore find i t hard to correlate the r i s e of the d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e with the need for functional disambiguity. 4.5.1.2 Having accounted for the SXV ==^  SVX movement, Vennemann continues his theory of language change by claiming that from an SVX order, a language may further develop into a VSX type. I f th i s hypothesis i s correct, one would expect to f i n d more XV characteristics i n an SVX language than i n a VSX one, as the i n i t i a l verb movement would have had more time to influence the operator-operand sequencing i n the l a t t e r . Greenberg's language sampling data supports t h i s expectation: - 114 -SVX SXV 3 11 5 5 1 9 2 10 74 Note that an SVX type having some XV characteristics could not be considered a t r a n s i t i o n a l stage from VSX SXV because i n the SVX stage the VX sequence i s s t i l l present and could not account for the occurrence of any XV char a c t e r i s t i c s . Venne-mann speculates the SVX ==* VSX movement takes place due to the pronominalization of the subject i n topic p o s i t i o n , i . e . S + V + X ==^  Pro + V + X. Vennemann states that during the Pro + V + X stage, the emphatic subject may be repeated post-verbally, resulting i n a Pro + V + S + X order: 4.1 He came, my brother, to the party. Repeated pronominalization of the subject i n topic position may, Vennemann claims, eventually r e s u l t i n the preverbal subject pronoun becoming p r o c l i t i c to the verb. The SVX ==> VSX movement thus goes through three stages: i) S + V+ X ===> S +V + X [+pro] i i ) ==* S + V + S + X [+pro] [-pro] i i i ) ==J Inflection+V + S + 0 VSX Postpositions 0 Adjective + Noun 0 Stand. + Adj. 0 Suffixing 0 - 115 -Stage i i i } i n this sequence, showing the preverbal subject agree-75 ment i n f l e c t i o n , i s evidenced i n most VSX languages: 4.J Topotha a - l o z i ayong Agt. go I = I am going 4.K e - l o z i inges Agt. go he = He i s going Admittedly, Vennemann only speculates on the r i s e of the VSX structure but, even so, his explanation i s hardly con-vincing. His example: He came, my brother, may sound reasonable for sentences containing less than a one place verb, but i n sen-tences containing more than a one place verb, ambiguity could easily occur: 4.L He gave my brother a smile. brother = subject or object? 4.M She fought my s i s t e r the policewoman. s i s t e r = subject or object? Only i f subject and object were adequately marked for function would ambiguity be avoided - i . e . the language must have an operative i n f l e c t i o n a l system. Vennemann, however, has already stated that SVX languages develop from the SXV stage precisely - 116 -because they do not have an adequate i n f l e c t i o n a l system. To accept the SVX =4 VSX movement, one would have to argue that the SVX stage had been i n existence long enough for the operator-operand sequence to reverse d i r e c t i o n and form new c l i t i c s (from prepositions, head nouns, etc.) which would provide s u f f i c i e n t i n f l e c t i o n to avoid ambiguity. According to Vennemann's general cycle of language change, however (see p. 94), i f the SVX stage recreates s u f f i c i e n t new i n f l e c t i o n a l markers, i t w i l l revert d i r e c t l y to the SXV pattern, as t h i s i s the optimal order toward which a l l languages s t r i v e . Although the data supports' Vennemann's hypothesized SXV ==> SVX ==> VSX movement, his explanation for the SVX VSX movement does not appear to f i t with the rest of his theory. Continuing his argument on the sequence of language change, Vennemann claims that i f an Inf.+V + S + X language does not quickly change to an SXV type, sound change w i l l erode the i n i t i a l subject agreement i n f l e c t i o n to 0VSX. As a r e s u l t , the postverbal f u l l subject position w i l l be extended to include pronominal forms, f i r s t l y for emphatic subjects and subsequently for a l l subjects, creating an obligatory pattern, V + Pro + (S) + Through emphatic subject r e p e t i t i o n i n preverbal p o s i t i o n , a subsequent move to SVX may then occur, providing the following - 117 -sequence of change: i) Inf .+V + S + X ==» V + S + X C+pro] i i ) ===> S + V + S •! + X [-pro] [pro] i i i ) ==* S + V+inf. + X This l a s t movement i s supported to some extent by an example from Kapampangan, which shows a VSX order i n the unmarked form, but an SVX order when the subject occurs i n an unbound form: 4.N sisipan-ku-me (unmarked) kick I you = I am kicking you 4.0 aku sisipan-ku-me (marked) I kick I you = I am kicking you 4.P *sisipan-ku-me aku 76 In that Vennemann claims subject agreement i n f l e c t i o n to be a reduction of a once f u l l pronoun form indicating an e a r l i e r syntactic order, he agrees with Givo'n's hypothesis (see p. 78), but whereas Givd'n sees subject agreement i n f l e c t i o n as a pronominal re p e t i t i o n of the f u l l subject, Vennemann theorizes that these i n f l e c t i o n s indicate the•-erstwhile position of the f u l l subject i t s e l f , and can therefore appear only i n a language which has under-gone subject movement. Thus, where Givon could accept a preverbal - 118 -subject agreement i n f l e c t i o n i n an o r i g i n a l SXV language, 77 Vennemann would posit no agreement i n f l e c t i o n . The l a t t e r ' s theory i s also open to question i n that i t i s the less common emphatic subject structure which influences the more common unemphatic subject to a l t e r p o s i t i o n , an analogical process which I f i n d hard to accept. Vennemann makes no attempt to account for the common occurrence of object c l i t i c s i n non-Indo-European languages: 4.Q Upper Chehalis (Salishan) (c{jni wi) ? i t iap—an t a t pe* s i p i 78 * he cop. asp. k i l l - h i m the kittens = He k i l l e d the kittens. 4.R 7 i t ?ax-3n c?§ t i t cani asp. see-him thou the he = You see him. *gender i s unmarked nor does he explain the cycle which allows subject c l i t i c s to appear on the same side of the verb as the f u l l subject. Following Givon's argument, Vennemann believes that nominal case markers arise from old head nouns, with an XV lan-guage type producing postnominal markers (#= N[mod] + N[head]) and a VX language type producing prenominal markers «==N [head] + N[mod. ] ) . - 119 -Vennemann thus claims that older language stages can be i d e n t i f i e d from the evidence of nominal case markings and verbal number agreements. I f these c l i t i c s are s t i l l readily i d e n t i f i a b l e as former independent elements, Vennemann considers the language a 'young' representative of i t s type, having only recently developed from a former stage; i f the c l i t i c s are not ea s i l y recognizable, the language represents an 'old' member of i t s type. Vennemann thus claims that the o r i g i n and r e l a t i v e age of a language type can be deduced from i t s synchronic morphology. His tables for h i s t o r i c a l reconstruction are repro-duced below: Key: T = present and pronominal o r i g i n transparent + = present - = absent W = worn i n f l e c t i o n P = pronominal o r i g i n of i n f l e c t i o n betrayed Type: VSO very young young old very old' S-V Agreement In f l e c t i o n V e r b - i n i t i a l T + + -Verb-final + - T + Previous type SVO very young VSO young VSO old VSO Table 1 Type: SOV very young young old very old very young young old very old S-V Agreement In f l e c t i o n V e r b - i n i t i a l .+ + + + * Verb-final + + + + Case Marking Noun-initial . T + - T + 1 -Noun-final - T + - T + Previous type young VSO or SVO very young SOV young SOV old SOV old VSO very young SOV young SOV old SOV Table 2 Type: SVO young old young young old v young or old S-V Agreement In f l e c t i o n Verb-final + W P V e r b - i n i t i a l + W P Case Marking Noun-final + + N o u n - i n i t i a l + + + + Previous type SOV young SVO old VSO SOV young SVO young VSO or SVO respectively Table 3 Vennemann's key does not explain the difference between '-' (absent) and a blank space. - 121 -The above tables presumably show the immediately preceding stage for only those languages which have changed type, for Vennemann gives a l l SXV languages subject-verb agreement i n f l e c t i o n , indicating by his previous argument that at some e a r l i e r stage they developed from an SVX or VSX type. As noted above, an o r i g i n a l SXV type would show no subject agree-ment i n f l e c t i o n . 4.5.2 Vennemann's account of the sequence of language change i s highly theoretical and, i n the l a t e r claims especially, includes l i t t l e s p e c i f i c data as evidence. In addition to t h i s , i t appears that his theory of language change i s inconsistent and inadequate i n some respects. In spite of the above c r i t i c i s m s , however, I f e e l that Vennemann's theory does provide some valuable insights into syntactic ordering within language. 4.6-0 • After considering Vennemann's arguments, I believe that syntactic ordering i s subject to two independent, but p a r a l l e l systems, one indicating grammatical function and one indicating topic-comment status. Unlike Vennemann, however,'I do not necessarily believe the verb stands outside the topic-comment d i v i s i o n . In SXV and SVX languages, the verb can be analysed as a constituent of the comment, a l b e i t of secondary importance. I t s analysis i n VSX types, however, i s less clear but, as the topic naturally appears i n sentence i n i t i a l posi-t i o n , I would suggest that i n these types the verb be analysed - 122 -as part of the topic. Only by analysing the verb as topic i n VSX types can the marked SVX subtypes be accounted for (see p. 124 below). I am not, however, very s a t i s f i e d with this analysis. The two syntactic systems have marked orders. In the grammatical function system a marked order would r e s u l t i n an oblique case being moved into topic p o s i t i o n - t h i s being the order previously referred to as 'marked t o p i c a l i z a t i o n . ' In the topic-comment system, a marked order would r e s u l t i n a comment + topic sequence, i . e . a focus or emphatic construction. Four possible orders r e s u l t from the interaction of the two systems: I I I I I I IV Marked Funetion - + - . + Marked Topic-Comment - - + + In an SXV language where cases mark function, the four orders would be: 4.S I SXV e.g. Brutus Caeserem o c c i d i t . TC I I XSV Caeserem Brutus o c c i d i t . TC / I I I SXV Brutus Caeserem o c c i d i t CT IV XSV Caeserem Brutus o c c i d i t . 80 CT - 123 -In an SVX (NP V NP) sequence where surface function i s marked by word order, marked t o p i c a l i z a t i o n must be shown by a di f f e r e n t word order pattern. As the topicalized element must appear i n sentence i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n , the marked order would be NP NP V (as claimed by Vennemann). The SVX type would t h e o r e t i c a l l y show the following four orders: 4.T I SVX e.g. Mary invi t e d Ted. TC II XSV Ted Mary invited TC I I I SVX Mary in v i t e d Ted. CT IV XSV Ted Mary invit e d . CT (A tentative suggestion for the uncommon occurrence of structures I I and IV i n Modern English w i l l be put forward below). A VSX type would have the orders: 4.U I VSX e.g. Writes George a l e t t e r . TC I I VXS Writes a l e t t e r George. TC / I I I SVX George writes a l e t t e r . CT / IV XVS A l e t t e r writes George. CT - 124 -If the VSX type marked function by case, order I I could be readily understood as marked. I f , however, function were indicated by word order, as i n Welsh, the marked order would necessarily show preverbal preposing of the topica l i z e d NP, resul t i n g i n I l a : I l a A l e t t e r writes George. An SXV language does not have t h i s option as, i n a t r a n s i t i v e construction, the sentence i n i t i a l topic p o s i t i o n i s invariably followed by an NP and can never d i r e c t l y precede the verb with-out simultaneously showing a marked topic-comment order. For whatever reasons i t occurred (and there are several possible - see 4.3 and 4.4 above), a change i n sentence pattern during the SXV stage would have d i r e c t l y resulted i n an SVX order. The topic-comment order would remain unchanged. I t should here be noted that the several q u a l i t i e s of a TVX language noted by Vennemann (e.g. brace constructions, sentence accent s h i f t , etc.) can a l l be accounted for by the d i r e c t change from SXV =4 SVX. This, however, i n no way detracts from the credit which must go to Vennemann for explaining these construc-tions within his operator-operand reversal theory. In the early period after the SXV SVX movement, when the new order was not r i g i d l y fixed as a functional marker, the retention of cases as functional markers allowed the variant order VSX, frequently - 125 -found i n Old English main clauses: 4.V Cwaep he: "Sing me frumsceaft." 81 4.W Song he Srest be middangeardes gesceape ... 82 4.X ... cume an spearwa and hrsedlice pxt hus durhfleo ... 83 4.Y Pa gemette hie Sjpelwulf aldorman ... 8'4 Providing no semantic ambiguity can a r i s e , the same structure may s t i l l be used i s some styles of Modern English. Such sequences are understandable because of a perceptual rule which must e x i s t stating that, unless marked otherwise, the f i r s t NP of a sentence i s the subject of that sentence. The very variety of Old English sentence patterns suggests that verb movement was not primarily to mark the function of the noun phrases f o r , were t h i s the case, one would expect the SVX order to be much more dominant than i t actually was. As the SVX order became;* more stable, new language learners i d e n t i f i e d an element's function by i t s position i n respect to the minor comment element, the verb. Case endings, therefore, became redundant for subject and object f u l l noun phrases, re s u l t i n g i n s y l l a b l e f i n a l erosion or coalescence. The l e v e l l i n g and subsequent disappearance of case endings also meant the disappearance of nominal markers. During the case-marked period, a noun could be recognized as such by - 126 -i t s i n f l e c t i o n . With i n f l e c t i o n disappearance, however, nouns were no longer regularly marked for t h e i r nominal status and a new marker had to be found. This new marker was, I believe, the d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e . Vennemann i s quite correct i n noting that the d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e arose only i n those Indo-European languages which changed from SXV ==¥ SVX, and t h i s phenomenon must be explained. However, as noted above (see pp. 112/3), I cannot agree that the d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e arose as a r e s u l t of the need for a t o p i c a l i z a t i o n marker or a function marker. I f e e l the r i s e and regular appearance of joe during the Early Middle English period resulted d i r e c t l y from the loss of nominal (i.e. case) markers during the OlcL^English period. This hypothesis i s supported by the following facts. F i r s t l y , the Indo-European VX languages which r e t a i n nominal case systems often do not have d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e s , e.g. Russian, Czech, Serbo-Croatian. A l l Indo-European VX languages without nominal case-marking systems do have a d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e . Secondly, Edward Matte (p.c.) has informed me that Modern French (VX) c l a s s i f i e s a 'noun' not accompanied by an a r t i c l e as an adjective: 4.Z I I est un professeur. (professeur = noun) 4.al I I est professeur. (professeur = adjective) - 127 -This indicates that the a r t i c l e , or some other marker (e.g. preposition) i s necessary to indicate the nominal status of the following word. Thirdly, i n a comparison of English and French, the former may drop the d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e i n p l u r a l forms, whereas the l a t t e r may not: 4.bl English Trees are beautiful. 4.cl Cars make me i l l . 4.bl' French Les arbres sont beaux. 4.cl' Les autos me font mal. I believe this difference can be accounted for by the fa c t that the English p l u r a l i n f l e c t i o n / z/ i s pronounced, thereby indica-ting a nominal status for the preceding root, whereas the French p l u r a l nominal i n f l e c t i o n i s not pronounced: [aabra] = singular [aRbra] = p l u r a l thus necessitating the appearance of another nominal marker, the de f i n i t e a r t i c l e . I t should be noted that, during the Old French period, when nominal i n f l e c t i o n s were s t i l l pronounced, the use of the d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e was optional. Only with the loss of nominal i n f l e c t i o n s has i t s use become mandatory. A similar s i t u a t i o n - 128 -appears to have existed i n the e a r l i e r stages of English. Elizabeth Traugott writes: "While the Peterborough Chronicle i l l u s t r a t e s uses of the that are t y p i c a l of NE, the modern use of the was not f u l l y established i n prose writings u n t i l Shakes-peare's time. In the poetry of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries many rather archaic structures s t i l l p e r s i s t . These involve mainly the absence of the where we would expect i t . " 85 During i t s early use, the d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e contained 86 the feature [+specific] , no doubt retained from the demonstra-t i v e from which i t developed and which had always been available as a [-fspecific] marker. With the increasing loss of nominal status markers, [-specific] nouns also needed a nominal marker, which need resulted i n the l a t e r r i s e of the i n d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e . This explanation does not su f f i c e for German, however, which uses both case markers and a d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e . Case markers on Germanic nouns pattern as follows: Singul ar P l u r a l .1- 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 0 0 0 0 Nom. I I " er (e)n 0 0 0 (e)n Acc. H " e " er (e)n s (e)s (e)s (e)n Gen. I I " e " er (e)n 0 (e) (e) (e)n Dat. 'n, -v " en " ern (e)n - 129 -As can be seen, for many noun forms there'is no nominal marker, which i n i t s e l f would be grounds for the appearance of the d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e as a marker. In addition, i t i s possible that those markers which do exist might be confused with other function markers, thus negating t h e i r effectiveness as nominal markers: e.g. Nominal Marker sounds the same as -(e)n -en (verbal marker) -er -er (comparative marker). This possible misinterpretation of some nominal markers, combined with the lack of any nominal markers i n several parts of the para-digm, could warrant the r i s e and consistent use of a stable nominal marker, i . e . the d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e . The retention of case markers on the d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e i t s e l f i s probably due to the frequent usage of this item. Because i n the early SVX stage the topic-comment ordering was not altered, a l l topicalized elements s t i l l appeared i n preverbal position. For t h i s reason, object pronouns, by d e f i n i t i o n t o p i c a l i z e d , also remained preverbal, resulting i n the orders found i n Old English and the Romance languages. Since the usual topic, the subject, often appeared i n pronominal form also, a Pro + Pro + V order often occurred, p o t e n t i a l l y analysable as: Pro + Pro + V e.g. I him fought bravely, s o or Pro + Pro + V e.g. I (and) he fought bravely. 5 S - 130 -Because of the potential ambiguity a r i s i n g from the two juxtaposed pronominal forms, the pronoun system retained i t s d i s t i n c t i v e markings of function. Sentences containing f u l l NP comments, however, demonstrated NP V NP ordering, s o with the r e s u l t that new language learners gradually perceived a s t r i c t functional ordering S +'v + X and transferred this into the topic-comment system as T + V + X. Object pronouns were thus moved postverbally and thei r functional markings were either l o s t or became obscured: 4.dl Him and me went to the movies. 4.el This i s between he and I. Thus the word order pattern became more standardized and, con-sequently, more r i g i d l y SVX/T^VX. The increase of the passive and reciprocal construc-tions and the introduction of the passive+expressed Agent struc-ture during the Middle English period of English i s , I believe, a r e s u l t of the increasing s t a b i l i t y of linear word order. The deep structure cases of Agent and Object are usually translated into the surface structure cases of subject and object respectively. In the early stages after verb movement from SXV ===>SVX, when the noun phrases s t i l l retained t h e i r case markings, the deep structure Object manifested i n the surface structure object case was more - 131 -readily topicalized than i n l a t e r periods. This, I believe, was a carryover from the SXV stage when object t o p i c a l i z a t i o n was f a i r l y common (witness the remarks of many t r a d i t i o n a l grammarians regarding the free word order of SXV languages). With the loss of surface case endings and the subsequent r i g i d i t y of word order, the surface object case was not so readily t o p i c a l i z e d . To overcome the lack of an acceptable mechanism for object case t o p i c a l i z a t i o n , the deep structure case began to be manifested i n the surface subject case along with a special verb construction to indicate the deep structure [-Agent] function of the surface subject case. During the Middle English period, the agentive marker by_ was introduced i n order to show the deep structure Agent at surface l e v e l . The appearance of the deep structure Object i n the subject case was also evidenced by the r i s e of reciprocal verbs, whose increased usage was also evidenced during the Middle English period. Old English impersonal verb constructions, where the ind i r e c t object pronoun preceded the verb, were reanalysed as subject + verb constructions i n accordance with the new func-87 t i o n a l pattern: 4 . f l Hem nedeb no sucour. X + V + S ==> They needed no help S + V + X - 132 -I would tentatively suggest that the strong SVX pattern accounts for the rare occurrence of structures such as: / 4.T I I Ted Mary invit e d . / IV Ted Mary invit e d . (see p. 123) where the object case appears i n sentence i n i t i a l position. In order to preserve the SVX pattern of the language, I I i s manifested i n the SVX passive construction, while IV removes the surface object from sentence i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n by inserting a dummy construction to create the usual SVX order: 4.gl I t was Ted that Mary in v i t e d . Thus both I I and IV are forced into the SVX pattern, although i n d i f f e r e n t constructions so as to mark the separate nature of topi c a l i z e d and focus structures. The focus construction for the object case l a t e r spreads to a l l comment + topic struc-tures : 4.hi I t was Mary who invited John. I r e a l i z e that my suggestions are purely theoretical and would need to be tested against a great deal of data before the i r v a l i d i t y could be seriously considered. However, inaccurate theories also help develop our understanding of lan-guage, a l b e i t only by eliminating some of our potential misunder-standings. Perhaps by finding the wrong answers we w i l l be able to narrow down our search for the ri g h t ones. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION This paper has attempted to review the development of c l a s s i f i c a t o r y systems of language and to assess t h e i r respective merits and inadequacies. The early morphological typologies, although using varying terminologies, developed systems which were es s e n t i a l l y very s i m i l a r ; they also shared a r e s t r i c t i o n i n scope — the r e s t r i c t i o n of the word. With such a li m i t e d viewpoint on lan-guage, these typologies seem unable to capture the basic dicho-tomies of language and may w e l l , as suggested by Hodge (1970), merely r e f l e c t stages i n the l i n g u i s t i c cycle, i t s e l f encompassed within a wider syntactic typological s h i f t . The advent of word order typologies increased the boundaries of c l a s s i f i c a t o r y systems from the word to the sentence. Following modern l i n g u i s t i c practice, the two typologies examined i n Chapter I I have formalized t h e i r claims regarding word order universals. Because both theories are based on the univer-s a l i t y of the VP node, they cannot s a t i s f a c t o r i l y account for the VSO subtype of the VO type. They do, however, seem to capture word order generalizations i n SVO and SOV types, and i t i s Venne-mann' s typology which I consider to provide greater insights i n - 133 -- 134 -thi s regard, even though some of his claims are not well substan-t i a t e d and may need to be explained through the perceptual s t r a -tegies discussed i n Chapter I I I . The use of syntactic typologies and other evidence of e a r l i e r word orders as discussed i n Chapter IV i s , I f e e l , valuable i n giving insight into previous syntactic orderings i n languages. To use evidence of a s p e c i f i c e a r l i e r order (e.g. Adjective + Noun = OV) to reconstruct an entire OV order-ing for the whole language on the basis of the syntactic typo-logies i s not j u s t i f i e d at th i s time i n my opinion. Explanations of the sequence and reason for language change are also highly theoretical and often subject to argument. The most we can say i s that certain characteristics are indicati v e of e a r l i e r word orders — the why and the wherefore of these characteristics are as yet not s a t i s f a c t o r i l y accounted for. At the moment there appears to be no satisfactory universal p r i n c i p l e explaining existing word orders and predicting word order change. A l l theories examined have some merit, but a l l need supplementary pr i n c i p l e s to explain or allow for special d i f f i c u l t i e s . Syntactic typologies are, however, a very recent phenomenon, and th e i r proponents must be credited with attempting to explain characteristic word orders. They must also be credited -135 -with arousing renewed interest i n typology, an interest which has forced l i n g u i s t s to look at a wide variety of data and has brought up many new ideas which would not, perhaps, have been considered otherwise. The testing and development of these ideas i s now before us. FOOTNOTES 1 Pages 1 - 5 of t h i s paper are to a large extent adapted from Kibbey Home' s Language Typology, 19th and 20th  Century Views (Georgetown, 1966). 2 Ib i d . , p.14. 3 F. Mauthner, Beitrage zu einer K r i t i k der Sprache, 3rd ed., Vol. 2 (Leipzig, 1923), p.309. 4 This i s Home's calculation - LT, pi39. 5 Edward Sapir, Language (New York, 1921), p.140. (Harcourt, Brace paperback edition).1949). 6 Ibid., p.144. 7 Ibid., p.140. 8 I b i d . , p.144. 9 Ronald W. Langacker, Language and I t s Structure (New York, 1967), p. 92. 10 Sapir, p.144. 11 Sapir, p.144. 12 F.W. Householder, " F i r s t Thoughts on Syntactic Indices," UAL, XXVI (1960) , 195. - 136 " - 137. -13 Winfred P. Lehmann, "Contemporary L i n g u i s t i c s and Indo-European Studies," PMLA, 87:5 (1972), 978v 14 Joseph H. Greenberg, "A Quantitative Approach to the Morphological Typology of Language," UAL, XXVI (1960), 179. 15 Edward Keenan, Handout for Lecture #2 at L.S.A. Summer Ins t i t u t e (1974). 16 W.P. Lehmann, "CL&IES," 977. 17 Lehmann does not define the terms "subject" and "object" (see also 66 below). 18 Lehmann c i t e s no references for these "recent grammatical studies." 19 W.P. Lehmann, "A Structural Principle.of Language," Language 49:1 (March 1973), 51. 20 Edith Moravcsik, "Report on the 1971 Winter Meeting of the Li n g u i s t i c Society of America from the Point of View of Language Universals and Typology," Working Papers on Language Universals, 8 (Stanford, August 1972). 21 I b i d . , p.146. - 138 -22 Wallace Chafe, Meaning and the Structure of Language (Chicago, 1971), p.95. 23 I t should be noted that u n t i l January 1975, Vennemann's only published work on t h i s subject was "Explanation i n Syntax," i n Syntax and Semantics, Vol.2, ed. J. Kimball (New York, 1973). This a r t i c l e could be heavily c r i t i c i z e d for i t s lack of c l a r i t y , i t s i n s u f f i c i e n t explanation and i t s often inconsistent reasoning. In subsequent unpublished papers, however, and i n the just published "An Explanation of D r i f t " , Vennemann has greatly c l a r i f i e d and refined his hypothesis on synchronic ordering to the point where i t i s now a comprehensible and plausible theory. 24. The semantic ordering of r i g h t to l e f t i s e n t i r e l y a r b i t r a r y . 25. Susan Steele, "On Some Factors that Affect and Effect Word Order," preliminary version of unpublished paper (University of New Mexico), p.33. 26 This semantic/syntactic correlation i s confirmed by G. Lakoff (1969), who claims that a quantifier which precedes another quantifier [or a noun] on the surface i s usually higher i n the semantic structure of the sentence. Whether he intends t h i s statement to be universal i s unclear, as he does not comment whether the expected mirror VO structure also has t h i s semantic correlation. - 139 -27 Theo. Vennemann, "Topics, Subjects and Word Order: Prom SXV to SVX v i a TVX," paper presented at the F i r s t Inter-national Congress of H i s t o r i c a l L i n g u i s t i c s (Edinburgh, 1973), p.15. 28 Like Lehmann, Vennemann does not define the term "subject." I t seems he cannot define i t as the NP which shows agreement i n f l e c t i o n on the verb, as he does not posit verbal i n f l e c - . ti o n for a l l languages. However, neither does he s p e c i f i -c a l l y define the subject as the deep structure Agent. I f e e l , therefore, he must define i t as the NP which appears i n the nominative case (see also 66 below). 29 Vennemann, "EIS." At th i s stage of his wr i t i n g , Vennemann i s s t i l l using the terms VO and OV and has not yet changed to VX and XV. 30 VSX languages, of course, are counterexamples to Vennemann's claim that the subject + predicate order i s natural for a l l languages. 31 For further discussion supporting the existence of percep-tu a l strategies, see Fodor & Bever (1965), Bever, Fodor & Garrett (1966), Bever (1968 & 1970), Bever, Kirk & Lackner (1969), Bever & Langendoen (1971), Grosu (1972), and Kimball (1973). - 140 -32 Thomas G. Bever, "The Cognitive Base for L i n g u i s t i c Structures," i n Cognition and the Development of Language, ed. J.R. Hayes (New York, 1970), p.298. 33 G.T. Chapin, T.S. Smith & A.A. Abrahamson, "Two Factors i n Perceptual Segmentation of Speech," Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 11. (1972), pp.164-173. 34 Alexander Grosu, "The Strategic Contents of Island Con-s t r a i n t s , " Ph.D. Dissertation (Ohio State University, 1972), p. 58. 35 Kimball theorizes that the l i s t e n e r must have a very limited look-ahead capacity which allows him to correctly structure That John as an embedded sentence rather than as a potential NP, e.g. That John i s fat - t h i s one i s n ' t . 36 Languages which immediately come to mind as conforming to th i s statement include Arabic, the Romance, Germanic and C e l t i c branches of the Indo-European family, the Bantu family, etc. 37 Kimball comments that "the operation of New Nodes [the crea-t i o n of a new node i n the parsing tree] i n SOV languages needs further examination," (in "Seven Pri n c i p l e s of Surface Structure Parsing i n Natural Language," i n Cognition, 2:1 (1972)). He also states that i t i s a "frequently observed - 141 -fact that sentences of natural language organize themselves generally into r i g h t branching structures and that these structures are less complex than l e f t branching structures..." whether he intends t h i s remark to apply just to English or intends i t as a language universal i s not specified; 38 Susan Steele, "SFTA&EWO", p.12. 39 This i s a restatement of Ross's theory of Heavy NP Constraint. 40 N. Chomsky & G.A. M i l l e r , "Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages," i n Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, ed. R.D. Luce, R.R. Bush, E. Galanter, Vol.11 (New York, 1963), Chapter 11. 41 Edward Sapir, Language, p.141. 42 Lauri Hakulinen, The Structure and Development of the Finnish  Language, UAS 3 (The Hague, 1961), p.67. 43 Talmy Givon, " H i s t o r i c a l syntax and synchronic morphology: an archaeologist's f i e l d t r i p , " paper presented at the 7th Regional Meeting of the Chicago L i n g u i s t i c Society (Chicago, 1971), p.394-415. 44 Carleton T. Hodge, "The L i n g u i s t i c Cycle," Language Sciences (Bloomington, December 1970), p.6. - 142 -45 French uses the past p a r t i c i p l e as the base for i t s past periphrastic tenses. 46 This claim i s independently made by D. Ingram i n "A Note on Word Order i n Proto-Salish," a paper presented at the IXth International Conference on Salishan Languages (Vancouver, 1974). 47 Emmon Bach's example, quoted i n Givon, "HS&SM..." 48 Both older and more recent Indo-Europeanists agree that Proto-Indo-European went through a period of showing the verb i n sentence f i n a l position. See, for example, CO. Watkins, "Preliminaries to the reconstruction of JLndo-European sentence structure," i n Syntactic Theory 1 Struc-t u r a l i s t , ed. F.W. Householder (Penguin, 1972), p.124-134. 49 Charles L i , Sandra Thompson, " H i s t o r i c a l Change of Word Order: A Case Study i n Chinese and i t s Implication," a paper presented at the F i r s t International Conference on H i s t o r i c a l L i n g u i s t i c s (Edinburgh, 1973). 50 T. Giv6"n, " S e r i a l Verbs and Syntactic Change: Niger-Congo," unpublished paper, Department of L i n g u i s t i c s , UCLA. - 143 -51 "The Prodigal Son," i n L. Blakely, Teach Yourself Old English (London, 1964), p.23. 52 Geoffrey Chaucer, "The Book of the Duchess," i n F. Mosse, Handbook of Middle English (Baltimore, 1968), p.293. 53 L i and Thompson, "HCOWO...", p.15. 54 Although Vennemann does not s p e c i f i c a l l y state these reordering stages, they are implied by his theory. 55 E. Keenan, "Subject Properties L i s t (revised)," accompanying "A Universal D e f i n i t i o n of Subject of," paper presented at the L i n g u i s t i c Society of America meeting (winter 1974), p.6. 56 T. Vennemann, "T,S & WO..." p.23. 57 Keenan, "AUDOS," p.2 58 I b i d . , p.4. 59 Steele, "SFA&EWO," p.45. 60 J.H. Greenberg, "Some Universals .of Grammar with Pa r t i c u l a r Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements," i n Universals  of Language, ed. Greenberg (MIT, 1966) T p.113. 61 "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle," i n Blakely, TYPE, p.131. - 144 -"The F a l l of Jerusalem," i n Blakely, TYPE, p.136. Quoted i n Vennemann, "T,S&WO—," p.29. G. Chaucer, "The Pardoner's Tale," i n Mosse, HPME, p.306 Vennemann claims that the two stress patterns can account for Chomsky & Halle's Nuclear Stress Rule and Compound Stress Rule, which he feels are not language s p e c i f i c but r e s u l t from the word order change which English i s s t i l l i n the process of undergoing. The stress rules would thus be part of a universal stress pattern. This claim appears to have some flaws i n i t (e.g. how does he explain redcoat vs. red coat by word order change), but they are not pertinent to this paper. Keenan points out that the notion "subject" i s very hard to define. His paper, "A Universal D e f i n i t i o n of Subject of," attempts to provide a l i s t of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c properties of subjects. He admits, however, that these properties have been drawn from NPs which he 'ifeels to be subjects of the sentences i n which they occur" ( p . l ) . Vennemann's language cycle motivation and t h i s c r i t i c i s m of i t i s based on int e r n a l cause and does not take into account - 145 -external influences such as language contact. P. Wolfe (p.c.) has suggested that the loss of Old English i n f l e c t i o n s was prompted by the intermingling of two languages whose roots were s i m i l a r , but whose i n f l e c t i o n s were dif f e r e n t ( i . e . Anglo-Saxon and Norse). As Old English was already SVX • when the language interaction occurred, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to judge to what extent the redundancy of the Old' English i n f l e c t i o n a l markers hastened t h i s process. 68 E. Sapir, Language, p.184. 69 T. Vennemann, "An Explanation of D r i f t , " paper presented at the Symposium on Word Order and Word Order Change (Santa Barbara, 1974), p.8. 70 C.C. F r i e s , "On the Development of the Structural Use of Word Order i n Modern English," Language, 16:3 (1940), p.200. 71 R. Lakoff, "Another Look at D r i f t , " i n L i n g u i s t i c Change and  Generative Theory, ed. R.P. Stockwell & R.S. Macaulay (Bloomington, 1972), p.185-6. •72 Old Icelandic noun paradigms varied as to whether they dif f e r e n t i a t e d between the nominative and accusative cases, depending upon the class they belonged to. Modern Icelandic has l e v e l l e d noun paradigms to those shown above, i . e . which - 146 -distinguish between the two cases. That the non-distin-guishing paradigms changed to conform to the distinguishing ones suggests that the l a t t e r were i n the majority, thus appearing to provide a counterexample to Vennemann's theory of motivation for the SXV ==> SVX movement. The Slavic languages do not d i f f e r e n t i a t e nominative and accusative markers i n inanimate and neuter paradigms, but the difference appears due to semantic rather than to phonological causes. 73 73 Larry Hyman, p.c. to L i and Thompson, "HCOWO " p.19. 74 Compiled from Greenberg}s/'SUOXSi.-rtf"! 75 Larry Hyman, p.c. to Vennemann, "EIS." 76 Susan Steele's example, "SFTA&EWO," p.55. 77 This statement i s made i n "Explanation i n Syntax." In his lat e r papers, Vennemann does not mention lack of verb agree-ment i n SXV languages. I f e e l he has probably revised h is opinion on t h i s . In fa c t , a l l Vennemann's theories from p.13 4.5.1.2 of this paper onward are based solely on "Explanation i n Syntax" and are not mentioned i n subsequent papers. 78 These examples were provided by M.D. Kinkade ( p . c ) . - 147 -79 These tables are copied from "Explanation i n Syntax." 80 I am not claiming such sentences are attested. I am merely using them as possible theoretical patterns. 81 "The Story of Caedmon," i n M. Anderson & B. Williams, Old English Handbook (Cambridge, Mass., 1963). 82 Ibid. 83 "The Conversion of Edwin," "in Anderson & Williams, OEH. 84 "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle," i n Anderson & Williams, OEH. 85 E. Closs Traugott, A History of English Syntax (New York, 1972), p.135. 86 Traugott points out that the use of demonstratives i n Old English did not p a r a l l e l the use of the d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e which l a t e r arose. She writes: "One of the most s t r i k i n g things about the NP i n OE i s the almost complete absence of anything d i r e c t l y corresponding to our a_ and the ... the derives from the OE b_- element that occurs i n most forms of the demonstratives t h i s and that. Pes, beos, b i s , t h i s i s used s p e c i f i c a l l y as a pointer or d e i c t i c ; se, seo, paet, that may be either a pointer or more often an element that singles out a s p e c i f i c noun from the general class ..." (86). - 148 -Traugott indicates that ^e_, seo, past sometimes carry the meaning "aforesaid," and comments: "The grew d i r e c t l y out of such uses of se_, s5o, bjet. While the does not occur i n OE, there are instances of se_ s§o, paet .. . used i n a way that suggests weakening of the dual sense 'spe c i f i c ' and 'aforementioned' to simply 'aforementioned'." (87) I would suggest that the broadening environment for se, seo bagt i s evidence of i t s spread as a general nominal marker. Vennemann also notes t h i s tendency. LIST OF WORKS CITED Anderson, Marjorie, Blanche C. Williams. Old English Handbook. Cambridge*? Mass. , 1963. Bach, Emmon. "Is Amharie an SOV language," Journal of Ethiopian  Studies, 8. 1970. Bartsch, Renate. Adverbialsemantik: die Konstitution logisch- semantischer Reprasentationen von Adverbialkonstruktionen. Frankfurt am Main, 1972. , T. Vennemann. Semantic Structures: a study i n the r e l a - t i o n between semantics and syntax. Frankfurt am Main, 1972. Behagel, Otto. Deutsche Syntax: eine geschichtliche Darstellung, Vol. 4. Wortstellung Periodenbau. Heidelberg, 1932. Bever, Thomas G. "Associations to stimulus response theories of language," Verbal Behaviour and General Behaviour Theory. 1968. . "The Cognitive Base for L i n g u i s t i c Structures," i n Cogni- ti o n and the Development of Language, ed. J.R. Hayes. New York, 1970. , J.A. Fodor, M. Garret. "The psychological segmentation of speech," paper presented at the International Congress of Psychology. Moscow, 1966. , J. Lackner, R. Kirk. "The underlying structure sentence i s the primary unit of speech perception," Perception and  Psychophysics, 5. 1969. , T. Langendoen. "The interaction of speech perception and grammatical structure i n the evolution of language," i n L i n g u i s t i c Change and Generative Theory, ed. Robert P. Stock-well and Ronald S. Macaulay. Bloomington, 1972. Blakeley, L e s l i e . Teach Yourself Old English. London, 1964. Blumenthal, A.L., R. Boakes. "Prompted r e c a l l of sentences," Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 6. 1967. - 14.9 -- 150 -Bopp, Franz. A Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, La t i n , Lithuanian, Gothic, German and Sclavonic Languages, trans. Edward Eastwick. London, 1862. Chafe, Wallace. Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago, 1971. Chapin, G.T., T.S. Smith, A.A. Abrahamson. "Two factors i n percep-tual segmentation of speech," Journal of Verbal Learning and  Verbal Behaviour, 11. 1972. Chomsky, Noam, G. M i l l e r . "Introduction to the formal analyses of natural language," i n Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, ed. R.D. Luce, R.R. Bush, E. Galanter. New York, 1963. Fodor, J . , T.G. Bever. "The psychological r e a l i t y of l i n g u i s t i c segments," Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 4. 1965. Fr i e s , Charles C. "On the development of the structural use of word order i n Modern English," Language, 16. 1940. Givon, Talmy. " H i s t o r i c a l syntax and synchronic morphology: An archaeologist's f i e l d t r i p , " i n Papers from the Seventh  Regional Meeting of the Chicago L i n g u i s t i c Society. Chicago, 1971. ."On the verbal o r i g i n of the Bantu verb suffixes," Studies i n African L i n g u i s t i c s , 2:2. 1971. ." S e r i a l verbs and syntactic change: Niger-Congo," i n Proceed-ings of Symposium on Word Order and Word Order Change. Santa Barbara, 1974. Greenberg, Joseph H. "A quantitative approach to the morphological typology of Language," IJAL XXVI. 1960. . "Dynamic .aspects of word order i n numeral' c l a s s i f i e r construc-t i o n , " unrevised version of unpublished paper. Undated. . "Some universals of grammar with p a r t i c u l a r reference to the order of meaningful elements," i n Universals of Language, ed. J. Greenberg. Cambridge,"MaTs: - 151 -Grosu, Alexander. "The strategic contents of island constraints," Ph.D. dissertation. Ohio State University, 1972. Hakulinen, Lauri. The Structure and Development of the Finnish  Language, UAS3. The Hague, 1961. Hodge, Carleton T. "The l i n g u i s t i c cycle," Language Sciences T 13. Bloomington, 1970. Home, Kibbey M. Language Typology; 19th and 20th Century Views. Washington, D.C., 1966. Householder, FredeWrcx. W. " F i r s t thoughts on syntactic indices," IJAL, XXVI. 1960. Humboldt, Wilhelm von. Wilhelm von Humboldt - Werke, ed. A. F l i t n e r , K. G i e l . Stuttgart, 1963. Ingram, David. "A note on word order i n Proto-Salish," paper presen-ted at the IXth International Conference on Salishan Languages. Vancouver, 1974. Jespersen, Otto. Language: I t s Nature, Development and Origin. New York, 1922. Keenan, Edward. "On semantically based grammar," L i n g u i s t i c Inquiry, 111:4. 1972. . "A universal d e f i n i t i o n of subject of," paper presented at the L i n g u i s t i c Society of America winter meeting. 1974. . Lecture #2 Handout at L i n g u i s t i c Society of America summer i n s t i t u t e . 1974. Kimball, John. "Seven prin c i p l e s of surface structure parsing i n natural language," Cognition, 2:1. 1973. Lakoff, George. "On generative semantics," i n Semantics - an In t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y Reader i n Philosophy, L i n g u i s t i c s , Anthro- pology and Psychology. London, 1969. - 152 -Lakoff, Robin. "Another look at d r i f t , " i n L i n g u i s t i c Change and Generative Theory, ed. Robert P. Stockwell, Ronald S. Macaulay. Bloomington, 1972. Langacker, Ronald. Language and I t s Structure. New York, 1967. Lehmann, Winfred P. "On the r i s e of SOV patterns i n New High German," i n Grammatik, Kybernetik, Kommunikation: F e s t s c h r i f t f a r A l f r e d  Hoppe, ed. K.G. Schweisthal. Bonn, 1970. . "The Nordic languages: l a s t i n g l i n g u i s t i c contributions of the past," i n The Nordic Languages and Modern L i n g u i s t i c s , ed. Hreinn Benediktsson. Reykjavik, 1970. . "Contemporary l i n g u i s t i c s and Indo-European studies," PMLA, 87:5. New York, 1972. . "Comparative constructions i n Germanic of the OV type," i n Studies for Einar Haugen, ed. E.S. Firchow, K. Grimstad, N. Hasselmo, W. O'Neil. The Hague, 1972. . "Converging theories i n l i n g u i s t i c s , " Language, 48:2. 1972 . "A s t r u c t u r a l p r i n c i p l e of language and i t s implcations," Language, 49:1. 1973. L i , Charles N., Sandra A. Thompson. " H i s t o r i c a l change of word order: a case study i n Chinese and i t s implications," i n Proceedings of the F i r s t International Conference on H i s t o r i c a l  L i n g u i s t i c s . Edinburgh, 1973. . "Co-verbs i n Mandarin Chinese: verbs or prepositions?" paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Language and L i n g u i s t i c s . San Diego, 1973. . "The semantic function of word order," preliminary version of paper presented at the Conference on Word Order and Word Order Change. Santa Barbara, 1974. . "The structure of language: synchrony vs. diachrony," unpublished paper. Mauthner, F. Beitrage zu einer K r i t i k der Sprache, 3rd ed. Vol.2 L e i p z i g , 1923. - 153 -Moravcsik, Edith. "Report on the 1971 winter meeting of the L.S.A. from the point of view of language universals and typology," Working Papers on Language Universals, 8. Stanford, 1972. Mosse, Fernand. Handbook of Middle English, Baltimore, 1968. Muller, F. Max. Lectures on the Science of Language. London, 1880. Poppe, Nicholas. introduction to A l t a i c L i n g u i s t i c s , Wiesbaden, 1965. Ross, John Robert. "The penthouse p r i n c i p l e and the order of constituents," i n You Take the High Node and I'11 Take the  Low Node. Chicago, 1973. Sapir, Edward. Language. New York, 1921. (Harcourt, Brace paperback, 1949) Savin, H., EllehoEershonock. "Grammatical structure and the immediate r e c a l l of English sentences," Journal of Verbal  Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 4. 1965. Schlegel, F. August Wilhelm von. Observations sur l a langue et  l a l i t t e r a t u r e provencales. P a r i s , 1818. Schlegel, Karl Wilhelm F r i e d r i c h von. Ueber die Sprache und  Weisheit der Indier. Heidelberg, 1808. Schleicher, August. A Compendium of the Comparative Grammar of  the Indo-European, Sanskrit, Greek and Latin Languages, trans. H. Bendall. London, 1874. . Zur vergleichenden Sprachengeschichte. Bonn,j1848. . Die Sprachen Europas i n systematischer Uebersicht. Bonn, 1850. Schwartz, A. "The VP constituent of SVO languages," i n Working  Papers on Language Universals, 8. Stanford, 1972. Steele^aSusanym^IiOnsome factors that affect and effect word order," preliminary version of paper given at Symposlume' on Word Order and Word Order Change. Santa Barbara, 1974. Steinthal, Heymann. Die C l a s s i f i k a t i o n der Sprachen, da r g e s t e l l t  a l s die Entwicklung der Sprachidee. B e r l i n , 1850. Charakteristik der hauptsachlichisten Typen des Sprachbaues. B e r l i n , 1860. - 154 -Tranel, Bernard. "The case of optional schwa deletion i n French: some theoretical implications," unpublished paper. 1972. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. A History of English Syntax. New York, 1972. Vennemann, Theo. "Explanation i n Syntax," i n Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 2, ed. J. Kimball. New York, 1973. . "Language type and word order," paper presented at Symposium on Typology. Prague, 1973. Forthcoming i n proceedings. . "Topics, subjects and word order: from SXV to SVX v i a TVX," i n Proceedings of the F i r s t International Conference on His- t o r i c a l L i n g u i s t i c s . Edinburgh, 1973. . "An explanation of d r i f t , " i n Proceedings of the Symposium on Word Order and Word Order Change. Santa Barbara, 1974. . "Theoretical word order studies: r e s u l t s and problems," i n Papiere zur L i n g u i s t i k , 7. 1974. Watkins, C a l v e r t 0. "Preliminaries to the reconstruction of Indo-European sentence structure," i n Syntactic Theory 1 Structur- a l i s t , ed. F.W. Householder. Penguin 1972. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093455/manifest

Comment

Related Items