Editor for this issue: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar <aristar
tam2000.tamu.edu>
In Matthew Dryer's very interesting posting on Syntactic Typology and Syntactic Change he wrote the following: "..a number of Austronesian languages in Papua, New Guinea have apparently changed from VO to SOV due to contact with Non-Austronesian Papuan languages." Where is evidence for this published or available?Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
I would like to weigh in on this topic of syntactic typology distributions with two points. 1. From a statistical point of view, it might be more interesting to study the number of speakers who use languages with a given order. This would allow the sample to even out historical accidents of merely local interest, since presumably to have a very large number of speakers, a language must operate across many cultures or a least across many subcultures. Thus a family of 50 related languages with few speakers in a geographically isolated area will not throw the cross-linguistic sample out of whack. 2. The movement from SOV to SVO cases that I know of, including pidginization, are frequently observed in conjunction with loss of distinct case marking. This suggests that separating the potentially confused NPs with the clearly distinct verb might have some functional advantage. This is somewhat supported by the reverse case in Mandarin Chinese, where the normal SVO order is transposed to SOV in certain cases where the object is marked by the prepositon "ba". In other words, it's OK to have S and O side by side if they are clearly marked. - --- Marc Hamann Ph:(416) 813-5779 Database Developer/Programmer Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto,OntarioMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue