Object-iniital languages

[Östen Dahl]

In my previous posting, I somewhat rashly made the final position of the
verb in subordinate clauses the main argument for SOV as the basic word
order of Continental Germanic (should be Continental Germanic minus
Yiddish, as Ellen points out), neglecting OV order when V is non-tensed
(non-finite). The question is now if early cases of OV order in German
(and Dutch) child language should be seen as evidence that this order is
in some sense basic. A German child meets main clause word orders such
as the following:

 

Subject TensedVerb OtherThings

Subject Auxiliary OtherThings NonTensedVerb

 

If we suppose that the child reproduces these templates preserving word
order but deleting auxiliaries we get:

 

Subject TensedVerb OtherThings

Subject OtherThings NonTensedVerb

 

Now, for a child who has not figured out the distinction between tensed
and non-tensed verb forms, this would look like two variants of the same
template. S/he could thus settle on one alternative, or use both of
them. If the OV order is preferred, this may depend on various factors.
It is of course also possible that the child does make a distinction
between the two templates even in the absence of an auxiliary. What
ought to be crucial for the basic OV hypothesis is how strong the
tendency is – in particular, how far it is extended. Does it influence
word order also after the acquisition of auxiliaries and/or the
emergence of the tensed/non-tensed distinction? It seems a little
implausible to me that German kids go around saying things like “Ich
krank bin”. Data about the development of verb-negation order in Swedish
child language (that Christer Platzack has reminded me of in an off-list
message – the interpretation is mine, though) suggest that it is hard to
find examples that do not follow adult word order, if one allows for the
omission of auxiliaries. 

But maybe Brian can tell us more about this.

 

- Östen Dahl

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/funknet/attachments/20021028/fa855709/attachment.htm>