Object-initial languages

[David Golumbia]

For a functional perspective, the most detailed treatment of O** orders
is found in the work of Matthew Dryer - see the references at

http://linguistics.buffalo.edu/people/faculty/dryer/dryer/dryer.htm

a couple of the downloadable .pdf papers there are applicable (see the
1996 "Word Order Typology"), but as far as I know the most direct comments
are in "On the 6-Way Word Order Typology," _Studies in Language_ 21 (1997),
and "SVO Languages and the OV/VO Typology," _Journal of Linguistics_ 27
(1991) (see above page for full references and others).

I expect that Dr. Dryer will see this exchange eventually and may have
more to add himself.

DG

>
> Dear colleagues,
> I his recent textbook, Andrew Carnie (2002) Syntax: A Generative
> Introduction, p. 18-19, says:
> "Oversimplifying slightly, most languages put the order of elements in
> a sentence in one of the following word orders: SVO, SOV, VSO. A few
> languages use VOS. No (or almost no)(6) languages use OSV, OVS."
> Note (6) reads:
> "This is a matter of some debate. Derbyshire (1985) has claimed that the
> language Hixkaryana has object initial order."
> Obviously, the very definition of the term subject (and object) may
> depend on theoretical considerations (ergative languages?), and so would
> the idea of the unmarked or default order.
> I am interested in functionally-oriented comments on this issue. Are
> there really no object initial languages?
> Thanks
> Roni
> ====================================
>                  Dr. Ron Kuzar
> Address:   Department of English Language and Literature
>                  University of Haifa
>                  IL-31905 Haifa, Israel
> Office:       +972-4-824-9826, fax: +972-4-824-9711
> Home:       +972-2-6414780, Cellular: +972-5-481-9676
> Email:        kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il
> Site:ý          http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar
> ====================================
>


--
dgolumbi at panix.com
David Golumbia