SOV original word order?

[Bakker, Dik]

Indeed, Johanna et al, this certainly is utter, irresponsible nonsense,
with no reflection on even the most basic of the abundant literature 
on this point, on known distributions (cf. WALS), etcetera ...

Dik


Dik Bakker
Dept. of General Linguistics
Universities of Amsterdam & Lancaster
tel (+44) 1524 64975 & (+31) 20 5253864
http://home.medewerker.uva.nl/d.bakker/

Societas Linguistica Europaea
Secretary/Treasurer
http://www.societaslinguistica.eu/

________________________________________
Van: Discussion List for ALT [LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org] namens Everett, Daniel [DEVERETT at BENTLEY.EDU]
Verzonden: zaterdag 15 oktober 2011 23:15
Aan: LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org
Onderwerp: Re: SOV original word order?

Great points, Johanna.

Dan

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 15, 2011, at 17:06, "Johanna Nichols" <johanna at BERKELEY.EDU> wrote:

> This is grossly irresponsible on PNAS's part.  The authors don't even know
> the basic literature on word order, genealogical classification of
> languages, stability of word order, or mathematics and statistics of type
> changes in populations.  (This is based on reading just the abstract.
> I'll now read the paper.)  I know that PNAS submissions communicated by an
> NAS member (Gell-Mann must be one) get in without much formality, but do
> they do no peer review whatsoever??
>
> Johanna Nichols
>
>
> Peter Bakker wrote:
>> Dear typologists,
>>
>> This rather amazing news item:
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/original-human-language-yoda-sounded-201403614.html
>>
>> appeared to be based on this article in Proceedings of the National
>> Academy of Sciences:
>>
>>
>> The origin and evolution of word order
>>
>> [
>> http://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Murray+Gell-Mann&sortspec=date&submit=Submit
>> ]Murray Gell-Mann
>> [
>> http://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Merritt+Ruhlen&sortspec=date&submit=Submit
>> ]Merritt Ruhlen
>> Contributed by Murray Gell-Mann, August 26, 2011 (sent for review August
>> 19, 2011)
>> Published online before print October 10, 2011,
>> doi:10.1073/pnas.1113716108
>> PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. October 10, 2011
>>
>> This is the abstract:
>>
>> Abstract
>> Recent work in comparative linguistics suggests that all, or almost all,
>> attested human languages may derive from a single earlier language. If
>> that is so, then this language�like nearly all extant languages�most
>> likely had a basic ordering of the subject (S), verb (V), and object (O)
>> in a declarative sentence of the type �the man (S) killed (V) the bear
>> (O).� When one compares the distribution of the existing structural types
>> with the putative phylogenetic tree of human languages, four
>> conclusions may be drawn. (i) The word order in the ancestral language was
>> SOV. (ii) Except for cases of diffusion, the direction of syntactic
>> change, when it occurs, has been for the most part SOV > SVO and, beyond
>> that, SVO > VSO/VOS with a subsequent reversion to SVO occurring
>> occasionally. Reversion to SOV occurs only through diffusion. (iii)
>> Diffusion, although important, is not the dominant process in the
>> evolution of word order. (iv) The two extremely rare word orders (OVS and
>> OSV) derive
>> directly from SOV.
>>
>>
>> I thought this article could be both interesting and surprising for
>> students of word order typology.
>>
>> Peter Bakker
>>
>>
>> Peter Bakker
>>      email:  linpb at hum.au.dk
>> Department of Linguistics
>> tel. (45) 8942.6553
>> Inst. for Anthropology, Archaeology and Linguistics
>> Aarhus University
>>   tel. institute: (0045)8942.6562
>> Nordre Ringgade, building 1410                                         fax
>> institute:  (0045)8942.6570
>> DK - 8000 Aarhus C
>> room 340
>>
>> home page: http://person.au.dk/en/linpb@hum.au.dk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>