SOV original word order?

Sun Oct 16 09:36:19 UTC 2011

Dear colleagues,

I was very surprised when I first read the abstract, but 
after seeing the actual paper I realised that one of the 
authors is Merrit Ruhlen, which I assume knows very well 
the literature on word order and, anyway, many works on 
the topic are actually quoted in the paper (see the 
references section). I will read the paper now.

On the positive side, because of this discussion I got to 
know prof. LaPolla's work on the weaknesses of typology 
based on word order, which appears to me as a fundamental 
contribution to the advancement of the field.

Have a nice Sunday,

Giorgio F. Arcodia

-- 
Dr. Giorgio Francesco Arcodia
Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca
Dipartimento di Scienze Umane per la Formazione
Edificio U6 - stanza 4101
Piazza dell'Ateneo Nuovo, 1
20126 Milano

Tel.: (+39) 02 6448 4946
Fax: (+39) 02 6448 4863
E-mail: giorgio.arcodia at unimib.it

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 10:50:35 +1100
 Randy LaPolla <R.LaPolla at LATROBE.EDU.AU> wrote:
> I personally think the whole methodology of word order 
>studies, as done in the Greenbergian framework, and even 
>the use of “SOV” etc. in describing languages is 
>unscientific (and so don’t teach it when I teach 
>typology), but the work by this group is particularly 
>problematic. As a regular reader of PNAS, though, it is 
>actually not shocking to me that PNAS would publish such 
>an article.
> 
> LaPolla, Randy J. 2002. "Problems of Methodology and 
>Explanation in Word Order Universals Research ", Dongfang 
>Yuyan yu Wenhua (Languages and Cultures of the East), ed. 
>by Pan Wuyun, 204-237. Shanghai: Dongfang Chuban 
>Zhongxin, Feb. 2002.
> <http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/stwo.pdf>
> 
> LaPolla, Randy J. & Dory Poa. 2006. “On Describing Word 
>Order”. Catching Language: The Standing Challenge of 
>Grammar Writing, ed. by Felix Ameka, Alan Dench, & 
>Nicholas Evans, 269-295. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
> <http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/describingwo.pdf>
> 
> Randy
> 
> ---
> Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA
> Professor (Chair) of Linguistics
> La Trobe University
> VIC 3086 AUSTRALIA
> 
> Personal site: http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/
> RCLT: http://www.latrobe.edu.au/rclt/
> The Tibeto-Burman Domain: http://tibeto-burman.net/
> Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area: 
>http://stedt.berkeley.edu/ltba/
> 
> 
> ________________________________
>From: Peter Bakker <linpb at hum.au.dk>
> Reply-To: Peter Bakker <linpb at hum.au.dk>
> Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 07:13:04 +1100
> To: "LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG" 
><LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>
> Subject: SOV original word order?
> 
> 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
> 
> Murray Gell-Mann 
><http://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Murray+Gell-Mann&sortspec=date&submit=Submit>
> Merritt Ruhlen 
><http://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Merritt+Ruhlen&sortspec=date&submit=Submit>
> 
> 1.  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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 