Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T05:58:31.160Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Implicational Universals as Predictors of Word Order Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

John A. Hawkins
John A. Hawkins*
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Implicational universals of the form ‘If a language has some word order P, then it also has word order(s) Q’ are widely used to explain word order change. A language which develops word order P without having Q is said to be universally inconsistent, and it is predicted that it will re-introduce consistency by subsequently acquiring Q. This paper, however, argues against the validity of such a paradigm. The current assumption that the early western Indo-European dialects are inconsistent is founded on inadequate formulations of the synchronic universals. First, more precise formulations are given for some basic word order universals in a large body of languages ; then their predictions are tested against all the early daughter languages of Indo-European (using data from Friedrich 1975). None of these dialects exhibits inconsistency; hence we have no evidence for the reintroduction of consistency as a valid mechanism of syntactic change. It is shown, using historical data from Germanic, that implicational universals can nonetheless make correct predictions for the relative timing and manner of word order changes, but only on the assumption that languages in evolution obey synchronic universals. Some purely theoretical arguments are provided to support the empirical findings, and an alternative explanatory model of word order change is outlined.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , September 1979, pp. 618 - 648
Copyright
Copyright © 1979 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, John M., and Jones, Charles (eds.) 1974. Historical linguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Antinucci, F., Duranti, A.; and Gebert, L. 1976. Relative clause structure, relative clause perception, and the change from SOV to SVO. ms.Google Scholar
Friedrich, Paul. 1975. Proto-Indo-European syntax. (Journal of Indo-European Studies, monograph 1.) Butte: Montana College of Mineral Science & Technology.Google Scholar
Fries, Charles C. 1940. On the development of the structural use of word order in Modern English Lg. 16. 199–208.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1975. Serial verbs and syntactic change: Niger–Congo. In Li, 49–112.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universals of language, 2nd ed., ed. by Greenberg, J. H., 73–113.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1978. Theoretically significant word order patterns in Greenberg's Appendix II. University of Essex, Dept. of Language and Linguistics, Occasional papers 20. 87–150.Google Scholar
Hsieh, Hsin-I. 1976. Reconstructability and predictability in syntactic change. Paper read at the Symposium on the Mechanisms of Linguistic Change, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 1975. On the change from SOV to SVO: evidence from Niger-Congo. In Li, 113–47.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X syntax: a study of phrase structure. (Linguistic Inquiry, monograph 2.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L., and Comrie, B. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 63–99.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1971. On the rise of SOV patterns in New High German. Grammatik, Kybernetik, Kommunikation (Festschrift Alfred Hoppe), ed. by Schweisthal, K. G., 19–24. Bonn: Dümmler.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1972. Proto-Germanie Syntax. Toward a grammar of Proto-Germanie, ed. by Coetsem, Frans van & Kufner, Herbert L., 239–68. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1974. Proto-Indo-European syntax. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. (ed.) 1975. Word order and word order change. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. 1974. Historical change of word order: a case study of Chinese and its implications. In Anderson & Jones, 199–218.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. 1975. The semantic function of word order: a case study in Mandarin. In Li, 163–95.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1975. Diachronie syntax: extraposition and deep structure reanalysis. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Meeting, N. E. Linguistic Society, 200–14.Google Scholar
Little, Greta D. 1977. Linguistic typology and syntactic change in Amharic. Paper read at the Modern Language Association.Google Scholar
Lockwood, W. B. 1968. Historical German syntax. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
Peranteau, Paul M., et al. (eds.) 1972. The Chicago Which Hunt: Papers from the Relative Clause Festival. Chicago: CLS.Google Scholar
Smith, Jesse Robert. 1971. Word order in the older Germanic dialects. (University of Illinois dissertation.) Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.Google Scholar
Steele, Susan. 1975. On some factors that affect and effect word order. In Li, 197–268.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1972. Analogy in generative grammar: the origin of word order. Paper read at the 11th International Congress of Linguists.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1974a. Topics, subjects and word order: from SXV to SVX via TVX. In Anderson & Jones, 339–76.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1974b. Theoretical word order studies: results and problems. Papiere zur Linguistik 7. 5–25.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1975. An explanation of drift. In Li, 269–305.Google Scholar
Weber, Heinrich. 1971. Das erweiterte Adjektiv- und Partizipialattribut im Deutschen. München: Hueber.Google Scholar