VO ordena dá argiki estableagoa diakronikoki azpi baldintza naturalak eta baita sinkronikoki ere

Maurits & Griffiths (2014) mintzo zaizkigu burúz estabilitatea on hitz-ordenak baina gabé konsideratu efektua on kontaktu linguistikoa edota efektua on baldintza eta behar komunikatibo ezberdinak an garai diferenteak (ikus an "Dirá bi muga zein dúten baliogabetzen edozein aurrikuspen zein egin liteken ti eredu hori"):

Atzoko sarreran genuen aipatzen ondoko pasartea ganik Maurits & Griffiths (2014):

Of course, these predictions cannot and do not take into account possible, e.g., demographic, social, or political influences.  [Maurits & Griffiths, 2014]

Horren gainean, aurrerago, autoreek gehiago zehazten dute:

Horrela, nola genioen an sarrera titulatzén "Kontaktu linguistikoaren efektua kendutakoan, desagertzen bide dá SVO -> SOV aldaketa":

1.: Kontaktu linguistikoaren efektua kendutakoan, desagertzen bide dá SVO -> SOV aldaketa.

2.: Obviatzen badugu sujetuaren posizioa, geldituko litzaiguké norabide orokor argi bat ti OV ki VO.

Bestalde, kontaktu linguistikoaren efektu orokorra ere aldatzen doa: izan ere, zenbat-eta VO sintaxi gehiago egon (jada dirá gehiengoa), kontaktu linguistikoaren eragina bihurtuko da (jada bihurtu da) nagusiki aldé SVO, hola azkártuz a prozesu teknologiko globala alde ordena efektiboago bat azpi baldintza orokorrak, nola dén SVO ordena burulehena.

Hola VO izanen litzaké askoz estableagoa zein OV an evoluzio naturala (ez induzitua zatio kontaktua), eta gainera, kontaktuaren efektua hasiko litzake jokatzen aldé VO, barné prozesu globala aldé teknologia efektiboagoak. 

Orobat erákutsiz VO ordenaren estabilitate handiagoa, Hoeks-ek (2016) diosku:

Bai horretaz mintzo ginen an gure sarrera titulatzén "Intralinguistikoki ere SVO estableagoa":

Atzo komentatzen genuen nóla ordena sintaktiko gutxien-komunikatiboak (esan nahi baita, gutxien komunikatiboak azpi baldintza exigente-orokorrak: OSV, OVS) báduten egun tendentzia argia ki agertu an espazio txikiak eta erlatiboki isolatuak, eta nóla SOV ere agertzen den an halako espazioak erlatiboki gehiago-ze SVO.

Eta gauza da ze intralinguistikoki ere aurkitzen dugu ber joera alde SVO. Honela mintzo ginen buruz puntu hau an gure "Hizkuntza bere osotasunean" (2017:295):

Bai, Steele-k (1978) aztertu zituén hizkuntzen barneko ordenamendu alternatibo posibleak, eta aurkitu zuen ze SVO hizkuntzak "in general, have no common alternate orders at all", esan nahi baita ze sintaxi horiek, oro har, oso egonkorrak izaten dira an erabilera e SVO ordena, bitartean-ze adibidez SOV hizkuntzen erdiak erabiltzen zutén SVO ordena ere, nola Bingfu Lu-k gogoratzen zigun hemen:

Esan nahi baita ze kontua ez da soilik ze hizkuntzak nagusiki jotzen dute ki SVO aski naturalki noiz ez den existitzen kontaktu edo bestelako presio berezirik, baizik-ere-ze hizkuntzen barruan ere, intralinguistikoki, SVO ordena da askoz estableagoa (dú izaten alternantzia gutxiago) ezen SOV (zeinen hizkuntzen erdiak ametitzen baitute SVO ere). Berriro ere, báda joera bat apuntatuz ki SVO.

edota an gure sarrera titulatzén "SVOk ez du komunki erabiltzen beste ordenarik, bitarten beste ordenak (SOVk, VSOk eta VOSk) bádute erabiltzen komunki SVO baina ez SOV (salbu, jakina, SOV)":

Ikusten genuen herenegun nóla SVOk ez zuen komunki erabiltzen beste ordena alternatiborik arten S, V eta O; bitarten SOVk bái zuela erabiltzen SVO. Eta horko asimetria harago doa, zeren beste bi hitz-ordena minimoki maizkoak ere (VSO eta VOS) bádute SVO arten euren ordena alternatibo komun edo oso komunak, bitarten ez dutén erabiltzen SOV ordena alternatiboa. Ikus ondorengo taula ga Newmeyer, aterea ti artikulua ga Steele ("Word order variation", 1978): 

Taula horrek dú sakontzen an asimetria intralinguistikoa alde SVO, zeren hiru ordenak dúte erabiltzen SVO nola alternatiba komuna edo oso komuna, baina ez SOV.

Bai, VO ordena dá argiki estableagoa diakronikoki azpi baldintza naturalak eta baita sinkronikoki ere. [1360] [>>>]

Bingfu Lu (1998): "In short, the drift from OV to VO is motivated by the processing ease."

Mintzatuz burúz arrazoiak on evoluzio sintaktikoa, gogora daigun ondoko sarrera:

• "... the drift from OV to VO is motivated by the processing ease (Bingfu Lu)"

non Bingfu Lu hizkuntzalari txinarrak egiten digú ondorengo azalpen interesgarria respektu evoluzio sintaktiko orokorra:

Frederick Newmeyer-ek ("one of the first generativists to call attention to the ideas of the functionalist wing of the field") zioen honako hau an 1998:

One might even conclude that the OV preference is a remnant of a 'proto-world' OV (caused by what?), which functional forces (but what functional forces?) are skewing gradually to VO. And, indeed, linguists coming from a variety of direction (Venneman, Givon, Bichakjian, and others) have concluded something very much along those lines.

Bingfu Lu hizkuntzalariak erantzun zion honela: 

I venture to posting my tentative opinions below:

1.
There may be several reasons for proto-languages to tend be OV rather than VO. For instance, OV and SV are harmonious. Both O and S are dependents of the head V. Languages prefer OV over VO just like they prefer SV over VS.

2.
Proto-languages are expected to be simple in terms of nominal expressions. However, along with the developing of NP internal structure and the extension of the size of NP, the pressure to move large NP to the end of sentence increases too. Between S and O, O is more likely to be heavy. That is why O, but not S, tend to postpone.

Matthew Dryer 1980's "The Positional Tendencies of Sentential Noun Phrases in Universal Grammar." (Canadian Journal of Linguistics 25: 12-195) argues that postposing of sentential NPs is overall preferred over preposing. Languages only resort to preposing when postposing would violate the rigid V-final order.

3.
In addition, a heavy O is normally a piece of new information. New information tends to appear later in the sentence. Therefore, everything else being equal, a heavy O tends postpone rather than prepose.

4.
On the other hand, if a language starts with SVO order, there seems no obvious motivation to drift to SOV, unless O is a pronominal or clitic. 

In short, the drift from OV to VO is motivated by the processing ease.

Bai, evidentziak sendoki dioskue ze prozesamendu-kostuek jokatzen duté paper estelarra an korronte nagusia on evoluzio sintaktikoa, nahiz existitu hainbat restrikzio galgátuz haien eragina. [1138] [>>>] [A8] [A9] +1(Dryer) [A10]

XK5: Teoria gardena eta ebidentzia enpiriko sendoa bat-eginik

Erantzunez ki Xabier Kintana (ikus XK1, XK2, XK3 hau, XK4, eta hau). 

1998an David Gil hizkuntzalariak (erantzunez ki bere kolega Bingfu Lu) zúen planteatzen honako galdera hau (ikus XK4):

First a question: Is it actually the case that there's more OV>VO than VO>OV among ATTESTED changes, or only amongst RECONSTRUCTED changes.

Eta Gil-ek berak zioskun zér deduzitu beharko genuken baldin erantzuna balitz baiezko biribila (ikus Gil-en mezu osoa hemen):

... , if the former, then I see no way to avoid the conclusion that what we have here is a fascinating window into linguistic evolution, with OV languages being evolutionarily prior to VO languages with respect to word order typology.

(An inevitable disclaimer. To say that, say, OV Japanese is evolutionarily prior to, say, VO English with respect to word order typology is not to rule out the possibility that, say, OV Japanese might be more advanced evolutionarily than VO English with respect to other linguistic properties not correlated with word order. And needless to say, such claims say nothing about extra-linguistic matters.)

Gil-ek, esan bezala, zúen planteatzen hori-galdera an 1998. Eta 2005ean Tom Givón hizkuntzalariak (zein baita figura zentral bat an hizkuntzalaritza funtzionala) zioén (ikus Givón-en mezu osoa hemen):

1. Synchronic morphology is most often the best guide for reconstructing older syntax. There is not a single shred of evidence in Japanese morphology indicating anything but SOV syntax (see Givon 1971, 1979, 1983 ed., 2001, inter alia).

2. In general, SOV is the oldest attested word-order in human language. Most natural (non-contact induced) drift is, as far as I know, always away from SOV, not toward it (Givon 1979; Ruhlen & Gell-Man, forthcoming).

Honek du erakusten haruntzago ti edozein duda razonable ezen, afera honetan, bat datoz teoria gardena eta ebidentzia enpiriko sendoa. Hau da, ... I see no way to avoid the conclusion that... [107] [>>>]

XK4: David Gil: ... then I see no way to avoid the conclusion that ...

Erantzunez a Xabier Kintana (ikus XK1, XK2, XK3 eta hau ere).

Zinez, Bingfu-ren azalpena hain da ona, hain logikoa, hain naturala, non oso zaila da haren kontra egitea.

Eta evidentzia enpirikoa? Zer esan dezakegu burúz evidentzia enpirikoa? Bát al dator? Demagun hala dela, eta datu enpirikoek erakusten digutela ze hizkuntzek jotzen dute a kokatzea objetua atze aditza noiz eskakizun linguistikoak handitzen diren. Hala balitz, horrek zer esan nahiko luke? Akaso honako hau?

First a question: Is it actually the case that there's more OV>VO than VO>OV amongst ATTESTED changes, or only amongst RECONSTRUCTED changes.

If the latter, then the reason for, say, Proto-Indo-European being OV in the eyes of some historical linguists *may* (I'm only throwing this out to be provocative) be the same as the reason for, say English being OV, underlyingly, in the eyes of this or that flavour-of-the-week generative framework -- namely the product of a desire to get everything nicely lined up and serialized and pretty and elegant.

However, if the former, then I see no way to avoid the conclusion that what we have here is a fascinating window into linguistic evolution, with OV languages being evolutionarily prior to VO languages with respect to word order typology.

(An inevitable disclaimer. To say that, say, OV Japanese is evolutionarily prior to, say, VO English with respect to word order typology is not to rule out the possibility that, say, OV Japanese might be more advanced evolutionarily than VO English with respect to other linguistic properties not correlated with word order. And needless to say, such claims say nothing about extra-linguistic matters.)

David Gil [1998ko maiatzak 27]

Bai, teoria eta evidentzia sendoek bát eginen balute... [105] [⇶]

... the drift from OV to VO is motivated by the processing ease (Bingfu Lu)

Frederick Newmeyer-ek ("one of the first generativists to call attention to the ideas of the functionalist wing of the field") zioen honako hau an 1998:

One might even conclude that the OV preference is a remnant of a 'proto-world' OV (caused by what?), which functional forces (but what functional forces?) are skewing gradually to VO. And, indeed, linguists coming from a variety of direction (Venneman, Givon, Bichakjian, and others) have concluded something very much along those lines.

Bingfu Lu hizkuntzalariak erantzun zion honela:

I venture to posting my tentative opinions below: 

1.
There may be several reasons for proto-languages to tend be OV rather than VO. For instance, OV and SV are harmonious. Both O and S are dependents of the head V. Languages prefer OV over VO just like they prefer SV over VS.

2.
Proto-languages are expected to be simple in terms of nominal expressions. However, along with the developing of NP internal structure and the extension of the size of NP, the pressure to move large NP to the end of sentence increases too. Between S and O, O is more likely to be heavy. That is why O, but not S, tend to postpone.

Matthew Dryer 1980's "The Positional Tendencies of Sentential Noun Phrases in Universal Grammar." (Canadian Journal of Linguistics 25: 12-195) argues that postposing of sentential NPs is overall preferred over preposing. Languages only resort to preposing when postposing would violate the rigid V-final order.

3.
In addition, a heavy O is normally a piece of new information. New information tends to appear later in the sentence. Therefore, everything else being equal, a heavy O tends postpone rather than prepose.

4.
On the other hand, if a language starts with SVO order, there seems no obvious motivation to drift to SOV, unless O is a pronominal or clitic.

In short, the drift from OV to VO is motivated by the processing ease.

Egitan, ezin ninteke egon adosago. [84] [⇶]