Newmeyer (2000): "... [Jon Aske] points to discourse-based pressure for the development of a focus position after V in OV languages, leading ultimately to VO order."

Duela sarrera gutxi genúen komentatzen mekanismo sintaktiko-diskursibo bat nondik, abiatuz ti ordenak non sujetua ez zen aurrena, garatzen zén ordena sujetulehen bat bidéz topikalizazioa on sujetua:

What I propose in this paper is that SVO has evolved from verb-initial order via topicalization of the subject. [Aldridge, 2010]

Honela deskribatzen genuen mekanismo hori (ikus [1417]):

Basikoki, gauza dá ze VSO sintaxietan beti da posible kokatzea sujetua an lehenengo posizioa (lehenda aditza: Greenberg-en 6. universal linguistikoa) afinda bete funtzio pragmatiko konkretu berezituak nola topikalizazioa, zein ez den baizik dislokazio sintaktiko modu bat non elementuák zein kanonikoki ez diren kokatzen an esaldi-hasiera (nola sujetua an VSO), díren mugitzen ki hasiera hori zatio arrazoi pragmatiko-diskursiboak (horrela, elementu hori bihurtu nahi da topiko referentziala an esaldia).

Baina, akaso baldintza eta behar komunikatiboak aldatu ahala, sujetu topikalizatu horiek joan ahal dira bihúrtzen aukera gerota ohikoagoak areanda gramátikaldu (reanalizatu) lehenengo posizio hori nola defektuzko sujetu-posizioa, esan nahi baita posizio kanoniko berria (aditzosteko sujetu-posizioa bihur daiteke orain posizio pragmatiko berezitu bat, edo jarrai leike izáten ordena nagusi alternatibo bat, nola an 13 hizkuntzak zein komentatzen ari garen).

Sarrera hartan mintzo ginen gain naturalitatea on mugimendu sintaktiko-diskursibo hori noiz baldintza komunikatiboak orokortzen-akontextualizatzen diren: sujetua tipikoki thematikoa izanik eta aditza tipikoki rhematikoa (eta semantikoki lotuago kin objetua zein kin sujetua), naturalagoa da VSO edo VOS bihur daitezén SVO zeinda alderantzizko evoluzioa (zatio presio diskursiboak, zein islatzen diren an prozesamendu-kostuak azpi baldintza orokorrak).

Finean, presio diskursibo horiek dirá ber presio diskursiboak zein dúten bultzatzen objetua ki aditzosteko posizioa bidéz oso antzeko mekanismo bat: aditz-osteko fokalizazioa on objetua. Ikus daigun hurrengo hitzak ganik Newmeyer (2000), komentatuz lana ganik Aske (1998): … 

Aske (1998) has put forward a rather complex information content-based argument for the greather naturalness of the move from OV to VO than from VO to OV. Very briefly, he points to discourse-based pressure for the development of a focus position after V in OV languages, leading ultimately to VO order. However there is not corresponding mechanism for the loss of an NP after V in VO languages. Thus he posits a long-term drift to VO (Newmeyer 2000:374, enfasia nirea) 

Bai, dá justuki ber argumentua, ber mekanismoa zein aipatzen genuen ki pasatu ti VSO ki SVO bidéz sujetu-topikalizazioa, zein gero bihurtuko dén SV (ez-topikalizatua), baina aplikatua ki aditz osteko foku-posizioa, zein sortuko litzakén bidéz dislokazioa on objetu fokala ki posizio aditzostekoa, nondik gero sortuko baitzén VO ordena kanonikoa. 

Hain mekanismo naturala nola komuna hau ere. Hain universala nola lokala: eta justuki euskaran gertatu da (ikus gure sarrera titúlatzen "SVO neutroa"). [1424] [>>>]

Newmeyer (1998): 'I have seen it claimed in a variety of places that attested (or uncontroversially reconstructed) word order changes from OV to VO are far more common than those from VO to OV.'

Atzoko sarreran ikusten genuen idatzi bat non Bingfu Lu (1998) zíon erantzuten ki mezu bat ga (ganik, ganika, ganikan) Newmwyer hizkuntzalaria (1998), nork, atzo ikusten genuenez, zioén 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.

Ikus daigun orain Newmeyer-en idatzi osoa (1998):

Matthew Dryer has shown that, once we correct for areal and genetic bias, the 'preference' for OV order is greater than that for VO order in the world's languages. But interestingly, I have seen it claimed in a variety of places that attested (or uncontroversially reconstructed) word order changes from OV to VO are far more common than those from VO to OV. 

My first question is how widely accepted is such a claim among historical linguists and typologists? Is there much support for such an idea and its implication of an overall general 'drift' from OV to VO? 

If this claim seems well motivated, the conjunction of the 'preference' for OV and the 'drift' to VO is very curious, no? 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 directions (Venneman, Givon, Bichakjian, and others) have concluded something very much along those lines. 

Gauza da ze, izánik interesgarriak gaur egungo maiztasun estatikoak burúz hitz-ordenak, askoz interesgarriagoak dirá datu dinamikoak burúz nóndik, norántza eta zéin baldintzetan joan diren evoluzionatzen sintaxiak barrén historia (ez soilik evoluzioak, baizik ere evoluzio horien baldintza diferenteak). Izan ere, maiztasun estatikoak soilik dira puntu bat, azken puntua, azken argazkia atérea ki fluxu evolutibo bat zeintaz bádugun informazio dinamiko kualitatiboa, ondo relevantea, zein, jakina, ez genuken ahaztu behar an gure analisiak. [1139] [>>>]