Cognitive Factors Affecting the Prevalence of SOV and SVO Word Orders

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
Manouchehr Kouhestani 1
Arsalan Golfam 2
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Shiraz University, Shiraz.
2 Associate Professor, Department of Linguistics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran
Abstract
It is a typological observation in more than 90% of languages where the basic word order is either subject–verb–object (SVO) or subject–object–verb (SOV). Functional typologists believe that the prevalence of these two orders; in which the subject precedes the two other elements, and the verb and the object are contiguous is due to the functions of language in the real world. Hence, the two principles of subject salience and verb-object contiguity have been proposed. The typological explanations put forward for these two principles hold that transitive sentences of a language have come into existence as a result of the encoding of the prototypical transitive action scenario. In such a scenario, subject salience is a result of the fact that the transitive action scenario is started by the doer of the activity. Also, because of the tight causal relationship between the activity and its receiver, the linguistic counterparts of these two elements, too, tend to be contiguous. Since functional pressures can only be manifested in language through human cognition, the present paper looks at the cognitive processes involved in the cross-linguistic prevalence of the afore-mentioned word orders.

Keywords

Subjects

[1] van der Auwera J, Nuyts J., (2007). Cognitive linguistics and linguistic typology. Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics Oxford University Press, Oxford. 1074-91.
[2] Dryer MS., (2013). Order of Subject, Object and Verb Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
[3] Greenberg J., (1966). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J Greenberg, ed, Universals of Language 73-113 Cambridge, MA.
[4] Tomlin RS., (1986). Basic word order: Functional Principles: Croom Helm London.
[5] Evans V, Green M., (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An Introduction: Edinburgh University Press.
[6] Hudson R., (2014). Cognitive functionalism in language education. Theory and Practice in Functional-Cognitive Space. 68:253.
[7] Comrie B., (1989). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology: University of Chicago Press.
[8] Kemmerer D., (2012). The Cross-Linguistic Prevalence of SOV and SVO Word Orders Reflects the Sequential and Hierarchical Representation of Action in Broca’s Area. Language and Linguistics Compass. 6(1):50-66.
[9] Koffka K., (1935). Principles of Gestalt Psychology, International Library of Psychology, Philosophy and Scientific Method. Harcourt Brace, New York.
[10] Saussure FD., (2011). Course in General Linguistics. New York: Columbia University Press; 2011.
[11] Ribière M., (2008). Barthes: Humanities-Ebooks.
[12] Peirce CS., (1974). Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce: Harvard University Press.
[13] Haiman J., (1994). Iconicity and Syntactic Change. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. 3.
[14] Gentner D., (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7(2):155-70.
[15] Halford GS., (1993). Children's Understanding: The Development of Mental Models.
[16] Itkonen E., (2005). Analogy as Structure and Process: Approaches in linguistics, Cognitive Psychology and Philosophy of Science: John Benjamins Publishing; 2005.
[17] Langacker RW., (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites: Stanford University Press; 1987.
[18] Ungerer F, Schmid HJ., (2013). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics: Routledge.
[19] Treisman AM, Gelade G., (1980). A Feature-integration Theory of Attention. Cognitive Psychology 12(1):97-136.
[20] Treisman A, Souther J., (1985). Search Asymmetry: a Diagnostic for Preattentive Processing of Separable Features. Journal of Experimental Psychology 114(3):285.
[21] Treisman A, Gormican S., (1988). Feature Analysis in Early Vision: Evidence from Search Asymmetries. Psychological Review 95(1):15.
[22] Franconeri SL, Hollingworth A, Simons DJ., (2005). Do New Objects Capture Attention? Psychological Science 16(4):275-81.
[23] Wolfe JM., (2000). Visual Attention. Seeing. 2:335-86.
[24] Wolfe JM., (2001). Asymmetries in Sisual Search: An Introduction. Perception & Psychophysics 63(3):381-9.
[25] Legerstee M., (1991). The Role of Person and Object in Eliciting Early Imitation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 51(3):423-33.
[26] Crichton MT, Lange-Küttner C., (1999). Animacy and Propulsion in Infancy: Tracking, Waving and Reaching to Self-propelled and Induced Moving Objects. Developmental Science 2(3):318-24.
[27] Pratt J, Radulescu PV, Guo RM, Abrams RA.. (2010). It’s Alive! Animate Motion Captures Visual Attention. Psychological Science. 21(11):1724-30.
[28] New J, Cosmides L, Tooby J.. (2007). "Category-specific attention for animals reflects ancestral priorities, not expertise". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(42):16598-603.
The International Journal of Humanities
Volume 26, Issue 2
Summer 2019
Pages 59-69