Verb–object–subject Word Order

In linguistic typology, a verb–object–subject or verb–object–agent language, which is commonly abbreviated VOS or VOA, is one in which most sentences arrange their elements in that order. That would be the equivalent in English to "Drank cocktail Sam." The relatively rare default word order accounts for only 3% of the world's languages. It is the fourth-most common default word order among the world's languages out of the six. It is a more common default permutation than OVS and OSV but is significantly rarer than SOV (as in Hindi and Japanese), SVO (as in English and Mandarin), and VSO (as in Filipino and Irish). Families in which all or many of their languages are VOS include the following:

* the Algonquian family (including Ojibwa)
* the neighbouring families of the Oregon Coast (including Alsea, Suislaw, Hanis Coos and Miluk Coos)
* the Arawakan family (including Baure)
* the Austronesian family (including Malagasy, Toba Batak, Belauan, Gilbertese, Fijian and Tsou)
* the Chumash family (including Inoseño Chumash)
* the Mayan family (including Huastec, Yucatec, Mopán, Lacondón, Chol, Tzeltal, Tzotzil, Chuj, Tojolabal, Quiché, Cakchiquel, Tzutujil, Sacapultec, Pocomam, Pocomchí and Kekchi)
* the Otomanguean family (including Mezquital Otomi and Highland Otomi)
* the Salishan family (including Coeur d'Alene and Twana)

Incidence

Typology

VOS word order is the fourth-most-common of the world's languages, and is considered to have verb-initial word order, like VSO. Very few languages have a fixed VOS word order, most primarily in the Austronesian and Mayan language families. Many verb-initial languages exhibit a flexible word order (such as St’át’imcets, Chamorro, and Tongan), alternating between VOS and VSO. VOS and VSO are usually classified as verb-initial because they share many similar properties, such as the absence of the verb "have" and predicate-initial grammar.

Though not as universal, many verb-initial languages also have ergative clauses. For instance, most Mayan languages have an ergative-absolutive system of verb agreement and most Austronesian languages have an ergative-absolutive system of case marking.

Generative analysis

VP-raising

There is ongoing debate in generative linguistics as to how VOS clauses are derived, but there is significant evidence for verb-phrase-raising.Kayne's theory of antisymmetry suggests that VOS clauses are derived from SVO structure via the leftward movement of a VP constituent that contains a verb and object. The principles and parameters theory sets VOS and SVO clause structures as syntactically identical but does not account for SVO being typologically more common than VOS. According to the principles and parameters theory, the difference between SVO and VOS clauses is the direction in which parameters are set for projection of a T category's specifier. When the parameter is to the right of T(ense)'s specifier, VOS is realized, and when it is to the left, SVO is realized.

The motivation for movement from SVO to VOS structure is still undetermined, as some languages show inconsistencies with SVO underlying structure and an absence of VP-raising (such as Chamorro and Tzotzil). In verb-initial languages, the extended projection principle causes overt specifier movement from the strong tense verb or predicate redfeatures.

Chung proposes a syntactic profile for verb-initial languages that are derived through VP-raising:

# VP coordination is allowed.
# The subject and other constituents outside the verb phrase can be extracted.
# The subject has narrow scope over sentential elements.

VOS can be derived from SVO, but Maria Polinsky suggests that verb-initial languages (V1 languages) display other properties that correlate with verb-initiality and are crucial to analysis of V1 order.

Subject-only restriction

The subject-only restriction (SOR) exists in most, if not all, Austronesian languages and follows from the VP-raising account of VOS.

In a given clause, only one argument such as the external arguments, the subjects, or the sentence's most prominent argument, is attainable for "extraction" to undergo movements, which includes A-bar movements like wh-movement, topicalization, and relativization. No other arguments, such as the internal arguments or VP adjuncts, may undergo such movement. Since SOR restricts any internal arguments and VP adjuncts from undergoing any movements, the VP-internal or low adjuncts are not qualified to behave as if they are stranded by VP-raising. As a result, VOS is retained in those languages.

Examples in Seediq:

VP-external constituents are the only accessible constituents when structures require movements (like relative clauses or topicalization). In other words, structures requiring movements may access constituents only if they are external to VP. Any movement regarding the VP-internal or adjuncts constituents fails to satisfy the subject-only restriction.

Since movements with respect to internal arguments and VP adjuncts are not allowed in Seediq, and only VP-external movement is possible (unless the predicate undergo a change in voice morphology), only VOS is grammatical.

VP-remnant raising

Remnant raising and clause-final adjuncts

VP-raising accounts for Toba Batak are proposed by Cole and Herman. However, prior to the VP moving to its final position, they argue that adverbs and prepositions move out of the VP. If there are adjuncts present, VP-raising is considered as a type of remnant movement.

In contrast to Cole and Herman's prediction, Massam's proposal states that indirect objects and obliques that are generated higher than the VP have grammatical subextraction unless they move from the VP.

Remnant raising and VSO

If the object evacuates the VP before the VP moves into a higher position within the clause, it derives VSO order instead, of VOS. Massam looks at the difference between VP-raising accounts of VOS and VSO by investigating the Niuean language. Massam argues that whether a NP object or a DP is selected by the verb determines if there is VP or VP-remnant raising. To get the structure of a VOS clause, an NP object is selected by the verb; the selected NP does not need case and so it will stay in the VP. Consequently, the object is pseudo-incorporated into the verb in the VOS clause. If a DP object is selected by the verb, VP-remnant movement occurs and creates VSO.

Both possibilities are shown in the tables below:

= Niuean VSO

=

= Niuean VOS

=

VP-raising and VSO/VOS alternations

For languages whose alternations between VOS and VSO are more difficult to characterize, other factors help distinguish the word order. Unlike Niuean, whose objects are case-marked in VSO, not in VOS, Kroeger proposes that factors such as thematic role and grammatical functions help characterize word order such as in Tagalog. In reference to the verb, the argument with the highest thematic role should be the closest to it, and the highest grammatical function should be the farthest. For specifically-active voice clauses, the competition between the two situations helps to explain the variation of word order in Tagalog. Since there is no conflict in non-active clauses, there is less variation in word order.

Flexible linearization (FL) approach

Bury proposed that any phrase containing a subject and a constituent with a verb and an object can be linearized with the subject to the left or to the right of the verb-object constituent. That is called the flexible linearization (FL) approach, and with the combination of verb movement, it can account for most, if not all, VOS and VSO derivations. Under the assumption, word orders in languages surface as VOS because they may have been linearized with the subject, in this case to the right of the verb-object constituent.

FL approach differs from most other analyses such as by not assuming whether VOS or VSO has a more basic and rigid structure in the language and that the other one is derived from a special rule. FL approach emphasizes less on syntax and word orders and assumes that both VOS and VSO can occur underlyingly in different languages. Thus, alternation between VOS and VSO is expected in verb-initial languages unless the position of the subject or the object has some grammatical role:

Structure (not linearized): H [S [V O ">_[V_O.html" ;"title="H [S [V O">H [S [V O (where H stands for a head) can be pronounced as H + V S O conventionally.

Under the FL approach however, that structure can be pronounced as H + V O S, as the phrase is said to be linearized with the subject to the right of the verb-object constituent. Consequently, we see a VOS order.

Both pronunciations are linearizations of the same structure, but unless there are independent constraints on word order in a given language, both VSO and VOS orders are attainable in the same language.

Scrambling VSO

Scrambling