Languages & Linguistics
Subject Verb Object
Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) is a basic word order in sentence structure where the subject performs the action on the object. This order is common in languages such as English, Mandarin, and French. In SVO languages, the subject typically comes before the verb, and the verb comes before the object in a sentence.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
Related key terms
1 of 5
9 Key excerpts on "Subject Verb Object"
eBook - PDFCatching Language
The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing
- Felix K. Ameka, Alan Dench, Nicholas Evans, Felix K. Ameka, Alan Dench, Nicholas Evans(Authors)
- 2008(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
The term “subject” is a useful one for English because English has grammaticalized the same sort of pivot 9 in a large number of constructions in the language; one of these constructions is the clause itself. For this language, then, it may seem to make sense to talk of SVO word order, as there is a grammatical relation of Subject, and it is mainly defined by preverbal position in the clause, and there is also a grammatical relation of direct object, and this is mainly defined by postverbal position in the clause (conversely we could say that the grammatical relations determine the word order), but the concepts of “subject” and “direct object” have no cross-linguistic validity. Even if we were to use these terms to define some grammatical category in all languages, the definitions would all be language-specific, and so simply using the term “subject” would not tell you what the author meant by the use of the term, what the nature of the category is, or to what extent those categories determine the word order. For example, we might say that Dyirbal (Dixon 1972) has a Subject, as there are a number of constructions that share the same sort of pivot, but that pivot is an [S,P] pivot, not an [S,A] pivot as in English, and the pivot is On describing word order 273 not defined by and does not determine word order. Using semantic equivalence to talk about Dyirbal word order would cause us to miss the pivots of that language and to be misled into thinking not only that there are [A,S] pivots in the language, but also that these imagined pivots determine the word order. (An inherently definitional relationship between word order and grammatical relations is evoked once we start using the categories “S” and “O” in talking about word order.) Even if a language has a set of [A,S] pivots, the set may not be the same as in other languages with [A,S] pivots.
eBook - PDF- Claire Moyse-Faurie, Joachim Sabel, Claire Moyse-Faurie, Joachim Sabel(Authors)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
Part one: Sentential syntax and sentence types Deriving linear order in OV/VO languages: evidence from Oceanic languages Joachim Sabel 1. Introduction VOS/VSO languages often show mirror image ordering with respect to word order phenomena in the predicate phrase and in DP compared to SOV/SVO lan-guages. This will be illustrated with respect to adverb/PP/adjective order, double objects and on the basis of data on focus/background (information) structure. It will be shown that a unified analysis for these phenomena in SOV/SVO/VOS languages based on the parametric option of having either roll-up or head move-ment, as has been proposed in the literature, is incompatible with data found in Oceanic VOS languages such as Fijian (i.e., the North-West Viti Levu vari-ant) and Kiribati (Gilbertese). Although many languages linearize arguments and adjuncts in the predicate phrase in a unitary way, Kiribati and North-West Fijian use different strategies for arguments in double object constructions and for adjuncts. The following generalizations concerning adjunct/argument order are for-mulated: Adverbs, PP-adverbials and adjectives following the head they modify appear in inverted order compared to adjuncts preceding the head. The order of arguments (in double object constructions) is determined independently of the order of adjuncts. The theoretical consequences of the empirical generalizations for analyses deriving linear order in SOV/SVO and verb-initial languages are discussed. Another new generalization of the present study of word order is that all Austronesian verb-initial languages that will be discussed realize informational focus in a position preceding background in the post-verbal domain. In this re-spect, the verb-initial VO-languages differ from SVO and SOV languages which are all focus-final.
eBook - PDFDiachronic Studies on Information Structure
Language Acquisition and Change
- Gisella Ferraresi, Rosemarie Lühr, Gisella Ferraresi, Rosemarie Lühr(Authors)
- 2010(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter(Publisher)
We mentioned that the durative actionality of the pre-sent and the irrealis modality of the imperative indicate a low degree of transitivity. This is confirmed if we take into account the ranking of S and O on the Animacy Hierarchy in (1). In SOV and SVO, the subject usually ranks higher than the object on the Animacy Hierarchy. In the SOV order reported in (17), S is a third The Information Structure of OVS in Vedic 51 person pronoun ( sáh ̠ “he”) and O is a common noun ( devā ̗ n “gods”). Similarly, in the SVO order in (18), O is a common noun ( bílam “cave”) and S is a second person pronoun ( tvám “you”). It appears that SOV differs from SVO in the relative topicality (in the sense of relative ranking on the Animacy Hierarchy) of the object with respect to the subject. In SVO, a high difference in topicality exists be-tween the subject and the object, and the object is commonly not topical at all, that is, it is located on the very low part of the Hierarchy. In (18), O is represented by the common noun of an inanimate item such as bílam “cave”. In SVO, V behaves as a borderline between the preposed topical information and the postposed non-topical information. The idea that non-topical material is relegated in the post-verbal position has also been assessed in the major constituent order of Ancient Greek (Dik 1995: 111ff; Matić 2003). In the Rig-Veda, the information structure conveyed by SVO can be considered the mirror-image of the information structure of OVS, the other verb-medial pattern, analyzed in §3. We have seen that a striking difference in the pragmatic status of subject and object exists in OVS, where the subject is the non-topical constituent. In the example of OVS in (7), O is a second person pronoun ( tvā ̗ m “you”), while S has an inanimate referent, such as gírah ̠ “songs”.
eBook - PDFSubject Positions and Interfaces
The Case of European Portuguese
- João Costa(Author)
- 2008(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
34 Postverbal subjects: syntax and discourse – VSO and VOS orders From the tests above, I conclude that in VOS context, subjects occupy the Spec,VP position. The difference between VSO and VOS will be derived in terms of object scrambling in the latter, in accordance with the evidence to be presented in section 3. A comparison between the scrambling analysis and an analysis involving remnant-IP movement, along the lines of Kayne (1998) will provide further evidence in favor of the claim that subjects in VOS are in Spec, VP. At this point, it is possible to tell which position the subject occupies in each of the attested word orders. The conclusions reached so far are the following: 1. Preverbal subjects occupy the Spec,IP position; like all other arguments, it can be left-dislocated in some contexts. 2. Postverbal subjects in VSO context may be in Spec, VP 3. Postverbal subjects in VOS without intonation break between the object and the subject are in Spec, VP In the next section, the position of objects in VOS sentences, which is cru-cial for the analysis of this word order, will be discussed. 3.3. Objects in VOS: Scrambling in European Portuguese In the preceding section, I have assumed without providing arguments that Portuguese VOS orders involve object scrambling across the subject. In this section, I will motivate that assumption, arguing that it is possible to identify similarities between scrambling in European Portuguese and the well-known scrambling configurations in Dutch and German. In order to achieve this goal, I will first show some properties of scrambling in Dutch and German. This will establish the grounds for a comparison between Portuguese and Dutch/German, and determine how to trace scrambling in a VO language. As mentioned in the previous section, if the scrambling analysis is on the right track, there will be further evidence in favor of the claim that the sub-ject may be stranded in Spec, VP in EP.
- Giuliano Bernini, Marcia L. Schwartz, Giuliano Bernini, Marcia L. Schwartz(Authors)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
Both types of languages have in common the fact that S and O are found in the same space with respect to V: to the right of V in VSO languages, to the left in SOV languages. On the other hand, SVO languages have the strongest oscillation of WO pattern with one-argument verbs. As is well known, in these languages S and O are found in two different (opposing) sentence spaces with respect to V, and symmetrical inversion of the order of S and O may happen only in non-neutral cases. 307 Now, it should be possible to advance the hypothesis that a higher incidence of labile orders is found in these languages because in one-argument structures the portion of the configuration necessary for codifying GFs is “liberated.” Correspondingly, VSO languages exhibit labile orders both in two-and one-argument structures, because the space to the left of V, which may be used for processes of topicalization and focalization in two-argument sentences, is free (in other words, it is not needed for codifying GFs). On the other hand, in SOV languages, where the space to the right of V is free, this space may not be occupied except by backgrounded material in both two-and one-argument sentences, and therefore labile SV, VS orders are not possible. The following scale of divergence may therefore be established between two-and one-argument structures: 1) SVO languages strong divergence 2) SOV languages slight divergence 3) VSO languages no divergence To sum up, it may be claimed that the co-presence of labile orders is a tendency operating in a more or less strong manner in typologically different languages. The oscillations between SV and VS orders found in many languages are due to argument structure, which – as far as the property of order is concerned – allows “neutraliza-tion” of the opposition between S and O, that is, of the differences between the two GFs. This raises a number of theoretical and typological questions concerning subjecthood.
eBook - PDF- Irmengard Rauch, Gerald F. Carr, Irmengard Rauch, Gerald F. Carr(Authors)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
This contrasts with all of the contempo-rary Germanic languages, which retain the Double Object construction as a robust part of everyday language. In this sense, within the history of the relevant Germanic languages, the Oblique construction cannot be seen as replacing something that has been lost. It would seem difficult to maintain that the loss of case morphology makes very many sentences ambiguous. In general the Double Object construction in the Germanic SVO languages exhibits a rigidly fixed word order pattern. Furthermore, indirect objects are almost always animate while the direct object of a ditransitive verb is almost always inanimate; to be more precise, the indirect object is almost always higher on an animacy hierarchy than the direct object: someone may give a person a dog, but one much less frequently gives a dog a person. Moreover, it would be difficult to imagine that ambiguities would arise as the result of topicalization of the indirect object in V2 clauses. Consider sentences of the surface form in (6) with Danish examples. (6) a. [manden] gav [pigen] [en bog] the-man gave the-girl a book 328 Rex A. Sprouse b. [manden]i gav t, [pigen] [en bog] c. [manden]i gav [pigen] [en bog] Under the assumption of the standard double-movement analysis of Den Besten (1983) for the Verb-Second phenomenon, one might be able to assign a clause like (6a) either a structural representation like that sketched in (6b) in which the clause-initial NP manden is the subject or one like that sketched in (6c) in which it is the indirect object. This poten-tial syntactic ambiguity at worst poses a problem for the written lan-guage. Objects are only infrequently topicalized in the Germanic V2 lan-guages, and when they are fronted it is often for the purpose of con-trastive topicalization, in which case it should be clear from the discourse context that the fronted NP is in fact intended to be the indirect object.
eBook - PDFContrastive Analysis in Language
Identifying Linguistic Units of Comparison
- D. Willems, B. Defrancq, T. Colleman, D. Noël, D. Willems, B. Defrancq, T. Colleman, D. Noël(Authors)
- 2003(Publication Date)
- Palgrave Macmillan(Publisher)
5. Matthew Dryer (p.c.) has suggested that in order to explain the diminished need for case marking in SVO languages it is not necessary to consider clauses with both a subject and an object expressed directly. As he notes, for a sen- tence like The man saw the woman, the SV relation will be the man saw and the VO relation saw the woman. S and O are thus distinguished by position and so case marking serves no functional role. But such an analysis presupposes a ‘simultaneous’ look at the SV and VO relations, thereby effectively undermin- ing the idea, central to the double two-way typology, that SV/VS and VO/OV are independent parameters. Frederick J. Newmeyer 85 References Bach, E. ‘The order of elements in a transformational grammar of German’, Language, 38 (1962), pp. 263–9. Bennis, H. and Hoekstra, T. ‘Gaps and parasitic gaps’, Linguistic Review, 4 (1984), pp. 29–87. Bierwisch, M. Grammatik des Deutschen Verbs ( Studia Grammatica, Vol. 2) (Berlin: Studia Grammatica, 1963). Bierwisch, M. ‘Regeln für die Intonation Deutscher Sätze’, Studia Grammatica, 7 (1966), pp. 99–201. Chomsky, N. Lectures on Government and Binding, Studies in Generative Grammar, Vol. 9 (Dordrecht: Foris, 1981). Chomsky, N. The Minimalist Program (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1995). Chomsky, N. ‘Noam Chomsky’s Minimalist Program and the philosophy of mind. An interview [with] Camilo J. Cela-Conde and Gisèle Marty’, Syntax, 1 (1998), pp. 19–36. Coopmans, P. ‘Surface word-order typology and universal grammar’, Language, 60 (1984), pp. 55–69. Craig, C. G. ‘The Rama language: a text with grammatical notes’, Journal of Chibchan Studies, 5 (1987). Dick, F. and Elman, J. L. ‘The frequency of major sentence types over discourse levels: a corpus analysis’, Newsletter of the Center for Research in Language, University of California, San Diego, 13 (2001), pp. 3–19. Dryer, M. S. ‘Discourse-governed word order and word order typology’, Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 4 (1989a), pp.
eBook - PDF- Hubert Haider(Author)
- 2012(Publication Date)
- Cambridge University Press(Publisher)
Why should non-SVO languages exist at all? What we see is SVO as the result of a late development of at least two sub- families (Germanic, Romance) of Indo-European languages. Roberts (1997) 30 Here is an illustration of the indeterminacy of the antecedent–gap relations for the verbs in a Type III V2 language (i), and for a VO language with the V2-property (ii). The numbers are the number of potential alternative trace positions: XP V FIN YP ZP 3 XP V FIN YP ZP 1 (VO) or 1 (OV) XP Aux FIN V YP 3+2 XP Aux FIN V YP 1+1 (VO) XP Aux FIN YP V 3 XP Aux FIN YP V 1 (OV) XP Aux FIN YP V ZP 3+2 *** In the rigid system (ii), the trace position is determined, in the Type III + V2 system there are several alternative positions. 31 From the mediaeval time until the nineteenth century, the universal model language was Latin. Today it is English, or at least languages that are SVO. (i) V2+third-type potential (trace) positions of V FIN (and a non-finite V): (ii) V2+fixed potential (trace) positions of V FIN and V: 122 Symmetry Breaking in Syntax provides a sophisticated technical account of what kind of syntactic machinery is necessary for capturing all the non-SVO properties of Old English. 32 Whether this machinery exists, and whether it could justly be said to be part of the Old English grammar, are open questions at best. The coverage of the diverse pat- terns is technically easy, given the technical richness of the syntactic machin- ery provided by Kayne’s model (viz. any kind of movement to the left). The real problem is not full coverage but independent evidence. It is hard to see what kind of data might falsify such an account at all. The machinery seems to be flexible enough to cover any setting. 33 Hence, given the massive counter- evidence from OV languages, the explanatory power is little as long as the the- ory that is employed is not solidly grounded (see the final chapter).
eBook - PDF- Gerald Gazdar, Ewan Klein, Geoffrey K. Pullum, Gerald Gazdar, Ewan Klein, Geoffrey K. Pullum(Authors)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
(Universal 12) Adjectives follow their noun. (Universal 17) The only claim made with regard to VSO languages in Greenberg (1963) that does not hold true of Irish is Universal (6), which maintains that all languages which have dominant VSO order have SVO as an alternative order. 3 This possibility does not exist in Irish under any circumstances. Examples like (10) are fully ungrammatical: 4 ( 10) *Mo mhâthair chonaic mé my mother saw me' 'My mother saw me.' For discussion and illustration of these and other aspects of word-order in Irish, see Sommerfelt (1965), Ward (1974), Stenson (1976), McCloskey (1979,1980a). 5 The general conclusion must be that Irish is a VSO language par excellence, and the question of whether or not it can have a VP will be consequently controversial and of some interest. 2. THE PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION The progressive aspect in Irish is expressed by means of the structure illustrated in (11) and exemplified in (12): (11) Verb to be Subject Progressive Form of V Object PP (12) Tâ sé ag tôgâil tithe i nDoire is he build (PROG) houses in Derry 'He is building houses in Derry.' James McClosKey 13 What I will call the 'progressive form' of the verb is constructed from the verbal noun (VN) by prefixing to it a particle represented in spelling as ag. Orthographically and historically this particle is identical to the preposition meaning roughly 'at'. Following the progressive verb, the order of elements is as usual — that is, the direct object, if there is one, will normally immediately follow the verb, and will in turn be followed by PP's and adverbials. The conditions that control the ordering of these elements are exactly the same as those that hold in the case of a finite clause. A further characteristic of the construction should be noted. Pedagogic grammars normally require that the direct object of a progressive verb be in the genitive case.
Index pages curate the most relevant extracts from our library of academic textbooks. They’ve been created using an in-house natural language model (NLM), each adding context and meaning to key research topics.
