Article In:
Studies in Language: Online-First Articles

Between VO and OV in Arabic and Aramaic

A corpus-based typology with implications for word-order shifts

ORCID logo | University of Cambridge
ORCID logo | University of Cambridge
ORCID logo | Universität Bamberg
Drawing on a corpus-based typology of 24 spoken dialects of contemporary Arabic and Aramaic, we explore relevant microvariation along the VO-OV spectrum in Central Semitic, which holds implications for the still understudied VO-to-OV shift. While the literature emphasizes that this type of syntactic change is only possible under external pressure, our findings demonstrate that this development is also driven by internal dynamics, in particular the syntax of definite objects. Our study shows a robust tendency for pronouns and definite object NPs to be selected first for preverbal placement; being originally left-dislocated topics with resumption, this at times resulted also in higher rates of object cross-referencing. Furthermore, this corpus-based typology also highlights the importance of a gradient approach to word order variation and change as well as the importance of studying distinct object types, which, together, help us document mixed systems that in themselves can be diachronically stable.
Keywords: word-order variation, word-order shift, definiteness, differential object indexing, Semitic
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and methods
    • 2.1Corpus
    • 2.2Methodology
    • 2.3Predictor variables
      • 2.3.1Topicality: Lexicality, definiteness and animacy
      • 2.3.2Coding: Flagging and indexing
      • 2.3.3Co-arguments: Overt subjects
  • 3.General classification: Overall frequency of OV across dialects
    • 3.1Type A: Strong VO doculects within Arabic-speaking milieu
    • 3.2Type B: VO dominant doculects with more flexible word-order
    • 3.3Type C: OV dominant doculects
  • 4.The role of topicality
    • 4.1Lexicality: Pronouns vs. lexical NPs
    • 4.2Definiteness: Definite vs. indefinite NPs
    • 4.3Animacy: Human vs. nonhuman NPs
    • 4.4Wider implications
  • 5.The role of DOF
    • 5.1DOF and topicality
    • 5.2DOF and position
    • 5.3Wider implications
  • 6.The role of DOI
    • 6.1DOI and topicality
    • 6.2DOI and position
      • 6.2.1Type A
      • 6.2.2Type B
      • 6.2.3Type C
    • 6.3Wider implications
  • 7.Null subject clauses
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (154)
References
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21(3). 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Al-Saka, Vean. 2021. Verbal Syntax And Differential Object Marking In Baritle Neo-Aramaic. Newcastle: University of Newcastle PhD dissertation.
Arnold, Werner. 1991. Das Neuwestaramäische IV: Orale Literatur aus Maʿlūla. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.Google Scholar
Bakker, Dik and Siewierska, Anna. 2009. Weighing semantic distinctions in person forms. In Johannes Helmbrecht, Yoko Nishina, Yong-Min Shin, Stavros Skopeteas & Elisabeth Verhoeven (eds.), Form and function in language research: Papers in Honour of Christian Lehmann, 25–56. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1932. Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1991. Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In Dieter Wanne and Douglas A. Kibbee (eds.), New Analyses in Romance Linguistics, 143–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brattico, Pauli. 2018. Finnish topicalization is not about the topic. Talk presented at IUSS , Pavia, 17 October.
Broekhuis, Hans. 2023. VO or OV: V to v or not to v . Linguistic Variation 23(2). 343–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brustad, Kristen. 2000. Spoken Arabic: A Comparative Study of Moroccan, Egyptian, Syrian, and Kuwaiti Dialects. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & McHombo, Sam A. 1987. Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chicheŵa. Language 63(4). 741–782. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Baltasar, Giorgio Iemmolo, Zakharko, Taras & Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena. 2012. Patterns of alignment in verb agreement. In Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), Languages Across Boundaries: Studies in Memory of Anna Siewierska, 15–36. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle, Bubenik, Vit & Saxon, Leslie. 1988. Word order universals: refinements and clarifications. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 33(3). 209–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert and Haviland, Susan. 1977. Comprehension and the Given-New Contrast. In Roy O. Freedle (ed.), Discourse Production and Comprehension, 1–40. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Coghill, Eleanor. 2014. Differential object marking in Neo-Aramaic. Linguistics, 52(2), 335–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Information-structure in the Neo-Aramaic dialect of Telkepe. In Evangelia Adamou, Katharina Haude & Martine Vanhove (eds.), Information-structure in Lesser-described Languages, 293–327. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1988. Topics, grammaticalized topics, and subjects. Berkeley Linguistics Society 141. 265–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio. 2021. Topicalization in the Romance Languages. in Mark Aronoff (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2002. Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahlgren, Sven-Olof. 1998. Word order in Arabic. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
. 2011a. Word Order. In Lutz Edzard and R. E. de Jong (eds.), Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics Online. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Dediu, Dan, and Cysouw, Michael. 2013. Some structural aspects of language are more stable than others: A comparison of seven methods.” PloS one 8(1). e55009. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1997. Yiddish VP order and the typology of object movement in Germanic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 151. 369–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dieterman, Judith. 2000. Word Order and Inverse Voice in Isthmus Mixe. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 261. 39–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1997. On the six-way word order typology. Studies in Language 21(1), 69–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. Order of Object and Verb. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew Dryer, David Gil and Bernard Comrie (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures, 338–341. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 2003. Discourse and grammar. The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, vol. 21, ed. by Michael Tomasello, 47–88. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
El-Zarka, Dine and Ziagos, Sandra. The Beginnings of Word Order Change in the Arabic Dialects of Southern Iran in Contact with Persian: A Preliminary Study of Data from Four Villages in Bushehr and Hormozgan. Iranian Studies 53(3–4). 465–488. DOI logo
Elordieta, Arantazu. 2001. Verb movement and constituent permutation in Basque. Leiden: Leiden University PhD dissertation.
Faarland, Jan Terje. 2010. Word order. In Luraghi, Silvia & Vit Bubenik (eds.) The continuum companion to historical linguistics, 201–211. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Stefanie, and Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2014. A and O as each other’s mirror image? Problems with markedness reversal. Linguistic Typology 18(1). 3–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 1961. The Aramaic inscriptions of Sefire I and II. Journal of the American Oriental Society 81(3). 178–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Samuel E. 2007. The Story of Mem U Zine in the Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Bohtan. In Cynthia Miller (ed.), Studies in Semitic and Afroasiatic Linguistics Presented to Gene B. Gragg. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 69–80.Google Scholar
Frommer, Paul. 1981. Post-verbal phenomena in colloquial Persian syntax. Los Angeles: University of Southern California PhD thesis.
Fuß, Eric. 2018. The OV-VO alternation in early German. Diagnostics for basic word order. In Agnes Jäger, Gisella Ferraresi and Helmut Weiß, Clause structure and word order in the history of German, 230–262. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gerdes, Kim. & Kahane, Sylvain & Chen, Xiniyng. 2021. Typometrics: From Implicational to Quantitative Universals in Word Order Typology. Glossa 6(1). 1–17.Google Scholar
Gell-Mann, Murray & Ruhlen, Merritt. 2011. The origin and evolution of word order. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(42). [URL]. DOI logo
Givón, T. 1976a. Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, 151–185. New York/London/San Francisco: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1976b. On the VS word-order in Israeli Hebrew: pragmatics and typological change. In Peter Cole (ed.), Studies in Modern Hebrew syntax and semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1988. The pragmatics of word-order: predictability, importance and attention. In Michael Hammond, Edith A. Moravcsik & Jessica Wirth (eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology, 243–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Universals of Language. London: MIT Pres.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette. 1988. Universals of topic–comment structure. In Michael Hammond, Edith A. Moravscik & Jessica Wirth (eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology, 209–242. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey. 2018. The grammaticalization of object pronouns: Why differential object indexing is an attractor state. Linguistics 56(4). 781–818. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey, and Schnell, Stefan. 2016. The Discourse Basis of Ergativity Revisited. Language 92 (3). 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey & Stilo, Donald & Doğan, Mahîr C. & Schiborr, Nils N. (eds.). 2021. WOWA — Word Order in Western Asia: A spoken-language-based corpus for investigating areal effects in word order variation. 21 November 2021. Bamberg: University of Bamberg. ([URL])
Haig, Geoffrey, Rasekh-Mahand, Mohammad, Stilo, Donald, Schreiber, Laurentia & Schiborr, Nils (eds.). Forthcoming. Post-predicate elements in the Western Asian Transition Zone: A corpus-based approach to areal typology. Berlin: Language Science Press. Contact and Multilingualism Series.
Harlig, Jeffrey & Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 1988. Accentuation typology, word order, and theme-rheme structure. In Michael Hammond, Edith A. Moravcsik & Jessica Wirth (eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology, 125–146. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2005. Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2008. Contact-induced word order change without word order change. Language contact and contact languages. In Noemi Kintana and Peter Siemund (eds.), Language Contact and Contact Languages, 33–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hewitt, Steve. 2002. L’arabe : VSO ou VDN (verbe-sujet-objet ou verbe-donné-nouveau)?, Cahiers de Linguistique de l’INALCO, 31. 211–21.Google Scholar
Hinterhölzl, Ronald. 2010. Studies on basic word order, word order variation and word order change in Germanic. Working Papers in Linguistics 221. 1–117.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans-Heinrich. 2010. Word order and universals. In Luraghi, Silvia & Vit Bubenik (eds.) The Continuum Companion to Historical Linguistics, 59–69. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia. 1986. FOCUS in the Theory of Grammar and the Syntax of Hungarian. Foris: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio. 2010. Topicality and differential object marking: Evidence from Romance and beyond. Studies in Language 34(2). 239–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Towards a typological study of differential object marking and differential object indexation. Pavia: University of Pavia PhD dissertation.
. 2013. Symmetric and asymmetric alternations in direct object encoding. STUF-Language Typology and Universals 66(4). 378–403. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio & Arcodia, G. F. 2014. Differential object marking and identifiability of the referent: A study of Mandarin Chinese. Linguistics 52(2).315–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Imamura, Satoshi, Sato, Yohei and Koizumi, Masatoshi. 2016. The Processing Cost of Scrambling and Topicalization in Japanese. Frontiers in Psychology 71:531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Junker, Marie-Odile. 2004. Focus, obviation, and word order in East Cree. Lingua 1141. 345–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janse, Mark. 2006. Object position in Cappadocian and other Asia Minor Greek dialect. In: Mark Janse, Brian D. Joseph and Angelikē Rallē (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory: (Mytilene, Greece, 30 September–3 October 2004), 115–22. Patras: University of Patras Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. Clitic Doubling from Ancient to Asia Minor Greek. In: Dalina Kallulli & Liliane Tasmowski (eds.), Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages, 165–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jastrow, Otto. 1973. Daragözü, eine Mundart der KozJuk-Sason-Gruppe (Südostanatolien). Grammatik und Texte. Nürnberg: Hans Carl.Google Scholar
. 1981. Die mesopotamisch-arabischen qǝltu-Dialekte. Band II: Volkskundliche Texte in elf Dialekten. Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
. 1990. Der arabische Dialekt der Juden von ʻAqra und Arbīl. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 2003. Arabische Texte aus Kinderib. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 2005. Uzbekistan Arabic: A language created by Semitic-Iranian-Turkic linguistic convergence. In Éva Á. Csató, Bo Issakson & Carina Hajani (eds.), Linguistic convergence and areal diffusion: Case studies from Iranian, Semitic and Turkic, 133–139. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Just, Erika, and Čéplö, Slavomír. 2022. Differential object indexing in Maltese: A corpus based pilot study. In Przemyslaw Turek and Julia Nintemann (eds.), Maltese: Contemporary Changes and Historical Innovations ( Studia Typologica [STTYP] 30), 105–132, Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kalin, Laura. 2018. Licensing and differential object marking: The view from Neo-Aramaic. Syntax 21(2). 112–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kanittanan, Wilaiwan. 1986. Kamti Tai: From an SVO to an SOV language. In Bhadriraju Krishnamurti (ed.), South Asian Languages: Structure, Convergence and Diglossia, 174–178. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Andrej. 2011. Reference in Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khan, Geoffrey. 1984. Object markers and agreement pronouns in Semitic languages1. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 47 (3). 468–500. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1988. Studies in Semitic Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Khan, G. 1999. A Grammar of Neo-Aramaic: The Dialect of the Jews of Arbel. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khan, Geoffrey. 2008a. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Barwar. 31 vols. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008b. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Urmi. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Sanandaj. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.Google Scholar
. 2016a. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of the Assyrian Christians of Urmi. 41 vols. Leiden/Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016b. Left Dislocation in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 501. 91–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Contact and change in Neo-Aramaic dialects. In Drinka, Bridget (ed.), Historical Linguistics 2017. Selected papers from the 23rd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, San Antonio, Texas, 31 July-4 August 2017, 387–407. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khan, Geoffrey, Mohammadirad, Masoud, Molin, Dorota and Paul M. Noorlander. 2023. Neo-Aramaic and Kurdish Folklore from Northern Iraq: A Comparative Anthology with a Sample of Glossed Texts. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1996. The shift to head-initial VP in Germanic. In Höskuldur Thräinsson, Samuel David Epstein and Steve Peter (eds.), Studies in comparative Germanic syntax, vol. 21. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media 140–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiss, Katalin É. 2020. What determines the varying relation of case and agreement? Evidence from the Ugric languages. Acta Linguistica Academica 67(4). 397–428. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
From Proto-Hungarian SOV to Old Hungarian Top Foc V X. Diachronica 30(2). 202–231. DOI logo
Kučerová, Ivona. 2007. The syntax of givenness. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD dissertation.
La Polla, Randy L. and Dory Poa. 2006. On describing word order. In Ameka, Felix, Alan Dench & Nicholas Evans (eds.), Catching language: the standing challenge of grammar writing, 269–295. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laka, Itziar & Uriagareka, Juan. 1987. Barriers for Basque and Vice-Versa, NELS 171. 394–408.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.f. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 2001. Le marquage différentiel de l’objet. In Haspelmath, Martin, Ekkehard König Wulf Oesterreicher and Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language universals and language typology: an international handbook, 873–855. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Leitner, Bettina. 2022. Grammar of Khuzestani Arabic: A Spoken Variety of South-West Iran. Leiden/Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2019. Token-based typology and word order entropy: A study based on universal dependencies. Linguistic Typology 23(3). 533–572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levshina, Natalia, Savithry Namboodiripad, Marc Allassonnière-Tang, Mathew Kramer, Luigi Talamo, Annemarie Verkerk, Sasha Wilmoth. 2023. Why we need a gradient approach to word order. Linguistics 61(4). 825–883. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leonetti, M., & Escandell Vidal, M. V. 2009. Fronting and verum focus in Spanish. In A. Dufter & D. Jacob (eds.), Focus and background in Romance languages, 155–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matras, Yaron and Shabibi, Maryam. 2007. Grammatical Borrowing in Khuzistani Arabic. In Yaron Matras Jeanette Sakel (eds.), Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, 137–150. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mezhevich, I. 2001. Locative Inversion, Definiteness, and Free Word Order in Russian. Calgary Working Papers in Linguistics 23(Spring). 30–48.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1987. Is basic word order universal? In Russell S. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse, 281–328, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moutaouakil, Ahmed. 1989. Pragmatic functions in a grammar of Arabic. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith. 1974. Object-verb agreement. Working papers on language universals 151. 25–140.Google Scholar
Mutzafi, Hezy. 2004. Two texts in Barzani Jewish Neo-Aramaic. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 67(1). 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Betanure (Province of Dihok). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Namboodiripad, Savithry, Dayoung Kim & Gyeongnam Kim. 2018. English-dominant Korean speakers show reduced flexibility in constituent order. In Daniel Edmiston, Marina Ermolaeva, Emre Hakgüder, Jackie Lai, Kathryn Montemurro, Brandon Rhodes, Sankhagowit Amara & Michael Tabatowski (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifty-Third Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 247–260. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noorlander, Paul M. 2021a. NE Neo-Aramaic (Jewish, Sanandaj). In Haig et al. 2021. WOWA.Google Scholar
2021b. NE Neo-Aramaic (Christian, Urmi). In Haig et al. 2021. WOWA.Google Scholar
2021c. NE Neo-Aramaic (Christian, Shaqlawa). In Haig et al. 2021. WOWA.Google Scholar
2021d. NE Neo-Aramaic (Ṭuroyo). In Haig et al. 2021. WOWA.Google Scholar
2021e. NE Neo-Aramaic (Mlaḥso). In Haig et al. 2021. WOWA.Google Scholar
2021f. Arabic (Diyarbakir qəltu, C.). Submitted to Haig et al. 2021. WOWA.Google Scholar
forthcoming a. Neo-Aramaic in Iran and northeastern Iraq. In Haig et al. forthcoming. Post-predicate elements.
forthcoming b. Arabic and Aramaic in eastern Anatolia. In Haig et al. forthcoming Post-predicate elements.
2023. Object-verb orderings in Arabic dialects of Anatolia: A quantitative approach to contact-induced word order change. Journal of Arabic Linguistics 77(2). 32–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noorlander, Paul M. and Dorota Molin. 2022. Word Order Typology in North Eastern-Neo-Aramaic: Towards a Corpus-Based Approach. In Hiwa Asadpour and Thomas Jügel (eds.), Word Order Variation Semitic, Turkic and Indo-European Languages in Contact. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noorlander, Paul M. and Stilo, Donald. 2021. NE Neo-Aramaic (Jewish, Urmi). In Haig et al. 2021. WOWA.Google Scholar
Ouhalla, Jamal. 1997. Remarks on focus in standard Arabic. In Mushira Eid & Robert R. Ratcliffe (eds.), Perspect ives on Arabic Linguistics X: Papers from the Tenth Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics, 9–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panoussi, Estiphan. 1990. On the Senaya dialect. In Wolfhart Heinrichs (ed.), Studies in Neo-Aramaic, 105–129. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petrova, Svetlana. 2009. Information structure and word order variation in the Old High German Tatian. In Roland Hinterhölzl & Svetlana Petrova (eds.), Information Structure and Language Change: New Approaches to Word Order Variation in Germanic, 251–279. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. The impact of focusing and defocusing on word order: Changes at the periphery in Old English and Old High German. In Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English, 846–858. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Procházka, Stephan. 2002. Die arabischen Dialekte der Çukurova. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.Google Scholar
Rahkonen, Matti. 2006. Some aspects of topicalization in active Swedish declaratives: A quantitative corpus study. Linguistics 44(1). 23–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ratcliffe, Robert. R. 2004. Bukhara Arabic: a metatypized dialect of Arabic in Central Asia. In Éva Ágnes Csató, Bo Isaksson & Carina Jahani (eds.), Linguistic Convergence and Areal Diffusion, 141–160. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ritter, Hellmut. 1967. Ṭūrōyo: die Volkssprache der syrischen Christen des Ṭūr ʿAbdîn.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm. 2001. Contact-induced change in oceanic languages in north-west. In r Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: Problems in comparative linguistics, 134–166. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schapansy, Nathalie S. M. 1996. Negation, Referentiality and Boundedness in Berton. A case study in markedness and asymmetry. Simon Fraser University: PhD dissertation.
Schnell, Stefan, Nils Norman Schiborr, and Geoffrey Haig. 2021. Efficiency in discourse processing: Does morphosyntax adapt to accommodate new referents?. Linguistics Vanguard 7(s3). 20190064. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seeger, Ulrich. 2002. Zwei Texte im Dialekt der Araber von Chorasan. In Werner Arnold und Hartmut Bobzin (eds.), Sprich doch mit deinen Knechten aramäisch, wir verstehen es! 60 Beiträge zur Semitistik. Festschrift für Otto Jastrow zum 60. Geburtstag, 629–646, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Seidl, Amanda & Alexis Dimitriadis. 1997. The discourse function of object marking in Swahili. In Singer, Kora, Randall Eggert and Gregory Anderson (eds.), Chicago Linguistic Society 33: papers from the Main Session, Chicago. Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja A. & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich. 2019. Diachrony of differential argument marking. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, Carmen. 1994. Language contact and change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. The limits of convergence in language contact. Journal of Language Contact 2(1). 213–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Al-Shawashreh, Ekab. 2016. Aspects of grammatical variation in Jordanian Arabic. Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa: PhD dissertation.
Shields, Rebecca. 2004. Word order and discourse in Menominee. In H. C. Wolfart (ed.), Papers of the Thirty-Fifth Algonquian Conference, 373–388. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 1988. Word Order Rules. London: Groom Helm.Google Scholar
. 1993. On the interplay of factors in the determination of word order. In Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, 826–46. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. Word order type and alignment type. STUF– Language Typology and Universals 49(2). 149–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Variation in Major Constituent Order: A Global and a European Perspective. In A. Siewierska (ed.), Constituent Order in the Languages of Europe, 475–551, Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna & Bakker, Dik. 1996. The distribution of subject and object agreement and word order type. Studies in Language 20(1). 115–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skopeteas, Stavros, and Gisbert Fanselow. 2010. Effects of givenness and constraints on free word order. In Malte Zimmermann & Caroline Féry (eds.), Information structure: Theoretical, typological, and experimental perspectives, 307–31. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Souag, Lameen. 2017. Clitic doubling and language contact in Arabic. Zeitschrift für arabische Linguistik 661, 45–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steele, Susan. 1978. Word order variation: a typological survey. In: Greenberg, Joseph (ed.), Universals of human language, vol. 41, 585–623, Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Stilo, Donald. 2021. NE Neo-Aramaic (Christian, Barwar). In Haig et al. 2021. WOWA.Google Scholar
Struik, Tara. 2022. OV/VO variation and information structure in Old Saxon and Middle Low German. Journal of Historical Syntax 6.1: 1–36.Google Scholar
Tammpere, Laura, Violet Birdstone & Martina Wiltschko. 2012. Independent pronouns in Ktunaxa. In Joel Dunham, John Lyon, & Natalie Weber (eds.), Proceedings of ICSNL XLVII, 325–339. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Taylor, Ann & Pintzuk, Susan. 2011. The interaction of syntactic change and information status effects in the change from OV to VO in English. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 1011. 71–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Rethinking the OV/VO alternation in Old English: The effect of complexity, grammatical weight, and information status. In The Oxford Handbook of the History of English, edited by Terttu Nevalainen and Elizabeth Closs Traugott, 835–845. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tuller, Laurice. 1992. The syntax of Postverbal Focus Constructions in Chadic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10(2). 303–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus and Kaiser, Georg. 2007. Differential object marking and the lexical semantics of verbs in Spanish. In Manuel Leonetti and Georg Kaiser (eds.), Proceedings of the workshop Definiteness, Specificity and Animacy in Ibero-Romance Languages, Konstanz, 83–111. Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft: Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
van der Wurff, Wim & Tony Foster. 1997. From syntax to discourse: The function of object-verb order in Late Middle English. In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Studies in Middle English Linguistics, 135–56. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert. 1999. A typology of the interaction of focus structure and syntax. In E In E. Raxilina & J. Testelec (eds.), Typology and the Theory of Language: From Description to Explanation, 511–524. Moscow: Languages of Russian Culture.Google Scholar
Versteegh, Kees. 1984. Word Order in Uzbekistan Arabic and Universal Grammar. Orientalia Suecana 33–351. 444–453.Google Scholar
Vilkuna, Maria. Word order in European Uralic. In Anna Siewierska (ed.), Constituent Order in the Languages of Europe, 173–234. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logo
Vinnikov, Isaac N. 1949. Materialy po jazyku i fol’kloru bukharskikh arabov [Materials on the Language and Folklore of Bukhara Arabs]. Soviet Orientalistics, issue VI. M.L. 120–145 (in Russian).Google Scholar
Wald, Benji. 1979. The development of the Swahili object marker: a study of the interaction of syntax and discourse. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Syntax and semantics: discourse and syntax, vol. 121, 505–524. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watson, Janet C. E. 1993. A Syntax of San’ānī Arabic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.Google Scholar