In linguistic typology, a subject–object–verb (SOV) language is one in which the subject, object, and verb of a sentence appear or usually appear in that order. If English were SOV, "Sam oranges ate" would be an ordinary sentence, as opposed to the actual Standard English "Sam ate oranges". The label is often used for ergative languages such as Adyghe and Basque that do not have subjects but have an agent–object–verb order.
- 1 Incidence
- 2 Properties
- 3 Examples
- 3.1 Albanian
- 3.2 Azerbaijani
- 3.3 Basque
- 3.4 Bengali
- 3.5 Burmese
- 3.6 Chinese
- 3.7 Dutch
- 3.8 French
- 3.9 German
- 3.10 Hajong
- 3.11 Hungarian
- 3.12 Italian
- 3.13 Japanese
- 3.14 Kazakh
- 3.15 Kashmiri
- 3.16 Korean
- 3.17 Latin
- 3.18 Marathi
- 3.19 Mongolian
- 3.20 Ossetian
- 3.21 Pashto
- 3.22 Persian
- 3.23 Portuguese
- 3.24 Russian
- 3.25 Spanish
- 3.26 Tamil
- 3.27 Telugu
- 3.28 Turkish
- 3.29 Udmurt
- 3.30 Yi
- 3.31 Uzbek
- 4 See also
- 5 References
|SOV||"She him loves."||45%||Hindi, Latin, Japanese, Afrikaans|
|SVO||"She loves him."||42%||English, Hausa, Mandarin, Russian|
|VSO||"Loves she him."||9%||Biblical Hebrew, Irish, Filipino, Tuareg|
|VOS||"Loves him she."||3%||Malagasy, Baure|
|OVS||"Him loves she."||1%||Apalaí, Hixkaryana|
|OSV||"Him she loves."||0%||Warao|
surveyed by Russell S. Tomlin in 1980s. ( )
Among natural languages with a word order preference, SOV is the most common type (followed by subject–verb–object; the two types account for more than 75% of natural languages with a preferred order). Languages that have SOV structure include Ainu, Akkadian, Amharic, Armenian, Assamese, Aymara, Azerbaijani, Basque, Bengali, Burmese, Burushaski, Dakota, Dogon languages, Elamite, Ancient Greek, Hajong, Hindi, Hittite, Hopi, Hungarian, Ijoid languages, Itelmen, Japanese, Kazakh, Korean, Kurdish, Classical Latin, Lakota, Manchu, Mande languages, Marathi, Mongolian, Navajo, Nepali, Newari, Nivkh, Nobiin, Pāli, Pashto, Persian, Punjabi, Quechua, Senufo languages, Seri, Sicilian, Sindhi, Sinhalese and most other Indo-Iranian languages, Somali and virtually all other Cushitic languages, Sumerian, Tagalog, Tibetan and nearly all other Tibeto-Burman languages, Kannada, Malayalam, Tamil, Telugu and all other Dravidian languages, Tigrinya, Turkic languages, Turkish, Urdu, Uzbek, Welsh, Yukaghir, and virtually all Caucasian languages.
Standard Mandarin is SVO, but for simple sentences with a clear context, word order is flexible enough to allow for SOV or OSV. German and Dutch are considered SVO in conventional typology and SOV in generative grammar. For example, in German, a basic sentence such as "Ich sage etwas über Karl" ("I say something about Karl") is in SVO word order. When a noun clause marker like "dass" or "wer" (in English, "that" or "who" respectively) is used, the verb appears at the end of the sentence for the word order SOV. A possible example in SOV word order would be "Ich sage, dass Karl einen Gürtel gekauft hat." (A literal English translation would be "I say that Karl a belt bought has.") This is V2 word order.
A rare example of SOV word order in English is "I (subject) thee (object) wed (verb)" in the wedding vow "With this ring, I thee wed."
SOV languages have a strong tendency to use postpositions rather than prepositions, to place auxiliary verbs after the action verb, to place genitive noun phrases before the possessed noun, to place a name before a title or honorific ("James Uncle" and "Johnson Doctor" rather than "Uncle James" and "Doctor Johnson") and to have subordinators appear at the end of subordinate clauses. They have a weaker but significant tendency to place demonstrative adjectives before the nouns they modify. Relative clauses preceding the nouns to which they refer usually signals SOV word order, but the reverse does not hold: SOV languages feature prenominal and postnominal relative clauses roughly equally. SOV languages also seem to exhibit a tendency towards using a time–manner–place ordering of adpositional phrases.
In linguistic typology one can usefully distinguish two types of SOV language in terms of their type of marking:
- dependent-marking has case markers to distinguish the subject and the object, which allows it to use the variant OSV word order without ambiguity. This type usually places adjectives and numerals before the nouns they modify and is exclusively suffixing without prefixes. SOV languages of this first type include Japanese and Tamil.
- head-marking distinguishes subject and object by affixes on the verb rather than markers on the nouns. It also differs from the dependent-marking SOV language in using prefixes as well as suffixes, usually for tense and possession. Because adjectives in this type are much more verb-like than in dependent-marking SOV languages, they usually follow the nouns. In most SOV languages with a significant level of head-marking or verb-like adjectives, numerals and related quantifiers (like "all", "every") also follow the nouns they modify. Languages of this type include Navajo and Seri.
In practice, of course, the distinction between these two types is far from sharp. Many SOV languages are substantially double-marking and tend to exhibit properties intermediate between the two idealised types above.
|Sentence||Agimi librin e mori.|
|Translation||Agimi took the book. (It was Agimi who took the book)|
|Sentence||Yusif almanı yedi .|
|Translation||Joseph ate the apple.|
Basque does not have subjects but has an agent–object–verb order in transitive clauses:
|Sentence||Enekok sagarra ekarri du.|
|Gloss||Eneko (+ERGative)||the apple||brought (to bring)||AUX has|
|Translation||Eneko has brought the apple|
|Sentence||আমি ভাত খাই|
|Translation||I eat rice.|
|Sentence||ငါက စက္ကူဘူးကို ဖွင့်တယ်။|
|Translation||I open the box.|
Note that SOV is generally used to make an emphasis on the object, such as in this case, the apple is a very specific apple.
|Gloss||I||sign for moving object before the verb||apple||ate|
|Translation||I ate the apple. (The apple we were talking about earlier)|
Dutch is SOV combined with V2 word order. The non-finite verb (infinitive or participle) remains in final position, but the finite (i.e. inflected) verb is moved to the second position. Simple verbs look like SVO, non-finite verbs (participles, infinitives) and compound verbs follow this pattern:
|Sentence||Ik wil je helpen.|
|Translation||I want to help you.|
Pure SOV order is found in subordinate clauses:
|Sentence||Ik zei dat ik je wil helpen.|
|Translation||I said that I want to help you.|
|Sentence||Nous les avons.|
|Translation||We have those/them|
German is SOV combined with V2 word order. The non-finite verb (infinitive or participle) remains in final position, but the finite (ie. inflected) verb is moved to the second position. Simple verbs look like SVO, compound verbs follow this pattern:
|Translation||He ate an apple.|
|Words||Weil||Horst||einen Apfel||gegessen||hat, ...|
|Gloss||Because||Horst||an apple||eaten||has, ...|
|Translation||Because Horst ate an apple, ...|
|Sentence||Moi hugrâmrâ khasae.|
|Gloss||I||guava||(accusative)||eat||(past tense, indicative)|
|Translation||I ate the guava.|
'râ' is a particle that indicates the accusative case and 'sae' indicates past tense declarative. Here, 'â' is pronounced as the 'i' in 'girl' and 'ae' is pronounced as the 'ay' in 'say'.
Hungarian word order is free, although the meaning slightly changes. Almost all permutations of the following sample are valid, but with stress on different parts of the meaning.
|Sentence||Pista kenyeret szeletel.|
|Translation||Pista slices bread.|
The Italian language usually uses a subject–verb–object structure, but when an enclitic pronoun is used, this comes before the verb and the auxiliary.
|Sentence||Io la sto mangiando|
|Translation||I am eating it|
|Translation||I (am the one who) open(s) the box.|
The markers が (ga) and を (o) are, respectively, subject and object markers for the words that precede them. Technically, the sentence could be translated a number of ways ("I open a box", "It is I who open the boxes", etc.), but this does not affect the SOV analysis.
Japanese has some flexibility in word order, so an OSV is also possible. (箱を私が開けます。)
|Sentence||Дастан кітап оқыды.|
|Translation||Dastan read a book.|
Like German and Dutch the Indo-Aryan language Kashmiri is SOV combined with V2 word order. The non-finite verb (infinitive or participle) remains in final position, but the finite (ie. inflected) part of the verb appears in second position. Simple verbs look like SVO, whereas auxiliated verbs are discontinuous and adhere to this pattern:
|Sentence||کور چہے ثونٹہ کہیوان|
|Translation||The girl is eating apples.|
Since Kashmiri is a V2 language if the word tsũũţh 'apple' comes first then the subject kuur 'girl' must follow the auxiliary cha 'is': tsũũţh cha kuur khyevaan [Lit. "Apples is girl eating."]
|Main clause + Subordinate Clause||میے ان سوہ کور یوس ثونٹہ کہیوان چہے|
|Parts||Main clause =>||Subject||Verb||Object||Relative clause =>||Subject||Object||Verb||Auxiliary|
|Translation||I brought the girl who is eating apples.|
|Sentence||내가 상자를 연다.|
|Gloss||I||(nominative)||box||(accusative)||open||(present tense, indicative)|
|Translation||I open the box.|
'가 (ga)/이 (i)' is a particle that indicates the nominative case. '를 (reul)/을 (eul)' is a particle that indicates the accusative case. '-ㄴ다 (nda)' indicates present tense declarative. The consonant 'ㄹ (l)' in the verb stem (열-) is dropped before the suffix.
※ Here, '나 (na, I (pronoun))' is changed to '내 (nae)' before '가 (ga)'.
|Sentence||Servus puellam amat|
|Gloss||Slave (nom)||girl (acc)||loves|
|Translation||The slave loves the girl.|
Again, there are multiple valid translations (such as "a slave") that do not affect the overall analysis.
|Sentence||कसाई बकरा मारतो.|
|Translation||The butcher slaughters the goat.|
|Sentence||Би ном уншив.|
|Translation||I read a book.|
|Sentence||Алан чиныг кæсы.|
|Translation||Alan reads a book.|
|Sentence||.زه کار کوم|
|Gloss||زه (Subject Pronoun)||کار (Noun)||کوم (verb)|
|Translation||I do the work.|
|Sentence||.من سیب میخورم|
|Gloss||I||apple||eat (first person present tense)|
|Translation||I am eating an apple.|
Portuguese is a SVO language, but it has some SOV constructs, albeit they tend to sound excessively formal or bookish in Brazil (as other constructs that are more prominent in Portugal), never being used colloquially in said country – it can even be said that it is foreign to Vernacular Brazilian Portuguese, in the case of the theory that Brazil's spoken and informal written registers present a diglossia.
Nós não os temos. Literally: We not them have. Meaning: We don't have them.
SVO form: Nós não temos eles.
When using a temporal adverb, optionally with the negative:
Nós já [não] os temos. Literally: We already [not] them have. Meaning: (Positive) We already have them. (Negative) We don't have them anymore.
Nós ainda [não] os temos. Literally: We still [not] them have. Meaning: (Positive) We still have them. (Negative) We don't have them already.
SVO forms: Nós já temos eles, nós ainda temos eles.
When answering the phone: Sim, sou eu. Literally: Yes, am I. Meaning: Yes, I am or Yes, it's me
SVO form: Sou eu mesmo/sou eu mesma/sou eu mesme [sic], literally "Am myself [indeed]".
Eu fá-lo-ei amanhã. Literally: I will ma-it-ke tomorrow. Meaning: I will make it tomorrow.
Eu fá-lo-ia ontem. Literally: I would ma-it-ke yesterday. Meaning: I would make it yesterday.
SVO form: Eu vou fazê-lo amanhã or eu o farei amanhã, and eu o teria feito ontem or eu o faria ontem.
On composed sentences, it is also allowed the SOV order for the last part in some situations like:
Ela não os comeu, mas comi-os eu. Literally: She not ate them, but ate them I. Meaning: She didn't eat them, but I did.
SVO form: Ela não os comeu, mas eu comi [eles].
|Sentence||Она его любит|
|Gloss||she (nom)||him (acc)||loves|
|Translation||She loves him|
The Spanish language usually uses a subject–verb–object structure, but when an enclitic pronoun is used, this comes before the verb and the auxiliary. Sometimes, in dual-verb constructions involving the infinitive and the gerund, the enclitic pronoun can be put before both verbs, or attached to the end of the second verb.
|Sentence||Yo lo como|
|Translation||I eat it|
|Sentence||நான் தான் பெட்டியை திறப்பேன்.|
|Translation||I (am the one who) open(s) the box.|
The தான் (tān) and யை (yai) are, respectively, nominative and accusative markers for the subject and object that respectively precede them. The தான் (tān) is optional in the Tamil language. The sentence may literally be translated as 'I [who am] the box [which] open shall.'
The sentence may also be translated, although less frequently, as பெட்டியை நான் தான் திறப்பேன் (Peṭṭiyai nāṉ tāṉ tiṟappēn), or simply, பெட்டியை திறப்பேன் (Peṭṭiyai tiṟappēn) as Tamil is a null-subject language because the indicative verb at the end of the word indicates the 1st person subject. This follows the object-subject-verb (OSV) pattern.
|Sentence||రాముడు బడికి వెళ్తాడు.|
|Translation||Ramu goes to school.|
|Sentence||Yusuf elmayı yedi.|
|Translation||Joseph ate the apple.|
|Sentence||мoн книгa лыӟӥcькo.|
|Gloss||I||a book||to read|
|Translation||I am reading a book.|
|Gloss||I||(an) apple||(to) eat.|
|Translation||I eat an apple.|
|Sentence||Anvar Xivaga ketdi.|
|Gloss||Anvar (nom)||to Khiva (dat)||went|
|Translation||Anvar went to Khiva.|
The marker "ga" is a dative case marker for the object that precedes it. Due to flexibility in word order in Uzbek, it is possible to transform the sentence into OSV as well ("Xivaga Anvar ketdi" / "It was Anvar who went to Khiva").
- Topic-prominent language
- Category:Subject–object–verb languages
- Introducing English Linguistics International Student Edition by Charles F. Meyer
- Russell Tomlin, "Basic Word Order: Functional Principles", Croom Helm, London, 1986, page 22
- Crystal, David (1997). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-55967-7.
- Andreas Fischer, "'With this ring I thee wed': The verbs to wed and to marry in the history of English". Language History and Linguistic Modelling: A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th Birthday. Ed. Raymond Hickey and Stanislaw Puppel. Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 101 (Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1997), pp.467-81