Buy an essay on SOV Languages

It is a well known fact that SVO is one of the most widely spread word order type in creolized languages, which could signify its “natural” existence in the human psychology. Some researches consider that its popularity is directly co0nnected with “physical metaphor”. For example, when a thing is thrown attention I a natural way is moving from the thrower (Subject) to the track of flying object (Verb) and finally to the target (object). Hence the hypothesis is just set up, but has now scientific proves.
We could signify as SVO languages: English, Russian, Finnish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Thai Bulgarian and many others. This typology is widely spread within the Roman group languages, except the contructions where the role of object belongs to pronoun (a good example would be French expression Je t’aime).
All the Scandinavian languages are regarded to as SVO type languages; hence we could observe in the interrogative sentences the word order shift on the VSO type. In some languages (English language is the perfect example), in certain literary styles (for example in poetry) we could observe usage of the OSV word order type, which used alongside with SVO.
A number of languages have much more complicated situation than English language. For example in German and Dutch languages we could observe such a situation the SVO type in the main clause coexists with SOV in the subordinate clause (V2 word order). The English language has the same roots with these two languages and we still could observe the signs of such word order time. A good example would be the sentences, using locative inversion: “In the garden sat a cat” and the sentences using only “only then do we find X”.
The language typology provided a number of significant discoveries in the field of linguistics. It turned out that pretty different languages could belong to the one type. As we have seen English and Chinese – both are perfectly developed and having one of the richest literary heritage in the world and written language are belonging to the one typology area SVO languages, as well as synthetic Russian language. It goes without saying that contradictory nature of these discoveries significantly influenced the science and the researches. It is generally considered that due the investigative practice the linguists of the past were in some parts disappointed in their discoveries and up to the middle of the 20th century the typology was in significant decay. But after that period typology passed through a rebirth and contemporary typology is dealing with the different schemes, but not with the separate elements of the language study

Zero marking language and SVO correlation
The Zero marking language is also one of the approaches to classify the languages and it correlates with SVO type: “A rather wide consensus that zero marking of languages tend to correlate with SVO word order” (Kaius Sinnemäki, 2009). From the very beginning I would like to reveal what we understand under the Zero Marking: “Zero marking = the absence of overt morphological marking of core arguments of the predicate. Core arguments = S, the more agent-like argument, and O, the more patient-like argument, of a two-place transitive predicate. Overt marking comes in many types:
Georgian (Kartvelian; Aronson 1991: 261)
(1) Bič’-ma c’ign-i da-mal-a.
boy-ERG book-NOM he-hid-it
“The boy hid the book” (Kaius Sinnemäki, 2009).
It goes without saying that correlation of Zero marking structure and SVO language type is inevitable the existence of this structure is observed in many other languages and now this question is one of the most attractive for studies in European educational Institutions. Finnish investigator Kaius Sinnemäki made a number of hypothesis to reveal whether the SVO type correlate with Zero marking or not: “If there is universal pressure that favors the development and maintenance of zero marking in SVO languages and disfavors it in non-SVO languages, over time families that have a skewing to zero marking as well as SVO word order will have outnumbered those with non-SVO word order” (Kaius Sinnemäki, 2009). The result of his research reveled such a tendency that SVO languages observe the Zero marking more often that non-SVO languages does, hence the possibility of Zero marking developing in the non-SVO languages exists: “Non-SVO languages may develop zero marking but not maintain it for long, so that the whole group would develop a skewing to zero marking. Only one group that was skewed to zero marking had a non-SVO word order, the Gur language Supyire. Compare to an SVO language: Old Chinese was zero marking 3000 years ago and modern Mandarin still is” (Kaius Sinnemäki, 2009). The author himself makes a stress on the fact that the question still needs more thorough investigation, but there is a number of fact that prove the hypothesis. Collaboratively with the other researches Kaius Sinnemäki plans to proceed the studies in order to find more evident data for the typology formation.