chapter three in contrastive linguistics written by Frederick J. Newmeyer and summarized by Ola Bassam Khaza'leh , MA student in Yarmouk university (Irbid- Jordan) in English Department (Linguistics )

1. Syntax
Basic Word Order in Formal and Functional
Linguistics and the typological Status of “
Canonical Sentence Type “
For : Frederick J.Newmeyer
Presented by : Ola Khaza’leh

2. Introduction
Canonical Word Order or canonical sentence :
order that typically found in main clause decleratives when
the subjects and objects are encoded by fully referential
lexical noun phrase .
Basic word order : the placement of words in a certain order
according to the norms of language , both in the level of
sentence , clause , and phrases .

3. Purpose of the study :
1 _ the importance of canonical sentences .
2 _ Though the minioration of canonical sentences , the have a typological
importance .
3 _ The attempts to defuse canonical sentences from generativists and from
Drayer’s system .

4. The canonical word order:
Greenberg proposed six_ way classifications of the languages of the
world based on the position of the S , V , and O
1- SVO ---- English / Arabic language
Example : I have got a present .
2_ SOV ----- Turkish
Example : John , the table in that class , bring here please!
3_ VSO ---- Irish / Arabic
Example :
‫التفاحه‬ ‫أكلت‬
A few lannguges used :
4 _ VOS ---- Malagasy
5 _ No ( or almost no ) language use :
OSV
OVS

5. The canonical word order:
1 _ Many of the typological generalization in the Greenberg
paper were based on colleration with these six basic orders :
For example : in table 3.1
There is a positive relationship between VSO ,SVO with preposition .
Negative relationship between SOV and preposition
Postpositional tend to appear in SOV language
2_ Canonical sentence ( sentence with full arguments ) is rarely to find .
And that because : Preferred argument structure : a verb with one full
argument either S or O , so in spoken language it is rarely to find canonical
sentences .
For Example : French manifest in ov typological colleration without S .
3% of French clauses manifest with subject

6. Question :
Could any one define the canonical
word order paradox ?

7. Generative Grammar and Canonical word
paradox :
- It is the first attempt to defuse the Greenberg’s six way
classification , or to defuse the canonical word order paradox . So
for Generativist ,word order refers to how the words arranged in
deep structure( underlying order ) . And the use PS to find the
typological order.
-Generativist claims that frequency represents surface
External Language , while Ps represents internal Language.
- Hence , for generativist there is no “ canonical word order
paradox “ because it is represented by frequency .
The general Assumption of generative grammarians : The basic
word order of language is the order of elements at D_structure .
PS rule

8. Generative Grammar and the canonical word order paradox
 For Example :
 Chinese has tow surface characteristic : SVO and SOV
 In internal grammar Generativists found that Chinese is SOV purely, which is
with head final .
 And to find the correlation for Chinese , Hung used phrase _ structure and X_
bar schema . ( page 74 ) and he found three setting for this type of D_
structure three settings .
 although of ignoring frequency , and canonical sentence , Generativist could
not subvert the paradox , For three reasons :
 1 -Generativists have argued that German and Dutch are underlying SOV , but
SPC ( Structure preservaing constraint ) manifest two types
1- SOV underlying order obeys SPC.
2_ SVO underlying order violets SPC.

9.  2 _ underlying is not a good predicator of typology , especially with
complicated language like Dutch and German .
 3- The prevalent approach has been to attempt
 To correlate rarity with the number of grammatical operations
performed : ( the more steps in derivation , the rare typologically .
 For example : Irish is vso and it has a greater part of the derivation ,
which makes its typological order rare .
 Thus, frequency is the best predictor of typological order. And there
is no resolution to subvert the canonical paradox
VOS
VSO

10. Dryer ( 1991, 1997 ) and the canonical
word order paradox :
 A ia a second rejection of the Greenbergain six way classification is a Drayer ‘s system
.
 Drayer’s system : Draryer has argued for replacing the six way classification by two
two ways parameters :
 A) SV vs Vs
 B) OV vs VO
 Then he mentioned to a set of facts on which the two two way typologically
parameters . ( page 78)
 Frederick Newmeyer tried to argue that replacing Greenbergian Six _way classification
by two two _ way parameters is unsuccessful by three evidences .

11. Conclusion
 Why do you think that efforts of the generativist and Drayer’s typology was
unsuccessful to make canonical word order unimportant ?
 That is , at early stage of the planning of an utterane , the speaker has a
presentation of the full arguments structure of the sentence .
 Which means ‘’ Canonical sentence or paradox has a big role in
 Utterance process .
Canonical
sentence

12. Thank U
Please , Don’t ask me .
I did not sleep last night