There is an extensive body of literature on phonology and morphology in the field of Indo-European comparative and historical linguistics, but when we turn to syntax, the situation is quite different. Since the early nineteenth century, syntax has been conspicuously brushed aside in the glorious history of IE studies. In recent years, however, there has been an increasing interest in syntactic reconstruction and syntactic change. In spite of the recent advances, many problems remain to be solved in diachronic syntactic investigation of the Indo-European languages.
Two general conclusions are to be drawn from this preliminary study of Indo-European syntax.
1. We suggest that the unmarked word order in Proto-Indo-European was Subject-Object-Verb. The three kinds of evidence from older Germanic languages, that is, predominance of SOV order in subordinate clauses, in ternal OV order of nominal compounds and higher proportion of SOV order to SVO in the earlier runic inscriptions, would support the SOV assumption.
2. We have attempted to explain on the basis of internal factors why the Germanic languages have changed in their basic word order from SOV to SVO. We suggest that topicalization, case marking and reinterpretation were closely related to the change from SOV to SVO. Subordinate clauses may preserve unmarked word order because topicalization does not play an important role in subordinate clauses.
View full abstract