Timeline for Ease of L2 acquisition of SOV and SVO/VSO word order
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 26, 2022 at 4:27 | answer | added | Greg Nisbet | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jul 23, 2019 at 15:53 | vote | accept | Greg Nisbet | ||
| Jul 14, 2019 at 15:28 | answer | added | John Duda | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jul 11, 2019 at 2:54 | comment | added | jlawler | Degree of constrainedness has no known connection to ease of learning. Individual variation in language learning abilities is a much more prominent cause of success or failure than any grammatical properties of a language. | |
| Jul 11, 2019 at 2:00 | comment | added | Greg Nisbet | @jlawler on the other hand, there might be more internal diversity within the SVO languages because they’re easier to learn and therefore less constrained. Contact languages and creoles tend to be SVO and they’ve gone through a real life L2-bottleneck of sorts. I can think of arguments for both learnability directions being the easier one. | |
| Jul 10, 2019 at 21:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackLinguist/status/1149060828840284162 | ||
| Jul 10, 2019 at 18:58 | comment | added | jlawler | An interesting question. One thing to keep in mind -- there are strong known similarities among agglutinative OV languages -- which are the majority -- whereas VO languages vary much more widely. It has long been known that even unrelated, separated SOV languages like Japanese, Tamil, and Turkish can usually be translated morpheme by morpheme. On the other hand, most conlangs I'm familiar with are SVO, as you point out; if they were really international, they'd be SOV. | |
| Jul 10, 2019 at 4:41 | history | asked | Greg Nisbet | CC BY-SA 4.0 |