Typology of English, Urdu, and Saraiki

 

Typological Profile of English, Urdu, and Saraiki

1. Typology as a Comparative Framework

Linguistic typology provides a comparative and explanatory framework for identifying recurrent structural patterns across languages, situating language-specific analyses within broader cross-linguistic generalizations. While morphology and syntax describe internal structures of a language, typology operates at a meta-level, examining systematic possibilities and constraints across languages. It complements formal grammar by providing empirical grounding for universals, implicational hierarchies, and parameter-setting hypotheses in generative syntax.

This post adopts a functional–structural typological approach while interpreting patterns through feature-based generative analysis, bridging Greenbergian universals with formal syntactic theory.

2. Basic Word Order, Head Directionality, and Scrambling

English displays canonical SVO order, whereas Urdu and Saraiki exhibit SOV order, consistent with typological generalizations (Greenberg, 1963; Dryer, 1992). Typologically, SOV languages are predominantly head-final, a pattern robustly attested in Urdu and Saraiki: verbs occur clause-finally, adpositions are postpositional, and complementizers follow the embedded clause.

Language	Basic Order	Head Directionality	Notes
English	SVO	Head-initial	Rigid word order
Urdu	SOV	Head-final	Flexible word order; scrambling possible
Saraiki	SOV	Head-final	Flexible; allows topicalization and focus movement

Generative Perspective: Parametric variation in head directionality accounts for these differences, while typology provides empirical justification. Notably, Urdu and Saraiki display scrambling, distinguishing them from rigid SOV languages such as Japanese, indicating a richer interface between syntax and discourse.

2.1 Scrambling in Urdu and Saraiki

While both Urdu and Saraiki exhibit canonical SOV word order, they are also classified as scrambling languages, permitting flexible constituent arrangements without altering core grammatical relations. Scrambling refers to the displacement of constituents, often for discourse-related purposes such as focus, topicalization, or contrastive emphasis. Unlike rigid SOV languages (e.g., Japanese or Tamil), Urdu and Saraiki allow movement of objects, adverbs, and even adjuncts to pre-verbal positions while preserving grammaticality.

Examples:

Urdu:

میں نے کتاب علی کو دی

(Canonical SOV: “I gave the book to Ali”)

کتاب میں نے علی کو دی

(Scrambled object: topicalized “book”)

Saraiki:

 اوں چاول  کھادن

(Canonical: “He ate rice”)

چاول اوں کھادن

(Scrambled object for emphasis)

Typologically, scrambling in these South Asian languages illustrates a looser constituent order compared to strictly head-final SOV systems. From a generative perspective, scrambling is often analyzed as optional XP-movement to the left periphery, motivated by discourse features such as [+Focus] or [+Topic]. This flexibility interacts with agreement morphology, allowing null subjects to be licensed even when constituents are displaced, further illustrating the interface between syntax, morphology, and discourse.

Implications for Typology:

• Scrambling differentiates South Asian SOV languages from rigid SOV languages typologically.
• It demonstrates how word order variability is conditioned by information structure rather than core grammatical relations.
• The phenomenon aligns with Greenbergian generalizations while enriching cross-linguistic parameter-setting models in generative theory.

3. Morphological Typology and Grammatical Encoding

Morphologically, the three languages occupy intermediate positions along the analytic–synthetic continuum:

Language	Primary Type	Secondary Tendency
English	Fusional	Analytic (periphrastic)
Urdu	Fusional	Agglutinative (verbal morphology)
Saraiki	Agglutinative	Fusional (case/number)

Urdu verbal suffixes encode tense, agreement, and aspect simultaneously, whereas Saraiki exhibits productive, regular future suffixes (–سوں, –سی, –سن) with transparent mapping to features. English relies primarily on fusional forms and periphrastic constructions for tense and modality.

Typologically, Urdu and Saraiki exemplify hybrid morphology, challenging rigid classifications and highlighting the continuum of morphological strategies.

4. Alignment and Split-Ergativity

English exhibits nominative–accusative alignment across all tenses. Urdu and Saraiki, however, display split-ergativity, where ergative marking is conditioned by perfective aspect, consistent with the Silverstein Hierarchy and the Aspectual Hierarchy: absolutive alignment is neutral, while ergative marking is triggered by agents in perfective clauses.

Examples:

Urdu: علی نے کتاب پڑھی

Saraiki: علی چاول کھادن

Generative interpretation frames this as feature-driven agreement, with typological patterns indicating systematic aspectual triggers rather than idiosyncratic variation.

5. Tense and Modality

Future tense encoding demonstrates typological diversity:

English: Modal/periphrastic (will, going to)

Urdu: Fusional suffixes (-گا / -گی / -گے), encoding agreement

Saraiki: Morphologically robust, productive future suffixes (–سوں, –سی, –سن)

Typologically, languages encode future tense via inflectional, periphrastic, or modal strategies. Saraiki’s morphology supports the claim that future tense can function as a strong inflectional category, challenging assumptions that future is inherently periphrastic in Indo-European languages.

6. Null Subjects and Agreement

English is a non-pro-drop language, requiring overt subjects. Urdu and Saraiki permit null subjects, recoverable via verbal agreement, consistent with the Rich Agreement Hypothesis (Jaeggli & Safir, 1989) or Morphological Uniformity principle. Typologically, this aligns with cross-linguistic evidence linking pro-drop to rich inflectional morphology.

Example (Saraiki):

وینداں  پیا اے -subject is recoverable from verbal morphology.

7. Relativization Strategies

English employs relative pronouns. Urdu and Saraiki utilize relative-correlative constructions, an areally and genealogically distinctive South Asian pattern:

Urdu: جو لڑکا کھڑا ہے، وہ میرا بھائی ہے

Saraiki: جیہْرا چھور کھڑا  اے، او میڈا بھر ا اے

This accentuates the importance of including non-European languages in typological generalizations, preventing skewed theoretical assumptions.

8. Typological Implications

Comparing English, Urdu, and Saraiki demonstrates that language variation is systematic and constrained. Urdu and Saraiki share multiple typological parameters, reflecting areal and genealogical influences, whereas English diverges predictably as a head-initial, morphologically lighter language. Typology thus provides a methodological bridge between language-specific analyses and cross-linguistic theory, offering insights into universal grammar while respecting language-specific constraints.

References

1. Alton, J. (2016). Aspectual and hierarchical characteristics of environmental codes. In Environmental Design Research (pp. 5-13). Routledge.
2. Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I., & Sheehan, M. (2014). Complexity in comparative syntax: The view from modern parametric theory. Measuring grammatical complexity, 103-127.
3. Comrie, B. (1988). Linguistic typology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 17, 145-159.
4. Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. University of Chicago Press.
5. Croft, W. (2003). Typology. The handbook of linguistics, 337-368.
6. Dryer, M. S. (1992). The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language, 68(1), 81-138.
7. Dryer, M. (2005). Order of subject, object and verb. The world atlas of language structures, 330-333.
8. Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universals of Language, 2, 73-113.
9. Greenberg, J. (2010). Language typology: A historical and analytic overview (Vol. 184). Walter de Gruyter.
10. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. (2013). Halliday's introduction to functional grammar. Routledge.
11. Haspelmath, Martin, ed. Language typology and language universals: An international handbook. Vol. 20. Walter de Gruyter, 2001.
12. Jaeggli, O., & Safir, J. K. (1989). The null subject parameter. Kluwer. 
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2540-3
13. Kashyap, A. K. (2019). Language Typology. In G. Thompson, W. L. Bowcher, L. Fontaine, & D. Schönthal (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics (pp. 767–792). Chapter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Kloss, H. (1967). 'Abstand languages' and'Ausbau languages'. Anthropological linguistics, 9(7), 29-41.
15. Koch, P. (2001). Lexical typology. Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, 2(2), 1142-1178.
16. Moravcsik, E. A. (2012). Introducing language typology. Cambridge University Press.
17. Nichols, J. (2007). What, if anything, is typology?. Linguistic Typology, 11(1).
18. Shibatani, M., & Bynon, T. (Eds.). (1999). Approaches to language typology. Clarendon Press.
19. Shopen, T. (Ed.). (1985). Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Volume 3 (Vol. 3). Cambridge University Press.
20. Silverstein, M. (1981). Case marking and the nature of language.
21. Trudgill, P. (2004). Linguistic and social typology. The handbook of language variation and change, 707-728.
22. Velupillai, V. (2012). An introduction to linguistic typology.