Open Journal of Modern Linguistics
2011. Vol.1, No.2, 24-32
Copyright © 2011 SciRes.

DOI:10.4236/ojml.2011.12004

Effects of Word Order Alternation on the Sentence Processing ofSinhalese Written and Spoken Forms
Katsuo Tamaoka1, Arachchige Buddhika Prabath Kanduboda1, Hiromu Sakai2
1

Graduate School of Languages and Cultures, Nagoya University, Aichi, Japan;
2
Graduate School of Education, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan.
Email: ktamaoka@lang.nagoya-u.ac.jp
Received September 22nd, 2011; revised November 19th, 2011; accepted November 27th, 2011.
In both written and spoken forms, the Sinhalese language allows all six possible word orders for active sentenceswith transitive verbs (i.e., SOV, OSV, SVO, OVS, VSO, and VOS), even though its unmarked order is subject-object-verb (SOV) (e.g., Gair, 1998; Miyagishi, 2003; Yamamoto, 2003). Reaction times for sentence correctness decisions showed SOV < SVO = OVS = OSV = VSO = VOS for the written form, and SOV < SVO =OVS < OSV = VSO = VOS for the spoken form. The different degrees of reaction times may correspond to thethree different types of word order alternation. First, the fastest reaction time for SOV word order corresponds tothe canonical order SOV without any structural change, represented as [TP S [VP O V] ] for both the written andspoken forms. Second, word order alternation at the same structural level is involved in both SVO and OVS, [TPS [VP t1 V O1] ] for SVO and [TP t1 [VP O V ] S1 ] for OVS, resulting in a slower reaction speed than SOV. Third,
and again for only the spoken form, word order alternation takes place at a different structural level, [TP’ O1 [TP S[VP t1 V ] ] ] for OSV, [TP’ V1 [TP S [VP O t1] ] ] for VSO, and double word order alternations take place within thesame level as [TP t1 [VP t2 V O2] S1] for VOS. These word order alternations for OSV, VSO and VOS require an
extra cognitive load for sentence processing, even heavier than for a single word order alternation of SVO andOVS taking place at the same structural level. The present study thus provided evidence that the speed of sentence processing can be predicted from the cognitive load involved in word order alternation in a configurational
phrase structure.
Keywords: Sentence Processing, Psycholinguistics, Word Order, Scrambling, Sinhalese Language

Introduction
The Sinhalese language belongs to the Indo-Aryan branch of
the Indo-European languages, spoken by approximately 13
million people as their mother tongue in the country of Sri
Lanka (Englebretson & Genetti, 2005). Sidat-sangarava, literally meaning “the journal of Sidat”, the well-known grammar
book published in the 13th century described the grammaticalsystem of the Sinhalese language. In print, the Sinhalese language is presented in the Sinhala script which traces its ancestry
back more than 2000 years. Sinhalese is used as an instructional
language at all schools and the majority of universities. English
is an official language as defined by the constitution in Sri
Lanka.
Sinhalese is composed of two distinct forms, written andspoken. The written and spoken forms differ noticeably in theircore grammatical structures (Chandralal, 2010; Englebretson &Genetti, 2005; Miyagishi, 2005; Noguchi, 1984). For example,
in the spoken form, the subject of a subordinate clause ismarked as nominative, whereas in the written form the subject
is marked as accusative (Miyagishi, 2005). The written form ismostly used for reading news on TV or radio, and for making
public speeches (Miyagishi, 2005), as well as for printed materials. Generally, the spoken form is very flexible in various
syntactic aspects whereas the written form involves many strict
grammatical rules.
Linguistic studies (e.g., Gair, 1998; Miyagishi, 2003; Yamamoto, 2003) suggest that the unmarked or “canonical” orderof Sinhalese sentences in written and spoken forms follows theword order of subject-object-verb (SOV). In fact, Kanduboda
and Tamaoka (2009, 2010) found SOV as a canonical order byshowing that SOV-ordered sentences were processed more
quickly and accurately in a sentence correctness decision task
than OSV-ordered sentences. Yet, the Sinhalese language allows all six possible word orders for active sentences with transitive verbs of SOV, OSV, SVO, OVS, VSO, and VOS (e.g.,Gair, 1998; Miyagishi, 2003). This greatly flexible word orderalternation indicates a “flat” phrase structure that lacks VP orother phrasal projections within sentences, which supports forthe non-configurationality hypothesis (e.g., Farmer, 1984; Hale,
1980, 1982, 1983). Thus, all five altered word orders should becompared together with the presently proposed-canonical orderof SOV (Kanduboda & Tamaoka, 2009, 2010) in order to ascertain what the true canonical order is in the Sinhalese language. The present study, therefore, investigated the effects ofword order alternation in the processing of written (Experiment
1) and spoken (Experiment 2) Sinhalese sentences.

Possible Word Orders of Sinhalese Sentences
The Sinhalese language has a group of function words callednipātha that function somewhat like case markers. The subject(S) in written and spoken Sinhalese is unmarked. Furthermore,when S is animate and the object (O) is inanimate, both S andO are unmarked because animacy provides enough information
to determine S and O. In the written and spoken forms, when S
and O are both animate, O is usually marked by a nipātha (particles) dative marker -ta. Since a nipātha does not include anaccusative marker, -ta may be used for the object of SOV sentences in place of an accusative particle. Miyagishi (1998) explained that -ta (or “Tə”) expresses various syntactic relations
typical of a dative case-marker. In addition, when S and O are

K. TAMAOKA

both inanimate, an object noun includes a suffix marking inanimate (-ee/-ii) in the written form, but in the spoken form, nosuch marking on the object noun. In such a case, word order
determines S and O (the first noun is understood as S, and asubsequent noun as O).
In the spoken form, the SOV canonical order of an active
sentence with a transitive verb in (1) can alter its word order inthe five different ways indicated from (2) to (6):1) SOV amara nimala-ta gehuwa.
Amara(φ)NOM Nimala-DAT hit-PAST
Amara hit Nimala.
(All orders carry the same meaning.)
2) OSV nimala-ta amara gehuwa.
Nimala-DAT Amara(φ)NOM hit-PAST3) SVO amara gehuwa nimala-ta.
Amara(φ)NOM hit-PAST Nimala-DAT4) OVS nimala-ta gehuwa amara.
Nimala-DAT hit-PAST Amara(φ)NOM
5) VSO gehuwa amara nimala-ta.
hit-PAST Amara(φ)NOM Nimala-DAT
6) VOS gehuwa nimala-ta amara.
hit-PAST Nimala-DAT Amara(φ)NOM
Describing these word orders based on verb positions, theverb final position of SOV word order, assumed to be the canonical order as shown in (1) is scrambled to create the OSVword order in (2). According to Yamamoto (2003), the verb
second position of a SVO Sinhalese sentence in (3) is a secondary candidate of canonical word order. Alternation of OVS
based on SVO is also an acceptable sentence for carrying themeaning of “Amara hit Nimala”. Furthermore, the verb initial
position of VSO in (5) and its altered order of VOS in (6) arealso acceptable as correct sentences.
Likewise, the assumed-canonical word order of an active
sentence with a transitive verb in the written form in (7),meaning “Amara hit Nimala”, can be altered into five different
word orders as described from (8) to (12), below:
7) SOV amara nimala-ta gehuwēya.
Amara(φ)NOM Nimala-DAT hit-PAST8) OSV nimala-ta amara gehuwēya.
Nimala-DAT Amara(φ)NOM hit-PAST9) SVO amara gehuwēya nimala-ta.
Amara(φ)NOM hit-PAST Nimala-DAT10) OVS nimala-ta gehuwēya amara.
Nimala-DAT hit-PAST Amara(φ)NOM
11) VSO gehuwēya amara nimala-ta.
hit-PAST Amara(φ)NOM Nimala-DAT12) VOS gehuwēya nimala-ta amara.
hit-PAST Nimala-DAT Amara(φ)NOM
The subject-verb agreement is rigid in the written form,
whereas, in the spoken form, it is less concerned. In this SOV
sentence, the only difference between the spoken and written
form is the ending of the verb: the spoken form -wa (gehuwa) ischanged into -wēya (gehuwēya) in the written form. Fundamentally, these six word order alternations are applicable toboth the spoken and written forms. In the present study, allthese phrasal alternations are tested by the reaction time paradigm using a sentence-correctness task. Methodology and its
issues are discussed the following section.

Methodological Issues
Reaction (or processing) time is the duration between thepresentation of a stimulus and the subsequent behavioral re-

ET AL.

25

sponse, typically a button press. Reaction time is crucial in thereaction time paradigm which has been used for over 40 years
in experimental psychology. Since native speakers are expected
to perform a language task with a high accuracy in psycholinguistic studies of lexical and sentence processing, an experimenter forces them to execute a required task as quickly and as
accurately as possible. The present study measured efficiencyof sentence processing by examining accuracy and speed. In thecase of native speakers of the Sinhalese language, an easy task
like sentence-correctness decision for simple sentences is performed with relatively higher accuracy. Thus, the critical measure is reaction time, rather than accuracy. Due to syntactic
manipulations, sentences with a scrambled order are expected
to require longer processing times than the same sentences witha canonical order.
The sentence-correctness task measures overall reading timeof a whole sentence. Miyamoto and Nakamura (2005) criticized
this approach for not being sensitive enough to investigate thedetails of phrasal processing. They suggested using the selfpaced reading method to measure phrasal processing. In the
self-paced reading method, participants are required to read one
part, often a single phrase of a sentence at a time and press abutton to see the next part. The duration time between buttonpresses is interpreted as the reading time for each part. However, this method has seldom detected scrambling effects in
simple sentences (e.g., Nakayama, 1995; Tamaoka, Sakai,
Kawahara, & Miyaoka, 2003; Yamashita, 1997). This tendency
becomes extreme in a simple active sentence with a transitive
verb (for details, see Tamaoka & Koizumi 2006). In addition,
self-paced reading locks participants’ reading at a certain region,so participants are not allowed to read backward to check already-read phrases. A spill-over tendency is also occasionallyobserved in which the phrase that follows the target phraseshows a significantly longer reading time. Since the target
stimulus Sinhalese sentences in the present experiments consisted of three phrases, participants could finish reading a sentence by pressing the space bar three times using a three-beatrhythm. With this repetitious behavior, reaction times varied
little between phrases.
A recent eye-tracking study utilized the sentence-correctness
decision task (Tamaoka, Asano, Miyaoka, & Yokosawa, 2009)
to investigate the processing of simple canonical and single/
double scrambled-order active sentences with ditransitive verbs.
The result showed that pre-head reading times before seeing a
verb were delayed for the third noun phrase in both single- anddouble-scrambled sentences, each compared to canonical sentences. However, while the post-head reading times and regression frequencies did not differ between canonical and singlescrambled sentences, double-scrambled sentences showed posthead reading times and regression frequencies that were significantly longer for all three noun phrases than they were in
the other two sentential conditions. Thus, single-scrambled
sentences that contain a single filler-gap dependency can bemostly resolved through pre-head parsing in the third nounphrase whereas double-scrambled sentences containing two
filler-gap dependencies require heavy post-head parsing. Basedon this eye-tracking study, it is assumed that the sentence-correctness decision task includes all of these forward and backward readings for scrambled-order sentences that cannot bemeasured by the self-paced reading method. Since the present
study used a simple Sinhalese sentence constructed of only
three phrases, the sentence-correctness decision task with wholesentence reading can be considered a reasonable method formeasuring the scrambling effects of simple sentences.

26

K. TAMAOKA

Experiment 1: Sentence Processing of Sinhalese
Written Form
Using the sentence-correctness decision task, Experiment 1
measured the processing times and error rates of written-form
Sinhalese sentences with six phrasal orders to investigate thesyntactic structure of active sentences in the Sinhalese language.

ET AL.
Table 1.
Processing of written-form active Sinhalese sentences with transitive
verbs.
Reaction time (ms)
Verb position

Materials
As previously discussed in the section of possible word orders of Sinhalese sentences, all six phrasal orders are possible
in simple active sentences constructed by S, O and V in both
the written and spoken forms. Sentences in the written form
were used in Experiment 1 (all SOV-ordered 36 sentences arelisted in Appendix A). Based on verb positions, these orders
could be classified into three verb positions, final (++V), middle (+V+) and initial (V++). Furthermore, according to subject
and object orders, S and O word order alternation could becreated in each of the three verb positions. In short, six word
orders were created as SOV, OSV, SVO, OVS, VSO and VOS.
A set of 36 semantically and/or grammatically correct SOV
baseline sentences was created using six different word orders(36 × 6 = 216 sentences). In addition, 216 semantically and/or
grammatically incorrect sentences were randomly mixed withthese correct sentences. Stimulus items did not include sentences where both S and O are inanimate, since such sentencesfeature a suffix (-ee/-ii) marking the object noun in the written
form. A counterbalanced design was applied, using six different
sets of stimuli assigned to six different groups of participants.
Reaction time and accuracy data taken only from correct sentences (YES responses) were used for analysis.

Analysis and Results
Prior to the analysis of reaction times, extremes among sentence decision times (responses shorter than 500 ms or longer
than 5000 ms) were coded as missing values. Responses outside of 2.5 standard deviations at both high and low ranges
were replaced by boundaries indicated by 2.5 standard deviations from the individual means of participants in each category.
The means of correct “yes” and “no” reaction times and error
rates for sentence correctness decisions are presented in Table 1.
The statistical tests were conducted both for participant (F1)and item (F2) variability. Only correct responses of correctsentences (YES responses) were used for the analysis of reaction times.
A two-way, 3 × 2 (three verb positions of initial, middle andfinal × word order alternation of subject and object) ANOVA
repeated measures on reaction times showed significant main
effects of verb position [F1(2, 70) = 4.837, p < .05; F2(2, 142 )=3.753, p < .05] and word order alternation [F1(2, 70) = 8.443, p

M

SD

M

SD

SOV

1610

313

8.33

8.45

OSV

1739

343

12.96

11.35

SVO

1754

321

8.33

10.73

OVS

1757

313

9.26

11.40

VSO

1702

287

9.26

11.05

VOS

1759

304

8.33

9.96

Final position

Participants and Procedure
Thirty-six native Sinhalese speakers (21 females and 15
males) residing in Sri Lanka participated in the experiment.
Their average age was 30 years and 2 months, with a standard
deviation of 6 years and 6 months. Participants were asked todetermine as quickly and accurately as possible whether a visually presented sentence in the Sinhalese script on a computer
monitor was correct by pressing either a YES key or a NO key.
Reaction times and error rates for sentence correctness decisions were automatically recorded by the computer.

Error rate (%)

Word order

Second position

Initial position
Simple contrasts for reaction times:
SOV < SVO = OVS < OSV = VSO = VOS
Note: n = 36. M refers to means. SD refers to standard deviation.

< .001; F2(2, 142) = 8.787, p < .001]. The interaction of thesevariables was also significant [F1(2, 70) = 8.443, p < .001; F2(2,142) = 8.787, p < .001]. Simple contrasts were conducted oneach pair of the six conditions, revealing an ascending order ofreaction times as SOV (M = 1610 ms) < VSO (M = 1702 ms) =SOV (M = 1739 ms) = SVO (M = 1754 ms) = OVS (1757 ms)= VOS (M = 1759 ms).
The same two-way ANOVA on error rates showed no significant main effect of either verb position [F1(2, 70) = 1.887, p= .159, n.s.; F2(2, 142) = 0.916, p = .402, n.s.] or word orderalternation [F1(1, 35) = 2.016, p = .164, n.s.; F2(1, 71) = 1.503,
p = .224, n.s.]. The interaction between verb position and word
order was also not significant [F1(2, 70) = 2.467, p = .092, n.s.;F2(2, 142) = 1.835, p = .163, n.s.].

Discussion
In Sinhalese written form, both the verb position and the S andO word order alternation affected the speed of sentence processing. However, simple contrasts in Experiment 1 showed that
only sentences with SOV differed from the other five word
orders of OSV, SVO, OVS, VSO and VOS. Thus, as linguistic
studies (e.g., Gair, 1998; Miyagishi, 2003; Yamamoto, 2003)
and psycholinguistic studies (Kanduboda & Tamaoka, 2009,2010 for Sinhalese; Tamaoka et al., 2005 for Japanese) havesuggested, SOV must be the canonical word order of the written form. Although other alternations are acceptable as correctsentences as seen in generally high error rates, SOV has strong
preference as the unmarked “canonical” order. The possible
secondary canonical order of SVO proposed by Yamamoto(2003) did not show faster processing in comparison to OSV,OVS, VSO and VOS. Thus, SVO cannot be a candidate forpossible secondary canonical order in the written form. However, unlike the written form, the spoken form has a great flexibility in syntactic rules, so that it is assumed that word orderalternation would strongly affect the processing of Sinhalesesentences in the spoken form. This assumption was the motivation for conducting Experiment 2.

Experiment 2: Sentence Processing of Sinhalese
Spoken Form
As with Experiment 1, Experiment 2 measured the process-K. TAMAOKA

ing times and error rates of spoken-form Sinhalese sentenceswith six phrasal orders to investigate the syntactic structure ofactive sentences in the Sinhalese language.

Participants and Procedure
Forty-two native Sinhalese speakers (13 females and 29
males) residing in Japan participated in the experiment. Theiraverage age was 30 years and 2 months, with a standard deviation of 6 years and 6 months. The procedure of Experiment 2
was the same as Experiment 1.

Materials
The number of correct and incorrect stimulus items, counterbalanced design for these items and data recording were thesame as Experiment 1 (a sample of SOV stimuli is illustrated inAppendix B). When the subject (S) and the object (O) in SOV
sentences are both inanimate, both are unmarked in the spoken
form. In such a case, word order determines S and O in that aproceeding noun is defined as S, and a subsequent noun as O.
Naturally, word order alternations cannot be made for thesesentences. Thus, sentences with both S and O inanimate were
not included in the stimulus items.

Analysis and Results
The data editing process was the same as Experiment 1. The
means of correct “yes” and “no” reaction times and error rates
for sentence correctness decisions are reported in Table 2. Only
correct responses were used for the analysis of reaction times.
A 3 × 2 (three verb positions of initial, middle and final ×
word order alternation of subject and object) ANOVA withrepeated measures on reaction times showed significant main
effects of verb position [F1(2, 82) = 7.882, p < .001; F2(2, 142)
= 7.885, p < .001] and word order alternation [F1(1, 41) =14.170, p < .001; F2(1, 71) = 12.019, p < .001]. The interactionof these variables was also significant [F1(2, 82) = 8.277, p< .001; F2(2, 142) = 7.515, p < .001]. Simple contrasts wereconducted on each pair of the six conditions, revealing an ascending order of reaction times as SOV (M = 1663 ms) < SVO(M = 1717 ms) = OVS (M = 1735 ms) < VOS (1815 ms) =VSO (M = 1822 ms) = OSV (M = 1824 ms).
The same two-way ANOVA on error rates showed no significant main effect of verb position [F1(2, 82) = 1.139, p =Table 2.
Processing of spoken-form active Sinhalese sentences with transitive
verbs.
Reaction time (ms)
Verb position

Error rate (%)

Word order
M

SD

M

SD

SOV

1663

349

5.16

6.87

OSV

1824

355

13.29

12.22

SVO

1717

341

9.33

11.07

OVS

1735

331

8.33

11.20

VSO

1822

359

8.33

10.89

VOS

1815

373

13.29

15.84

Final position

Second position

Initial position
Simple contrasts for reaction times:
SOV < SVO = OVS < OSV = VSO = VOS
Note: n = 36. M refers to means. SD refers to standard deviation.

ET AL.

27.325, n.s.; F2(2, 142) = 1.402, p = .249, n.s.], but the effect ofword order alternation showed significant [F1(1, 41) = 10.079,
p < .01; F2(1, 71) = 17.201, p < .001]. The interaction between
verb position and word order was also significant [F1(2, 82) =6.681, p < .01; F2(2, 142) = 6.345, p < .01]. Simple contrasts
were also conducted with each pair of the six conditions,
showing an ascending order of error rates as SOV (M = 5.16%)< OVS (M = 8.33%) = VSO (M = 8.33%) = SVO (M = 9.33%)< OSV (M = 13.29%) = VOS (13.29%).

Discussion
As with the written form, both verb position and word orderalternation affected the speed of sentence processing in the
spoken form. Simple contrasts conducted on each pair of the six
conditions in Experiment 2 showed the intrinsic result of anascending order, SOV < SVO = OVS < VOS = VSO = OSV.
The results of Experiment 2 are intensively discussed in thefollowing section.

General Discussion
The present study conducted the experiments on the processing of Sinhalese active transitive sentences with all six possible
word orders of SOV, OSV, SVO, OVS, VSO, and VOS in both
written and spoken forms. Analyses on reaction times for sentence correctness decisions showed SOV < SVO = OVS = OSV= VSO = VOS for the written form, and SOV < SVO = OVS <OSV = VSO = VOS for the spoken form. Error rates revealed
no differences among the six word orders in the sentence processing in the written form while the pattern of SOV < SVO =OVS = VSO < OSV = VOS was shown in the spoken form.
The following sections provide discussion in depth.

Findings of the Present Study
Since reaction times, which reflect cognitive load for actual
sentence processing, are fundamentally more sensitive indexes
than error rates, the present study focused on the difference inreaction times for the processing of correct active sentenceswith transitive verbs (i.e., correct YES responses). The finding
could be summarized into three points.
First, the processing of sentences with SOV word order inboth written and spoken forms was the quickest among the six
different word orders to be processed for the sentence correctness decision task. Thus, as previous studies of the Sinhalese
language (e.g., Gair, 1998; Kanduboda & Tamaoka, 2009,2010; Miyagishi, 2003; Yamamoto, 2003) indicated, SOV must
be the canonical word order of the spoken form. Contrary to thenon-configurationality hypothesis (Farmer, 1984; Hale, 1980,
1982, 1983), the results for both the written and spoken forms
supported the view that the Sinhalese language has a configurational phrase structure.
Second, sentences with both SVO and OVS word order were
processed faster than OSV and the verb-initial position of VSO
and VOS in the spoken from. The present study supported thetypological study by Yamamoto (2003) indicating the Sinhalese
language as exhibiting SOV canonical word order with a potential of SVO in the spoken form. The word order alternation to
SVO, with O moving to the right of V at the same level, may
have been influenced by the word order of English, which isfrequently-used in Sri Lanka as a spoken language for communication. This bilingual situation in Sri Lanka may have resulted in the English canonical word order of SVO (and possi-

28

K. TAMAOKA

bly OVS) becoming reasonably acceptable in the spoken formof the Sinhalese language. This view, however, should be further investigated by controlling for the degree of SinhaleseEnglish bilingualism among participants processing Sinhalese
SVO and OVS sentences in comparison to other word orders.
Third, the processing of spoken-form sentences showed aclearer trend in speed and accuracy than the written form. Thisdifference must be caused by differences in core grammaticalstructures between the written and spoken forms, especiallywith regard to verbs (Chandralal, 2010; Englebretson & Genetti,
2005; Miyagishi, 2005; Noguchi, 1984). Verbs inflect based on
the subject’s singular/plural and feminine/masculine features in
the written form; consequently, verb forms provide the subject
information. In contrast, no such inflection is provided by verb
forms in the spoken form. For example, “Amara drank tea” canbe expressed as Amara tee biwweeya [Amara(φ)NOM teaACC(φ) drink-PAST] in the written from. The verb biwweeya
indicates that a subject is third person singular and masculine
with past tense. The same meaning of sentence is expected as
Amara tee biwwa [Amara(φ)NOM tea-ACC(φ) drink-PAST] in
the spoken form. However, the verb in the spoken form indicates neither singular/plural nor feminine/masculine information about the subject.
Verbs in the written form can therefore provide basic information about syntactic structure, especially information about
the subject noun phrase (NP-NOM). Therefore, a sentence
structure in the written form can be easily constructed using
both NP features and information from the verb, which would
result in the similar reaction times for sentence processing of
the verb-initial positions of VSO and VOS, and the verb-second
position of SVO and OVS. In the OSV word order, which isconsidered as scrambled from the SOV canonical, the verb
cannot provide information related to the subject noun phrase
until the end of sentence. Thus, OS ended up with similar processing speed of the other four scrambled orders. In contrast,
since verbs in the spoken form do not provide any information
about the subject, native Sinhalese speakers have to constructsyntactic structure using information taken from noun phrases.
The next section proposes a possible syntactic parsing mechanism in the spoken form taken by native Sinhalese speakers.

ET AL.

spond exactly to the three different types of word order alternation expected from a configurational phrase structure. First, thefastest reaction time for SOV word order corresponds to thecanonical order of SOV without any structural change, represented as [TP S [VP O V] ]. In this structure, native Sinhalesespeakers do not need to construct a filler-gap dependency. Withno processing load to construct dependency, SOV resulted in
the shortest reaction times among the six differently-orderedsentences.
Second, as shown in Figure 2, word order alternation at thesame structural level can be involved in both SVO and OVS,[TP S [VP t1 V O1] ] for SVO and [TP t1 [VP O V ] S1] for OVS,
resulting in slower reaction speeds than the canonical order of
SOV. In a sentence with SVO structure, O moves to the right of
V at the same level. Similarly, in a sentence with OVS structure,
S moves to the right of VP at the same level. Since both SVO
and OVS require a single word order alternation at the samephrasal level, there is just one intervening node between thefiller and the gap. The processing speeds of these sentenceswere slower than the canonical SOV, but faster than OSV, VSO
and VOS.
Third, as illustrated in Figure 3, word order alternation takes
place at a different structural level, for OSV [TP’ O1 [TP S [VP t1
V ] ] ] and for VSO [TP’ V1 [TP S [VP O t1] ] ]. Two word orderalternations take place within the same level for VOS [TP t1 [VP
t2 V O2] S1]. All these word order alternations for OSV, VSO
and VOS require an extra cognitive load for sentence processing, even heavier than for the single word order alternation at
the same structural level for SVO and OVS.

Summary
Based on reaction times for sentence correctness decisions,the present study indicated SOV < SVO = OVS = OSV = VSO= VOS for the written form, and SOV < SVO = OVS < OSV =VSO = VOS for the spoken form. The fastest reaction time forTP

Processing Model for Sinhalese Sentences in the
Spoken Form
The important question remains: how we can explain thecomplex results regarding the speed of sentence processing in
the flexible spoken form of the Sinhalese language. In this section, we present a tentative account for processing speed basedon the idea of Structural Distance Hypothesis proposed by
Hawkins (1999) or O’Grady (1997). Processing asymmetry isobserved between subject relative clauses (SRC) and object
relative clauses (ORC). The Structural Distance Hypothesis
accounts for this asymmetry by assuming that the number ofnodes between the filler and the gap determine the processing
load of relative clauses. For instance, in the SRC example “thereporter that attacked the senator,” the filler NP “the reporter”
is separated from the gap by two nodes, but the filler NP is
separated from the gap by three nodes in the ORC example “thereporter that the senator attacked”. The Structural Distance
Hypothesis thus correctly predicts that SRC is processed fasterthan the ORC. In the processing model for Sinhalese sentences,the present study assumed that subject and object could appear
on either side of a verb phrase (VP) or a verb as represented in
Figure 1. The three different degrees of reaction times corre-

S

VP

・・・

O

V

・・・

SOV structure

Figure 1.
Canonical word order.
TP

TP

S

VP

・・・

t1

VP

S1

t1

V

O1

O

V

・・・

SVO structure

OVS structure

Figure 2.
A word order alternation for SVO and OVS at the same level.

K. TAMAOKA

TP'

O1

TP

S

VP

t1

V

ET AL.

29

TP'

V

TP

・・・

S

VP

・・・

t1

VP

S1

・・・

O

t1

・・・

t1

V

O1

OSV structure

VSO structureTP

VOS structure

Figure 3.
A word order alternation for SVO and OVS at the same level.

SOV word order corresponds to the canonical order SOV [TP S[VP O V] ] for both the written and spoken forms. The lack ofagreement features on verbs in the spoken form may allow agreat flexibility in word order, which creates different speeds inthe six possible word orders. The present study proposed a
processing model for Sinhalese sentences in the spoken form as
follows. Word order alternation at the same structural level isinvolved in both SVO and OVS, [TP S [VP t1 V O1] ] for SVO
and [TP t1 [VP O V ] S1 ] for OVS, resulting in a slower reaction
speed than the canonical order of SOV. Word order alternation
takes place at a different structural level, for OSV and VOS [TP’O1 [TP S [VP t1 V ] ] ] for OSV, [TP’ V1 [TP S [VP O t1] ] ] for VSO,
and double word order alternations take place within the samelevel as [TP t1 [VP t2 V O2] S1] for VOS. These word order alternations for OSV, VSO and VOS require an extra cognitive load
for sentence processing, even heavier than for a single word
order alternation of SVO and OVS taking place at the samestructural level. As depicted in the present study, the speed ofsentence processing can be predicted from the cognitive load
involved in word order alternation in a configurational phrasal
structure.

Acknowledgements
We are grateful to anonymous reviewers for their invaluablecom- ments and suggestions. This study reported here was partially supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (no.
23320106 and no. 22222001) from the Japanese Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology.

References
Chandralal, D. (2010). Sinhala. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Englebretson, R., & Genetti, C. (Eds.) (2005). Santa Barbara papers inlinguistics: Proceeding from the workshop on Sinhala linguistics.
Department of Linguistics at the University of California, Santa
Barbara.
Farmer, A. K. (1984). Modularity in syntax: A study of Japanese andEnglish. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gair, W. J. (1998). Syntax: Configuration, order, and grammatical
function. In L. C. Barbara (Ed.), Studies in South Asian Linguistics;
Sinhala and Other South Asian Languages (pp. 47-110). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Hale, K. (1980). Remarks on Japanese phrase structure: Comments on
the papers on Japanese syntax. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 2,

185-203.
Hale, K. (1982). Preliminary remarks on configurationality. North East
Linguistic Society, 12, 86-96.
Hale, K. (1983). Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational
language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 1, 5-47.
doi:10.1007/BF00210374
Hawkins, J. A. (1999). Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language, 75, 244-285. doi:10.2307/417261
Kanduboda, A. B. P., & Tamaoka, K. (2009). Priority information in
determining canonical word order of colloquial Sinhalese sentences.
Proceedings of the 139th conference of the linguistic society of Japan, 1, 32-37.
Kanduboda, A. B. P., & Tamaoka, K. (2010). Priority information forcanonical word order of written Sinhala sentences. Proceedings ofthe 140th conference of the linguistic society of Japan, 358-363.
Miyagishi, T. (1998). Shinharago Tə kaku meishi no imiteki tokuchoo(Semantic characteristic of nouns marked with the suffix “Tə” inSinhala). Yasuda Joshi Daigaku Kiyoo (Yasuda Women’s University
Bulletin), 27, 57-74.
Miyagishi, T. (2003). Shinharago no dakkaku/gukaku meishi to dooshi
no musubitsuki (Relationship between ablative/instrumental casenouns). Yasuda Joshi Daigaku Kiyoo (Yasuda Women’s University
Bulletin), 31, 1-26.
Miyagishi, T. (2005). Shinharago ni okeru jyuuzokusetsu no taikaku
shugo (Accusative subject of subordinate clause in Sinhalese). Yasuda Joshi Daigaku Kiyoo (Yasuda Women’s University Bulletin), 33,
15-26.
Miyamoto, E. T., & Nakamura, M. (2005). Unscrambling some misconceptions: A comment on Koizumi and Tamaoka (2004). Gengokenkyu (Journal of the Linguistic Society of Japan), 128, 113-129.
Nakayama, M. (1995). Scrambling and probe recognition. In R. Mazuka and N. Nagai (Eds.), Japanese Sentence Processing (pp.
257-273). Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.
Noguchi, T. (1984). Shinhara-go nyuumon (Introductory to the Sinhalese language). Tokyo: Daigaku Shorin.
O’Grady, W. D. (1997). Syntactic development. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Tamaoka, K., & Koizumi, M. (2006). Issues on the scrambling effects
in the processing of Japanese sentences: Reply to Miyamoto andNakamura (2005). regarding the experimental study by Koizumi &Tamaoka (2004). Gengo Kenkyu (Journal of the Linguistic Society ofJapan), 129, 181-226.
Tamaoka, K., Sakai, H., Kawahara, J., & Miyaoka, Y. (2003). The
effects of phrase-length order and scrambling in the processing ofvisually-presented Japanese sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research, 32, 431-454. doi:10.1023/A:1024851729985
Tamaoka, K., Sakai, H., Kawahara, J., Miyaoka, Y., Lim, H., & Koizumi, M. (2005). Priority information used for the processing ofJapanese sentences: Thematic roles, case particles or grammatical
functions. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34, 273-324.
doi:10.1007/s10936-005-3641-6

30

K. TAMAOKA

Tamaoka, K., Asano, M., Miyaoka, Y., & Yokosawa, K. (2009). Preand post-head phrasal parsing of canonical and scrambled Japaneseactive sentences measured by the eye-tracking method. Proceedingsof the 138th meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan, 270-275.
Yamamoto, H. (2003). Sekai shogengo no chiriteki keitooteki gojyun

ET AL.
bunrui to sono hensen (An area distribution of word order amongworld languages and their changes). Hiroshima: Keisuisha.
Yamashita, H. (1997). The effects of word-order and case marking
information on the processing of Japanese. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 26, 163-188. doi:10.1023/A:1025009615473

K. TAMAOKA

Appendix A. A List of Written-Form Active
Sentences in Experiment 1
The 36 canonical order subject-object-verb (SOV) writtenfrom sentences for correct YES responses are listed below.
Based on these 36 sentences, five more phrasal orders werecreated as OSV, SVO, OVS, VSO and VOS (36 × 6 = 216
sentences in total).
1 nayā godura gillēya
snake (NOM, anim) bait (ACC, inam) swallow (V + PAST)(A) snake swallowed bait.
2 Gangā epal kēwāya
Ganga (NOM, anim) apple (ACC, inam) eat (V + PAST)
Gangā ate (an) apple.
3 hāwā undupiyaliya kēwēya
rabbit (NOM, anim) grass (ACC, inam) eat (V + PAST)(A) rabbit ate grass.
4 māmā mālu gatthāuncle (NOM, anim) fish (ACC, inam) take (V + PAST)(My) uncle bought fish.
5 sunil gas kepuwēya
Sunil (NOM, anim) tree (ACC, inam) cut (V + PAST)
Sunil cut (a) tree.
6 weddā kēma heduwēya
hunter (NOM, anim) food (ACC, inam) cook (V + PAST)(A) hunter cooked food.
7 kumariya giitha geyuwāya
princess (NOM, anim) songs (ACC, inam) sing (V + PAST)(A) princess sang song.
8 nanngi salli dunnāya
sister (NOM, anim) money (ACC, inam) give (V + PAST)(A) sister gave (some) money.
9 waduwā putuwa heduwēya
carpenter (NOM, anim) chair (ACC, inam) repair (V + PAST)(A) carpenter repaired (a) chair.
10 girawā ammba kēwēya
parrot (NOM, anim) mango (ACC, inam) eat (V + PAST)(A) parrot ate (a) mango.
11 amara bath kēwēya
Amara (NOM, anim) rice (ACC, inam) eat (V + PAST)
Amara ate rice.
12 nanngi sindu liwwāya
sister (NOM, anim) songs (ACC, inam) write (V + PAST)(My) sister wrote (a) song.
13 ballā elawalu kēwēya
dog (NOM, anim) vegetables (ACC, inam) eat (V + PAST)(A) dog ate vegetables.
14 akkā midula athugēwāya
sister (NOM, anim) garden (ACC, inam) sweep (V + PAST)(A) sister swept (the) garden.
15 gawayā thanakola kēwēya
cow (NOM, anim) grass (ACC, inam) eat (V + PAST)(A) cow ate grass.
16 ammā bath heduwēyamother (NOM, anim) rice (ACC, inam) cook (V + PAST)(My) mother cooked rice.
17 kamala gedaraweda iwarakalāya
Kamala (NOM, anim) homework (ACC, inam) finish (V +PAST)
Kamala finished (this) homework.
18 api mal keduwemu
we (NOM, anim) flowers (ACC, inam) pluck (V + PAST)
We plucked flowers.

ET AL.

31

19 nanngi pahana niwwāya
sister (NOM, anim) lamp (ACC, inam) blow out (V + PAST)(My) sister blew out (the) lamp.
20 siiyaa rewla kepuwēya
grandfather (NOM, anim) beard (ACC, inam) cut (V + PAST)(My) grandfather cut (his) beard.
21 hāwā kerat kēwēya
sister (NOM, anim) lamp (ACC, inam) blow out (V + PAST)(My) sister blew out (the) lamp.
22 achchii pedura heduwāya
grandmother (NOM, anim) mat (ACC, inam) make (V +PAST)(My) grandmother made (the) mat.
23 chaamara chithra endēya
Chaamara (NOM, anim) drawing (ACC, inam) paint (V +PAST)
Chaamara painted (the) drawing(s).
24 sinhayā mas kēwēya
lion (NOM, anim) meat (ACC, inam) eat (V + PAST)(A) lion ate (the) meat.
25 thaththā baisikalaya heduwēya
father (NOM, anim) bicycle (ACC, inam) make (V + PAST)(My) father made (the) bicycle.
26 mallii kumbura ketuwēya
brother (NOM, anim) paddy (ACC, inam) crop (V + PAST)My brother cropped (the) paddy.
27 nettuwā netum netuwēya
dancer (NOM, anim) dance (ACC, inam) dance (V + PAST)(A) dancer danced (a dance).
28 waduwā ge heduwēya
carpenter (NOM, anim) chair (ACC, inam) break (V + PAST)(A) carpenter broke (the) chair.
29 gayāni polsambōla heduwāya
Gayani (NOM, anim) coconut salad (ACC, inam) make (V +PAST)
Gayani made coconut salad.
30 monarā palathuru kēwēya
peacock (NOM, anim) fruits (ACC, inam) eat (V + PAST)(A) peacock ate fruits.
31 ajith kuudu heduwēya
Ajith (NOM, anim) lantern (ACC, inam) make (V + PAST)
Ajith made lantern(s).
32 kamal bera gehuwēya
Kamal (NOM, anim) drum (ACC, inam) hit (V + PAST)
Kamal played drums.
33 niila sarama mehuwāya
Niila (NOM, anim) sarama (ACC, inam) stitch (V + PAST)
Niila stitched sarama (cloth).
34 amila kathā kiwwēya
Amila (NOM, anim) story (ACC, inam) tell (V + PAST)
Amila told storie(s).
35 dayā sarungal yewwēya
Daya (NOM, anim) kite (ACC, inam) fly (V + PAST)
Daya flied (a) kite.
36 piyadāsa pol genāwēya
Piyadasa (NOM, anim) coconut (ACC, inam) bring (V +PAST)
Piyadasa brought coconut(s).

Appendix B. A List of Spoken-Form Active
Sentences in Experiment 2
The canonical order of subject-object-verb (SOV) 36 spo-

32

K. TAMAOKA

ken-form sentences for correct YES responses were listed below. Based on these 36 sentences, five more phrasal orders
were created as OSV, SVO, OVS, VSO and VOS (36 × 6 = 216
sentences in total).
1 nayā godura gillā
snake (NOM, anim) bait (ACC, inam) swallow (V + PAST)(A) snake swallowed bait.
2 gangā epal kēwāGanga (NOM, anim) apple (ACC, inam) eat (V + PAST)
Gangā ate (an) apple.
3 hāwā undupiyaliya kēwārabbit (NOM, anim) grass (ACC, inam) eat (V + PAST)(A) rabbit ate grass.
4 māmā mālu gatthāuncle (NOM, anim) fish (ACC, inam) take (V + PAST)(My) uncle bought fish.
5 sunil gas kepuwā
Sunil (NOM, anim) tree (ACC, inam) cut (V + PAST)
Sunil cut (a) tree.
6 weddā kēma heduwā
hunter (NOM, anim) food (ACC, inam) cook (V + PAST)(A) hunter cooked food.
7 kumariya giitha geyuwā
princess (NOM, anim) songs (ACC, inam) sing (V + PAST)(A) princess sang song.
8 nanngi salli dunnāsister (NOM, anim) money (ACC, inam) give (V + PAST)(A) sister gave (some) money.
9 waduwā putuwa heduwā
carpenter (NOM, anim) chair (ACC, inam) repair (V + PAST)(A) carpenter repaired (a) chair.
10 girawā ammba kēwāparrot (NOM, anim) mango (ACC, inam) eat (V + PAST)(A) parrot ate (a) mango.
11 amara bath kēwā
Amara (NOM, anim) rice (ACC, inam) eat (V + PAST)
Amara ate rice.
12 nanngi sindu liwwā
sister (NOM, anim) songs (ACC, inam) write (V + PAST)(My) sister wrote (a) song.
13 ballā elawalu kēwādog (NOM, anim) vegetables (ACC, inam) eat (V + PAST)(A) dog ate vegetables.
14 akkā midula athugēwā
sister (NOM, anim) garden (ACC, inam) sweep (V + PAST)(A) sister swept (the) garden.
15 gawayā thanakola kēwācow (NOM, anim) grass (ACC, inam) eat (V + PAST)(A) cow ate grass.
16 ammā bath heduwāmother (NOM, anim) rice (ACC, inam) cook (V + PAST)(My) mother cooked rice.
17 kamala gedaraweda iwarakalā
Kamala (NOM, anim) homework (ACC, inam) finish (V +PAST)
Kamala finished (this) homework.
18 api mal keduwāwe (NOM, anim) flowers (ACC, inam) pluck (V + PAST)
We plucked flowers.

ET AL.

19 nanngi pahana niwwā
sister (NOM, anim) lamp (ACC, inam) blow out (V + PAST)(My) sister blew out (the) lamp.
20 siiyaa rewla kepuwā
grandfather (NOM, anim) beard (ACC, inam) cut (V + PAST)(My) grandfather cut (his) beard.
21 hāwā kerat kēwāsister (NOM, anim) lamp (ACC, inam) blow out (V + PAST)(My) sister blew out (the) lamp.
22 achchii pedura heduwā
grandmother (NOM, anim) mat (ACC, inam) make (V +PAST)(My) grandmother made (the) mat.
23 chaamara chithra endā
Chaamara (NOM, anim) drawing (ACC, inam) paint (V +PAST)
Chaamara painted (the) drawing(s).
24 sinhayā mas kēwālion (NOM, anim) meat (ACC, inam) eat (V + PAST)(A) lion ate (the) meat.
25 thaththā baisikalaya heduwā
father (NOM, anim) bicycle (ACC, inam) make (V + PAST)(My) father made (the) bicycle.
26 mallii kumbura ketuwā
brother (NOM, anim) paddy (ACC, inam) crop (V + PAST)My brother cropped (the) paddy.
27 nettuwā netum netuwā
dancer (NOM, anim) dance (ACC, inam) dance (V + PAST)(A) dancer danced (a dance).
28 waduwā ge heduwā
carpenter (NOM, anim) chair (ACC, inam) break (V + PAST)(A) carpenter broke (the) chair.
29 gayāni polsambōla heduwā
Gayani (NOM, anim) coconut salad (ACC, inam) make (V +PAST)
Gayani made coconut salad.
30 monarā palathuru kēwāpeacock (NOM, anim) fruits (ACC, inam) eat (V + PAST)(A) peacock ate fruits.
31 ajith kuudu heduwāAjith (NOM, anim) lantern (ACC, inam) make (V + PAST)
Ajith made lantern(s).
32 kamal bera gehuwā
Kamal (NOM, anim) drum (ACC, inam) hit (V + PAST)
Kamal played drums.
33 niila sarama mehuwā
Niila (NOM, anim) sarama (ACC, inam) stitch (V + PAST)
Niila stitched sarama (cloth).
34 amila kathā kiwwā
Amila (NOM, anim) story (ACC, inam) tell (V + PAST)
Amila told storie(s).
35 dayā sarungal yewwā
Daya (NOM, anim) kite (ACC, inam) fly (V + PAST)
Daya flied (a) kite.
36 piyadāsa pol genāwā
Piyadasa (NOM, anim) coconut (ACC, inam) bring (V +PAST)
Piyadasa brought coconut(s).