Open Journal of Modern Linguistics
2012. Vol.2, No.1, 26-33
Published Online March 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ojml)

http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2012.21004

Priority Information Determining the Canonical Word Order ofWritten Sinhalese Sentences
Arachchige Buddhika Prabath Kanduboda, Katsuo Tamaoka
Graduate School of Languages and Cultures, Nagoya University, Aichi, Japan
Email: kanduboda80@gmail.com, ktamaoka@gc4.so-net.ne.jp
Received February 10th, 2012; revised March 9th, 2012; accepted March 16th, 2012

The present study investigated the priority of information among case particles, thematic roles or grammatical functions in determining the canonical SOV word order of written Sinhalese. Four types of sentences were given to native Sinhalese speakers to perform sentence correctness decisions. The active sentences with transitive verbs in Experiment 1 and with ditransitive verbs in Experiment 2 revealed that canonical sentences (i.e., SOV or SOOV) were processed more quickly and accurately than the scrambled
sentences (i.e., OSV or OSOV), which supported the existence of scrambling effects. However, sincethematic roles, case particles and grammatical functions provide the same information for the SOV canonical order, two further experiments were conducted to single out the priority of information. In Experiment 3, native Sinhalese speakers processed passive sentences with canonical word order defined bycase particles (i.e., SOV) more quickly and accurately than those defined by thematic roles (i.e., OSV). In
Experiment 4, native speakers processed potential sentences defined by grammatical functions (i.e., SOV)
more quickly and accurately than the information provided by case markers (i.e., OSV). Therefore, thepresent study concluded that grammatical functions play a crucial role to determine SOV canonical order.
Keywords: Canonical Order; Sinhalese; Priority Information; Thematic Roles; Case Markers;
Grammatical Functions

Introduction
The Sinhalese language is one of three official languages
spoken in Sri Lanka (others being Tamil and English), and has
a history of more than two thousand years. Sinhalese has two
distinct forms of spoken and written, within the single language.
The written and spoken forms differ noticeably in their coregrammatical structures (Englebretson & Genetti, 2005; Miyagishi, 2005). For example, the subject in the spoken form in asubordinate clause is marked by nominative, whereas in thewritten form the subject is marked by accusative (Miyagishi,2005). The spoken form is mostly used in daily life and othercasual speech, whereas in reading news on TV or radio as well
as for other printed material such as news papers, the written
form is mostly used. While the spoken form is very flexible invarious syntactic aspects, the written form involves many grammatical rules (Dissanayaka, 2007). The present study focuses
only on written form.
Word order in the Sinhalese language is said to be subject (S)object (O) and verb (V) (Dissanayaka, 2007; Herath, Hyodo,
Kawada, Ikeda, & Herath, 1994; Pallatthara &Weihene, 1966).
Furthermore, previous studies on the Sinhalese language (e.g.,
Dissanayaka, 2007; Gair, 1998; Miyagishi, 2003) suggest thatthe flexibility of Sinhalese word order allows sentences to haveanother five different word orders as OSV, OVS, SVO, VSO,
and VOS which also represent the same meaning of that SOVordered sentence. Tamaoka, Kanduboda, & Sakai (2011) conducted experiments using all these orders. They found that,among them, SOV is the fastest to be processed by native Sinhalese speakers, and concluded that SOV is the canonical orderfrom the psycholinguistic perspective. Then, the question rose26

what is the fundamental information which determines SOV as
canonical order of Sinhalese sentences. Therefore, using sentences of the written form, the present study investigated thepotential information of case particles, sematic roles, and grammatical functions, which provide efficient information for canonical order in the Sinhalese language.

Background and Assumptions
Scrambling is a term used in linguistic studies for observablefacts with free word order (originally proposed by Ross, 1967).
Due to the free word order phenomena in Sinhalese, its canonical word order (SOV) can possibly be re-ordered by scramblingtransformation. For example, sentence 1) represents a canonically (SOV) ordered active sentence with a transitive verb,
Kamala hit Nimala. Simply altering between S and O, scrambled OSV order of 2) results.
1) SOV order (canonical)
kamalā nimala-ta gehuwāya
Kamala (φNOM, anim) Nimala (DAT, anim) hit (V + PST)
Kamala hit Nimala.
2) OSV order (scrambled)
nimala-ta kamalā gehuwāya
Nimala (DAT, anim) Kamala (φNOM, anim) hit (V + PST)
Kamala hit Nimala.
Canonical order can be identified by three information cuesof case particles, sematic roles, and grammatical functions(Tamaoka, Sakai, Kawahara, Miyaoka, Lim, & Koizumi, 2005).
In fact, the SOV canonical order 1) satisfies all this information.
First, case particles suggest that a nominative case marker preCopyright © 2012 SciRes.

A. B. P. KANDUBODA

cedes an accusative or a dative case marker. The usage of Sinhalese case markers suggests that the word order of active sentence with a transitive verb must be [φNOM [ACC or DAT V]].
Second, thematic roles suggest that the word order must be
arranged in a manner that the agent (Kamala) precedes the patient/receiver (Nimala), and the goal (hit) must be placed at theend. Third, grammatical functions again suggest that the subject(Kamala) should come before the object (Nimala).
On the other hand, the scrambled sentences are assumed tohave different order deviated from these information cues.
Consider sentence 2) is altered based on 1). Both 1) and 2)
carry the same fundamental meaning Kamala hit Nimala. However, sentence 2) does not follow any of the three cues; a dative
case marker comes before a nominative, a patient comes before
an agent, and object comes before subject. Thus, sentence 2)
can be considered as a scrambled sentence. Previous studies(e.g., Koizumi & Tamaoka, 2004, 2010; Mazuka, Itoh, & Kondo, 2002; Miyamoto & Takahashi, 2004; Tamaoka, Sakai, Kawahara, Miyaoka, Lim, & Koizumi, 2005) suggested that canonically ordered sentences were processed faster than scrambled orders. Thus, if native Sinhalese speakers process these
two sentences, the canonical SOV order of sentence 1) should
be processed faster than the scrambled order of sentence 2).
This is tested in Experiment 1 of the present study.
The same argument given to the sentences of 1) and 2) canbe made with an active sentence with a dative verb. Both 3) and4) are Sinhalese active sentences with ditransitive verbs. The
word order of example 3) is SOOV (Subject-Indirect ObjectDirect Object, and the Verb). Example 4) is built based upon
the word order of 3) in order to have an OSOV scrambled ordersentence (Direct Object-Subject-Indirect Object, and the Verb).
Despite different word orders, both 3) and 4) fundamentally
carry the same meaning of Nimala helped Lalani with studies.
As with active sentences consisting of transitive verbs, the three
information cues of case markers, thematic roles, and grammatical functions provide the same prediction for the canonicalorder of ditransitive canonical sentence 3). In contrast, sentence4) deviates all three information cues. Consequently, the canonical order 3) should be processed faster than the scrambled
order 4). This is tested in Experiment 2 of the present study.
3) SOOV order (canonical)
nimala lalani-ta pādam kiyādunnēya
Nimala (φNOM, anim) Lalani (DAT, anim) study (φACC,inam) teach (V + PST)
Nimala helped Lalani with studies.
4) OSOV order (scrambled)pādam nimala lalani-ta kiyādunnēya
Study (φACC, inam) Nimala (φNOM, anim) Lalani (DAT,anim) teach (V + PST)
Nimala helped Lalani with studies.
Two different types of information, thematic roles and caseparticles provide conflicting information for canonical order for
passive sentences with a transitive verb. Considering casemarkers, sentence 5) is assumed to be canonical since a nominative case-marked noun (computer) is placed in the sentence
initial position followed by a dative case-marked noun (Ruwan).
In contrast, thematic roles indicate sentence 6) to be canonical,
because an agent (Ruwan) comes prior to a theme (computer).
In this sense, sentence 6) becomes a scrambled order according
to case particles, while sentence 5) is identified as scrambled bythematic roles. Yet, both 5) and 6) fundamentally carry the
Copyright © 2012 SciRes.

ET

AL.

same meaning of the computer was repaired by Ruwan. These
two conflicting sets of information of case particles and thematic roles are tested in Experiment 3 of the present study.
5) SOV order (canonical predicted by case particles)
ruwan-wisin pariganakaya hadaadenulebuweaya
Ruwan (φNOM, anim) computer (φACC, inam) repair (V +PSS + PST)
The computer was repaired by Ruwan.
6) OSV order (canonical predicted by thematic roles)
pariganakaya ruwan-wisin hadaadenulebuweaya
Computer (φACC, inam) Ruwan (φNOM, anim) repair (V +PSS + PST)
The computer was repaired by Ruwan.
Once again, different information of case particles andgrammatical functions provide conflicting information for canonical order for potential sentences with transitive verbs. According to grammatical functions, the potential sentence 7) is a
canonically ordered potential sentence since the subject (Sangiitha) precedes the object (dance). However, according to thecase markers, the canonical order should be arranged in a manner that the noun (dance) case-marked by a nominative precede
the noun (Sangiitha) with a dative case marker -ta, indicating
sentence 8) to be canonical. Again, both sentences 7) and 8)
carry the same fundamental meaning of Sangiitha can dance.
These two conflicting sets of information of grammatical functions and case particles are tested in Experiment 3 of the present study.
7) SOV order (canonical predicted by grammatical functions)
sangiitha-ta natanna hekiyaawaketha
Sangiitha (DAT, anim) dance (φNOM, inam) can (V + PST)
Sangiitha can dance.
8) OSV order (canonical predicted by case particles)
natanna sangiitha-ta hekiyaawaketha
Dance (φNOM, inam) Sangiitha (DAT, anim) can (V+PST)
Sangiitha can dance.
Using the fore-mentioned four types of sentences, the present
study investigated the priority of information which determines
the canonical word order of written Sinhalese. Experiment 1
compared processing of active sentences with transitive verbs
between canonical and scrambled orders. Experiment 2 used
active sentences with ditransitive verbs, Experiment 3 usedpassive sentences, and Experiment 4 used potential sentences.
The Sinhalese language is a rare case. There are not many
languages existing in the world on which the series of experiments regarding all the three kinds of information of case particles, thematic roles, and grammatical information can be conducted together. The Sinhalese language is one of a few suchlanguages.

Experiment 1: Active Sentences withTransitive Verbs
Experiment 1 examined active sentences with transitive
verbs in order to ascertain the scrambling effects in active sentences with intransitive verbs. Since lexical items used are
identical, the processing speeds and errors can be directlycompared between canonical and scrambled sentences. Experiment 1 assumed that native Sinhalese speakers would takelonger to process OSV scrambled sentences than SOV canonical sentences. Experiment 1 investigated whether or not a dif27

A. B. P. KANDUBODA

ferent syntactical structure requires the different degree of cognitive load to process these sentences.

Participants
Thirty-two native Sinhalese speakers (26 male and 6 female)residing in Japan (Aichi Prefecture) participated in the present
experiment. They had been in Japan from 6 months to 3 yearsof the time of testing. Ages ranged from 23 years and 6 months
to 46 years and 4 months, with the average age being 35 years
and 0 months on the day of testing. They are all native Sinhalese speakers, born and brought up in Sri Lanka at least up to
the age of 21. All of them had fulfilled at least 13 years of education (up to high school graduation) in Sri Lanka instructed in
the Sinhalese language. Their Japanese ability was very low;none of them had passed or taken the lowest grade of the Japanese Language Proficiency Test. Among 32 participants, 11were students at a Japanese language school, and 21 are working at a Japanese company.

Procedure
Participants were asked to determine 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 automaticallyrecorded by the computer. The presentation of the stimulus wascontrolled by a computer program DMDX (version 3.2.6.4).
The stimulus sentences were randomly presented in the centerof the computer screen for 600 milliseconds after the appearance of a line of asterisks “******” which indicated the eye
fixation point on the screen. Prior to the experiment, all theparticipants were instructed to respond by pressing either “Yes”
or “No” key as quickly and as accurately as possible to determine whether the sentence shown on the screen is correct orincorrect. Fourteen practice trials were given to the participantsin advance of the actual testing. This procedure was the same inall four experiments and henceforth, explanation will be omitted in the following three experiments.

Materials
A total of 172 stimuli were prepared for Experiment 1.
Thirty-six active sentences with transitive verbs (36 canonicalordered sentences for correct “Yes” responses) were selectedaccording to the canonical order as nominative noun phrasewith empty case marker, whereas accusative noun phrase ismarked by the dative case marker -ta as in kamalā nimala-ta
gehuwāya. A sample of “Yes” stimuli are presented in appendix
A. In order to make the scrambled order sentences, the nominative NP and the accusative NP were switched as nimala-ta kamalā gehuwāya. There were 36 scrambled sentences for correct“Yes” responses. The same strategy was used to make another72 stimuli for the correct “No” responses with either syntactically or semantically incorrect sentences. For example, thecanonical noun phrase order of amila me-se kēwēya meaning“Amila ate the table” is scrambled as me-se amila kēwēya. In
this way, 36 canonical and 36 scrambled sentences (72 in total)
were created for correct “No” responses. In addition, another 28(14 canonical sentences and 14 scrambled sentences) sentenceswere added as control sentences.
28

ET

AL.

To avoid participants repeatedly seeing the same sentences ina different word order, a counterbalanced design was applied toallocate the participants as list 1 and list 2. Each list contained
36 correct (18 canonical and 18 scrambled) sentences for correct “Yes” responses and 36 incorrect (18 canonical and 18
scrambled) sentences for correct “No” responses with an additional 14 control sentences (7 canonical and 7 scrambled) toeach group.

Analysis and Results
Extremes among sentence correctness decision times (lessthan 500 ms and longer than 5000 ms) were recorded as missing values. Table 1 illustrates the means of correct “Yes” and“No” reaction times and error rates for sentence correctness
decisions. Before performing the analysis, reaction times outside of 2.5 standard deviations at both the high and low ranges
were replaced by boundaries indicated by 2.5 standard deviations from the individual means of participants in each category.
Statistical tests were conducted for the participants’ variability(F1) and for the stimulus item variability (F2). Only stimulus
items of correct responses were used in the analyses of reaction
times. The means and standard deviations for correct “Yes” and“No” responses are reported in Table 1.
A series of analysis of variance analyses (ANOVAs) withrepeated measures for canonical and scrambled order wereconducted for both reaction times and error rates. The means
and standard deviations were reported in Table 1. The results
for correct “Yes” responses indicated that canonical sentences
had shorter reaction times [F1(1,31) = 19.517, p < .001; F2(1,35) = 66.981, p < .001], and lower error rates [F1(1,31) =10.148, p < .01; F2(1,35) = 19.386, p < .001] than the samesentences in scrambled order. Likewise, correct “No” responses
showed the same result that canonical order resulted in shorter
reaction times [F1(1,31) = 9.859, p < .01; F2(1.35) = 8.345, p< .01] than the same sentences in scrambled order. However, nodifference in error rates was noted [F1(1,31) = 2.310, p = .139,
ns; F2(1,35) = 1.800, p = .188, ns.].

Discussion
Processing correct active sentences with transitive verbs
showed significant scrambling effects in Experiment 1. This
result provides evidence for existence of scrambling effects inTable 1.
Reaction times and error rates for active sentences with transitive verbs.
Response
Type

Sentence
Type

“Yes”
Reponses

Reaction Time (ms)Error Rate (%)

M

SD

M

SD

SOV

1291

254

2.43%

3.14%

OSV

1498

330

9.55%

12.40%

207

F1*** F2**

7.12%

F1** F2***OSV-SOV
“No”

SOV

1436

390

12.15%

13.79%

Reponses

OSV

1538

300

9.03%

8.32%

102

F1** F2**–3.13%OSV-SOV***

Note: p < .05, p < .01,***

p < .001.

Copyright © 2012 SciRes.

A. B. P. KANDUBODA

written Sinhalese, supporting a configurational syntactic structure. An additional Experiment 2 was conducted to identify thesame scrambling effects under the different condition of active
sentences with ditransitive verbs.

Experiment 2: Active Sentences withDitransitive Verbs
Experiment 2 used active sentences with ditransitive verbs asin nimala lalani-ta pādam kiyādunnēya meaning “Nimala
helped Lalani with studies”. These sentences can interchange
three noun phrases in any order, so that five scrambled sentences can be produced on the basis of a single canonical order(SOOV). However, an inanimate noun in the third NP position
was placed in the sentence-initial position in Experiment 2. For
example, a canonical order of nimala lalani-ta pādam kiyādunnēya [S NP-NOM (anim) [VP NP-DAT (anim) [VP NP-ACC(inam) V]]] was altered into its corresponding scrambled sentence pādam nimala lalani-ta kiyādunnēya [s NP-ACC (inam)1[S NP-NOM (anim) [VP NP-DAT (anim) [VP gap1 V]]]]. Sinceboth canonical and scrambled order sentences were constructedwith identical lexical items, the sentences carry the same sentential meaning of “Nimala helped Lalani with studies”. Only
the syntactical structure was altered to investigate the scrambled effects.

Participants and Procedure
Refer to Experiment 1.

Materials
Experiment 2 examined active sentences containing ditransitive verbs as presented in Appendix B (sample of “Yes” responses). Thirty-six canonical ordered sentences for correct“Yes” responses were prepared like the example nimala lalanita pādam kiyādunnēya meaning “Nimala helped Lalani withstudies”. Based on these, the scrambled order sentences werecreated by putting the thirdly-positioned NP (e.g., pādam) into
the sentence-initial position as in pādam nimala lalani-ta kiyādunnēya. With this procedure, 72 sentences for correct “Yes”
responses were created. Again, the same strategy was used tomake another 72 stimuli for the correct “No” responses witheither syntactically or semantically incorrect sentences. For
example, the canonical noun phrase order of amila wāhanayata banakēwēya meaning “Amila doctrine the vehicle” is scrambled as bana amila wāhanaya-ta kēwēya. In addition, another28 sentences (14 canonical and 14 scrambled) were added ascontrol sentences. As a result, a total of 172 stimuli were prepared for “Yes” and “No” responses. To avoid participants
repeatedly seeing the same sentences in a different word order,
a counterbalanced design was applied as in Experiment 1.

Analysis and Results
Extremes among sentence correctness decision times (lessthan 600 ms and longer than 6000 ms) were recorded as missing values. Table 2 showed the means of correct “Yes” and“No” reaction times and error rates for sentence correctness
decisions. The procedure and analysis employed the same as
Experiment 1.
In Experiment 2, canonical sentences for correct “Yes” responses resulted in shorter reaction times [F1(1,31) = 6.017, p
Copyright © 2012 SciRes.

ET

AL.

Table 2.
Reaction times and error rates for active sentences with ditransitive
verbs.
Response
Type

Sentence
Type

Reaction Time (ms)
M

SD

M

Error Rate (%)
SD

“Yes”

SO1O2V

1562

367

6.25%

11.70%

Reponses

O2SO1V

1683

337

10.24%

9.37%

O2SO1V-SO1O2V(Scrambling Effects)

120

*

F1 F2

3.99%

F1* F2*“No”

SO1O2V

1643

362

18.06%

13.01%

Reponses

O2SO1V

1719

386

15.28%

9.98%

O2SO1V-SO1O2V(Scrambling Effects)

77

F1* F2 n.s.

–2.78%***

Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

< .05; F2(1,35) = 14.494, p < .001], and lower error rates [F1(1,31) = 5.001, p < .05; F2(1,35) = 6.740, p < .05] than scrambled
sentences. In contrast, for correct “No” responses, a difference
was found between the reaction times of canonical and scrambled sentences in participant analysis [F1(1,31) = 4.836, p< .05], but not in item analysis [F2(1,35) = 3.646, p = .064, ns.].
Error rates were not significant [F1(1,31) = 1.494, p = .231, ns.;F2(1,35) = 0.947, p = .337, ns.].

Discussion
In addition to Experiment 1, Experiment 2 also provided
evidence for the existence of scrambling effects in active sentences with ditransitive verbs. Thus, the existence of a configurational syntactic structure was supported in written Sinhalese,which leads us the second question. What kind of information
cues do native Sinhalese speakers use to identify the canonicalorder in written Sinhalese?

Experiment 3: Passive Sentences withTransitive Verbs
Experiment 3 employed passive sentences with transitive
verbs. Sentences such as niila wisin samara-ta gasanulebuwāya[S NP-NOM [VP NP-DAT V]], (“Samara was hit by Niila”) arealtered to make scrambled order sentences by relocating thedative noun phrase (samara-ta) to the initial position of thesentence samara-ta niila wisin gasanulebuwāya [S NP-DAT1
NP-NOM [VP gap1V]]. Both canonical and scrambled sentences
fundamentally carry the same meaning of “Samara was hit by
Niila”. In passive sentences, thematic roles and case markers
provide a conflicting picture of their word orders. The canonical order assumed by thematic roles indicates that an agent
should precede the theme (i.e., samara-ta niila wisin gasanulebuwāya). Contrarily, the canonical order assumed by case particles indicates that an NP followed by ablative wisin particle
should placed in the initial position of the sentence, followed byanother NP accompanied by the dative case marker -ta (i.e.,
niila wisin samara-ta gasanulebuwāya). Therefore, it is hoped
that, on the processing of passive sentences, Experiment 3 offers evidence as to which information cue (thematic roles orcase particles) is actually used by native Sinhalese speakers.

Participants and Procedure
Refer to Experiment 1.
29

A. B. P. KANDUBODA

Materials
Experiment 3 used passive sentences, a sample of which isshown in Appendix C (sample of “Yes” responses). First, 30
canonical ordered sentences for correct “Yes” responses wereselected as in niila wisin samara-ta gasanulebuwāya meaning“Samara was hit by Nimala”. Based on these, the scrambled
order sentences were altered by moving the NP with dative -ta
to the sentence-initial position as in samara-ta niila wisin
gasanulebuwāya. As a result, 60 sentences were created forcorrect “Yes” responses. Using the same procedure, another 60
stimuli were produced for the correct “No” responses containing either a syntactic or semantic error. In addition, another 24
sentences (12 canonical and 12 scrambled) were added as control sentences. To avoid participants repeatedly seeing the samesentences in a different word order, a counterbalanced design
was applied as in Experiments 1 and 2.

Analysis and Results
Extremes among sentence correctness decision times (lessthan 500 ms and longer than 5000 ms) were recorded as missing values. Table 3 showed the means of correct “Yes” and“No” reaction times and error rates for sentence correctness
decisions. The procedure and analysis were the same as theprevious experiments.
In Experiment 3, SOV ordered passive sentences for correct“Yes” responses showed shorter reaction times [F1(1,31) =10.132, p < .01; F2(1,29) = 19.209, p < .001] and lower error
rates [F1(1,31) = 21.381, p < .001; F2(1,29) = 33.278, p < .001]
than those with scrambled order (OSV). In contrast, for correct‘No’ responses, neither reaction times [F1(1,31) = 2.832, p= .102, ns.; F2(1,29) = 4.046, p = .054, ns.] nor error rates [F1(1,31) = 3.414, p = .453, ns.; F2(1,29) = 4.083, p = .053, ns.]
showed significance.

Discussion
Results of Experiment 3 indicated that the canonical orderidentified by case particles in which NP with the ablative casemarker -wisin precedes a NP with the dative case marker -ta
was more quickly processed for sentence correctness decisions
than the canonical order identified by thematic roles. Therefore,
thematic roles can be excluded as a major cue of priority information; consequently, the remaining information cues, case
Table 3.
Reaction times and error rates for passive sentences with transitive
verbs.
Reaction Time (ms)

Sentence
Type

M

SD

M

SD

“Yes”

SOV

1696

331

2.71%

3.33%

Response

OSV

1788

311

12.29%

12.11%OSV-SOV(Scrambling Effects)

92

F1** F2***

9.58%

F1*** F2**

“No”

SOV

1737

372

9.17%

10.54%

Response

OSV

1686

383

5.00%

7.76%

OSV-SOV(Scrambling Effects)–51

Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

30

Error Rate (%)

ResponseType–4.17%

ET

AL.

particles and grammatical functions, were taken into consideration for revealing the priority information for identifying canonical order used by native Sinhalese speakers.

Experiment 4: Potential Sentences
Since Experiment 3 excluded thematic roles as a major cueof the priority information for canonical order, Experiment 4
was conducted focusing on the two remaining information cues,
case particles and grammatical functions. Potential sentencessuch as nimala-ta japan kathākiriime hekiyāwaketha [S NPDAT [VP NP-NOM V + POT]] meaning “Nimala speaks Japanese” were altered to create the corresponding scrambled sentences as in japan nimala-ta kathākiriime hekiyāwaketha [SNP-NOM1 [VP NP-DAT [VP gap1 V + POT]]]. In potential sentences, the dative case marker -ta is assigned to a grammaticalsubject. Grammatical functions require that a subject with -ta
comes before the object in the canonical order as in nimala-ta
japan kathākiriime hekiyāwaketha [S NP-DAT [VP NP-NOM V+ POT]]. On the other hand, the canonical order assumed bycase particles suggests a dative case marker –ta should precede
the predicate as in japan nimala-ta kathākiriime hekiyāwaketha[S NP-NOM1 [VP NP-DAT [VP gap1V + POT]]]. If canonicalorder is identified by grammatical functions (i.e., SOV areprocessed faster and more accurately than the OSV scrambled
order), grammatical functions will prove to be the last remaining priority information in written Sinhalese. In contrast, if thecanonical order is identified by the case particles (i.e., OSV areprocessed faster and more accurately than the SOV scrambled
order), the case particles will provide the priority information in
written Sinhalese.

Participants
Thirty native Sinhalese speakers (26 male and 4 female) residing in Aichi prefecture, Japan participated in Experiment 4.
All of them participated in Experiments 1-3. However, due to amechanical trouble, data of two participants were not recorded.
Ages ranged from 23 years and 6 months to 46 years and 2
months, with the average age being 32 years and 2 months on
the day of testing.

Procedure
Refer to Experiment 1.

Materials
Experiment 4 used potential sentences (refer to Appendix D
for a sample of “Yes” responses). First, 24 canonical orderedsentences for correct “Yes” responses were selected as in nimala-ta japan kathākiriimehekiyāwaketha meaning “Nimalacan speak Japanese”. Based on these, the scrambled order sentences were relocated by moving the secondly-positioned NP to
the sentence-initial position (japan nimala-ta kathākiriimehekiyāwaketha). As a result, 48 sentences were created for correct“Yes” responses. Using the same procedure, another 48 stimuli
were created for the correct “No” responses containing either asyntactic or semantic error. In addition, another 20 sentences(10 canonical and 10 scrambled) were added as control sentences. To avoid participants repeatedly seeing the same sentences in a different word order, a counterbalanced design wasapplied as in the previous experiments.
Copyright © 2012 SciRes.

A. B. P. KANDUBODA

Analysis and Results
Extremes among sentence correctness decision times (lessthan 500 ms and longer than 5000 ms) were recorded as missing values. Table 3 error rates for sentence correctness decisions. The procedure and analysis were the same as the previous experiments. Table 4 shows the means and standard deviations for correct “Yes” and “No” reaction times and error rates
for sentence correctness decisions.
In Experiment 4, SOV ordered potential sentences showed
shorter reaction times for correct “Yes” responses [F1(1,29) =4.885, p < .05; F2(1,23) = 8.288, p < .01] and lower error rates[F1(1,29) = 8.863, p < .01; F2(1,23) = 5.035, p < .05] than thosewith scrambled order of OSV. For correct “No” responses,
canonical order did not show faster reaction times than scrambled order in participant analysis [F1(1,29) = 4.067, p = .053,
ns.], but was significant in item analysis [F2(1,23) = 6.873, p< .05], whereas no difference was found in error rates [F1(1,29)= 1.543, p = 224, ns.; F2(1,23) = 1.657, p = .211, ns.].

Discussion
The results of Experiment 4 indicated that the processing ofpotential sentences based on grammatical functions word order(i.e., SOV) required shorter reaction times and lower error rates
than the word order identified by the case particles (i.e.,
OSV).Therefore, considering all the results of Experiments 1 to4, it can be concluded that grammatical functions are the remaining priority information in written Sinhalese.

General Discussion
The present study investigated priority information used bynative Sinhalese speakers. As shown in Table 5, the three kindsof information of thematic roles, case particles, and grammatical functions provide different cues to canonical order. Thematic roles requires agent to precede theme and goal. Case
Table 4.
Reaction times and error rates for potential sentences.
Reaction Time (ms)Error Rate (%)

Response
Type

Sentence
Type

M

SD

M

SD

“Yes”

SOV

1492

304

4.44%

6.09%

Response

OSV

1568

335

11.39& 14.60%

OSV-SOV(Scrambling Effects)

77

F1* F2**7%

F1** F2*

“No”

SOV

1609

394

8.33%

9.02%

Response

OSV

1687

280

OSV-SOV(Scrambling Effects)

78

F1 n.s.F2

11.11% 10.57%
*

2.78%

Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Table 5.
Predicted canonical order by information cues
Information Cues

Canonical Word Order

Thematic Roles

Agent > Theme > Goal

Case Particles

Nominative > Dative > Accusative

Grammatical Functions

Subject > Object > Verb

Copyright © 2012 SciRes.

ET

AL.

particles offers a cue that nominative comes before dative andaccusative. Grammatical functions provide information that
subject comes before object.
Processing grammatically and semantically acceptable sentences (correct “Yes” responses) showed consistently significant scrambling effects in each of the four experiments. In Experiment 1, OSV scrambled sentences resulted in longer reaction times compared to SOV canonical sentences. In addition,
Experiment 2 also showed that OSOV scrambled sentences takelonger to process than SOOV canonical sentences. The resultsof Experiments 1 and 2 provided evidence for scrambling effects in written Sinhalese. Thus, as previous studies (Dissanayaka, 2007; Herath, Hyodo, Kawada, Ikeda, & Herath, 1994;
Pallatthara & Weihene, 1966; Tamaoka et al., 2011) indicated,both experiments in the present study also showed that the canonical word order in the Sinhalese language is SOV.
However, thematic roles, case particles and grammatical
functions provide the same information for canonical order in
active Sinhalese written sentences. For example, in the sentence
amara nimala-ta gehuwēya meaning “Amara hit Nimala”, caseparticles indicate that the nominative NP is always marked byempty (φ), and the accusative NP always precedes the casemarker -ta (which is dative, but functions like an accusative) inan active sentence which contains a transitive verb. Secondly,
thematic roles suggest as an agent (amara) always precedes atheme (nimala), so that the sentence can be interpreted as theagent Amara hits Nimala. Finally, grammatical functions suggest that the word order should be organized as subject S(amara) object O (nimala-ta) and verb V (gehuwēya). To identify the priority information applicable to a variety of sentence
types, two further experiments were conducted to single out theuniversal information cue.
Passive sentences display conflict between the information
for canonical word order provided by thematic roles and caseparticles. Therefore, Experiment 3 is aimed at comparing theprocessing of canonical order defined by thematic roles andcase particles in the processing of passive sentences. Results ofExperiment 3 showed that native Sinhalese speakers processed
passive sentences with SOV canonical word order defined bycase particles more quickly and accurately than OSV orderdefined by thematic roles. Thus, native Sinhalese speakers relyon the information provided by the case particles when processing passive sentences. Experiment 3 excluded thematic roles
as the priority information. Thus, Experiment 4 investigated theremaining two cues, case particles and grammatical functions.
In Experiment 4, native speakers processed SOV potential
sentences defined by grammatical functions more quickly andaccurately than OSV, were the information is provided by caseparticles. Therefore, Experiment 4 revealed that native Sinhalese speakers use the information given by grammatical function (plural) rather than case particles for the processing ofpotential sentences. The present study concluded grammatical
functions as the most universal information cue for canonicalword order among thematic roles, case particles, and grammatical functions for written Sinhalese sentences.
To conclude, as found in the Japanese language (Tamaoka etal., 2005), grammatical functions clearly provide adequate information for native speakers to determine canonical order invarious types of written Sinhalese sentences. Grammatical
functions must offer crucial information which delivers cues forcanonical order for various languages.
31

A. B. P. KANDUBODA

Acknowledgements
We are grateful to anonymous reviewers for their invaluablecomments and suggestions. The 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
Dissanayaka, J. B. (2007). Say it in Sinhala. Colombo, Sri Lanka: Stamford Lake Publication.
Englebretson, R., & Genetti, C. (Eds.) (2005). Santa Barbara papers inlinguistics: Proceeding from the workshop on Sinhala linguistics.
Santa Barbara: Department of Linguistics, University of California.
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.
Herath, A., Hyodo, Y., Kawada, Y., Ikeda, T., & Herath, S. (1994). A
practical machine translation system from Japanese to modern Sinhalese. Gifu: Gifu University, 153-162.
Koizumi, M., & Tamaoka, K. (2004). Cognitive processing of Japanese
sentences with ditransitive verbs. Gengo Kenkyu (Journal of the
Linguistic Society of Japan), 125, 173-190.
Koizumi, M., & Tamaoka, K. (2010). Psycholinguistic evidence for the
VP-internal subject position in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry, 41, 663-

32

ET

AL.

680. doi:10.1162/LING_a_00016
Mazuka, R., Itoh, K., & Kondo, T. (2002). Cost of scrambling in Japanese sentence processing. In M. Nakayama (Ed.), Sentence processing in East-Asian languages (pp. 131-166). Stanford, CA: CSLI (Center for the Study of Language and Information).
Miyamoto, E. T., & Takahashi, S. (2004). Filler-gap dependencies in
the processing of scrambling in Japanese. Language and Linguistics,
5, 153-166.
Miyagawa, S. (2003). A movement scrambling and options without
optionality. In S. Karimi, (Ed.), Word order and scrambling. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. doi:10.1002/9780470758403.ch8
Miyagishi, T. (2003). Relationship between ablative/instrumental casenouns. Yasuda Women’s University Bulletin, 31, 1-26.
Miyagishi, T. (2005). Accusative subject of subordinate clause in Sinhalese. Yasuda Women’s University Bulletin, 33, 15-26.
Pallatthara, S., & Weihene, P. (1966). Sinhala grammar in linguistic
perspective. Colombo: S. Godage & Brothers.
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. Thesis,
Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
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
Tamaoka, K., Kanduboda, A. B. P., & Sakai, H. (2011). Effects of word
order alternation on the sentence processing of Sinhalese written andspoken forms. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 1, 24-32.
doi:10.4236/ojml.2011.12004

Copyright © 2012 SciRes.

A. B. P. KANDUBODA

ET

AL.

Appendix A: A Sample List of Active Sentences
Consisting of Transitive Verbs in Experiment 1

Appendix C: A Sample List of Passive Sentences
Consisting Transitive Verbs in Experiment 3

Experiment 1 used 36 canonical ordered sentences for correct
YES responses as exemplified below. Based on these sentences,
36 scrambled sentences were built. The secondly positioned
noun (ACC) is placed in the sentence initial position in order tomake scrambled order sentences.
1 kamala niila-ta hondakiwwaaya
Kamala (φNOM, anim) Niila (ACC, anim) praise (V + PST)
Kamala praised Niila.
2 guruthuma daruwanta igennuweaya
teacher (φNOM, anim) children (ACC, anim)
teach (V + PST)
The teacher educated the children.
3 gayaani niila-ta bennaaya
Gayani (φNOM, anim) Niila (ACC, anim) scold (V + PST)
Gayani scolded Niila.
4 amila ganga-ta andagehuweaya
Amila (φNOM, anim) Ganga (ACC, anim) call (V + PST)
Amila called Ganga.
5 mallii nayaa-ta gehuweaya
younger brother (φNOM, anim) snake (ACC, anim)
Hit (V + PST)
Younger brother hit the snake.

Experiment 3 used 30 canonical ordered sentences for correct
YES responses as exemplified below. Based on these sentences,
30 scrambled sentences were constructed. The secondly positioned noun (DAT) is placed in the sentence initial position to
make scrambled order sentences.
1 ammaa wisin apata kiribath hadanu lebuweaya
mother (NOM, anim) us (DAT, anim)
milkrice (φACC, inam) make (V + PASS + PST)
The milk rice was made by mother.
2 thaththaa wisn apata paadam kiyadenulebuweaya
father (NOM, anim) us (DAT, anim) lessons (φACC, inam)teach (V + PASS + PST)
The lessons were taught by father.
3 malli wisin nangita akuru uganwanu lebuweaya
younger brother (NOM, anim) younger sister (DAT, anim)
letters (φACC, inam) help (V + PASS + PST)
Younger sister was helped by younger brother to read letters.
4 maamaa wisin apata liyumak liyanu lebuweaya
uncle (NOM, anim) us (DAT, anim) letter (φACC, inam)
write (V + PASS + PST)
The letter was written by our uncle.
5 ruwan wisin akkata pariganakaya hadaadenu lebuweaya
Ruwan (NOM, anim) elder sister (DAT, anim)
computer (φACC, inam) repair (V + PASS + PST)
The computer was repaired by Ruwan.

Appendix B: A Sample List of Active Sentences
Consisting of Ditransitive Verbs in Experiment 2
Experiment 2 used 36 canonical ordered sentences for correct
YES responses as exemplified below. Another 36 sentences forscrambled order were constructed based on these sentences.
The thirdly positioned noun (ACC) is placed in the sentence
initial position in order to make scrambled sentences.
1 guruthuma lamayata paadam kiyaadunneaya
teacher (φNOM, anim) student (DAT, anim)
lesson (φACC, inam) teach (V + PST)
The teacher taught lessons to the student.
2 gayakayaa rasikayanta giitha kiiwaaya
singer (φNOM, anim) listners (DAT, anim)
songs (φACC, inam) sing (V + PST)
The singer sang a song for the audience.
3 ayyaa mata potak dunneaya
elderbrother (φNOM, anim) me (DAT, anim)
book (φACC, inam) give (V + PST)
Elder brother gave me a book.
4 akkaa mallita salli dunnaaya
elder sister (φNOM, anim) younger brother (DAT, anim)money (φACC, inam) give (V + PST)
Elder sister gave money to younger brother.
5 horu apata boru kiiweaya
thieves (φNOM, anim) us (DAT, anim) lie (φACC, inam)
tell (V + PST)
The thieves lied to us.

Copyright © 2012 SciRes.

Appendix D: A Sample List of Potential
Sentences Used in Experiment 4
Experiment 4 used 24 canonical ordered sentences for correct
YES responses as exemplified below. Based on these sentences,another 24 sentences were constructed for the scrambled ordersentences. The secondly positioned noun (NOM) is placed in
the sentences initial position in order to make scrambled ordersentences.
1 nangita piinanna hekiyāwaketha
younger sister (DAT, anim) swim (φNOM, inam) can (V + PRE)
Younger sister can swim.
2 amālita chitraandinna hekiyāwaketha
Amali (DAT, anim) art + draw (φNOM, inam) can (V + PRE)
Amali can draw pictures.
3 chiitata duwanna hekiyāwaketha
cheetah (DAT, anim) run (φNOM, inam) can (V + PRE)
The cheetah can run.
4 ajithta criketgahanna hekiyāwaketha
Ajith (DAT, anim) cricket+play (φNOM, inam)can (V + PRE)
Ajith can play cricket.
5 sangiithata natanna hekiyāwaketha
Sangiitha (DAT, anim) dance (φNOM, inam) can (V + PRE)
Sangiitha can dance.

33