Syntactic Typology Features Catalog

A WALS-style reference catalog of cross-linguistic grammatical features. Each row gives the feature, its values, attested languages exemplifying each value, and the standard citations (Greenberg 1963; Comrie 1981; Nichols 1986; Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994; Dryer 2007; Bickel & Nichols 2007; WALS Online — Dryer & Haspelmath 2013). Use this when comparing structural properties across the world’s languages or specifying a typological profile.


I. Basic Constituent Order

FeatureValueAttested languagesApproximate shareCitations
Word order — basicSOV (subject-object-verb)Japanese, Korean, Turkish, Hindi-Urdu, Tamil, Persian, Quechua, Burmese, Latin (preferred), Pāli~41 % (Dryer 2013, WALS 81A; 565 of 1,377)Greenberg 1963; Dryer 1991
Word order — basicSVOEnglish, French, Mandarin, Indonesian, Swahili, Yoruba, Russian (free but SVO base)~36 %Dryer 2013
Word order — basicVSOClassical Arabic, Welsh, Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Tagalog (predicate-initial), Squamish, Hawaiian~7 %Greenberg 1963
Word order — basicVOSMalagasy, Fijian, Tzotzil~2 %Dryer 2013
Word order — basicOVSHixkaryana (Cariban; Derbyshire 1985); Urarina; Sanumá<1 %Derbyshire 1985 (rare-types claim)
Word order — basicOSVWarao; Nadëb; Tobati<0.5 %Hawkins 1983
Word order — basicNo dominant orderGerman (V2 + free); Russian; Latin~13 %Dryer 2013
Verb positionVerb-final (SOV)Japanese, Korean, Tibetan, Basque, Quechua(subset of above)Dryer 1992 (head-finality)
Verb positionVerb-initial (VSO + VOS)Welsh, Irish, Malagasy, Hawaiian~9 %Carnie 1995
Verb positionVerb-medial (SVO)English, Mandarin, Swahili~36 %(basic order)

II. Morphological Typology

FeatureValueDefinition / exampleAttested languagesCitations
Synthesis indexIsolatingmorpheme:word ratio ~1.0; mostly free morphemesVietnamese, Mandarin, Yoruba, ThaiGreenberg 1960 (index of synthesis)
Synthesis indexMildly synthetic / fusional2–3 morphemes per word; single morpheme expresses multiple categoriesSpanish, French, Russian, Latin, Ancient GreekGreenberg 1960; Sapir 1921 (typology)
Synthesis indexAgglutinativemorpheme:word ~3+; each morpheme expresses one category transparentlyTurkish, Finnish, Hungarian, Swahili, Japanese, Korean, Quechua, MongolianGreenberg 1960
Synthesis indexPolysyntheticmorpheme:word ~4–10+; verbs incorporate argumentsWest Greenlandic (Inuktitut), Mohawk, Chukchi, Nahuatl, Ainu, SoraMithun 1984 (noun incorporation); Baker 1996; Fortescue 1994
Fusion indexExclusively concatenativemorphemes separableTurkish (high)Greenberg 1960
Fusion indexFusional / non-concatenativemorphemes inseparable; one form codes severalRussian домами “with houses” instrumental.plural in one suffix; Arabic Semitic templates ktbkataba, kitāb, kātibPlank 1999
Head-marking vs dependent-markingHead-markinggrammatical relations marked on head (verb / noun)Navajo, Mayan, Mohawk, LakhotaNichols 1986
Head-marking vs dependent-markingDependent-markingrelations marked on dependents (case on nouns)Latin, Russian, Turkish, Korean, JapaneseNichols 1986
Head-marking vs dependent-markingDouble-markingbothBelhare; Maricopa; many CaucasianNichols 1992
Head-marking vs dependent-markingNo (zero) markingVietnamese, Mandarin (some clause types)Nichols 1992

III. Alignment Systems

AlignmentDefinitionAttested languagesCitations
Nominative–accusativeS + A (intransitive subj + transitive subj) pattern alike; O differentEnglish, French, Russian, Mandarin, Japanese, Swahili, LatinComrie 1978; Dixon 1979
Ergative–absolutiveS + O pattern alike (absolutive); A different (ergative)Basque, Dyirbal, Yup’ik, most Mayan, Hindi-Urdu (split — perfective), Georgian (split — aorist), InuktitutDixon 1979 (Ergativity, 1994); Comrie 1978
TripartiteS, A, O all distinctNez Perce; Wangkumara; YukultaComrie 1981
Split-S / active-stativeSome intransitive S pattern with A, others with O (based on agentivity / dynamicity)Lakhota (Dakota), Acehnese, Tabassaran, Guarani, Eastern PomoMithun 1991 (Active/Agentive); Dixon 1994
Austronesian (symmetrical voice)Multiple voices; “actor voice” + “patient voice” + “locative voice”; no single ergative or accusativeTagalog, Cebuano, Malagasy, Atayal, SeediqFoley & Van Valin 1984; Himmelmann 2005
Direct–inverseAgent + patient ranked on a hierarchy; verb marks whether direction matchesAlgonquian (Cree, Plains Cree); Nuu-chah-nulthDeLancey 1981; Bloomfield 1946
Split ergativityErgative alignment in some contexts (e.g. perfective, 3rd-person), accusative in othersHindi-Urdu (ergative in perfective only); Dyirbal (NPs split by person); GeorgianDixon 1979, 1994; Silverstein 1976 (hierarchy)

IV. Case Marking and Grammatical Relations

FeatureValueAttested languagesCitations
Number of cases0English (vestigial in pronouns); Mandarin; VietnameseWALS 49A
Number of cases2–4Modern Greek, Romanian, German (4)WALS 49A
Number of cases5–7Russian (6), Latin (6), Polish (7)WALS 49A
Number of cases8–9Sanskrit (8), Turkish (6 plus dative + locative + ablative = ~8)WALS 49A
Number of cases10+Finnish (15), Hungarian (18), Tabasaran (claimed 46+ but contested), Tsez (~64 spatial cases)Comrie & Polinsky 1998; Daniel & Ganenkov 2009
Relativization strategy (Keenan-Comrie accessibility hierarchy)SubjectAll languages permitKeenan & Comrie 1977
Relativization strategyDirect objectEnglish (gap); Hindi (correlative)Keenan & Comrie 1977
Relativization strategyIndirect objectEnglish (with pied-piping or stranding); Malagasy failsKeenan & Comrie 1977
Relativization strategyObliqueEnglish (with preposition)Keenan & Comrie 1977
Relativization strategyGenitiveEnglish (whose); Tagalog needs voice-shiftingKeenan & Comrie 1977
Relativization strategyObject of comparisonFew languages permitKeenan & Comrie 1977
Gap strategyUse of resumptive pronounHebrew, Arabic, Welsh in oblique positionsComrie 1989
Gap strategyRelative pronounEnglish, German, RussianComrie 1989
Gap strategyInternally-headed relativeLakhota, Quechua, Korean, Japanese (some)Cole 1987
Gap strategyCorrelativeHindi-Urdu; Sanskrit; MarathiBhatt 2003

V. Tense, Aspect, Mood, Evidentiality

FeatureValueLanguagesCitations
TenseMarked obligatorilyEnglish, French, Spanish (past/non-past + past/present/future)Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994
TenseUnmarked / aspect-prominentMandarin (no overt tense), Indonesian, Vietnamese, WolofLin 2006 (Mandarin); Comrie 1985
Aspect — grammaticalizedImperfective/perfectiveRussian; French (passé composé vs imparfait); Mandarin -le (perfective), -zhe (durative)Comrie 1976 (Aspect)
Aspect — grammaticalizedProgressiveEnglish be V-ing; Spanish estar V-iendoBybee et al. 1994
Aspect — grammaticalizedPerfectEnglish have V-en; German haben/sein + V-enComrie 1976
Mood / modality — grammaticalizedIndicative / subjunctive / imperativeSpanish (rich subjunctive); FrenchBybee et al. 1994
Mood / modality — grammaticalizedOptative / hortative / desiderativeSanskrit; Turkish; Yup’ikPalmer 2001
Mood / modality — grammaticalizedConditional / counterfactualFrench -rais; Spanish -ríaIatridou 2000
Evidentiality — grammaticalizedTwo-term (direct vs indirect/reportative)Turkish -DI vs -mIş; Estonian; modern PersianAikhenvald 2004
Evidentiality — grammaticalizedThree-term (visual/inferred/reported)Tariana (Arawakan); Cherokee; Western ApacheAikhenvald 2004
Evidentiality — grammaticalizedFour+ terms (visual/non-visual sensory/inferred/reported)Tariana (5-term); Tucano; Cusco QuechuaAikhenvald 2004 (Evidentiality)
Evidentiality — grammaticalizedBulgarian “renarrative” / Macedonian / Albanian “admirative”Bulgarian; Macedonian; AlbanianFriedman 1986
Evidentiality — grammaticalizedTibetan-Lhasa verb-final evidential particlesTibetan; Newari; SherpaDeLancey 1986; Tournadre 1996

VI. Noun Phrase Internal Order

Greenberg’s universals (1963) connect basic word order to NP internal order.

FeatureValueLanguagesCitations
Genitive positionGen-NJapanese (no); Korean; Turkish; HindiGreenberg 1963 universal 2 (associated with verb-final)
Genitive positionN-GenFrench le livre de Jean; Italian; WelshGreenberg 1963 (associated with verb-initial / verb-medial)
Adjective positionAdj-NEnglish; German; Russian; MandarinDryer 1992
Adjective positionN-AdjFrench; Spanish (mostly); Welsh; Indonesian; YorubaDryer 1992
Numeral positionNum-NEnglish three books; Mandarin 三本书Greenberg 1963
Numeral positionN-NumWelsh; Indonesian buku tiga; YucatecDryer 2013 (WALS 89A)
Demonstrative positionDem-NEnglish; Japanese; Russian; MandarinDryer 2013
Demonstrative positionN-DemFrench (with deictic clitic); Indonesian buku itu; Hawaiian; WelshDryer 2013
Adposition typePrepositionsEnglish; French; Spanish; Welsh; Hawaiian; YorubaGreenberg 1963; correlates with VO order
Adposition typePostpositionsJapanese; Korean; Turkish; Hindi-Urdu; Basque; Quechua; FinnishGreenberg 1963; correlates with OV order
Adposition typeInpositions / circumpositionsGerman wegen … willen; some Bantu(minor type)

VII. Pro-drop and Subject Marking

FeatureValueLanguagesCitations
Subject pronounObligatory (non-pro-drop)English; French; German; Mandarin (in clear contexts)Chomsky 1981; Rizzi 1986
Subject pronounOptional (consistent pro-drop)Spanish, Italian, Greek, Polish, Russian, Turkish, Japanese, KoreanRizzi 1986; Huang 1984 (Logical Relations)
Subject pronounRadical pro-drop (no verbal agreement; subject still dropped)Mandarin; Japanese; KoreanHuang 1984; Tomioka 2003
Subject pronounPartial pro-dropHebrew (1st/2nd in past + future only); Brazilian PortugueseHolmberg 2005
Subject expressionVerbal agreement obligatoryLatin; Spanish; Russian; Swahili (subject + object)(broad survey)
Subject expressionNo verbal agreementMandarin; Japanese; Korean(broad survey)

VIII. Other Cross-Linguistic Features

FeatureValueLanguagesCitations
ReduplicationFull reduplicationIndonesian orang “person” → orang-orang “people”; Mandarin kankan “look-look”; TagalogInkelas & Zoll 2005
ReduplicationPartial reduplicationTagalog bili “buy” → bibili “will buy”; Latin do “give” → dedi “gave”Inkelas & Zoll 2005
ReduplicationNoneEnglish (almost); German(broad survey)
Numeral classifiersObligatory before nounMandarin (yi ben shu), Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Thai, Bengali, BurmeseAikhenvald 2000 (Classifiers)
Numeral classifiersNoneEnglish, French, Russian, Arabic, SwahiliAikhenvald 2000
Noun class / genderNoneEnglish (vestigial); Finnish; Hungarian; Turkish; MandarinCorbett 1991 (Gender)
Noun class / gender2 (masculine/feminine)French; Spanish; Hebrew; ArabicCorbett 1991
Noun class / gender3 (m/f/n)Russian; German; Latin; SanskritCorbett 1991
Noun class / gender4+ (semantic noun classes)Swahili (~15), Zulu (~17), Dyirbal (4 — “balan/bayi/balam/bala”), Fula (~25 classes)Corbett 1991
Serial verb constructionsYesAkan; Yoruba; Igbo; Cantonese; Hmong; SrananAikhenvald & Dixon 2006
Serial verb constructionsNoEnglish; Russian; Arabic(Aikhenvald & Dixon 2006)
Valency-changing — causativeMorphologicalTurkish -DIr-; Japanese -sase-; Swahili -ish-/-y-Comrie 1985; Dixon 2000
Valency-changing — causativePeriphrasticEnglish make; French faire; Russian zastavit’Dixon 2000
Valency-changing — applicativeYesBantu (Chichewa, Swahili); Mayan; Salish; Indonesian -kanPeterson 2007
Valency-changing — antipassiveYes (typically ergative langs)Dyirbal; West Greenlandic; Mayan; ChukchiPolinsky 2017
Focus markingMorphologicalHungarian (preverbal focus position); Wolof (focus particles); TagalogÉ. Kiss 1998
Focus markingSyntactic onlyEnglish (clefts, prosody)Rooth 1992
Switch referenceYesPomo languages; Choctaw; Eastern Pomo; Amele (PNG); AguarunaHaiman & Munro 1983 (Switch Reference)
Switch referenceNomost Indo-European(broad survey)
Logophoric pronounsYes (referring back to a non-local subject of speech/thought)Ewe; Yoruba; MundangHagège 1974; Clements 1975
Logophoric pronounsNoEnglish; Mandarin (long-distance reflexives instead)Huang & Liu 2001

IX. Verb Agreement

FeatureValueLanguagesCitations
Subject agreementPerson + number on verbSpanish; Russian; Swahili; Hindi-Urdu(broad)
Subject agreementNoneMandarin; Japanese; Vietnamese; Thai(broad)
Object agreementYes (polypersonal)Basque, Georgian, Swahili, Mayan, HungarianAnagnostopoulou 2003
Number of arguments cross-referenced3+ (subj + obj + IO + benefactive …)Mohawk; Chichewa; Sumerian; some Basque dialectsBaker 1996

X. Greenberg’s Universals (selected)

Joseph Greenberg, Some Universals of Grammar (1963). Implicational and absolute universals.

#StatementStatus (Hawkins 1983 critique etc.)
1In declarative sentences with nominal subject + object, the dominant order is one in which the subject precedes the objectAbsolute (with very rare counterexamples like Hixkaryana OVS)
2In languages with prepositions, the genitive almost always follows the governing noun; with postpositions, it almost always precedesStrong implicational
3Languages with dominant VSO order are always prepositionalStrong implicational
4With overwhelmingly greater than chance frequency, languages with normal SOV order are postpositionalStrong implicational; reformulated by Dryer 1992
17With overwhelmingly more than chance frequency, languages with dominant VSO order have adjectives after the nounImplicational
27If a language is exclusively suffixing, it is postpositional; if it is exclusively prefixing, it is prepositionalReformulated by Hawkins 1983
43If a language has gender categories in the noun, it also has gender categories in the pronounAbsolute

Adjacent