fbpx
Wikipedia

Language complexity

January 27, 2024

Language complexity is a topic in linguistics which can be divided into several sub-topics such as phonological, morphological, syntactic, and semantic complexity.[1][2] The subject also carries importance for language evolution.[3]

Language complexity has been studied less than many other traditional fields of linguistics. While the consensus is turning towards recognizing that complexity is a suitable research area, a central focus has been on methodological choices. Some languages, particularly pidgins and creoles, are considered simpler than most other languages, but there is no direct ranking, and no universal method of measurement although several possibilities are now proposed within different schools of analysis.[4]

History edit

Throughout the 19th century, differential complexity was taken for granted. The classical languages Latin and Greek, as well as Sanskrit, were considered to possess qualities which could be achieved by the rising European national languages only through an elaboration that would give them the necessary structural and lexical complexity that would meet the requirements of an advanced civilization. At the same time, languages described as 'primitive' were naturally considered to reflect the simplicity of their speakers.[4][5] On the other hand, Friedrich Schlegel noted that some nations "which appear to be at the very lowest grade of intellectual culture", such as Basque, Sámi and some native American languages, possess a striking degree of elaborateness.[4]

Equal complexity hypothesis edit

During the 20th century, linguists and anthropologists adopted a standpoint that would reject any nationalist ideas about superiority of the languages of establishment. The first known quote that puts forward the idea that all languages are equally complex comes from Rulon S. Wells III, 1954, who attributes it to Charles F. Hockett.[6] While laymen never ceased to consider certain languages as simple and others as complex, such a view was erased from official contexts. For instance, the 1971 edition of Guinness Book of World Records featured Saramaccan, a creole language, as "the world's least complex language". According to linguists, this claim was "not founded on any serious evidence", and it was removed from later editions.[7] Apparent complexity differences in certain areas were explained with a balancing force by which the simplicity in one area would be compensated with the complexity of another; e.g. David Crystal, 1987:

All languages have a complex grammar: there may be relative simplicity in one respect (e.g., no word-endings), but there seems always to be relative complexity in another (e.g., word-position).[8]

In 2001 creolist John McWhorter argued against the compensation hypothesis. McWhorter contended that it would be absurd if, as languages change, each had a mechanism that calibrated it according to the complexity of all the other 6,000 or so languages around the world. He underscored that linguistics has no knowledge of any such mechanism.[8] Revisiting the idea of differential complexity, McWhorter argued that it is indeed creole languages, such as Saramaccan, that are structurally "much simpler than all but very few older languages". In McWhorter's notion this is not problematic in terms of the equality of creole languages because simpler structures convey logical meanings in the most straightforward manner, while increased language complexity is largely a question of features which may not add much to the functionality, or improve usefulness, of the language. Examples of such features are inalienable possessive marking, switch-reference marking, syntactic asymmetries between matrix and subordinate clauses, grammatical gender, and other secondary features which are most typically absent in creoles.[8] McWhorter's notion that "unnatural" language contact in pidgins, creoles and other contact varieties inevitably destroys "natural" accretions in complexity perhaps represents a recapitulation of 19th-century ideas about the relationship between language contact and complexity.[9]

During the years following McWhorter's article, several books and dozens of articles were published on the topic.[10][page needed] As to date, there have been research projects on language complexity, and several workshops for researchers have been organised by various universities.[1] Among linguists who study this, there is still no universally accepted consensus on this issue.

Complexity metrics edit

At a general level, language complexity can be characterized as the number and variety of elements, and the elaborateness of their interrelational structure.[11][12] This general characterisation can be broken down into sub-areas:

  • Syntagmatic complexity: number of parts, such as word length in terms of phonemes, syllables etc.
  • Paradigmatic complexity: variety of parts, such as phoneme inventory size, number of distinctions in a grammatical category, e.g. aspect
  • Organizational complexity: e.g. ways of arranging components, phonotactic restrictions, variety of word orders.
  • Hierarchic complexity: e.g. recursion, lexical–semantic hierarchies.[12]

Measuring complexity is considered difficult, and the comparison of whole natural languages as a daunting task. On a more detailed level, it is possible to demonstrate that some structures are more complex than others. Phonology and morphology are areas where such comparisons have traditionally been made. For instance, linguistics has tools for the assessment of the phonological system of any given language. As for the study of syntactic complexity, grammatical rules have been proposed as a basis,[8] but generative frameworks, such as the minimalist program and the Simpler Syntax framework, have been less successful in defining complexity and its predictions than non-formal ways of description.[13][page needed]

Many researchers suggest that several different concepts may be needed when approaching complexity: entropy, size, description length, effective complexity, information, connectivity, irreducibility, low probability, syntactic depth etc. Research suggests that while methodological choices affect the results, even rather crude analytic tools may provide a feasible starting point for measuring grammatical complexity.[12]

Computational tools edit

References edit

  1. ^ a b Miestamo, Matti; Sinnemäki, Kaius; Karlsson (eds.), Fred (2008). Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change. Studies in Language Companion Series. Vol. 94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. p. 356. doi:10.1075/slcs.94. ISBN 978-90-272-3104-8. {{cite book}}: |last3= has generic name (help)
  2. ^ Wurzel, Wolfgang Ullrich (2001). "Creoles, complexity, and linguistic change". Linguistic Typology. 5 (2/3): 377–387. ISSN 1430-0532.
  3. ^ Sampson, Geoffrey; Gil, David; Trudgill, Peter, eds. (2009). Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Studies in the Evolution of Language. Vol. 13. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199545216. OCLC 227962299.
  4. ^ a b c Joseph, John E.; Newmeyer, Frederick J. (2012). "'All Languages Are Equally Complex': The rise and fall of a consensus". Historiographia Linguistica. 39 (3): 341–368. doi:10.1075/hl.39.2-3.08jos.
  5. ^ Arkadiev, Peter; Gardani, Francesco (2020). The complexities of morphology. Oxford. pp. 1–2. ISBN 978-0-19-260551-1. OCLC 1197563838.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  6. ^ Joseph, John E.; Newmeyer, Frederick J. (2012-01-01). "'All Languages Are Equally Complex': The rise and fall of a consensus". Historiographia Linguistica. 39 (2–3): 341–368. doi:10.1075/hl.39.2-3.08jos. ISSN 0302-5160.
  7. ^ Arends, Jacques (2001). "Simple grammars, complex languages". Linguistic Typology. 5 (2/3): 180–182. ISSN 1430-0532.
  8. ^ a b c d McWhorter, John H. (2001). "The world's simplest grammars are creole grammars". Linguistic Typology. 5 (2/3): 125–166. doi:10.1515/lity.2001.001. ISSN 1430-0532. S2CID 16297093.
  9. ^ McElvenny, James (2021). "Language Complexity in Historical Perspective: The Enduring Tropes of Natural Growth and Abnormal Contact". Frontiers in Communication. 6. doi:10.3389/fcomm.2021.621712. ISSN 2297-900X.
  10. ^ Newmeyer, Frederick J.; Preston, Laurel B., eds. (2014). Measuring Grammatical Complexity. Oxford Linguistics. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685301.001.0001. ISBN 9780199685301. OCLC 869852316.
  11. ^ Rescher, Nicholas (1998). Complexity: A Philosophical Overview. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. ISBN 978-1560003779.
  12. ^ a b c Sinnemäki, Kaius (2011). Language universals and linguistic complexity: Three case studies in core argument marking (Thesis). University of Helsinki. Retrieved 2016-04-28.
  13. ^ Hawkins, John A. (2014). "Major contributions from formal linguistics to the complexity debate". In Newmeyer, Frederick J.; Preston, Laurel B. (eds.). Measuring Grammatical Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 14–36. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685301.003.0002. ISBN 9780199685301.

Bibliography edit

  • Di Garbo, Francesca; Olsson, Bruno; Wälchli, Bernhard (2019). Di Garbo, Francesca; Olsson, Bruno; Wälchli, Bernhard (eds.). Grammatical Gender and Linguistic Complexity, Volume 1: General Issues and Specific Studies. Studies in Diversity Linguistics. Vol. 26. Berlin: Language Science Press. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3446224. ISBN 978-3-96110-179-5. OCLC 1150166021.
  • Di Garbo, Francesca; Olsson, Bruno; Wälchli, Bernhard (2019). Di Garbo, Francesca; Olsson, Bruno; Wälchli, Bernhard (eds.). Grammatical Gender and Linguistic Complexity, Volume 2: World-Wide Comparative Studies. Studies in Diversity Linguistics. Vol. 27. Berlin: Language Science Press. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3446230. ISBN 978-3-96110-181-8. OCLC 1150195371.
  • Miestamo, Matti (2008). Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. ISBN 978-90-272-3104-8.
  • Ristad, Eric (1993). The Language Complexity Game. Cambridge: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-18147-1.
  • Sweet, Henry (1899). The Practical Study of Languages; A Guide for Teachers and Learners. London: J. M. Dent & Co. Retrieved 2011-03-15.
  • Sampson, Geoffrey; Gil, David; Trudgill, Peter, eds. (2009). Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Studies in the Evolution of Language. Vol. 13. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199545216. OCLC 227962299.

January 27, 2024
language, complexity, topic, linguistics, which, divided, into, several, topics, such, phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic, complexity, subject, also, carries, importance, language, evolution, been, studied, less, than, many, other, traditional, f. Language complexity is a topic in linguistics which can be divided into several sub topics such as phonological morphological syntactic and semantic complexity 1 2 The subject also carries importance for language evolution 3 Language complexity has been studied less than many other traditional fields of linguistics While the consensus is turning towards recognizing that complexity is a suitable research area a central focus has been on methodological choices Some languages particularly pidgins and creoles are considered simpler than most other languages but there is no direct ranking and no universal method of measurement although several possibilities are now proposed within different schools of analysis 4 Contents 1 History 1 1 Equal complexity hypothesis 2 Complexity metrics 3 Computational tools 4 References 5 BibliographyHistory editThroughout the 19th century differential complexity was taken for granted The classical languages Latin and Greek as well as Sanskrit were considered to possess qualities which could be achieved by the rising European national languages only through an elaboration that would give them the necessary structural and lexical complexity that would meet the requirements of an advanced civilization At the same time languages described as primitive were naturally considered to reflect the simplicity of their speakers 4 5 On the other hand Friedrich Schlegel noted that some nations which appear to be at the very lowest grade of intellectual culture such as Basque Sami and some native American languages possess a striking degree of elaborateness 4 Equal complexity hypothesis edit The neutrality of this section is disputed Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met July 2021 Learn how and when to remove this template message During the 20th century linguists and anthropologists adopted a standpoint that would reject any nationalist ideas about superiority of the languages of establishment The first known quote that puts forward the idea that all languages are equally complex comes from Rulon S Wells III 1954 who attributes it to Charles F Hockett 6 While laymen never ceased to consider certain languages as simple and others as complex such a view was erased from official contexts For instance the 1971 edition of Guinness Book of World Records featured Saramaccan a creole language as the world s least complex language According to linguists this claim was not founded on any serious evidence and it was removed from later editions 7 Apparent complexity differences in certain areas were explained with a balancing force by which the simplicity in one area would be compensated with the complexity of another e g David Crystal 1987 All languages have a complex grammar there may be relative simplicity in one respect e g no word endings but there seems always to be relative complexity in another e g word position 8 In 2001 creolist John McWhorter argued against the compensation hypothesis McWhorter contended that it would be absurd if as languages change each had a mechanism that calibrated it according to the complexity of all the other 6 000 or so languages around the world He underscored that linguistics has no knowledge of any such mechanism 8 Revisiting the idea of differential complexity McWhorter argued that it is indeed creole languages such as Saramaccan that are structurally much simpler than all but very few older languages In McWhorter s notion this is not problematic in terms of the equality of creole languages because simpler structures convey logical meanings in the most straightforward manner while increased language complexity is largely a question of features which may not add much to the functionality or improve usefulness of the language Examples of such features are inalienable possessive marking switch reference marking syntactic asymmetries between matrix and subordinate clauses grammatical gender and other secondary features which are most typically absent in creoles 8 McWhorter s notion that unnatural language contact in pidgins creoles and other contact varieties inevitably destroys natural accretions in complexity perhaps represents a recapitulation of 19th century ideas about the relationship between language contact and complexity 9 During the years following McWhorter s article several books and dozens of articles were published on the topic 10 page needed As to date there have been research projects on language complexity and several workshops for researchers have been organised by various universities 1 Among linguists who study this there is still no universally accepted consensus on this issue Complexity metrics editAt a general level language complexity can be characterized as the number and variety of elements and the elaborateness of their interrelational structure 11 12 This general characterisation can be broken down into sub areas Syntagmatic complexity number of parts such as word length in terms of phonemes syllables etc Paradigmatic complexity variety of parts such as phoneme inventory size number of distinctions in a grammatical category e g aspect Organizational complexity e g ways of arranging components phonotactic restrictions variety of word orders Hierarchic complexity e g recursion lexical semantic hierarchies 12 Measuring complexity is considered difficult and the comparison of whole natural languages as a daunting task On a more detailed level it is possible to demonstrate that some structures are more complex than others Phonology and morphology are areas where such comparisons have traditionally been made For instance linguistics has tools for the assessment of the phonological system of any given language As for the study of syntactic complexity grammatical rules have been proposed as a basis 8 but generative frameworks such as the minimalist program and the Simpler Syntax framework have been less successful in defining complexity and its predictions than non formal ways of description 13 page needed Many researchers suggest that several different concepts may be needed when approaching complexity entropy size description length effective complexity information connectivity irreducibility low probability syntactic depth etc Research suggests that while methodological choices affect the results even rather crude analytic tools may provide a feasible starting point for measuring grammatical complexity 12 Computational tools editCoh Metrix L2 Syntactic Complexity AnalyzerReferences edit a b Miestamo Matti Sinnemaki Kaius Karlsson eds Fred 2008 Language Complexity Typology Contact Change Studies in Language Companion Series Vol 94 Amsterdam John Benjamins p 356 doi 10 1075 slcs 94 ISBN 978 90 272 3104 8 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a last3 has generic name help Wurzel Wolfgang Ullrich 2001 Creoles complexity and linguistic change Linguistic Typology 5 2 3 377 387 ISSN 1430 0532 Sampson Geoffrey Gil David Trudgill Peter eds 2009 Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable Studies in the Evolution of Language Vol 13 Oxford New York Oxford University Press ISBN 9780199545216 OCLC 227962299 a b c Joseph John E Newmeyer Frederick J 2012 All Languages Are Equally Complex The rise and fall of a consensus Historiographia Linguistica 39 3 341 368 doi 10 1075 hl 39 2 3 08jos Arkadiev Peter Gardani Francesco 2020 The complexities of morphology Oxford pp 1 2 ISBN 978 0 19 260551 1 OCLC 1197563838 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint location missing publisher link Joseph John E Newmeyer Frederick J 2012 01 01 All Languages Are Equally Complex The rise and fall of a consensus Historiographia Linguistica 39 2 3 341 368 doi 10 1075 hl 39 2 3 08jos ISSN 0302 5160 Arends Jacques 2001 Simple grammars complex languages Linguistic Typology 5 2 3 180 182 ISSN 1430 0532 a b c d McWhorter John H 2001 The world s simplest grammars are creole grammars Linguistic Typology 5 2 3 125 166 doi 10 1515 lity 2001 001 ISSN 1430 0532 S2CID 16297093 McElvenny James 2021 Language Complexity in Historical Perspective The Enduring Tropes of Natural Growth and Abnormal Contact Frontiers in Communication 6 doi 10 3389 fcomm 2021 621712 ISSN 2297 900X Newmeyer Frederick J Preston Laurel B eds 2014 Measuring Grammatical Complexity Oxford Linguistics Oxford New York Oxford University Press doi 10 1093 acprof oso 9780199685301 001 0001 ISBN 9780199685301 OCLC 869852316 Rescher Nicholas 1998 Complexity A Philosophical Overview New Brunswick Transaction Publishers ISBN 978 1560003779 a b c Sinnemaki Kaius 2011 Language universals and linguistic complexity Three case studies in core argument marking Thesis University of Helsinki Retrieved 2016 04 28 Hawkins John A 2014 Major contributions from formal linguistics to the complexity debate In Newmeyer Frederick J Preston Laurel B eds Measuring Grammatical Complexity Oxford Oxford University Press pp 14 36 doi 10 1093 acprof oso 9780199685301 003 0002 ISBN 9780199685301 Bibliography editDi Garbo Francesca Olsson Bruno Walchli Bernhard 2019 Di Garbo Francesca Olsson Bruno Walchli Bernhard eds Grammatical Gender and Linguistic Complexity Volume 1 General Issues and Specific Studies Studies in Diversity Linguistics Vol 26 Berlin Language Science Press doi 10 5281 zenodo 3446224 ISBN 978 3 96110 179 5 OCLC 1150166021 Di Garbo Francesca Olsson Bruno Walchli Bernhard 2019 Di Garbo Francesca Olsson Bruno Walchli Bernhard eds Grammatical Gender and Linguistic Complexity Volume 2 World Wide Comparative Studies Studies in Diversity Linguistics Vol 27 Berlin Language Science Press doi 10 5281 zenodo 3446230 ISBN 978 3 96110 181 8 OCLC 1150195371 Miestamo Matti 2008 Language Complexity Typology Contact Change Amsterdam John Benjamins Publishing Company ISBN 978 90 272 3104 8 Ristad Eric 1993 The Language Complexity Game Cambridge MIT Press ISBN 978 0 262 18147 1 Sweet Henry 1899 The Practical Study of Languages A Guide for Teachers and Learners London J M Dent amp Co Retrieved 2011 03 15 Sampson Geoffrey Gil David Trudgill Peter eds 2009 Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable Studies in the Evolution of Language Vol 13 Oxford New York Oxford University Press ISBN 9780199545216 OCLC 227962299 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Language complexity amp oldid 1194967257, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.