Language complexity: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 09:49, 25 March 2022

Latest revision as of 20:17, 10 August 2025

(10 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|Concept in linguistics}}

'''Language complexity''' is a topic in [[linguistics]] which can be divided into several sub-topics such as [[Phonology|phonological]], [[Morphology (linguistics)|morphological]], [[Syntax|syntactic]], and [[Semantics|semantic]] complexity.<ref name="Miestamo2008">{{cite book |last1=Miestamo |first1=Matti |first2=Kaius |last2=Sinnemäki |first3=Fred |last3=Karlsson (eds.) |title=Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change |volume=94 |___location=Amsterdam |publisher=[[John Benjamins]] |pages=356 |year=2008 |doi=10.1075/slcs.94 |series=Studies in Language Companion Series |isbn=978 -90 -272 -3104 -8 }}</ref><ref name="Wurzel2001">{{cite journal |last1=Wurzel |first1=Wolfgang Ullrich |title=Creoles, complexity, and linguistic change (Source does not exist ) |journal=Linguistic Typology |volume=5 |issue=2/3 |pages=377–387 |year=2001 |issn =1430-0532 }}</ref> The subject also carries importance for [[language evolution]].<ref name="Sampson2009">{{cite book |editor1-last=Sampson |editor1-first=Geoffrey |editor1-link=Geoffrey Sampson |editor2-last=Gil |editor2-first=David |editor2-link=David Gil (linguist) |editor3-last=Trudgill |editor3-first=Peter |editor3-link=Peter Trudgill |date=2009 |title=Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable |series=Studies in the Evolution of Language |volume=13 |___location=Oxford; New York |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |isbn=9780199545216 |oclc=227962299}}</ref>

Language complexity has been studied less than many other traditional fields of linguistics. While the [[Consensus decision-making|consensus]] is turning towards recognizing that complexity is a suitable research area, a central focus has been on [[Methodology of science|methodological]] choices. Some languages, particularly [[pidgin]]s and [[Creole language|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.<ref name="Joseph2012">{{cite journal |last1=Joseph |first1=John E. |first2=Frederick J. |last2=Newmeyer |author-link2=Frederick Newmeyer |title='All Languages Are Equally Complex': The rise and fall of a consensus |journal=Historiographia Linguistica |volume=39 |issue=3 |pages=341–368 |year=2012 |doi=10.1075/hl.39.2-3.08jos }}</ref>

== History ==

Throughout the 19th century, differential complexity was taken for granted. The classical languages [[Latin]] and [[Greek language|Ancient Greek]], as well as [[Sanskrit]], were considered to possess qualities which could be achieved by the rising European [[national language]]s 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.<ref name="Joseph2012" /><ref>{{Cite book|lastlast1=Arkadiev|firstfirst1=Peter|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1197563838|title=The complexities of morphology|last2=Gardani|first2=Francesco|year=2020|isbn=978-0-19-260551-1|___location=Oxford|pages=1–2|oclc=1197563838}}</ref> On the other hand, [[Karl Wilhelm Friedrich Schlegel|Friedrich Schlegel]] noted that some nations "which appear to be at the very lowest grade of intellectual culture", such as [[Basque language|Basque]], [[Sámi languages|Sámi]] and some [[native American languages]], possess a striking degree of elaborateness.<ref name="Joseph2012" />

=== Equal complexity hypothesis ===

{{POV section|date=July 2021}}During the 20th century, linguists and [[Anthropology|anthropologists]] adopted a [[standpointStandpoint theory|standpoint]] that would reject any [[Nationalism|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]].<ref>{{Cite Withinjournal |last1=Joseph |first1=John E. |last2=Newmeyer |first2=Frederick J. |date=2012-01-01 |title='All Languages Are Equally Complex': The rise and fall of a yearconsensus |url=https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/hl.39.2-3.08jos |journal=Historiographia Linguistica |language=en |volume=39 |issue=2–3 |pages=341–368 |doi=10.1075/hl.39.2-3.08jos |issn=0302-5160|url-access=subscription }}</ref> 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 same1971 ideaedition foundof its[[Guinness wayBook of World Records]] featured [[Saramaccan language|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.<ref name="Arends2001">{{cite journal |last1=Arends |first1=Jacques |title=Simple grammars, complex languages |journal=Linguistic Typology |volume=5 |issue=2/3 |pages=180–182 |year=2001 |issn =1430-0532 }}</ref> 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. [[EncyclopædiaDavid BritannicaCrystal]], 1987:

{{Quote|text=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).<ref name="McWhorter2001">{{cite journal |last1=McWhorter |first1=John H. |title=The world's simplest grammars are creole grammars |journal=Linguistic Typology |volume=5 |issue=2/3 |pages=125–166 |year=2001 |issn =1430-0532 |doi=10.1515/lity.2001.001 |s2cid=16297093 }}</ref> }}

{{Quote|text=All languages of today are equally complex(.) -- There are no 'primitive' languages, but all languages seem to be equally old and equally developed.<ref name="Joseph2012" />}}

In 2001 [[creolistics|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.<ref name="McWhorter2001" /> 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 [[logic|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 possession|inalienable possessive]] marking, [[switch-reference]] marking, syntactic asymmetries between [[Matrix clause|matrix]] and [[Subordination (linguistics)|subordinate clauses]], [[grammatical gender]], and other secondary features which are most typically absent in creoles.<ref name="McWhorter2001" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=McElvenny |first=James |date=2021 |title=Language Complexity in Historical Perspective: The Enduring Tropes of Natural Growth and Abnormal Contact |journal=Frontiers in Communication |volume=6 |doi=10.3389/fcomm.2021.621712 |issn=2297-900X|doi-access=free }}</ref>

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 language|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.<ref name="Arends2001">{{cite journal |last1=Arends |first1=Jacques |title=Simple grammars, complex languages |journal=Linguistic Typology |volume=5 |issue=2/3 |pages=180–182 |year=2001 |issn =1430-0532 }}</ref> 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:

{{Quote|text=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).<ref name="McWhorter2001">{{cite journal |last1=McWhorter |first1=John H. |title=The world's simplest grammars are creole grammars |journal=Linguistic Typology |volume=5 |issue=2/3 |pages=125–166 |year=2001 |issn =1430-0532 |doi=10.1515/lity.2001.001 }}</ref> }}

During the years following McWhorter's article, several books and dozens of articles were published on the topic.<ref name=Newmeyer2014>{{cite book |editor1-last=Newmeyer |editor1-first=Frederick J. |editor1-link=Frederick Newmeyer |editor2-last=Preston |editor2-first=Laurel B. |date=2014 |title=Measuring Grammatical Complexity |series=Oxford Linguistics |___location=Oxford; New York |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |isbn=9780199685301 |oclc=869852316 |doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685301.001.0001}}</ref>{{Page needed|date=December 2016}} As to date, there have been research projects on language complexity, and several workshops for researchers have been organised by various universities.<ref name="Miestamo2008" /> Among linguists who study this, there is still no universally accepted consensus on this issue.

In 2001 the compensation hypothesis was eventually refuted by the [[creolistics|creolist]] [[John McWhorter]] who pointed out the absurdity of the idea that, as languages change, each would have to include a mechanism that calibrates 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.<ref name="McWhorter2001" />

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 [[logic|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 possession|inalienable possessive]] marking, [[switch-reference]] marking, syntactic asymmetries between [[Matrix clause|matrix]] and [[Subordination (linguistics)|subordinate clauses]], [[grammatical gender]], and other secondary features which are most typically absent in creoles.<ref name="McWhorter2001" />

During the years following McWhorter's article, several books and dozens of articles were published on the topic.<ref name=Newmeyer2014>{{cite book |editor1-last=Newmeyer |editor1-first=Frederick J. |editor1-link=Frederick Newmeyer |editor2-last=Preston |editor2-first=Laurel B. |date=2014 |title=Measuring Grammatical Complexity |series=Oxford Linguistics |___location=Oxford; New York |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |isbn=9780199685301 |oclc=869852316 |doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685301.001.0001}}</ref>{{Page needed|date=December 2016}} As to date, there have been research projects on language complexity, and several workshops for researchers have been organised by various universities.<ref name="Miestamo2008" />

== Complexity metrics ==

Line 39 ⟶ 35:

==Bibliography==

{{Refbegin}}

* {{cite book |editor1-last=Di Garbo |editor1-first=Francesca |editor2-last=Olsson |editor2-first=Bruno |editor3-last=Wälchli |editor3-first=Bernhard |date=2019 |title=Grammatical Gender and Linguistic Complexity, Volume 1: General Issues and Specific Studies |series=Studies in Diversity Linguistics |volume=26 |___location=Berlin |publisher=Language Science Press |isbn=978-3-96110-179-5 |doi=10.5281/zenodo.3446224 |doi-access=free |oclc=1150166021 |url=https://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/223|last1=Di Garbo |first1=Francesca |last2=Olsson |first2=Bruno |last3=Wälchli |first3=Bernhard }}

* {{cite book |editor1-last=Di Garbo |editor1-first=Francesca |editor2-last=Olsson |editor2-first=Bruno |editor3-last=Wälchli |editor3-first=Bernhard |date=2019 |title=Grammatical Gender and Linguistic Complexity, Volume 2: World-Wide Comparative Studies |series=Studies in Diversity Linguistics |volume=27 |___location=Berlin |publisher=Language Science Press |isbn=978-3-96110-181-8 |doi=10.5281/zenodo.3446230 |doi-access=free |oclc=1150195371 |url=https://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/237|last1=Di Garbo |first1=Francesca |last2=Olsson |first2=Bruno |last3=Wälchli |first3=Bernhard }}

* {{cite book |last=Miestamo |first=Matti |title=Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change |publisher=John Benjamins Publishing Company |___location=Amsterdam |year=2008 |isbn=978-90-272-3104-8 }}

* {{cite book |last=Ristad |first=Eric |title=The Language Complexity Game |publisher=MIT Press |___location=Cambridge |year=1993 |isbn=978-0-262-18147-1 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/languagecomplexi00rist }}