Language complexity: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:26, 14 July 2020

Latest revision as of 20:17, 10 August 2025

(30 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|Concept in linguistics}}

{{expert needed|1=Linguistics|date=January 2016}}

'''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>

'''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

| 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

| last1 = Sampson | first1 = Geoffrey

| first2 = David | last2 = Gil

| first3 = Peter | last3 = Trudgill (eds.)

| title = Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable

| ___location = Oxford

| publisher = Oxford University Press

| pages = 328

| year = 2009

| isbn = 9780199545223}}</ref> Although the concept of language complexity is an old one, the current interest has largely emerged since the beginning of the 21st century as it was previously considered problematic in terms of [[political correctness]].<ref name=Newmeyer2014>{{cite book

| last1 = Newmeyer | first1 = Frederick J.

| first2 = Lauren B. | last2 = Preston (eds.)

| title = Measuring Grammatical Complexity

| ___location = Oxford

| publisher = Oxford University Press

| pages =

| year = 2014

| isbn = 9780199685301}}</ref>{{Page needed|date=December 2016}}

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

| 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|last1=Arkadiev|first1=Peter|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" />

[[Charles Darwin|Darwin]] considered the apparent complexity of many non-[[Western countries|Western]] languages as problematic for [[evolution theory]] which in his time held that less advanced people should have less complex languages. Darwin's suggestion was that simplicity and irregularities were the result of extensive [[language contact]] while "the extremely complex and regular construction of many barbarous languages" should be seen as an utmost perfection of the one and same evolutionary process.<ref>{{cite book

| last = Darwin

| first = Charles

| title = The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex

| url = https://archive.org/details/descentmanandse03darwgoog

| publisher = John Murray

| ___location = London

| year = 1871

| oclc = 39301709 }}</ref>

=== 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 Book of World Records]] featured [[Saramaccan language|Saramaccan]], a creole language, as "the world's least complex language". wayAccording 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" />{{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 ==

At a general level, language complexity can be characterized as the number and variety of elements, and the elaborateness of their interrelational structure.<ref name="Rescher1998">{{cite book |last=Rescher |first=Nicholas |authorlink=Nicholas Rescher |title=Complexity: A Philosophical Overview |publisher=[[Transaction Publishers]] |___location=New Brunswick |date=1998 |isbn=978-1560003779 }}</ref><ref name="Sinnemäki2011">{{cite thesis |last=Sinnemäki|first=Kaius|date=2011|title=Language universals and linguistic complexity: Three case studies in core argument marking |publisher=University of Helsinki |url=http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-10-7259-8|access-date=2016-04-28}}</ref> 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.

| last = Rescher

* ''Paradigmatic complexity'': variety of parts, such as phoneme inventory size, number of distinctions in a grammatical category, e.g. aspect

| first = Nicholas

* ''Organizational complexity'': e.g. ways of arranging components, phonotactic restrictions, variety of word orders.

| title = Complexity. A philosophical overview.

* ''Hierarchic complexity'': e.g. recursion, lexical–semantic hierarchies.<ref name="Sinnemäki2011" />

| publisher = Transaction

| ___location = New Brunswick

| date = 1998

| isbn = 978-1560003779 }}</ref><ref name="Sinnemäki2011">{{cite thesis |last= Sinnemäki|first= Kaius|date= 2011|title= Language universals and linguistic complexity : Three case studies in core argument marking |publisher= University of Helsinki |url= http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-10-7259-8|access-date=2016-04-28}}</ref> 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.<ref name="Sinnemäki2011" />

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,<ref name="McWhorter2001" /> but generative frameworks, such as the [[Minimalistminimalist Programprogram]] and [[the Simpler Syntax]] framework, have been less successful in defining complexity and its predictions than non-formal ways of description.<ref name="Hawkins2014">{{Citationcite book |last1=Hawkins |first1=John A. |chapter=Major contributions from formal linguistics to the complexity debate |editor1-last=Newmeyer |editor1-first=Frederick J. |editor1-link=Frederick Newmeyer |editor2=Preston |editor-first2=Laurel B. |title=Measuring Grammatical Complexity |pages=14–36 |isbn=9780199685301 |publisher=Oxford University Press |___location=Oxford |date=2014 |doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685301.003.0002 }}</ref>{{Page needed|date=December 2016}}

| last1 = Hawkins | first1 = John A.

| contribution = Major contributions from formal linguistics to the complexity debate

| editor=Newmeyer |editor-first=Frederick J. |editor2=Preston |editor-first2=Laurel B.

|title=Measuring Grammatical Complexity

| pages = 14–36

|isbn=9780199685301

| publisher = University Press

| ___location = Oxford

| date = 2014

| doi = 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685301.003.0002

}}</ref>{{Page needed|date=December 2016}}

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.<ref name="Sinnemäki2011" />

==A comparison==

{{Contains special characters|IPA|section}}

Guy (1994)<ref>Jacques Guy, [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/sci.lang/KEHWJV90fgg/mSswvn0Z--MJ "sci.lang FAQ"], [[message-ID]]: 3bjmtc$[e-mail], [[sci.lang]], 1994, December 1</ref> illustrates the point{{which|date=January 2016}} by comparing two [[Santo languages]] he has worked on that are about as closely related as [[French language|French]] and [[Spanish language|Spanish]], [[Tolomako language|Tolomako]] and [[Sakao language|Sakao]], both spoken in the village of [[Port Olry]], [[Vanuatu]]. Because these languages are very similar to each other, and equally distant from English, he holds that neither is inherently biased as being seen as more easy or difficult by an English speaker (see [[difficulty of learning languages]]).

===Phonology===

Sakao has more, and more difficult, vowel distinctions than Tolomako:

{|

|- valign=top

|

{| class="wikitable IPA"

|+ Tolomako vowels

! !!front<br>unrounded !! back<br>rounded

|- align=center

!close

| i || u

|- align=center

! mid

| e || o

|- align=center

! open

| colspan=2| a

|}

|

{| class="wikitable IPA"

|+ Sakao vowels (partial)

! !! front<br>unrounded !! front<br>rounded !! back<br>rounded

|- align=center

!close

| i || y || u

|- align=center

! {{nowrap|close mid}}

| e || ø || o

|- align=center

! open mid

| ɛ || œ || ɔ

|- align=center

! open

| a || || ɒ

|}

| <br>

{|class=wikitable

|In addition, Sakao has a close vowel {{IPA|/ɨ/}} that is unspecified for being rounded or unrounded, front or back, and is always unstressed. It also has the two [[diphthong]]s {{IPA|/œɛ, ɒɔ/}}, whereas Tolomako has none.

|}

|}

In addition, it has more and more difficult consonant distinctions:

{|

|- valign=top

|

{| class="wikitable IPA"

|+ Tolomako consonants

! !!labial!!alveolar!!velar

|- align=center

! nasal

| m || n ||

|- align=center

! plosive

| p || t || k

|- align=center

! affricate

| || ts ||

|- align=center

! fricative

| β || || ɣ

|- align=center

! trill

| || r ||

|- align=center

! approximant

| || l ||

|}

|

{| class="wikitable IPA"

|+ Sakao consonants

! !!labial!!alveolar!!palatal!!velar!!glottal

|- align=center

! nasal

| m || n || || ŋ||

|- align=center

! plosive

| p || t || || k||

|- align=center

! fricative

| β || ð || || ɣ || h

|- align=center

! trill

| || r || || ||

|- align=center

! voiceless trill

| || r̥ || || ||

|- align=center

! approximant

| w || l || j || ||

|}

| <br>

{|class=wikitable

|In addition, Sakao consonants may be long or short: {{IPA|/œβe/}} "drum", {{IPA|/œββe/}} "bed"

|}

|}

Tolomako has a simple syllable structure, maximally consonant–vowel–vowel. It is not clear if Sakao even has syllables; that is, whether trying to divide Sakao words into meaningful syllables is even possible.

{|

|

{| class=wikitable

|+ Tolomako {{nowrap|syllable structure}}

|-

|{{nowrap|[[vowel|V]], [[consonant|C]]V, VV, CVV}}

|}

|

{| class=wikitable

|+ Sakao syllable structure

|-

|V (a vowel or diphthong) surrounded by any number of consonants: <br>V {{IPA|/i/}} "thou", CCVCCCC (?) {{IPA|/mhɛrtpr/}} "having sung and stopped singing thou kept silent" <br>{{nowrap|[{{IPA|m-}} 2nd pers., {{IPA|hɛrt}} "to sing", {{IPA|-p}} [[perfective]], {{IPA|-r}} continuous].}}

|}

|}

===Morphology===

With [[Inalienable possession|inalienably possessed]] nouns, Tolomako inflections are consistently regular, whereas Sakao is full of irregular nouns:

{|

|

{| class="wikitable IPA"

|-

! Tolomako !! Sakao !! English

|-

| na tsiɣo-ku || œsɨŋœ-ɣ || "my mouth"

|-

| na tsiɣo-mu || œsɨŋœ-m || "thy mouth"

|-

| na tsiɣo-na || ɔsɨŋɔ-n || "his/her/its mouth"

|-

| na tsiɣo-... || œsœŋ-... || "...'s mouth"

|}

|

{| class="wikitable IPA"

|-

! Tolomako !! Sakao !! English

|-

| na βulu-ku || uly-ɣ || "my hair"

|-

| na βulu-mu || uly-m || "thy hair"

|-

| na βulu-na || ulœ-n || "his/her/its hair"

|-

| na βulu-... || nøl-... || "...'s hair"

|}

|}

Here Tolomako "mouth" is invariably ''{{IPA|tsiɣo-}}'' and "hair" invariably ''{{IPA|βulu-}},'' whereas Sakao "mouth" is variably ''{{IPA|œsɨŋœ-, ɔsɨŋɔ-, œsœŋ-}}'' and "hair" variably ''{{IPA|uly-, ulœ-, nøl-}}.''

===Syntax===

With [[deixis]], Tolomako has three degrees (here/this, there/that, yonder/yon), whereas Sakao has seven.

Tolomako has a [[preposition]] to distinguish the [[object (grammar)|object]] of a verb from an instrument; indeed, a single preposition, ''ne,'' is used for all relationships of space and time. Sakao, on the other hand, treats both as objects of the verb, with a transitive suffix ''{{IPA|-ɨn}}'' that shows the verb has two objects, but letting context disambiguate which is which:

{|

|- valign=top

|

{| class="wikitable IPA"

|+ Tolomako

|mo||losi||na||poe||ne||na||matsa

|-

|S/he||hits||[[article (grammar)|{{sc|art}}]]||pig||[[preposition|{{sc|prep}}]]||{{sc|art}}||club

|-

|colspan=7|"He hits (kills) the pig with a club"

|}

|

{| class="wikitable IPA"

|+ Sakao

|mɨ-jil-ɨn||a-ra||a-mas

|-

|S/he-hits-[[transitive verb|{{sc|trans}}]]||{{sc|art}}-pig||{{sc|art}}-club

|-

|colspan=3|"He hits (kills) the pig with a club"

|}

| <br>

{|class=wikitable

| The Sakao could also be ''{{IPA|mɨjilɨn amas ara}}''

|}

|}

The Sakao strategy involves [[polysynthetic]] syntax, as opposed to the isolating syntax of Tolomako:

{| class="wikitable IPA"

|+ Sakao polysynthesis

|colspan=3|Mɔssɔnɛshɔβrɨn aða ɛðɛ &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (or: ɛðɛ aða)

|-

|mɔ-sɔn-nɛs-hɔβ-r-ɨn || a-ða || ɛ-ðɛ

|-

|s/he-shoots-fish-follows-[[continuous aspect|{{sc|cont}}]]-{{sc|trans}} ||{{sc|art}}-bow ||{{sc|art}}-sea

|-

|colspan=3|"He kept on walking along the shore shooting fish with a bow."

|}

Here ''{{IPA|aða}}'' "the bow" is the instrumental of ''{{IPA|sɔn}}'' "to shoot", and ''{{IPA|ɛðɛ}}'' "the sea" is the direct object of ''{{IPA|hoβ}}'' "to follow", which because they are combined into a single verb, are marked as [[ditransitive]] with the suffix ''{{IPA|-ɨn}}.'' Because ''{{IPA|sɔn}}'' "to shoot" has the [[noun incorporation|incorporated]] object ''{{IPA|nɛs}}'' "fish", the first consonant [[gemination|geminates]] for ''{{IPA|ssɔn}}''; ''{{IPA|ssɔn-nɛs}},'' being part of one word, then reduces to ''{{IPA|ssɔnɛs}}.'' And indeed, the previous example of killing a pig could be put more succinctly, but grammatically more complexly, in Sakao by incorporating the object 'pig' into the verb:

{| class="wikitable IPA"

|-

|colspan=2|mɨjilrapɨn amas

|-

|mɨ-jil-ra-p-ɨn || a-mas

|-

|s/he-hit-pig-[[perfective aspect|{{sc|pfv}}]]-{{sc|trans}} ||{{sc|art}}-club

|}

Guy asks rhetorically, "Which of the two languages spoken in Port-Olry do you think the Catholic missionaries learnt and used? Could that possibly be because it was easier than the other?"

== Language complexity and learning ==

A common conventional wisdom is that some languages are inherently harder to learn than others as first or second languages, due to their greater complexity. However this belief is as of yet not supported by sufficient scientific evidence.

The perceived difficulty of second language acquisition seems to largely depend on the similarity between the learner's native language and the language they are learning. In a study conducted in 2013, scientists <ref>{{cite book |last=Cysouw |first=Michael |editor1-last=Borin |editor1-first=Lars |editor2-last=Saxena |editor2-first=Anja |title=Approaches to Measuring Linguistic Differences |publisher=De Gruyter Mouton |year=2013 |pages=57–82 |chapter=Predicting language-learning difficulty |isbn=978-3-11-048808-1}}</ref> used [[Foreign Service Institute|FSI]]’s data to try to identify the criteria that have an influence on the difficulty of foreign language learning.

* First, a language that is genetically related to the learner's native language will be easier to learn than a language from a different family. This is mostly due to language structure. The closer a language is to another, the more similar their structures will be (this applies to sounds, grammar, vocabulary, and so on).

* Another criterion is the [[writing system]]. Learners will be quicker to learn a language which uses the same writing system as their own native language.

Therefore, the most complicated language to learn for an English native speaker would be for example a non-[[Indo-European languages|Indo European]] [[Ergative-absolutive alignment|ergative language]] with a different writing system and with [[Preposition and postposition|postpositions]] instead of prepositions.

Another study <ref>{{cite book |last=Stevens |first=Paul B. |editor1-last=Wahba |editor1-first=Kassem M. |editor2-last=Taha |editor2-first=Zeinab A. |editor3-last=England |editor3-first=Liz |title=Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century |publisher=Lawrence Erlbaum Associates |year=2006 |pages=35–66 |chapter=Is Spanish really easy? Is Arabic really so hard? Perceived difficulty in learning arabic as a second language |isbn=978-0-203-76390-2}}</ref> conducted in 2006, started with the common idea that Arabic is hard to learn for an English native speaker, more so than Spanish or German. This study is also based on the FSI classification of languages according to their difficulty, placing Arabic in the fourth (relatively difficult) group. The study compares Arabic with languages usually perceived as easier to learn and concludes that Arabic is not inherently more complex than these languages. The study provides a list of linguistic properties that make Arabic actually simpler than these languages. For instance, despite the complexity of Arabic consonant roots, the Arabic verbal system relies on very specific sub-rules and uses only a single [[Morphology (linguistics)#Paradigms and morphosyntax|verb paradigm]]. On the other hand, Spanish is more complex than Arabic in its verbal tenses. French is more complex in its phoneme-grapheme correspondence. German, Polish and Greek have more complex systems of case [[inflection]]s. Japanese has a more complex writing system. The fact that English native speakers perceive Arabic as particularly difficult to learn would then not be due to Arabic being inherently harder but rather to the fact that its structure and writing system are very different from English.

The belief that some languages are inherently harder to learn is less commonly found for [[language acquisition|first language learning]], although first language acquisition should probably be more strongly correlated with the language's inherent complexity. Some studies have tackled this question. For instance, there is evidence from Danish that children learning a language with a complex sound structure might be slightly delayed in their lexical development.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bleses |first1=Dorthe |last2=Vach |first2=Werner |last3=Slott |first3=Malene |last4=Wehberg |first4=Sonja |last5=Thomsen |first5=Pia |last6=Madsen |first6=Thomas O. |last7=Basbøll |first7=Hans |year=2008 |title=Early vocabulary development in Danish and other languages: A CDI-based comparison |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-child-language/article/early-vocabulary-development-in-danish-and-other-languages-a-cdibased-comparison/D12A283664A8BA4A695D0DDF3378555A |journal=Journal of Child Language |volume=35 |issue=3 |pages=619–650 |doi= 10.1017/S0305000908008714 |access-date=2020-05-18}}</ref> Danish has [[Danish phonology|a complex phonological system]], with extensive [[lenition]] of plosives. In line with the hypothesis that a more complex phonology entails greater difficulties in word learning, Danish children were found to have a slight delay in early lexical development compared to children speaking other languages (although they seem to catch up when they reach two years of age). This suggests that sound structure might have an influence on the difficulty of a language. There is, however, not enough evidence as of yet to confidently say that some languages are globally easier or harder to learn as a first language.

==Language complexity and creoles==

It is generally acknowledged that, as young languages, [[creole language|creoles]] are necessarily simpler than non-creoles.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/conference/2013_APiCS/files/abstracts.html |title=Creole and pidgin language structure in cross-linguistic perspective &#124; Abstracts |publisher=Eva.mpg.de |date= |accessdate=2015-08-11}}</ref> Guy believes this to be untrue {{Citation needed|date=December 2013}}; after a comparison with [[Antillean Creole]], he writes, "I assure you that it is far, far more complex than Tolomako!", despite being based on his native language, French.

==Computational tools==

Line 351 ⟶ 31:

==References==

{{reflistReflist}}

==Bibliography==

{{refbeginRefbegin}}

* {{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 | ref = harv | 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 |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 | ref = harv | 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 }}

* {{cite book | ref = harv | last = SweetMiestamo | first = HenryMatti | year = 1899 | title =Language TheComplexity: practicalTypology, studyContact, of languages; a guide for teachers and learnersChange | publisher =John J.Benjamins M.Publishing Dent & Co.Company | ___location = LondonAmsterdam | url year= https://archive.org/details/practicalstudyof00swee2008 | accessdate isbn= 2011978-90-272-033104-158 }}

* {{cite book | last = SampsonRistad | first = GeoffreyEric | title =The Language Complexity as an Evolving VariableGame | publisher = Oxford UniversityMIT Press | ___location = Oxford OxfordshireCambridge | year = 20091993 | isbn = 978-0-19262-95452218147-31 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/languagecomplexi00rist }}

* {{cite book |last=Sweet |first=Henry |year=1899 |title=The Practical Study of Languages; A Guide for Teachers and Learners |publisher=J. M. Dent & Co. |___location=London |url=https://archive.org/details/practicalstudyof00swee |access-date=2011-03-15 }}

{{refend}}

* {{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}}

* Di Garbo F, Olsson B, Wälchli B (eds.). 2019. Grammatical gender and linguistic complexity I: General issues and specific studies. Berlin: Language Science Press. {{ISBN|978-3-96110-179-5}}. {{DOI|10.5281/zenodo.3446224.}} Open Access. http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/223

{{Refend}}

* Di Garbo F, Olsson B, Wälchli B (eds.). 2019. Grammatical gender and linguistic complexity II: World-wide comparative studies. Berlin: Language Science Press. {{ISBN|978-3-96110-181-8}} {{DOI|10.5281/zenodo.3446230.}} Open Access. http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/237

{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Languages of Vanuatu]]

[[Category:Grammar]]

[[Category:Phonology]]