Language complexity: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:01, 3 April 2022

Revision as of 15:43, 31 January 2023

Line 10:

{{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> }}

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>

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" />

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.

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>

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 ==