Linguistic diversity and complexity

Complexity in Language

COMPLEXITY has attracted a great deal of attention in linguistics since about 2001, at a rate that proportionally far exceeds its invocations in the field since Ferdinand de Saussure, the father of our discipline, in the early 20 th century. The number of books bearing complexity in their title is remarkable, suggesting that there may be an emergent research area whose focus is COMPLEXITY in Language. The dominant question that the relevant linguists have addressed is the following: To what extent does complexity as observed in different languages or in different modules of the language architecture display both cross-systemic variation and universal principles? This has entailed asking whether there are languages that are more complex than others and explaining the nature of differences. One is struck by the sheer number of book-length publications alone, 1 and even more when the numerous journal articles and chapters in edited volumes are added to the total count, regardless of whether or not they include complex(ity) in their title. On the other hand, one is also shocked by the scarcity of works that explain what COMPLEXITY is, apparently 1 Book titles containing the term language or linguistic(s) include:

Heritage Language Journal, 2021

Heritage languages are often discussed in terms of their (reduced) complexity, but few attempts have been made to objectively measure the complexity of heritage languages. Here we explore various approaches to the investigation of language complexity, discussing three broad areas of inquiry: (i) attempts to objectively measure grammatical complexity, (ii) the potential role of socio-demographic factors in explaining variability in complexity, and (iii) considerations beyond grammatical complexity, which include the various aspects of complexity invoked when language is used for the purpose of communication. At each point, we highlight potential wisdom to be drawn from existing studies of heritage languages, which help to inform hypotheses for future study. The upshot is that complexity in heritage languages is itself a complex phenomenon – an observation that calls into question traditional characterizations of heritage languages in terms of an overall decrease in complexity.

Oxford Bibliographies in Linguistics, 2020

Studies in Language Companion Series, 2008

Linguistic Complexity: Second Language Acquisition, Indigenization, Contact., 2012

Studies in Language Companion Series, 2008

This paper explores the related but distinct issues of linguistic complexity and difficulty, as from the viewpoint of an adult learner. Language complexity is seen as an objective property of a system, which could in principle be computed mathematically, while difficulty is grounded in the particular person who experiences the difficulty, involving factors such as the linguistic categories present and the nature of their marking in the learner's own language. This reasoning will be illustrated with one non-Austronesian language, Kuot, and its three Austronesian neighbours, Nalik, Notsi and Madak, of north-central New Ireland, Papua New Guinea.

Language has always been a key element in the development of human civilization. It is complex in nature and has the ability to adapt. The origin of language has been studied by anthropologist and psychologist for decades resulting in a complex dynamic network of information; however, scientist remain uncertain on its origins. Steven Pinker, a Phycology professor at Harvard University, states “language allows us to exchange an unlimited number of ideas using a finite set of mental tools” (Pinker,2012). These mental tools refers to our mental lexicon and our ability to create meaning from a variety of noises. Furthermore, a universal knowledge of human behavior and our relationships is required to understand what is being said. This is a complex problem and is previously thought to only occur in humans. In this paper I will argue that language has developed in a variety of Homo species and not just modern humans. This includes Homo erectus, Neanderthals, and modern humans as we are today. I will present the evidence obtained through dynamic models along with research and expert statements. The objective of this paper is to clearly explain the complex truth behind the origins of language based on quantitative data. In addition, I will give a brief history of what we already know relative to language achieved through linguistics studies. At the same time, I will explore how language works, including grammar, phonology, semantics, and pragmatics.

2009

This paper addresses the issue of complexity in language creation and the time it takes for 'complex' structures to emerge in the history of a language. The presence of morphological material is often equated to a certain degree of complexity or is taken to signify a certain time-depth in the history of a language (e.g. Dahl 2004; McWhorter 2005). Though this assumption may be seen as trivial in the absence of a theoreticallybased definition of complexity (Muysken 1988), or even misleading (Aboh and Ansaldo 2007; Farquharson 2007), we here put it to a test by looking at morphology in a relatively 'young' language, namely Sri Lanka Malay (SLM). SLM is a mixed language which shows considerably more morphological material and other signs of old age than 'prototypical' creoles. We explain this by arguing (a) that structural output in language genesis is closely motivated by the typology of the input languages and (b) that our understanding of rate of change needs to be revised to take into account ecological matters.

Language complexity: Typology, contact, change (Studies in Language Companion Series 94), Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemäki & Fred Karlsson (eds.), 2008

In this paper, I address theoretical and methodological issues in the crosslinguistic study of grammatical complexity. I identify two different approaches to complexity: the absolute one -complexity as an objective property of the system, and the relative one -complexity as cost/difficulty to language users. I discuss the usability of these approaches in typological studies of complexity. I then address some general problems concerning the comparison of languages in terms of overall complexity, and argue that in typological studies of complexity it is better to focus on specific domains that are comparable across languages. Next, I discuss a few general criteria for measuring complexity. Finally, I address the relationship between complexity and cross-linguistic rarity.

Educational Challenges in Multilingual Societies, ed. Zubeida Desai et al., 2010