Language Complexity: An Insight from Complex-System Theory

Alexander Andrason

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijll.20140202.15

| Peer-Reviewed

Language Complexity: An Insight from Complex-System Theory

Alexander Andrason

Published in International Journal of Language and Linguistics (Volume 2, Issue 2)

Received: 28 January 2014 Accepted: Published: 20 March 2014

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

This paper aims to establish a more direct relation between the studies of complexity in the field of typological-evolutionary linguistics and complex-system theory. The article explains what complex-system theory can tell us about language complexity and how insights from the science of complex systems can be important to the analysis of linguistic complexity. By founding his argumentation on the principles of complex-system theory, the author maintains that linguistic complexity cannot be equaled to cardinality. Although a comparison of complexities can be effectuated only in numerical or set-theoretical terms, the cardinality of a series or a set is neither unique nor the most important property of a complex system. Equally or even more relevant features are openness, situatedness, lack of boundaries, individual instability, uncertainty, non-linearity, exponential sensitivity to initial conditions, dynamicity, metastability, path dependency, emergence, regional chaos, non-additivity, non-modularization, irreducibility, organizational intricacy, and models’ incompressibility, incompleteness, provisionality or plurality. The author argues that, following complex-system theory, once a distinction between the complexity of language as a real-world phenomenon and the complexity of its model is made, any numerical comparison of the overall or local complexity of languages becomes either futile or deeply theory conditioned. In realistic complex systems, complexity is always infinite, while in models – where, by means of fictionalized approximations adopted by an observer or explainer, it can be made finite – complexity entirely depends on a scientific frame of reference and approach with which it has been quantified. Accordingly, any quantification of the complexity of natural languages is either identical, as it is infinite (in realistic languages), or relative (in scientific models). In this manner, no measurement may claim to establish the ultimate hierarchy of less or more complex languages.

Published in	International Journal of Language and Linguistics (Volume 2, Issue 2)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijll.20140202.15
Page(s)	74-89
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Complexity, Complex-System Theory, Typological-Evolutionary Linguistic Complexity, Modelling

References

[1]	Trudgill, A.P. (2001). Contact and simplification: historical baggage and directionality in linguistic change. Linguistic Typology, 5, 371-373.
[2]	Trudgill, A.P. (2004). On the complexity and simplification. Linguistic Typology, 8, 383-388.
[3]	Sampson, G. (2001). Empirical Linguistics. London: Continuum.
[4]	Sampson, G. (2009). A linguistic axiom challenged. In G. Sampson, D. Gil, & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable (pp. 1-18). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[5]	Dahl, Ö. (2004). The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
[6]	Dahl, Ö. (2009). Testing the assumption of complexity invariance: the case of Elfdalian and Swedish. In G. Sampson, D. Gil, & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable (pp. 50-63). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[7]	Dahl, Ö. (2011). Grammaticalization and Linguistic Complexity. In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization (pp. 153-162). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[8]	Gil, D. (2006). Early human language was Isolating-Monocategorial-Associational. In A. Cangelosi, A. D. M. Smith, & K. Smith (Eds.),The Evolution of Language: Proceedings from the 6th International Conference (EVOLANG). Singapore: World Science.
[9]	Gil, D. (2007). Creoles, complexity and associational semantics. In U. Ansaldo & S. J. Matthews (Eds.), Deconstructing Creole: New Horizons in Language Creation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
[10]	Gil, D. (2008). How complex are isolating languages. In M. Miestamo, K. Sinnemäki, & F. Karlsson (Eds.), Language complexity: Typology, Contact, Change (pp. 109-131). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[11]	Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[12]	Miestamo, M. (2008). Grammatical complexity in a cross-linguistic perspective. In M. Miestamo, K. Sinnemäki, & F. Karlsson (Eds.), Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change (pp. 23-41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[13]	Miestamo, M. (2009). Implicational hierarchies and grammatical complexity. In G. Sampson, D. Gil, & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable (pp. 80-97). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[14]	McWhorter, J. (2005). Defining Creole. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[15]	McWhorter, J. (2009). Oh nɔɔ! : a bewilderingly multifunctional Saramaccan word teaches us how a creole language develops complexity. In G. Sampson, D. Gil, & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable, (141-163). Oxford: Oxford University Press
[16]	Nichols, J. (2007a). The distribution of complexity in the world’s languages: prospectus. Presented at Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA, 4-7 January.
[17]	Nichols, J. (2007b). Linguistic complexity: a comprehensive definition and survey. Presented at Association for Linguistic Typology 7th Biennial Meeting, Paris, 25-28 September.
[18]	Nichols, J.(2009). Linguistic complexity: A comprehensive definition and survey. In G. Sampson, D. Gil, & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable (pp. 110-125). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[19]	Miestamo, M., Sinnemäki, K., & Karlsson, F. (Eds.) (2008). Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change, Amsterdam: John Benjamins
[20]	Sampson, G., Gil, D., & Trudgill, P. (Eds.) (2009). Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[21]	Bisang, W. (2009). On the evolution of complexity: sometimes less is more in East and mainland Southeast Asia. In G. Sampson, D. Gil, & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable (pp. 19-33). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[22]	Progovac, L. (2009). Layering of grammar: vestiges of protosyntax in present-day languages. In G. Sampson, D. Gil, & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable (pp. 203-212). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[23]	Givón, T.(2009). The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity: Diachrony, Ontogeny, Neurocognition, Evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[24]	T. Givón & Shibatani, M. (2009). Syntactic Complexity: Diachrony, Acquisition, Neuro-Cognition, Evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[25]	Kortmann, B. & Szmrecsanyi, B. (Eds.). 2012. Linguistic Complexity. Berlin: De Gruyter.
[26]	Kusters, W. (2003). Linguistic complexity: The influence of social change on verbal inflection. Ph.D. diss., University of Leiden.
[27]	Szmrecsanyi B. & Kortmann, B. (2012). Introduction: Linguistic complexity. In B. Kortmann & B. Szmrecsanyi (Eds.), Linguistic Complexity (pp. 6-34). Berlin: De Gruyter.
[28]	Li, M. & Vitányi, P.M.B. (2008). An Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity and its Applications. New York: Springer.
[29]	Gell-Mann, M. (1995). What is complexity? Complexity, 1(1): 16-19.
[30]	Gell-Mann, M. & Lloyd, S. (1996).Information Measures, Effective Complexity, and Total Information. Complexity, 2, 44-52.
[31]	Gell-Mann, M. & Lloyd, S. (2004). Effective complexity. In M. Gell-Mann & C. Tsallis (Eds.), Nonextensive Entropy – Interdisciplinary Applications (pp. 387-398). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[32]	Gell-Mann. M. & Tsallis, C. (Eds.) (2004). Nonextensive Entropy – Interdisciplinary Applications: Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[33]	Köhler, R., Altmann, G., & Piotrowski R.G. (2005). Quantitative Linguistik: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter.
[34]	Cilliers, P. et al. (2013). Complexity, Modeling, and Natural Resource Management. Ecology and Society 18(3), 1-12.
[35]	McWhorter, J. (2001). The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars. Linguistic Typology, 5(2/3), 125-156.
[36]	McWhorter, J. (2007). Language Interrupted: Signs of Non-native Acquisition in Standard Language Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[37]	Szmrecsanyi B. & Kortmann, B. (2009). Between simplification and complexification: non-standard varieties of English around the world. In G. Sampson, D. Gil, & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable (pp. 64-79). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[38]	Miestamo, M. (2006). On the feasibility of complexity metrics. In K. Kerge & M-M. Sepper (Eds.), Finest Linguistics. Proceedings of the Annual Finnish and Estonian Conference of Linguistics, Tallinn, May 6-7, 2004 (pp. 11-26). Tallinn: Tallinn University Press.
[39]	Deutscher, G. (2009). ‘Overall complexity’ – a wild goose chase? In G. Sampson, D. Gil, & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable (243-251). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[40]	Schlindwein, S. L. & Ison, R. (2007). Human knowing and perceived complexity: Implications for system practise. In P. Cilliers (Ed.), Thinking Complexity(pp. 229-238). Mansfield: ISCE.
[41]	Auyang, S. (1998). Foundations of Complex-System Theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[42]	Hooker, C. (Ed.) (2011a). Philosophy of Complex Systems. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
[43]	Kauffmann, S. (2000). Investigations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[44]	Lewin, R. (2000). Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[45]	Cejnarova, A. (2005). Complexity of the Big and Small. PhD Dissertation, Department of Philosophy, University of Stellenbosch.
[46]	Solé, R. (2010). Redes complejas. Barcelona: Tusquets.
[47]	Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct. London: Penguin Books.
[48]	Li, M. & Vitanyi, P.(1995) A new approach to formal language theory by Kolmogorov complexity. SIAM Journal on Computing, 24(2), 398-410.
[49]	Herdina, P. & Jessner, U. (2002). A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism: Perspectives of Change in Psycholinguistics. Clevedon: Cromwell Press.
[50]	Culicover, P. & Nowak, A. Dynamical Grammar. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
[51]	Massip-Bonet, A. (2013). Languages as a Complex Adaptive Systems: Towards an Integrative Linguistics. In A. Massip-Bonet & Bastardas-Boada A. (Eds.), Complexity Perspectives on Language, Communication and Society (pp.35-60). Heidelberg: Springer.
[52]	Munné, F. (2013). The Fuzzy Complexity of Language. In A. Massip-Bonet & Bastardas-Boada A. (Eds.), Complexity Perspectives on Language, Communication and Society (pp.175-196). Heidelberg: Springer.
[53]	Mufwene, S. (2013). The Emergence of Complexity in Language: An Evolutionary Perspective. (2013). In A. Massip-Bonet & Bastardas-Boada A. (Eds.), Complexity Perspectives on Language, Communication and Society (pp.197-218). Heidelberg: Springer.
[54]	Jenner, K. D., van Peursen, W. Th., & Talstra, E. (2006). CALAP: An Interdisciplinary Debate between Textual Criticism, Textual History and Computer-Assisted Linguistic Analysis. In: P. S. F. van Keulen & W. Th. van Peursen (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics and Textual History. A Computer-Assisted Interdisciplinary Approach to the Peshitta (pp. 13-44). Assen: Van Gorcum.
[55]	Andrason, A. (2012). Thermodynamic model of the Biblical Hebrew verbal system. In D. Eades (Ed.), Grammaticalisation in Semitic. Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement Series 29 (pp. 146-163). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[56]	Sinnemäki, K. (2011). Language universals and linguistic complexity. Three case studies in core argument marking. PhD Dissertation, Department of Modern Languages, University Helsinki.
[57]	Horgan, J. (1995). From complexity to perplexity. Scientific American, 272(June), 74-79.
[58]	Franco Parellada, R. (2007). Modeling social organizations: necessity and possibility. In P. Cilliers (Ed.), Reframing Complexity (pp. 151-198). Mansfield: ISCE.
[59]	Lloyd, S. (2001). Measures of complexity: A nonexhaustive list. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 21(4), 7-8.
[60]	Ayres, R. H. (1994). Information, Entropy, and Progress. College Park: American Institute of Physics Press.
[61]	Cilliers, P. (1998). Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems. London: Routledge.
[62]	Cilliers, P. (2005). Complexity, deconstruction and relativism. Theory, Culture and Society, 22(5), 255–267.
[63]	Wagensberg, J. (2007). Ideas Sobre la Complejidad del Mundo. Barcelona: Tusquets.
[64]	Hooker, C. (2011b). Introduction to Philosophy of Complex Systems: A. In C. Hooker (Ed.), Philosophy of Complex Systems (pp. 3-90). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
[65]	Bishop, R. (2011). Metaphysical and epistemological issues in complex systems. In C. Hooker (Ed.) Philosophy of Complex Systems (pp. 105-136). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
[66]	Schneider, E. & Sagan, D. (2009). La Termodinámica de la Vida (Into the Cool: Energy Flow, Thermodynamics, and Life, 2006, Chicago: Chicago University Press). Barcelona: Tusquets.
[67]	Prigogine, I. (2009). ¿Tan solo una ilusión? Barcelona: Tusquets.
[68]	Richardson, K, Mathieson, G., & Cilliers, P. (2000). The theory and practice of complexity science: Epistemological considerations for military operational analysis. SysteMexico, 1(1), 25-26.
[69]	Bickhard, M. (2011). Systems and Process Metaphysics. In C. Hooker (Ed.), Philosophy of Complex Systems (91-104). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
[70]	Richardson, K., Cilliers, P., & Lissack, M. (2007). Complexity science: A ‘Gray’ science for the ‘stuff in between’. In P. Cilliers (Ed.), Thinking Complexity (pp. 25-35). Mansfield: ISCE.
[71]	Dobzhansky, T. (1973). Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. American Biology Teacher, 35, 101-125.
[72]	Yates, E. (1987). Physics of Self-Organization. In E. Yates (Ed.), Self-Organizing Systems. The Emergence of Order (pp. 409-141). New York: Plenum Press.
[73]	Werndl, Ch. (2009). What are the New Implications of Chaos for Unpredictability? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 60, 195-220.
[74]	Hooker, C. (2011c). Introduction to Philosophy of Complex Systems: B. In C. Hooker (Ed.) Philosophy of Complex Systems (pp. 841-910). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
[75]	Hofkirchner, W. & Schafranek, M. (2011). General System Theory. In C. Hooker (Ed.), Philosophy of Complex Systems (pp. 177-194). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
[76]	Gleick, J. (1987). CHAOS: Making a New Science. New York: Penguin Books.
[77]	Smith, P. (1988). Explaining Chaos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[78]	Strogatz, S. H. (1994). Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: With Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engineering. New York: Perseus.
[79]	Alligood, K., Sauer, T., & York, J. (1997). Chaos: An Introduction to Dynamic Systems. New York: Springer.
[80]	Elaydi, S. N. (1999). Discrete Chaos. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
[81]	Crutchfield, J. P. (1994). The Calculi of Emergence: Computation, Dynamics, and Induction. Santa Fe Institute Working Paper. Physica D. Special issue on the Proceedings of the Oji International Seminar: Complex Systems – from Complex Dynamics to Artificial Reality.
[82]	Casti, J. L. (1995). Complexification: Explaining a Paradoxical World Through the Science of Surprise. New York: Harper Collins.
[83]	Mihata, K. (1997). The Persistence of ‘Emergence. In A. E. Raymond, S. Horsfall, &E. M. Lee (Eds.), Chaos, Complexity & Sociology: Myths, Models & Theories (pp. 30-38). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
[84]	Mikulecky, D. (2007). Complexity science as an aspect of the complexity of science. In C. Gershenson, D. Aerts, & B. Edmonds (Eds.), Worldviews, Science and Us (pp. 30–52). New Jersey: World Scientific Publishing.
[85]	Rosen, R. (1985). Anticipatory Systems. Philosophical, Mathematical and Methodological Foundations. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
[86]	Rosen, R. (1991). Life Itself. A Comprehensive Enquiry into the Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of Life. New York: Columbia University Press.
[87]	Futuyma, D. J. (1998). Evolutionary Biology. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.
[88]	Cilliers, P. (2007). Why we cannot know complex things completely. In P. Cilliers (Ed.), Reframing Complexity (81-90). Mansfield: ISCE.
[89]	Diéguez Lucena, A. (2010). Filosofía de la Ciencia. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva.
[90]	Allen, P. (2001). What is complexity science? Knowledge of the limits to knowledge. Emergence, 3(1), 24–42.
[91]	Allen, P., Strathern, M., & Varga, L. (2010). Complexity: the evolution of identity and diversity. In P. Cilliers & R. Preiser (Eds.), Complexity, Difference and Identity (pp. 43-63). London: Springer.
[92]	Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. London: Random House.
[93]	Uden, J. van. (2007). Using complexity science in organization studies: a case for loose application. In P. Cilliers (Eds.), Thinking Complexity (pp. 147-158). Mansfield: ISCE.
[94]	Fitch, W. T. (2010). The Evolution of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[95]	Narrog, H. & Auwera, J. van der. (2011). Grammaticalization and semantic maps. In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization (pp. 318-327). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[96]	Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[97]	Croft, W. (2003). Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[98]	Angulo, J.C. & Antolín, J. (2008). Atomic complexity measures in position and momentum spaces. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 128,1-7.
[99]	López-Ruiz, R., Mancini, H.L., & Calbet, X. (1995). A statistical measure of complexity. Physic Letters A, 209, 321-326.
[100]	Abe, S., Landsberg, P.T., Plastino, A.R., & Yamano, T. (2004). Nonadditive statistical measure of complexity and values of the entropic index q.arXiv:cond-mat/0402217v1 [cond-mat.stat-mech].

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Alexander Andrason. (2014). Language Complexity: An Insight from Complex-System Theory. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2(2), 74-89. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20140202.15

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Alexander Andrason. Language Complexity: An Insight from Complex-System Theory. Int. J. Lang. Linguist. 2014, 2(2), 74-89. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20140202.15

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Alexander Andrason. Language Complexity: An Insight from Complex-System Theory. Int J Lang Linguist. 2014;2(2):74-89. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20140202.15

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijll.20140202.15,
  author = {Alexander Andrason},
  title = {Language Complexity: An Insight from Complex-System Theory},
  journal = {International Journal of Language and Linguistics},
  volume = {2},
  number = {2},
  pages = {74-89},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijll.20140202.15},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20140202.15},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijll.20140202.15},
  abstract = {This paper aims to establish a more direct relation between the studies of complexity in the field of typological-evolutionary linguistics and complex-system theory. The article explains what complex-system theory can tell us about language complexity and how insights from the science of complex systems can be important to the analysis of linguistic complexity. By founding his argumentation on the principles of complex-system theory, the author maintains that linguistic complexity cannot be equaled to cardinality. Although a comparison of complexities can be effectuated only in numerical or set-theoretical terms, the cardinality of a series or a set is neither unique nor the most important property of a complex system. Equally or even more relevant features are openness, situatedness, lack of boundaries, individual instability, uncertainty, non-linearity, exponential sensitivity to initial conditions, dynamicity, metastability, path dependency, emergence, regional chaos, non-additivity, non-modularization, irreducibility, organizational intricacy, and models’ incompressibility, incompleteness, provisionality or plurality. The author argues that, following complex-system theory, once a distinction between the complexity of language as a real-world phenomenon and the complexity of its model is made, any numerical comparison of the overall or local complexity of languages becomes either futile or deeply theory conditioned. In realistic complex systems, complexity is always infinite, while in models – where, by means of fictionalized approximations adopted by an observer or explainer, it can be made finite – complexity entirely depends on a scientific frame of reference and approach with which it has been quantified. Accordingly, any quantification of the complexity of natural languages is either identical, as it is infinite (in realistic languages), or relative (in scientific models). In this manner, no measurement may claim to establish the ultimate hierarchy of less or more complex languages.},
 year = {2014}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Language Complexity: An Insight from Complex-System Theory
AU  - Alexander Andrason
Y1  - 2014/03/20
PY  - 2014
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20140202.15
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijll.20140202.15
T2  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
JF  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
JO  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
SP  - 74
EP  - 89
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-0221
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20140202.15
AB  - This paper aims to establish a more direct relation between the studies of complexity in the field of typological-evolutionary linguistics and complex-system theory. The article explains what complex-system theory can tell us about language complexity and how insights from the science of complex systems can be important to the analysis of linguistic complexity. By founding his argumentation on the principles of complex-system theory, the author maintains that linguistic complexity cannot be equaled to cardinality. Although a comparison of complexities can be effectuated only in numerical or set-theoretical terms, the cardinality of a series or a set is neither unique nor the most important property of a complex system. Equally or even more relevant features are openness, situatedness, lack of boundaries, individual instability, uncertainty, non-linearity, exponential sensitivity to initial conditions, dynamicity, metastability, path dependency, emergence, regional chaos, non-additivity, non-modularization, irreducibility, organizational intricacy, and models’ incompressibility, incompleteness, provisionality or plurality. The author argues that, following complex-system theory, once a distinction between the complexity of language as a real-world phenomenon and the complexity of its model is made, any numerical comparison of the overall or local complexity of languages becomes either futile or deeply theory conditioned. In realistic complex systems, complexity is always infinite, while in models – where, by means of fictionalized approximations adopted by an observer or explainer, it can be made finite – complexity entirely depends on a scientific frame of reference and approach with which it has been quantified. Accordingly, any quantification of the complexity of natural languages is either identical, as it is infinite (in realistic languages), or relative (in scientific models). In this manner, no measurement may claim to establish the ultimate hierarchy of less or more complex languages.
VL  - 2
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Alexander Andrason

Dep. of African Languages, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Alexander Andrason. (2014). Language Complexity: An Insight from Complex-System Theory. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2(2), 74-89. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20140202.15

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Alexander Andrason. Language Complexity: An Insight from Complex-System Theory. Int. J. Lang. Linguist. 2014, 2(2), 74-89. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20140202.15

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Alexander Andrason. Language Complexity: An Insight from Complex-System Theory. Int J Lang Linguist. 2014;2(2):74-89. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20140202.15

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijll.20140202.15,
  author = {Alexander Andrason},
  title = {Language Complexity: An Insight from Complex-System Theory},
  journal = {International Journal of Language and Linguistics},
  volume = {2},
  number = {2},
  pages = {74-89},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijll.20140202.15},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20140202.15},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijll.20140202.15},
  abstract = {This paper aims to establish a more direct relation between the studies of complexity in the field of typological-evolutionary linguistics and complex-system theory. The article explains what complex-system theory can tell us about language complexity and how insights from the science of complex systems can be important to the analysis of linguistic complexity. By founding his argumentation on the principles of complex-system theory, the author maintains that linguistic complexity cannot be equaled to cardinality. Although a comparison of complexities can be effectuated only in numerical or set-theoretical terms, the cardinality of a series or a set is neither unique nor the most important property of a complex system. Equally or even more relevant features are openness, situatedness, lack of boundaries, individual instability, uncertainty, non-linearity, exponential sensitivity to initial conditions, dynamicity, metastability, path dependency, emergence, regional chaos, non-additivity, non-modularization, irreducibility, organizational intricacy, and models’ incompressibility, incompleteness, provisionality or plurality. The author argues that, following complex-system theory, once a distinction between the complexity of language as a real-world phenomenon and the complexity of its model is made, any numerical comparison of the overall or local complexity of languages becomes either futile or deeply theory conditioned. In realistic complex systems, complexity is always infinite, while in models – where, by means of fictionalized approximations adopted by an observer or explainer, it can be made finite – complexity entirely depends on a scientific frame of reference and approach with which it has been quantified. Accordingly, any quantification of the complexity of natural languages is either identical, as it is infinite (in realistic languages), or relative (in scientific models). In this manner, no measurement may claim to establish the ultimate hierarchy of less or more complex languages.},
 year = {2014}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Language Complexity: An Insight from Complex-System Theory
AU  - Alexander Andrason
Y1  - 2014/03/20
PY  - 2014
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20140202.15
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijll.20140202.15
T2  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
JF  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
JO  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
SP  - 74
EP  - 89
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-0221
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20140202.15
AB  - This paper aims to establish a more direct relation between the studies of complexity in the field of typological-evolutionary linguistics and complex-system theory. The article explains what complex-system theory can tell us about language complexity and how insights from the science of complex systems can be important to the analysis of linguistic complexity. By founding his argumentation on the principles of complex-system theory, the author maintains that linguistic complexity cannot be equaled to cardinality. Although a comparison of complexities can be effectuated only in numerical or set-theoretical terms, the cardinality of a series or a set is neither unique nor the most important property of a complex system. Equally or even more relevant features are openness, situatedness, lack of boundaries, individual instability, uncertainty, non-linearity, exponential sensitivity to initial conditions, dynamicity, metastability, path dependency, emergence, regional chaos, non-additivity, non-modularization, irreducibility, organizational intricacy, and models’ incompressibility, incompleteness, provisionality or plurality. The author argues that, following complex-system theory, once a distinction between the complexity of language as a real-world phenomenon and the complexity of its model is made, any numerical comparison of the overall or local complexity of languages becomes either futile or deeply theory conditioned. In realistic complex systems, complexity is always infinite, while in models – where, by means of fictionalized approximations adopted by an observer or explainer, it can be made finite – complexity entirely depends on a scientific frame of reference and approach with which it has been quantified. Accordingly, any quantification of the complexity of natural languages is either identical, as it is infinite (in realistic languages), or relative (in scientific models). In this manner, no measurement may claim to establish the ultimate hierarchy of less or more complex languages.
VL  - 2
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download