07.10.2011

1

ComplexityTrade‐offsinLanguagedonotImplyanEqual

OverallComplexity

GertraudFenk‐Oczlon&AugustFenk

Alps‐Adria8cUniversityofKlagenfurtAustria

XIII International Conference "Cognitive Modeling in Linguistics-2011“ Corfu, Greece, September 22-29, 2011

Overview

•  Equaloverallcomplexity?– Complexityavaluablefeature?

– Twoconflic8ngassump8ons

•  Somegeneraldefini8onsofcomplexity

•  Resultsofaseriesofstudiesshowing– Complexitytrade‐offsbetweenthesubsystemsoflanguage

•  Whycomplexitytrade‐offsdonotindicateequaloverallcomplexity

Equaloverallcomplexity?

•  Intheperennialdebatewhetherlanguagesdifferintheircomplexity,quiteanumberoflinguistsholdtheopinionthatalllanguagesareequallycomplex.

Twoconflic@ngassump@ons

•  Thismightbeinteraliaanunderstandablereac8onto19thcenturytypologists:

•  Schleicher(1850)forinstanceclassifiedmorphologicallylesscomplexlanguagesasinferiorandhighlyinflec8onallanguages“asthepinnacleoflinguis8cevolu8on”

07.10.2011

2

Twoconflic@ngassump@ons

•  Butthisassessmentof“morecomplex”asafavorablequalitywasalreadychallengedbyJespersen(1894)whoconsiders,usingEnglishasanexample,lesscomplexityintheinflec8onalsystemandatendencytoisola8ngmorphologyasaprogressinlanguage.

Complexity:avaluablefeature?

•  Complexityperseisnotnecessarilyvaluable:Ifalanguagecanexpresswhatisrequiredwithlessgramma8calorphonologicalcomplexitythanthiscouldbeseenratheranadvantageorasmoreefficient.

Parkvall(2008)trea8ngtheequalexpressivenessoflanguagesasaxioma8c,arguesthat“asimplelanguagecouldratherbeseenasamore‘efficient’one,inthesensethatitdoesthesamejobatalessercost”.

Complexityandhierarchy

H.ASimon,inhisfamousar8cleon“TheArchitectureofComplexity”(1996),viewshierarchyasanuniversalprincipleofcomplexstructures,

andbyacomplexsystemhemeans“onemadeupofalargenumberofpartsthathavemanyinterac8ons.”(183f)

“Complexity”ingeneral

Ahierarchyofcriteriaforcomplexity:•  numberofcomponents•  complexityofcomponents•  numberofdifferentcomponenttypes•  numberofpossibleinterac@onsbetweencompounds(Simon)

•  numberofdifferentrulesdeterminingtheseinterac@ons(Gell‐Mann)

07.10.2011

3

Ahierarchyofcomplexityinlanguage:numberofcomponents,complexityofcomponents

Complexityof

•  syllables:numberofphonemes(1)•  words:(1)&numberofsyllables(2)

•  clauses:(1)&(2)&numberofwords(3)•  sentences:(1)&(2)&(3)&numerofclauses(4)

Remarks:

•  con8nua8ons:complexityofphonemesandoftexts•  mono‐phonemicsyllables;monosyllabicwords;“mono‐clausal

sentences”

Assigningfeaturesofcomplexitytosubsystemsoflanguage

•  Phonology:sizeofphonemicinventory,ar8culatorycomplexityofphonemes,numberofphonemespersyllable,...

•  Morphology:wordforma8on(numberofmorphemsandnumberofsyllablesperword),numberofcases,genderdis8nc8ons;transparencyvsopaquenessofmorphologicalforms,..

•  Syntax:rigidvsfreewordorder,SVOorothers,paratac8cversushypotac8cconstruc8ons,....

•  Seman@cs:homophony,polysemy,idioms

1stseriesofstudies:7plusminus2syllablesperclause?

General assump@on: Natural languages have developed inadapta8ontogeneralcogni8vefunc8onsandconstraints:e.g.workingmemorylimita8ons,psychologicalpresent

•  Hypothesis(Fenk‐Oczlon1983):Thenumberofsyllablesperclause(proposi8on)willvary within the range of Miller’s magical numbersevenplusorminustwo.

• 

7plusminus2syllablesperclause?

•  Method:

Na8vespeakersof33(17Indo‐European,16non‐Indo‐European)languageswereaskedtogiveawrilentransla8onof22German/Englishclausesintotheirmothertongueandtodeterminethelengthoftheirtransla8onsinnumberofsyllablesandnumberofwords.

07.10.2011

4

Sentences

(1)Thechildiswai@ngforitsmeal.

(2)Thesunisshining.

(3)Bloodisred.

(4)Ithinkofyou.(5)Ourneighbourisafarmer.

(6)Shetrustsherfriend.

(7)Shesings.

(8)AfatherlooksaYerhisfamily.

(9)Thegirlisindustrious. (10)Ithanktheteacher.

(11)Thespringisontheright.

(12)Mygirlfriendishelpingme.

(13)Mybrotherisahunter.

(14)Thewateriscold.

(15)Thedogisoutside.(16)Myfatherisafisherman.

(17)Grandfatherissleeping.

(18)Amotherlovesherson.

(19)Auntyisathome.

(20)Mysisteriscollec@ngwood.(21)Heisbuildingahut.

(22)It´sraining.

Results •  The mean number of syllables per clause

was found to be located almost exactly in the range of Miller’s 7 plus minus 2 elements

The lowest size was a mean of 5.05 syllables (Dutch), and only Japanese with 10.2 syllables per clause was located outside the hypothesized range of 5-9 syllables; the overall mean was 6.8 syll/clause

•  The mean number of words was about 4, ranging from 2.5 in Arabic to 4.4 in English (→ Cowan’s number 4 plus minus 1)

Themeannumberofsyllablesperclausein34languages

Syllable complexity as decisive factor (Fenk-Oczlon & Fenk 1985)

Dutch is known for its complex syllables (e.g. CCVCC), Japanese for its simple syllable structures (CV, V). Hypothesis: The more syllables per clause, the fewer phonemes per syllable?

  Result: A statistically significant negative correlation between the number of phonemes per syllable and the number of syllables per clause.

  r = – 0.77, p < .01

07.10.2011

5

Furthercrosslinguis@ccorrela@ons

•  The more syllables per word, the fewer phonemespersyllable.r=–0.54(p<0.1%)

•  Themoresyllablesperclause,themoresyllablesperword.r=+0.47(p<1%)

•  Themorewords per clause, the fewer syllables perword.r=–0.66(p<0.1%)

•  High syllable complexity is significantly associatedwithVOorder.

Fenk&Oczlon&Fenk1999

Anextendedsampleof51languagesFenk‐Oczlon&Fenk2010

•  The applica8on of this method in a meanwhileextended sample of 51 languages corroborated thepreviously found nega8ve correla8on betweennumber of syllables per clause and number ofphonemespersyllable.

Themoresyllables,thefewerphonemespersyllable

•  The nega8ve correla8on between number ofsyllablesandnumberofphonemesproved tobeveryrobust:Acoefficientof–0.77inasampleof34predominantlyIndo‐Europeanlanguagesand–0.73inthesampleof51predominantlyNon‐Indo‐Europeanlanguages.

Themeannumberandtherangeofthenumberofsyllablesperclause

•  Themeannumberofsyllablesperclauseacrosslanguagesshisedfrom6.48intheprevioussampleto7.02intheextendedsample.

•  Therangealsoincreased:Ameanof4.64inThaiandameanof10.96inTelugu.

07.10.2011

6

The mean number of syllables per clause in 51 languages

from Fenk-Oczlon & Fenk (2010:1538)

Monosyllabismandsyllabiccomplexity

Across‐linguis8chypothesis:

Thelargerthepropor8onofmonosyllablesintextualmaterial,thehigherthemeansyllablecomplexity.

Method

32languageswerecomparedwithrespecttotheirpropor8onofmonosyllablesintextualmaterial.The“text”wasourcontrolledsetof22simplesentencesthatweretranslatedbyna8ve‐speakersintotheirmothertongue.

Languagesample•  13Indo‐European:Armenian,Bulgarian,Dutch,English,German,

Icelandic,Latvian,Norwegian,Polish,Romanian,Russian,Tajik,Welsh

•  4Austronesian:Indonesian,Javanese,KaroBatak,Malagasy

•  3NigerKongo:Bambara,Kirundi,Yoruba

•  2Uralic:Hungarian,Finnish,•  2Sino‐Tibetan:Mandarin,Cantonese

•  1Austroasia8c:Vietnamese

•  1Kartvelian:Georgian

•  1Tai‐Kadai:Thai

•  1Dravidian:Telugu•  1Uto‐Aztecan:Hopi

•  Navaho

•  1Macro‐Ge:Chiquitano

•  1Australian:Marranju

07.10.2011

7

07.10.2011

8

Results:propor@onofmonosyllables

Thehighestpropor8onofmonosyllableswasfoundinDutch(67outof88words,i.e.,76.14%)andinEnglish(73outof96words,i.e.,76.04%),thelowestintheAboriginallanguageMarranju(1outof83words,i.e.,1.2%).

Themeanvaluewas20.56%.Languageswithmorethan65%monosyllablescouldbelocalizedinnorthwesternEurope:Dutch,English,Welsh,GermanandFrenchshowedhighervaluesthanthetradi8onaltextbookexamplesVietnamese(63%)andMandarin(62%).

Results:monosyllablesandsyllabiccomplexity

Thehypothesispredic8ngaposi8vecorrela8onbetweenmonosyllabismandsyllabiccomplexityturnedouttobesignificant:

Themoremonosyllablesintextualmaterial,themorephonemespersyllable.r=+.62(p<.001)

Complexitytrade‐offsbetweenmorphologicalandphonologicalcomplexity

Thenega8vecorrela8ons“thefewersyllablesperword,themorephonemespersyllable”and/or“themoremonosyllablespertextualmaterial,thehigherthemeansyllablecomplexity”canbeinterpretedasacomplexitytrade‐offbetweenafacetofphonologicalcomplexityandafacetofmorphologicalcomplexity.Thistrade‐offbetweensyllablecomplexityandwordlengthseemstobeuniversalandcanalsobeobservedinpidginlanguagesthataremostcommonlysupposedtobelanguageswithlowcomplexity.

Complexitytrade‐offsinPidginlanguages

PidginlanguagestendtosimplifysyllablestructureandaccordingtoHall(1966)thepidginlanguagesNeo‐MelanesianandChinesePidgin‐Englishhave,ascomparedwiththeirlexifierlanguageEnglish,amuchhigherpropor8onofbisyllabicwords.

Assyllablestructuresaresimplified,thenumberofsyllablesperwordincreases.

e.g.: Chinese‐Pidgin: piece→piecee wife → wifoo

Kamtok: what→we8

07.10.2011

9

Complexitytrade‐offsdonotindicateanequaloverallcomplexity

Butthistrade‐offbetweensyllablecomplexityandnumberofsyllablesperword(ornumberofsyllablesperclause)doesnotimplyanoverallequalcomplexityoflanguages.Wewillreinforceourargumentsagainstsuchaviewontheoccasionofsomemisinterpreta8onsofourpreviousstudies.

Althoughweexplicitlystatedin(2008)thatthetrade‐offwehavefoundbetweenfacetsofphonologicalcomplexityandmorphologicalcomplexity“bynomeanssupports/…/theideaofanequaloverallcomplexityinnaturallanguages”itise.g.arguedin:

Complexitytrade‐offsdonotindicateanequaloverallcomplexity

•  Maddieson(2009):Fenk‐Oczlon&Fenk(2008)answertotheques8onwhetheritistruethatalllanguagesareequallycomplex“intheaffirma8ve”.Orin

•  Glaudert2009:“Firstofall,Ishallargue,followingFenk‐OczlonandFenk(2008),thatthesubsystemsofanylanguagearegovernedbycomplexitytrade‐offs,whichleadsustopostulatethatalllanguagesare,roughlyspeaking,equallycomplex.”

Complexitytrade‐offsdonotindicateanequaloverallcomplexity

•  Somearguments,whycomplexitytrade‐offsdonotindicateanequaloverallcomplexityoflanguages:– Firstofallforthegeneralreasonthatsyllablestructureandwordstructureareonlytwofacetsoutofanunknownnumberoffacetsthatmaycontributetoalanguage’stotalcomplexity.

– Morespecificallybecausewordlengthitselfisdeterminedbydifferentmorphologicalcomplexityfactors.e.g.:

Complexitytrade‐offsdonotindicateanequaloverallcomplexity

Wordlengthitselfisdeterminedbydifferentmorphologicalcomplexityfactors.e.g.:Monosyllabicwordrootsandfusionaloragglu8na8ve

morpholoy

Engl:sg.hand/pl.hands

tosit/shesits/shesat

Disyllabicwordrootsandisola8ngmorphologyIndonesian:sg.orang‘person’/pl.orang(orang)

duduk‘tosit’,pergi‘togo’,7dur‘tosleep’

(verbsdonotchangeaccordingtosubjectandtense)

07.10.2011

10

Complexitytrade‐offs:anon‐linguis@cexample

Anon‐linguis8cexample:

Alowbudgetuniversitydepartmentmayrecordastrongnega8vecorrela8onbetweenthenumberofprintoutsandthenumberofcopiespersinglemember:themorecopies,thefewerprintouts,andviceversa.Butthiscorrela8onisfullycompa8blewithmembersproducingbothfarmoreprintoutsANDfarmorecopiesthanothersorproducingatanyrateahighersumofprintoutsandcopies.

Someforthertrade‐offs:Englishasanexample

•  Englishhasahighnumberofmonosyllabicwords(roughly8000accordingtoJespersen)

•  ahighnumberofhomonyms,homophones,lexicalandgramma8calpolysemy

•  ahighnumberofidioms

–  e.g.phrasalverbs:theyareidioma8c,becausetheirmeaningcannotbederivedfromthemeaningofeachwordseparately.Theverbandthepreposi8on/adverbformingthephrasalverbareosenpolysemousandMONOSYLLABIC:inananalysisof1406phrasalverbswefoundthat1367or97%weremonosyllabic:

EnglishascomparedtoRussian(Polikarpov1997)

•  Wordlength:Russianwordsareontheaverage1.48meslongerthanEnglishwords

•  Polysemy:Englishwordshaveontheaverage2.7meanings,Russianwordsonly1.7

•  HomonymsinEnglish:atleast2000HomonymsinRussian:~500

•  IdiomsinEnglish:~30000IdiomsinRussian:~10000

highphonologicalcomplexity:e.g.largephonemicinventoryhighnumberofsyllabletypescomplexsyllablestructures

lowmorphologicalcomplexity:e.g.monosyllabism

lownumberofmorphemesperword

highwordordercomplexity:e.g.rigidwordorder

highnumberofwordorderruleshighnumberof(lexical)colloca@onrules

formulaicspeech,idioms

part‐of‐speechambiguitygramma@calpolysemy

lexicalambiguityhomonymy,polysemy

from Fenk-Oczlon & Fenk (2008: 61)

e.g. English:

07.10.2011

11

Equaloverallcomplexityoflanguages?

•  Weassumethatlanguagesmaywelldifferintheiroverallcomplexity.Butaslongasitisimpossibletoquan8fytheoverallcomplexityofasinglelanguageitisalsoimpossibletocomparedifferentlanguageswithrespecttothatquan8ty.

Equaloverallcomplexityoflanguages?

•  Shosted(2006)concludes:“thedictum‘Alllanguagesareequallycomplex’isdogma8c.Statementsofthissortshouldbeusedwithgreatercau8on–ifnotdiscardedaltogether–un8lsuch8measfalsifiable,quan8ta8veevidenceofcorrelatedcomplexityisbroughtforward.”Weagreeandareevenpessimis8cfortheremotefuture:

Equaloverallcomplexityoflanguages?

•  Weagreeandareevenpessimis8cfortheremotefuture:

•  Thenumberofcross‐linguis8ccorrela8onsindica8ngcomplexitytrade‐offsmaywellincrease.Suchcorrela8onsareinteres8ngforourunderstandingofsinglenaturallanguagesasself‐organizingsystems.

•  Suchinferenceswereuntenableevenifallrelevantparameterscontribu8ngtocomplexitywereascertainable,asillustratedinouraboveexamplewithprintoutsversuscopies.Thisisratherunpromisinginfaceoflanguagesystems:Howshouldweeverknowifthelistavailableatagiven8meisreallyexhaus8ve?

Equaloverallcomplexityoflanguages?

•  The“equaloverallcomplexity”‐hypothesisisa0‐hypothesis,i.e.,ahypothe8calnega8onofpossiblecomplexity‐differencesdependingonthespecificlanguage.Anda0‐hypothesiscannotbereallycorroborated;itcanonlyberefuted,andthisthroughasta8s8calcorrobora8onof“posi8ve”differences.

07.10.2011

12

Conclusion

Complexitytrade‐offsbetweenthesubsystemsofalanguagefavorarela8vely“constant”flowofinforma8onwithinthatlanguageaswellasatendencytothemeanoftheoverallcomplexitybetweenlanguages.Buttheydonotatallexcludelanguage‐specificdifferencesinthatoverallcomplexity.

Thankyouforyouraien@on!

SelectedReferences

•  Fenk‐Oczlon,G.(1983).BedeutungseinheitenundsprachlicheSegmen8erung.EinesprachvergleichendeUntersuchungüberkogni8veDeterminantenderKernsatzlänge.Tübingen:Narr

•  Fenk‐Oczlon,G.&Fenk,A.(1985).

•  Fenk,A.&Fenk‐Oczlon,G.(1993).Menzerath’slawandtheconstantflowoflinguis8cinforma8on.InR.Köhler&B.Rieger(Eds.)Contribu7onstoQuan7ta7veLinguis7cs.Dordrecht:KluwerAcademicPublishers,11–31.

•  Fenk‐Oczlon,G.,&Fenk,A.(2008).Complexitytrade‐offsbetweenthesubsystemsoflanguage.InM.Miestamo,K.Sinnemäki&F.Karlsson(Eds.)LanguageComplexity:Typology,Contact,Change.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins,43–65.

•  Fenk‐Oczlon,G.&Fenk,A.(2010).Measuringbasictempoacrosslanguagesandsomeimplica8onsforspeechrhythm.Proceedingsofthe11thAnnualConferenceoftheInterna8onalSpeechCommunica8onAssocia8on(INTERSPEECH2010),Makuhari,Japan,1537‐1540.

•  Glaudert,N.(2009).Thetheoryofmarkednessandforeignlanguageteaching.InA.Shafari&M.Neja8(Eds.)AnnalsofLanguageandLearning.Proceedingsofthe2009Interna7onalOnlineconference(IOLC2009).

SelectedReferences

•  Jespersen,O.(1894).ProgressinLanguage:withSpecialReferencetoEnglish.London:SwanSonnenschein&Co.

•  Maddieson,I.(2009).Calcula8ngmorphologicalcomplexity.InF.Pellegrino,E.Marsico,J.Chitoran&C.Coupé(Eds.)ApproachestoPhonologicalComplexity.Berlin/NewYork:MoutondeGruyter,85‐109.

•  Parkvall,M.(2008).Thesimplicityofcreolesinacross‐linguis8cperspec8ve.InM.Miestamo,K.Sinnemäki&F.Karlsson(eds.)LanguageComplexity:Typology,Contact,Change.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins,265‐285.

•  Shosted,R.K.(2006).Correla8ngcomplexity:Atypologicalapproach.Linguis7cTypology10‐1,1‐40.