Measuring complexity in contrastive linguistics and ... reddot/cecl/documents... · Measuring...

Introduction Notions Absolute-quantitative Baroque Irregularity Learnability Conclusion

Measuring complexity in contrastive linguisticsand contrastive dialectology

Benedikt Szmrecsanyi

KU LeuvenQuantitative Lexicology and Variational Linguistics

Download these slides at http://www.benszm.net/lln.pdf


Introduction


Some interesting questions

• where does language complexity come from?

• how does language complexity evolve in learners?

• what does language complexity tell us about the nature oflinguistic knowledge?

• why and to what extent do languages & dialects differ interms of the amount of complexity that they exhibit?


Philosophy

• most recent comparative work on language complexitytakes a functional-typological and/or sociolinguistic /contact-linguistic perspective, and adopts empiricalmethodologies


Challenging the equicomplexity dogma:

McWhorter (2001)

John McWhorter

“a subset of creole languagesdisplay less overall grammaticalcomplexity than older languages,by virtue of the fact that they wereborn as pidgins, and thus strippedof almost all features unnecessaryto communication [...]”

(McWhorter 2001: 125)


Language and dialect comparison

• cumulative weight of evidence:human languages, and dialects of the same language, candiffer in their complexity(“Linguists of all stripes are increasingly willing to entertain the

idea that one language might indeed be simpler or more complex

than another”; Newmeyer and Preston 2014: 7)

• this is curious, as such complexity differentials cannothave biological and are unlikely to have communicativereasons

• many analysts thus conclude that complexity variationmust have social motives


Theory

• languages as complex adaptive systems(Beckner et al. 2009)

• complexity profiles adapt to communicative, cultural, andcognitive needs (Bentz and Winter 2013: 19)

• language structure and its complexity a function of socialand sociohistorical factors:

• language contact ê simplificatory adult SLA ê

simplification(e.g. Lupyan and Dale 2010)

• childhood bilingualism ê complexification(Trudgill 2011: 42)

• isolation ê complexification(Wray and Grace 2007; Nichols 2013)


Sociolinguistic theory:

Trudgill (2011), Sociolinguistic Typology

Peter Trudgill

contact, social instability, adult SLA,population growthê simplification

• increase in morphologicaltransparency

• loss of redundancy

• loss of “historical baggage”


Cross-linguistic typology:

Nichols (2013)

Johanna Nichols

“isolation favors (or at least doesnot disfavor) complexity, mountaingeography favors isolation [. . . ]Thus ejectives and uvulars can befound in mountain areas – notbecause harsh mountain geographydeterministically causes languagesto add harsh consonant series (!),but because isolation favorscomplexity.”

(Nichols 2013: 38)


This talk

1. Introduction

2. Key notions: local versus global, absolute versus relative

3. Four popular complexity measures in the comparativeliterature

• absolute-quantitative complexity measures

• “baroque complexity” measures

• irregularity and opacity

• learnability measures

4. Conclusion


Key notions: local versus global, absolute

versus relative


Local versus global complexity

• distinguish carefully between

• global linguistic complexitycomplexity of a language, dialect, etc. as such(Deutscher 2009, 2010: “wild goose chase”)

• local linguistic complexityi.e. domain-specific linguistic complexity


Local complexities

• phonological complexity(e.g. Shosted 2006)

• morphological complexity(e.g. Kusters 2003)

• syntactic complexity(e.g. Karlsson 2009)

• semantic and lexical complexity(e.g. Fenk-Oczlon and Fenk 2008)

• pragmatic complexity, also known as “hidden complexity”(e.g. Bisang 2009)


Trade-offs?

• Shosted (2006): investigates morphological andphonological complexity in a sample of 34 languages; notrade-off

• Fenk-Oczlon and Fenk (2008: 63) do diagnose “balancingeffects” between local complexities

• Gil (2008): isolating languages do not necessarilycompensate for simpler morphology with more complexityin other domains

• Nichols (2009) explores local complexities in a wide rangeof languages; no trade-off

• . . .


Absolute versus relative measures

• Miestamo (2009: 81): two kinds of measures

• measures of absolute complexitytheory-oriented – define complexity in ‘objective’ termsas the number of parts in a system, of connectionsbetween different parts, etc.

• measures of relative complexityuser-oriented and thus ‘subjective’, about ‘cost’ and‘difficulty’


Absolute-quantitative measures of complexity


The “more is more complex” approach

“A grammar is judged to be more complex if it has more(marked) phonemes, more tones, more syntactic rules, moregrammatically expressed semantic and/or pragmaticdistinctions, more morphophonemic rules, more cases ofsuppletion, allomorphy, agreement. Qualitative aspects ofcomplexity, such as the internal complexity of the rulesthemselves, are not taken into account. ”

(Arends 2001: 180, critiquing the metric used in McWhorter 2001)


Shosted (2006)

• investigates trade-offs (r = 0.07) between phonologicaland morphological complexity in 32 languages

• definition phonological complexity: “total number ofpossible syllables, i.e. the combinatory possibilities ofall syllable types (CV, CVC, etc.) based on thenumber of vowels, consonants, tones, diphthongs,laryngeal contrasts, and length contrasts reported ineach phonological inventory” (p. 11)

• definition morphological complexity: essentially measuresthe degree of inflectional synthesis – what is the extent towhich languages express grammatical categoriesmorphologically (affixation etc.)?


Shosted (2006: 13)


Shosted (2006: 26)


Dahl (2004: 42) on system complexity

• measure language complexity as thelength of the shortest description of a language(see also Gell-Mann 1995)

• can refer to . . .

• resources (e.g. vocabulary)• regulations (grammar)

• length of the shortest description of a text?


Kolmogorov complexity

• “for any sequence of symbols, the Kolmogorovcomplexity of the sequence is the length of the shortestalgorithm that will exactly generate the sequence”(Sadeniemi et al. 2008: 191)

• can be used to assess linguistic complexity of text samples(Juola 1998, 2008): increased Kolmogorov complexity ê

higher complexity mandated by the language used

• modern file compression programs use adaptive entropyestimation, which approximates Kolmogorov complexity(Ziv and Lempel 1977; Juola 1998)


Kolmogorov meets Mark

Adjusted overallcomplexity scores, varioustranslations of Gospel ofMark. Negative residualsindicate below-averagecomplexity, positiveresiduals indicateabove-average complexity(Ehret and Szmrecsanyiin press: Fig 1).


“Baroque complexity” measures


Baroqueness

• a.k.a “overspecification” (McWhorter 2001: 134),“ornamental elaboration” (McWhorter 2001: 132), or“historical baggage” (Trudgill 1999: 149)

• about the prevalence of redundant features, in the senseof communicatively dispensable elements that are

“incidental to basic communication” (McWhorter 2001:126)

• hybrid between relative and absolute complexity: absolutebecause theory dictates what should count as redundant;relative because it is language users who bear the cost ofthis redundancy


Baroque features

features that we don’t find in a sample of 19 creole languages,but which may be present in their lexifiers:

“ergativity, grammaticalized evidential marking, inalienablepossessive marking, switch-reference marking, inversemarking, obviative marking, “dummy” verbs, syntacticasymmetries between matrix and subordinate clauses,grammaticalized subjunctive marking, verb-second, cliticmovement, any pragmatically neutral word order but SVO,noun class or grammatical gender marking (analytic oraffixal), or lexically contrastive or morphosyntactic tone[. . . ] ”

(McWhorter 2001: 163)


Baroqueness in varieties of English

• Szmrecsanyi and Kortmann (2009) tap into themorphosyntax survey coming with the Handbook ofvarieties of English (Kortmann et al. 2004)

• 76 grammatical features × 46 int’l varieties

• interest (among other things) in ornamental rule/featurecomplexity:“complexity deriving from the presence, in a givenvariety’s morphosyntactic inventory, of features orrules that add contrasts, distinctions, or asymmetries(compared to a system that does not attest suchfeatures/rules) without providing a clearly identifiablecommunicative or functional bonus” (68)


Some baroque features

total N in 76-feature survey: 7(see Szmrecsanyi and Kortmann 2009 for the complete list)

• be as perfect auxiliary (e.g. NfldE)(e.g. They’re not left school yet)ê additional selection criteria (verb type)

• Northern Subject Rule(e.g. I sing [vs. *I sings], Birds sings, I sing and dances)ê complexifying due to type of S-constraint and position of

S-constraint

• she/her used for inanimate referents (e.g. IsSEAmE)(e.g. She was burning good [about a house])ê weakening of straightforward natural gender assignment

system


Baroque features by variety type


Irregularity and opacity


Irregularity-centered complexity measures

• classify as complex the outcome of irregular – typicallyinflectional or derivational – processes which are opaqueand non-transparent

• absolute notion in that the definition of what shouldcount as ‘irregular’ is theory-driven, but once again thecost associated with such irregularity is incurred bylanguage users


Irregularity and transparency in varieties of English

• Szmrecsanyi and Kortmann (2009) investigate a corpusdatabase covering 5 traditional British dialects (e.g. SWof England, Scottish Highlands), 3 high-contact L1varieties (e.g. NZE, StBrE), and 5 L2 varieties (e.g. IndE,HKE)

• calculate transparency indices: percentage of boundgrammatical morphemes which are regular

(1) I was gone down river, the flood catched me(COCA)

(2) I hadn’t knowed he knew my name(COCA)


Transparency by variety type


A related notion: “opacity”

• Nichols (2013) is interested in complexity differentials inNakh-Daghestanian languages (eastern Caucasus)

• “Opacity is the number of steps, processes, mergers,syncretisms, allomorphies, etc. standing between theunderlying category or form and its surface exponent(e.g. syncretic, zero, and non-segmental marking ofgenders are opaque, as is arbitrary semantics ofgenders).” (44)

• low opacity ≈ transparency


How to measure opacity (p. 47)

Gender agreement (of verbs with arguments). One opacitypoint is scored for each of the following properties:

• non-overt agreement markers: one or more of thegender categories has zero exponence

• syncretism within the singular gender agreementparadigm (for some morphological context)

• syncretism within the plural gender agreementparadigm

. . .


How to measure opacity (p. 48)

Semantic arbitrariness of gender classification. One opacitypoint is scored for each of the following properties:

• number of genders with semantic arbitrariness

• number of genders with semantic arbitrariness amonganimate nouns

. . . and so on.


The opacity-altitude correlation

(Nichols 2013: 48)


Learnability


Learnability

• a.k.a. L2 acquisition difficulty / L2-easiness

• genuinely relative complexity measure: about the degreeto which a language or language variety (or some aspectof a language or language variety) is difficult to acquirefor adult language learners

• links to SLA, indigenization studies, contact linguistics(see the papers in Kortmann and Szmrecsanyi 2012)

• “My thinking was, and is, that “linguistic complexity”[. . . ] equates with “difficulty of learning for adults”[. . . ] complexity disappears as a result of the lousylanguage-learning abilities of the human adult”(Trudgill 2001: 371–372)


Defining learnability

“I define complexity as the amount of effort an outsider hasto make to become acquainted with the language inquestion [. . . ] an outsider is someone who learns thelanguage in question at a later age, and is not a nativespeaker. Therefore, phenomena that are relatively difficultfor a second language learner in comparison with a firstlanguage learner are more complex [. . . ] Phenomena thatare easy to acquire for a second language learner butdifficult for a first language learner are less complex. ”

(Kusters 2003: 6)


Exploring learnability cross-linguistically

• Kusters (2003) is an OT-based study interested in variousaspects of the complexity of verbal inflection (adultlearners dislike inflectional categories) – e.g. what is theextent to which we find phonological allomorphy?

• the study investigates a range of languages from fourlanguage groups (Arabic, Scandinavian, Quechua, andSwahili), taking into account various sociolinguisticcircumstances

• result: languages that are used as lingua franca are moreamenable to simplification than languages that are spokenin closed speech communities


Learnability in varieties of English

• Szmrecsanyi and Kortmann (2009) tap into themorphosyntax survey coming with the Handbook ofvarieties of English (Kortmann et al. 2004)

• 76 grammatical features × 46 int’l varieties

• “we operationalize L2 acquisition difficulty as thedegree to which a given variety does not attestphenomena that L2 acquisition research has shown torecur in interlanguage varieties” (69)


Some “learnable” featurestotal N in 76-feature survey: 24(see Szmrecsanyi and Kortmann 2009 for the complete list)

• do as a tense and aspect marker (e.g. SW of England)(e.g. This man what do own this)ê increased analyticity/transparency, recurrent in IL varieties(e.g. Seuren and Wekker 1986)

• zero past tense forms of regular verbs (e.g. Gullah)(e.g. I walk for I walked)ê IL avoidance of inflectional marking(e.g. Klein and Perdue 1997)

• resumptive / shadow pronouns (e.g. Urban AAVE)(e.g. This is the house which I painted it yesterday)ê learners frequently insert resumptive pronouns(e.g. Hyltenstam 1984)


Plotting varieties of English

Szmrecsanyi and Kortmann (2012: Fig 2)


About analyticity and syntheticity

• known interlanguage universal: learners avoid inflectionalmarking & prefer analyticity(e.g. Klein and Perdue 1997)

• syntheticity difficult because of the allomorphies it creates(e.g. Braunmuller 1990: 627)

• rule of thumb:analyticity ê simple, syntheticity ê complex


Siegel, Szmrecsanyi & Kortmann (2014)

Russian

German

Italian

English

Tok Pisin

Hawai’i Creole

300

400

500

600

0 200 400 600syntheticity index

anal

ytic

ity in

dex

AI versus SI, medium:written. Europeanlanguages:contemporarynewspaper prose.


Conclusion


Future directions

• many of the the of currently available comparativemeasures are concerned with “system complexity”(Pallotti 2014)

• how difficult is it to use language/dialect A,vis-a-vis language/dialect B?

• psycholinguistic issues• sociolinguistic issues• variation• . . .


Future directions



• psycholinguistic issues

• sociolinguistic issues• variation• . . .


Future directions



• psycholinguistic issues• sociolinguistic issues

• variation• . . .


Future directions



• psycholinguistic issues• sociolinguistic issues• variation• . . .


Thank you!

[email protected]

Download these slides athttp://www.benszm.net/lln.pdf

Literatur

References I

Arends, J. (2001). Simple grammars, complex languages. Linguistic Typology 5(2/3),180–182.

Beckner, C., R. Blythe, J. Bybee, M. H. Christiansen, W. Croft, N. C. Ellis, J. Holland,J. Ke, D. Larsen-Freeman, and T. Schoenemann (2009, December). Language Is aComplex Adaptive System: Position Paper. Language Learning 59, 1–26.

Bentz, C. and B. Winter (2013). Languages with More Second Language LearnersTend to Lose Nominal Case. Language Dynamics and Change 3, 1–27.

Bisang, W. (2009). On the evolution of complexity: sometimes less is more in East andmainland Southeast Asia. In G. Sampson, D. Gil, and P. Trudgill (Eds.), LanguageComplexity as an Evolving Variable, pp. 34–49. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Braunmuller, K. (1990). Komplexe Flexionssysteme – (k)ein Problem fur dieNaturlichkeitstheorie? Zeitschrift fur Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft undKommunikationsforschung 43, 625–635.

Dahl, s. (2004). The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam,Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Deutscher, G. (2009). ”Overall complexity”: a wild goose chase? In G. Sampson,D. Gil, and P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable, pp.243–251. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Deutscher, G. (2010). Through the language glass: why the world looks different inother languages. New York: Metropolitan Books.

Literatur

References IIEhret, K. and B. Szmrecsanyi. An information-theoretic approach to assess linguistic

complexity. In R. Baechler and G. Seiler (Eds.), Complexity and Isolation. Berlin:de Gruyter.

Fenk-Oczlon, G. and A. Fenk (2008). Complexity trade-offs between subsystems oflanguage. In M. Miestamo, K. Sinnemaki, and F. Karlsson (Eds.), LanguageComplexity: Typology, Contact, Change, pp. 43–65. Amsterdam, Philadelphia:John Benjamins.

Gell-Mann, M. (1995). What is complexity? Remarks on simplicity and complexity bythe Nobel Prize-winning author of The Quark and the Jaguar. Complexity 1(1),16–19.

Gil, D. (2008). How complex are isolating languages? In M. Miestamo, K. Sinnemaki,and F. Karlsson (Eds.), Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change, pp.109–131. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Hyltenstam, K. (1984). The use of typological markedness conditions as predictors insecond language acquisition: The case of pronominal copies in relative clauses. InR. Andersen (Ed.), Second Languages, pp. 39–58. Rowley, MA: Newbury.

Juola, P. (1998). Measuring linguistic complexity: the morphological tier. Journal ofQuantitative Linguistics 5(3), 206–213.

Juola, P. (2008). Assessing linguistic complexity. In M. Miestamo, K. Sinnemaki, andF. Karlsson (Eds.), Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change, pp. 89–108.Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Literatur

References IIIKarlsson, F. (2009). Origin and maintenance of clausal embedding complexity. In

G. Sampson, D. Gil, and P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language Complexity as an EvolvingVariable, pp. 193–202. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Klein, W. and C. Perdue (1997). The basic variety (or: Couldn’t natural languages bemuch simpler?). Second Language Research 13, 301–347.

Kortmann, B., E. Schneider, K. Burridge, R. Mesthrie, and C. Upton (Eds.) (2004). AHandbook of Varieties of English. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Kortmann, B. and B. Szmrecsanyi (2012). Linguistic Complexity: Second LanguageAcquisition, Indigenization, Contact. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Kusters, W. (2003). Linguistic Complexity: The Influence of Social Change on VerbalInflection. Utrecht: LOT.

Lupyan, G. and R. Dale (2010, January). Language Structure Is Partly Determined bySocial Structure. PLoS ONE 5(1), e8559.

McWhorter, J. (2001). The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars. LinguisticTypology 6, 125–166.

Miestamo, M. (2009). Implicational hierarchies and grammatical complexity. InG. Sampson, D. Gil, and P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language Complexity as an EvolvingVariable, pp. 80–97. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Newmeyer, F. J. and L. B. Preston (2014). Introduction. In F. J. Newmeyer and L. B.Preston (Eds.), Measuring grammatical complexity, pp. 1–13. New York, NY:Oxford University Press.

Literatur

References IV

Nichols, J. (2009). Linguistic complexity: a comprehensive definition and survey. InG. Sampson, D. Gil, and P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language Complexity as an EvolvingVariable, pp. 64–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nichols, J. (2013). The vertical archipelago: Adding the third dimension to linguisticgeography. In P. Auer, M. Hilpert, A. Stukenbrock, and B. Szmrecsanyi (Eds.),Space in language and linguistics: geographical, interactional, and cognitiveperspectives, pp. 38–60. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Pallotti, G. (2014). A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research.

Sadeniemi, M., K. Kettunen, T. Lindh-Knuutila, and T. Honkela (2008). Complexityof European Union Languages: A Comparative Approach. Journal of QuantitativeLinguistics 15(2), 185–211.

Seuren, P. and H. Wekker (1986). Semantic transparency as a factor in creole genesis.In P. Muysken and N. Smith (Eds.), Substrata versus Universals in Creole Genesis,pp. 57–70. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Shosted, R. K. (2006). Correlating complexity: A typological approach. Journal ofLinguistic Typology 10, 1–40.

Siegel, J., B. Szmrecsanyi, and B. Kortmann (2014, January). Measuring analyticityand syntheticity in creoles. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 29(1), 49–85.

Literatur

References V

Szmrecsanyi, B. and B. Kortmann (2009). Between simplification andcomplexification: non-standard varieties of English around the world. InG. Sampson, D. Gil, and P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language Complexity as an EvolvingVariable, pp. 64–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Szmrecsanyi, B. and B. Kortmann (2012). Introduction: Linguistic Complexity, SecondLanguage Acquisition, indigenization, contact. In B. Szmrecsanyi and B. Kortmann(Eds.), Linguistic Complexity: Second Language Acquisition, Indigenization,Contact, Lingua & Litterae, pp. 6–34. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.

Trudgill, P. (1999). Language contact and the function of linguistic gender. PoznanStudies in Contemporary Linguistics 35(133-152).

Trudgill, P. (2001). Contact and simplification: historical baggage and directionality inlinguistic change. Linguistic Typology 5(2/3), 371–374.

Trudgill, P. (2011). Sociolinguistic typology : social determinants of linguisticcomplexity. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Wray, A. and G. W. Grace (2007, March). The consequences of talking to strangers:Evolutionary corollaries of socio-cultural influences on linguistic form.Lingua 117(3), 543–578.

Ziv, J. and A. Lempel (1977). A universal algorithm for sequential data compression.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory IT-23(3), 337–343.

Measuring complexity in contrastive linguistics and ... reddot/cecl/documents... · Measuring...

Documents

Transcript of Measuring complexity in contrastive linguistics and ... reddot/cecl/documents... · Measuring...