Cover not available
Article published In:
Words & Constructions: Language complexity in linguistics and psychology
Edited by Juhani Järvikivi, Pirita Pyykkönen-Klauck and Matti Laine
[The Mental Lexicon 9:2] 2014
► pp. 144–169

Complexity in linguistic theorizing

| University of Helsinki
The general notion of ‘complexity’ is discussed based on foundational ideas by Herbert Simon and Nicholas Rescher. An analytic overview is provided of the ways in which language complexity has been treated in linguistic theories during the past 200 years. The Schlegel brothers, Humboldt, and Schleicher developed the first theory of complexity with their tripartition of languages into progressively complex morphological types. Humboldt also provided the principle of One Meaning – One Form (Humboldt’s Universal) which has turned out to be a widespread tendency in the simplification of morphological complexity. Jespersen’s Ease Theory has been influential in highlighting many instances of phonological change. The main contribution of Structuralism was Markedness Theory, the idea that language at all levels is built on minimal oppositions where one term (e.g. voiceless or singular) is more basic than its complex counterpart (e.g. voiced or plural). Syntactic complexity came to the fore with the theory of Immediate Constituents giving tools for measuring syntactic depth. Generative linguistics tried to measure syntactic complexity by devising Evaluation Measures based on symbol counting. Current linguistics offers a plethora of empirical studies at all levels, invoking considerations of both system, processing, and cognitive complexity.
Keywords: language complexity, syntactic complexity, complexity, linguistic theorizing, markedness, morphological complexity, linguistic theory, evaluation measure, markedness theory
Published online: 21 November 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.9.2.01kar
References (66)
Biber, D. (1995). Dimensions of register variation. A cross-linguistic study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1992). Language and species. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blankenship, J. (1974). The influence of mode, submode, and speaker predilection on style. Speech Monographs, 411, 85–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (1999). The origins of complex language. An inquiry into the evolutionary beginnings of sentences, syllables and truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1982). Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In Deborah Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp. 35–54). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chipere, N. (2003). Understanding complex sentences: Native speaker variation in syntactic competence. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1959). On certain formal properties of grammars. Information and Control, 21, 137–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1992). Before complexity. In Murray Gell-Mann, & John A. Hawkins (Eds.), The Evolution of human languages: Proceedings of the workshop on the evolution of human languages, held August 1989 in Santa Fe, New Mexico (pp. 193–211).Redwood, CA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (2006). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (6th ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Culicover, P.W. (2013). Grammar & complexity. Language at the intersection of competence and performance. Oxford: University PressGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Ö. (2004). The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deutscher, G. (2009). “Overall complexity”: A wild goose chase? In Sampson, Gil, & Trudgill (Eds.), 243–251.
Dressler, W.U. (1987). Leitmotifs in natural morphology. Studies in Language Companion Series, 10. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Einarsson, J. (1978). Talad och skriven svenska. Sociolingvistiska studier. Lundastudier i nordisk språkvetenskap. SERIE C NR 9. Lund: Walter Ekstrand Bokförlag.Google Scholar
Engel, E. (1911). Deutsche stilkunst. Vienna & Leipzig: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky A-G.Google Scholar
Everett, D. (2005). Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã: Another look at the design features of human language. Current Anthropology, 46 (4), 621–646 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, G., Klein, E., Pullum, G., & Sag, I. (1985). Generalized phrase structure grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 681, 1–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (2009). The genesis of syntactic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T., & Shibatani, M. (Eds.). (2009). Syntactic Complexity: Diachrony, acquisition, neuro-cognition, evolution. Typological Studies in Language, 85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2006). Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics, 42 (1), 25–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J.A. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hockett, C. (1958). A course in modern linguistics. New York: The Macmillan Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Humboldt, W. von. (1836). Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechts. Berlin: Druckerei der königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1999). Possible stages in the evolution of the language capacity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3 (7), 272–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1932). Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums. In Charistia Guglielmo Mathesio Quinquagenario a discipulis et Circuli Linguistici Pragensis sodalibus oblata (pp. 74–84). Prague: Cercle linguistique de Prague.Google Scholar
. (1936). Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre. Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen kasus. In Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague VI1 (pp. 240–288). Praha.Google Scholar
. (1942). Kindersprache, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze. Uppsala: A.-B. Lundequistska bokhandeln.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1922). Language, its nature, development & origin. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
. (1941). Efficiency in linguistic change. Det Kgl. danske videnskabernes selskab. Historisk-filologiske meddelelser, 27 (4). København: Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Kager, R. (1999). Optimality theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karlsson, F. (2007). Constraints on multiple center-embedding of clauses. Journal of Linguistics, 43 (2), 365–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kinsella, A.R. (2009). Language evolution and syntactic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kordmann, B., & Szmrecsanyi, B. (2009). World Englishes between simplification and complexification. In Lucia Siebers, & Thomas Hoffmann (eds.), World Englishes – problems, properties and prospects: Selected papers from the 13th IAWE conference (pp. 265–285). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kusters, W. (2003). Linguistic complexity: The influence of social change on verbal inflection. Ph.D. diss., University of Leiden.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2009). The emergence of linguistic complexity. In Givón, & Shibatani (Eds.), 405–432.
Martinet, A. (1955). Économie des changements phonétiques. Traité de phonologie diachronique. Bibliotheca Romanica. Manualia et Commentationes X. Berne: Éditions A. Francke S.A.Google Scholar
Mayerthaler, W. (1980). Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Linguistische Forschungen, 28. Wiesbaden: Athenaion.Google Scholar
McWhorter, J. (2001). The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars. Linguistic Typology, 51, 126–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michel, J-B., Shen, Y.K., Aiden, A.P., Veres, A., & Gray, M.K., The Google Books Team, Pickett, J.B., Hoiberg, D., Clancy, D., Norvig, P., Orwant, J., Pinker, S., Nowak, M.A., & Aiden, E.L. (2011). Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science, 331 (6014), 176–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miestamo, M. (2008). Grammatical complexity in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Miestamo, Sinnemäki, & Karlsson 2008a (Eds.), 23–42.
Miestamo, M., Sinnemäki, K., & Karlsson, F. (2008b). Introduction: The problem of language complexity. In Miestamo, Sinnemäki, and Karlsson 2008a (Eds.), Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change (pp. vii–xiv). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, G.A. (1987). Some psychological studies of grammar. American Psychologist, 171, 748–762. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, J. (1992). Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2009). Linguistic complexity: A comprehensive definition and a survey. In Sampson, Gil, & Trudgill (Eds.), 110–125.
Paul, H. (1920 [1886]). Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Fünfte Auflage. Halle a. S.: Verlag von Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Perkins, R.D. (1992). Deixis, grammar, and culture. Typological Studies in Language 24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rescher, N. (1998). Complexity: A philosophical overview. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Sampson, G., Gil, D., & Trudgill, P. (Eds.). (2009). Language complexity as an evolving variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schleicher, A. (1863). Die Darwinsche Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft. Weimar: Hermann Bühlau.Google Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106 (6), 467–482.Google Scholar
Sinnemäki, K. (2008). Complexity trade-offs in core argument marking. In Miestamo, Sinnemäki, & Karlsson 2008a (Eds.), 67–88.
. (2011). Language universals and linguistic complexity. Three studies in core argument marking. Ph. D. diss., Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki.Available at: [URL]Google Scholar
. (Forthcoming). Complexity trade-offs: A case study. In Frederick J. Newmeyer, & Laurel B. Preston (Eds.), Measuring linguistic complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logo
Taft, M. (1979). Recognition of affixed words and the word frequency effect. Memory & Cognition, 7 (4), 263–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taft, M., & Forster, K. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval for prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 141, 638–647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traxler, M.J. (2012). Introduction to psycholinguistics. Understanding language science. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N.S. (1939). Grundzüge der Phonologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (2009). Sociolinguistic typology and complexification. In Sampson, Gil, & Trudgill (Eds.), 98–109.
Wells, R.S. (1947). Immediate constituents. Language, 23 (1), 81–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wurzel, W.U. (1984). Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit: ein Beitrag zur morphologischen Theoriebildung. Studia Grammatica, 21. Berlin: Akademie-Vlg.Google Scholar
Yngve, V.A. (1960). A model and an hypothesis for language structure. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 104 (5), 444–466.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Bauer, Laurie
2023. A terminological problem. Diachronica 40:3 ► pp. 433 ff. DOI logo
Säily, Tanja, Turo Vartiainen & Harri Siirtola
2017. Exploring part-of-speech frequencies in a sociohistorical corpus of English. In Exploring Future Paths for Historical Sociolinguistics [Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics, 7], ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.