Complexity in language

[Wouter Kusters]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
At 15:26 24-06-98 -0400, Isidore Dyen wrote:
>....I should add that, as I see it, theories can no be
>tested--they can only be revised or replaced--but the hypotheses based on
>a theory can be tested. Obviously a theory on which no hypothesis can be
>based is not worth proposing.
 
My use of the word 'theory' was indeed a bit old-fashioned Popperian, and
in fact I completely agree with this Kuhnian idea.
 
>Perhaps the greatest complication in measuring a language directly is the
>apparent incommensurability of its parts. How can the inventory and
>distribution of the phonemes, which a appear to be measurable, be measured
>so that it is commensurable with the morphology, the syntax, the lexicon,
>and/or the semantics and how are the latter four to be reduced to
>commensurability. The theory of equicomplexity implies that these
>structures, when measured in different languages, will somehow form an
>equation.
Two languages like Russian versus Navaho are indeed very difficult to
measure on their difference in complexity. But why not taking two more
closely related languages which differ only on one level, and in which the
difference is obviously one of complexity (take Anem vs. Lusi in New
Britain according to Thurston, or Shaba Swahili vs. Zanzibar Swahili). How
does the theory of equicomplexity account for that?
I think in these cases the theory of equicomplexity or at least its related
hypotheses make the wrong predictions. In my opinion this theory can only
make right statements, when you do not know what complexity actually
comprises.
The moment you define (a subpart of) complexity as e.g. 'irregularity in
the morphology', (i.e. semantically intransparent relations between meaning
and form), you can see that the intuitions of ordinary people, and the
problems which arise in second language learning, and the structural
differences between languages which have a status as lingua franca and
languages which have a more 'ethnic' status, all point in the same
direction, i.e. that there are differences in complexity between languages.
 
>At the same time it should be remembered that the ntuarl languages that we
>are dealing with are the product of a long period of evolution that did
>not produce better languages, as far as we can tell, or, for that matter,
>worse languages.
This may be true but has nothing to do with the complexity of languages.
Bacteria are simpler than mammals, but this does not mean that the one is
better or worse accommodated to the circumstances. In the world of language
also, there exist different circumstances, under which languages prosper.
The circumstances under which a 'contact language' grows are different from
the circumstances of an 'ethnic' language.
So, I think you can find differences in complexity, on the condition that
you do not equal the complexity of a language with its 'value'. Measuring
complexity may be hard, measuring the 'value' of a language is even harder.
 
Wouter Kusters
University of Amsterdam.