Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistics Vanguard

A Multimodal Journal for the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: Bergs, Alexander / Cohn, Abigail C. / Good, Jeff

1 Issue per year

Online
ISSN
2199-174X
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Hidden complexity – The neglected side of complexity and its implications

Walter Bisang
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of English and Linguistics (FB 05), University of Mainz, Jakob-Welder-Weg 18, D-55099 Mainz, Germany
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2015-01-13 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2014-1014

Abstract

Linguistic complexity is the result of the two motivations of explicitness and economy. Most approaches focus on the explicitness-side of complexity (overt complexity) but there is also an economy-oriented side to it (hidden complexity). The aim of the paper is to introduce hidden complexity and to show how it opens new perspectives on central issues of linguistics. It will discuss the following questions: (i) the implementability of hidden complexity for psycholinguistic experiments, (ii) the evolution of linguistic complexity, (iii) its realisation in creole languages and (iv) its consequences for theories on the architecture of grammar. With this aim, the paper is a programmatic paper with the intention of pointing out ideas for future research.

Keywords: architecture of grammar; complexity; creoles; economy; explicitness; maturation; numeral classifiers; pragmatics; radical pro-drop

References

  • Allan, K. 1977. Classifiers. Language 53. 285–311.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ansaldo, U. & S. Nordhoff. 2009. Complexity and the age of languages. In E. O. Aboh & N. Smith (eds.), Complex processes in new languages, 345–363. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Arcodia, G. F. 2013. Grammaticalization with coevolution of form and meaning in East Asia? Evidence from Sinitic. Language Sciences 40. 148–167.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Bakker, P., A. Daval-Markussen, M. Parkvall & I. Plag. 2011. Creoles are typologically distinct from non-creoles. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 26. 5–42.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Baptista, M. 2007. Properties of noun phrases in creole languages. A synthetic comparative exposition. In M. Baptista & J. Guéron (eds.), Noun phrases in Creole languages. A multi-faceted approach, 461–470. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Bisang, W. 2008. Grammaticalization and the areal factor: The perspective of East and mainland Southeast Asian languages. In M. J. López-Couso & E. Seoane (eds.), Rethinking grammaticalization. New perspectives, 15–35. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • 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, 34–49. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bisang, W. 2013. Language contact between geographic and mental space. In P. Auer, M. Hilpert, A. Stukenbrock & B. Szmrecsanyi (eds), Linguistic perspectives on space: Geography, interaction, and cognition, 61–100. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Bisang, W. 2014a. Overt and hidden complexity—Two types of complexity and their implications. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 50(2). 127–143.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bisang, W. 2014b. On the strength of morphological paradigms—A historical account of radical pro-drop. In M. Robbeets & W. Bisang (eds.), Paradigm change in historical reconstruction: The transeurasian languages and beyond, 23–60. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Bisang, W. 2015. Problems with primary vs. secondary grammaticalization: The case of East and mainland Southeast Asian languages. Language Sciences 47. 132–147.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cheng, L.-L. S. & R. Sybesma. 1999. Bare and not so bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry 30. 509–542.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Culicover, P. W. 2013. Grammar and complexity. Language at the intersection of competence and performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Culicover, P. W. & R. Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Culicover, P. W. & R. Jackendoff. 2006. The simpler syntax hypothesis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(9). 413–418.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Dahl, Ö. 2004. The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Déprez, V. 2007. Implicit determination and plural. In M. Baptista & J. Guéron (eds.), Noun phrases in Creole languages. A multi-faceted approach, 301–336. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Evans, N. and S. C. Levinson. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32. 429–448.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Gabelentz, G. von der. 1891. Die Sprachwissenschaft, ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse. Leipzig: T.O. Weigel Nachfolger.Google Scholar

  • Gerner, M. & W. Bisang. 2008. Inflectional speaker-role classifiers in Weining Ahmao. Journal of Pragmatics 40. 719–731.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Good, J. 2012. Typologizing grammatical complexities or why creoles may be paradigmatically simple but syntagmatically average. Journal of Creole and Pidgin Languages 27. 1–47.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Grice, P. H. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (eds.), Speech acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Haiman, J. 2011. Competing motivations. In J. J. Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, 148–165. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, M., M. S. Dryer, D. Gil & B. Comrie (eds.). 2005. The world atlas of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, M. and the APiCS Consortium. 2013. Expression of pronominal subjects. In S. M. Michaelis; P. Maurer, M. Haspelmath & M. Huber (eds.), Atlas of Pidgin and Creole language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://apics-online.info/parameters/62 (accessed 15 July 2014).

  • Hawkins, J. A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Huang, C.-T. J. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 531–574.Google Scholar

  • Huang, Y. 1994. The syntax and pragmatics of anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Juola, P. 2008. Assessing linguistic complexity. In M. Miestamo, K. Sinnemäki & F. Karlsson (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change, 89–108. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Kager, R. 1999. Optimality theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Kusters, W. 2003. Linguistic complexity. The influence of social change on verbal inflection. PhD Dissertation. University of Leiden.Google Scholar

  • Levinson, S. C. 2000. Presumptive meanings. The theory of generalized conversational implicatures. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Li, M. & P. M. B. Vitányi. 2008. An introduction to Kolmogorov complexity and its applications, 3rd edn. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Li, X. & W. Bisang. 2012. Classifiers in Sinitic languages: From individuation to definiteness-marking. Lingua 122. 335–355.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • McWhorter, J. H. 2001. The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars. Linguistic Typology 5. 125–166.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McWhorter, J. H. 2005. Defining Creole. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Miestamo, M. 2008. Grammatical complexity in a cross-linguistic perspective. In M. Miestamo, K. Sinnemäki & F. Karlsson (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change, 23–41. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Moscoso del Prado, Fermin. 2011. The universal “shape” of human languages: Spectral analysis beyond speech. Available from Nature Precedings. http://precedings.nature.com/documents/6097/version/2

  • Mottin, J. 1980. Contes et légendes Hmong Blanc. Bangkok: Don Bosco Press.Google Scholar

  • Neeleman, A. & K. Szendrői. 2007. Radical pro drop and the morphology of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 38. 671–714.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Parkvall, M. 2008. The simplicity of creoles in a cross-linguistic perspective. In M. Miestamo, K. Sinnemäki & F. Karlsson (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change, 265–285. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Partee, B. H., A. ter Meulen & R. E. Wall. 1990. Mathematical methods in linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

  • Sinnemäki, K. 2011. Language universals and linguistic complexity. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Modern Languages.Google Scholar

  • Speas, M. 1994. Null arguments in a theory of economy of projections. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17. 179–208.Google Scholar

  • Trudgill, P. 2011. Sociolinguistic typology. Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2015-01-13

Published in Print: 2015-12-01


Note: The research presented in this paper was supported by the Gutenberg Research College of the University of Mainz.


Citation Information: Linguistics Vanguard, ISSN (Online) 2199-174X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2014-1014.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in