What people ask David Gil and why: Rejoinder to the replies

McWhorter, John

doi:10.1515/lity.2001.003

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To date, there is no consensus on how to best measure language complexity, however, there is plenty of empirical evidence for the fact that languages vary in the amount of complexity they exhibit at individual linguistic levels (e.g., morphology) (Bentz and Winter, 2013;Koplenig, 2019) 1 . In explaining the measured differences in complexity, researchers have proposed a range of language-external factors such as language contact (McWhorter, 2001b) and isolation (Nichols, 2013), population size (Lupyan and Dale, 2010;Koplenig, 2019), or a combination of factors (Sinnemäki and Di Garbo, 2018) as determinants of language complexity. Such theories, in our view, are extremely important since they make complexity more than a parameter of cross-linguistic variation: It becomes a meaningful parameter involved in explanatory theories.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meaning and Measures: Interpreting and Evaluating Complexity Metrics

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on language complexity has been abundant and manifold in the past two decades. Within typology, it has to a very large extent been motivated by the question of whether all languages are equally complex, and if not, which language-external factors affect the distribution of complexity across languages. To address this and other questions, a plethora of different metrics and approaches has been put forward to measure the complexity of languages and language varieties. Against this backdrop we address three major gaps in the literature by discussing statistical, theoretical, and methodological problems related to the interpretation of complexity measures. First, we explore core statistical concepts to assess the meaningfulness of measured differences and distributions in complexity based on two case studies. In other words, we assess whether observed measurements are neither random nor negligible. Second, we discuss the common mismatch between measures and their intended meaning, namely, the fact that absolute complexity measures are often used to address hypotheses on relative complexity. Third, in the absence of a gold standard for complexity metrics, we suggest that existing measures be evaluated by drawing on cognitive methods and relating them to real-world cognitive phenomena. We conclude by highlighting the theoretical and methodological implications for future complexity research.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meaning and Measures: Interpreting and Evaluating Complexity Metrics

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hagège 2001;LeFebvre 2001;DeGraff 2001) though supported by Seuren (2001) and Trudgill (2001). The criticisms in particular, along with McWhorter's (2001a) rejoinder, constitute a rich and varied theoretical backdrop for discussing the metric of complexity that will be used in the current investigation. Despite various arguments to the contrary (to be discussed below), it is my position that phonological and morphological complexity can be sampled in reasonable ways.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Correlating complexity: A typological approach

Shosted

2006

Linguistic Typology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The author goes on to relate "outsider complexity" in the verbal inflection systems of various languages to sociohistorical factors. 1 Two provocative articles by John McWhorter (2001;2001a;see also McWhorter 2005) on the matter of grammatical complexity are indeed illuminating. In criticizing the received wisdom that all languages are equally complex (albeit in different modules of linguistic expression), McWhorter argues that creoles are the world's simplest grammars.…”

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While McWhorter (2001a) was reluctant to state that inflectional morphology is by itself more complex than analytic (he averred that inflectional morphology was simply indicative of more complex paradigms and memory-taxing allomorphs), I accept Wurzel's stronger view that complex inflectional morphology "might contribute to the complexity of a language as a whole" (2001: 380).…”

Section: Morphology (Inflectional)mentioning

confidence: 99%