1. 1 Are all languages equally complex? Östen Dahl oesten@ling.su.se

2. 2 Comparative complexity of languages Does it make sense to compare languages as to complexity? And if the answer is yes, can languages differ in complexity? Currently, there are two competing answers to the last question.

3. 3 The balancing hypothesis Most linguists who have had anything to say on this question favour the balancing hypothesis, which claims… … claims that lack of complexity in one component of the system will be compensated by greater complexity in another (and vice versa) …which means that in principle all languages are equally complex

4. 4 The competing view Recently, various linguists (e.g. John McWhorter) have challenged this view, claiming… that languages indeed vary in complexity …and that this variation is related to the ”ecology” of the language, that is, to the conditions under which the language is spoken and transmitted to new generations

5. 5 Cross-linguistic comparison of complexity However, few attempts have been made to make systematic global comparisons of complexity cross-linguistically This presentation is an attempt to compare two closely related languages… …which guarantees relatively extensive commensurability But first I need to discuss the notion of linguistic complexity

6. 6 Two different notions of linguistic complexity In speaking of linguistic complexity, people tend to have two rather different notions in mind: –“objective” complexity –“agent-related” complexity

7. 7 Objective complexity Objective complexity is the notion employed in information theory and the theory of complex systems It involves the idea that complexity is an objective property of an object or a system It is notoriously difficult to give a rigid definition of complexity in this sense

8. 8 Objective complexity Intuitively the complexity of an object is to be measured in terms of –the amount of information needed to re-create it or alternatively, –the length of the shortest possible complete description of it.

9. 9 Complexity as the inverse of compressibility hahaha3 * ha byebye2 * bye pardon 1 * pardon 6 symbols compressed to 4 6 symbols – no compression 6 symbols compressed to 5

10. 10 Complexity of patterns However, this notion of complexity assigns a maximal complexity to a random string such as 893890380859375999237060546875490051269531252743225097656256 194458007812558557128906258971557617187518951416015625560394 287109375416229248046875 It is therefore preferable to talk not of the complexity of an object as such as of the set of regularities or patterns contained in it.

11. 11 System complexity vs. structural complexity In linguistics, such a complexity measure could apply to different things. Most importantly, it could apply on the one hand to –a language seen as a system (system complexity) –to the structure of utterances and expressions (structural complexity)

12. 12 Comparison of system complexity The (written) English definite article is less complex than the English indefinite article and than the French definite article definite article - the indefinite article - an before vowels; a elsewhere definite article - l’ before vowels; les before plural nouns; else la before feminine nouns; le elsewhere

13. 13 Structural complexity These sentences are generated by the same grammar but differ in structural complexity (B>C>A)

14. 14 System complexity System complexity could be seen as a measure of the content that language learners have to master in order to be proficient in a language. It does not as such tell us anything about the difficulty they have in learning, producing and understanding the language -- -- that would take us to the other notion of complexity, viz. agent-related complexity.

15. 15 Agent-related complexity? Although agent-related complexity is perhaps the most popular way of understanding complexity in linguistics, I would in fact prefer to reserve the term “complexity” for objective complexity and use other terms such as “cost”, “difficulty”, and “demandingness” to denote ‘complexity for a user’.

16. 16 My general notion of complexity I am mainly concerned with objective system complexity understood as –the length of the simplest complete description of the language as a system

17. 17 Kinds of complexity Phenogrammatical complexity Lexical metacomplexity Tightness

18. 18 Phenogrammatical complexity pertains to the relationship between a given content and its expression operationalized as –given a configuration of lexical items, how complex are the rules that allow you to build a unitary expression out of those items?

19. 19 Lexical metacomplexity What is the complexity of the information associated with a lexical item? …including: –segmental phonology –suprasegmental phonology –morphosyntactic features

20. 20 Tightness What is the maximal structural complexity allowed at each level of grammatical structure?

21. 21 Elfdalian vs. Swedish Two North Germanic languages/varieties: –Elfdalian (övdalska, älvdalska), spoken by 3000 persons in Älvdalen, Dalarna, Sweden (endangered) –Swedish (Central Standard), spoken by 2 mill. people in the Mälar Valley region (not yet endangered)

22. 22 Maps Elfdalian Central Standard Swedish Dalarna

23. 23 Segmental phonology SubareaElfdalian Swedish (Central Std.) Winner Vowel qualities, primary 9 short; 9 long front -- back; 3 degrees of rounding; 3 heights (1) 8 short; 9 long front -- back; 3 degrees of rounding; 3 heights (1) E Vowel qualities, secondary NasalityNoneE Consonants6 stops 3 nasals 4 fricatives 2 affricates 3 liquids 6 stops 3 nasals 4 fricatives 3 liquids /h/ S

24. 24 Segmental phonology SubareaElfdalian Swedish (Central Std.) Winner Vowel qualities, primary 9 short; 9 long front -- back; 3 degrees of rounding; 3 heights (1) 8 short; 9 long front -- back; 3 degrees of rounding; 3 heights (1) E Vowel qualities, secondary NasalityNoneE Consonants6 stops 3 nasals 4 fricatives 2 affricates 3 liquids 6 stops 3 nasals 4 fricatives 3 liquids /h/ S iyuo eöå äa iyuo eöå äa g ǫ s ’goose’ ptkbdmn ŋsfv ʧʥrl j ptkbdm nŋsfvʃɕ rljh

25. 25 Suprasegmental phonology SubareaElfdalian Swedish (Central Std.) Winner Sandhi phenomenaApocope (morph/- phon interaction); Final cons. deletion (phon.); V# #d > ð g/γ alternation Cross-word retroflexization E Stressed syllable types Four types: ˉ ˘, ˘ ˉ,ˉ ˉ,˘ ˘ Two types: ˉ ˘, ˘ ˉ E Stress placementLexical = Pitch accent typesThree types: acute, grave, balanced (short syll. only) Two types: acute/I grave/II (E)

26. 26 Suprasegmental phonology SubareaElfdalian Swedish (Central Std.) Winner Sandhi phenomenaApocope (morph/- phon interaction); Final cons. deletion (phon.); V# #d > ð g/γ alternation Cross-word retroflexization E Stressed syllable types Four types: ˉ ˘, ˘ ˉ,ˉ ˉ,˘ ˘ Two types: ˉ ˘, ˘ ˉ E Stress placementLexical = Pitch accent typesThree types: acute, grave, balanced (short syll. only) Two types: acute/I grave/II (E) har du [h ɑ:ɖʉ:] ’have you’ [h ɑ :t] ’hate’ [hat:] ’hat’ kátten ’the cat’ kàtter ’cats’ iyuo eöå äa blo:t ’soft’ brott ’away’ blo:tt ’soft (neut.’) wito ’know’ ármin ’the arm’ àrmer ’arms’ wito ’wito’

27. 27 Noun morphology SubareaElfdalian Swedish (Central Std.) Winner Case3 nom, dat, acc No case distinctions (1) E Number2 (sing, plur) No difference Definiteness2 (indef, def) No difference Gender3 (masc, fem, neutr)2 (uter, neuter)E Declension types21 (Levander 1909) 7 (native words) (SAG 1999) E

28. 28 Noun morphology SubareaElfdalian Swedish (Central Std.) Winner Case3 nom, dat, acc No case distinctions (1) E Number2 (sing, plur) No difference Definiteness2 (indef, def) No difference Gender3 (masc, fem, neutr)2 (uter, neuter)E Declension types21 (Levander 1909) 7 (native words) (SAG 1999) E rattsin rakkam rakkan ’the dog’

29. 29 Adjective morphology SubareaElfdalian Swedish (Central Std.) Winner Case3 nom, dat, acc No case distinctionsE Number2 (sing, plur) = Gender3 (masc, fem, neutr)2 (uter, neuter)E Strong-weak distinction Exists but is opaque (weak forms partly replaced by incorporation) Exists? Comparison3 degrees =

30. 30 Adjective morphology SubareaElfdalian Swedish (Central Std.) Winner Case3 nom, dat, acc No case distinctionsE Number2 (sing, plur) = Gender3 (masc, fem, neutr)2 (uter, neuter)E Strong-weak distinction Exists but is opaque (weak forms partly replaced by incorporation) Exists? Comparison3 degrees = ien stur kall ienum sturum kalle ien sturan kall ’a big man’ ien duktin kall įe duktig kelingg Iet duktit fuok ‘an able man/woman/people’

31. 31 Verb morphology 1 SubareaElfdalian Swedish (Central Std.) Winner Tense2 (present, past) = MoodIndicative Imperative Subjunctive (marginal) Indicative Imperative Subjunctive (marginal) =? Person3No person distinctionsE Number2No number distinctionsE

32. 32 Verb morphology 1 SubareaElfdalian Swedish (Central Std.) Winner Tense2 (present, past) = MoodIndicative Imperative Subjunctive (marginal) Indicative Imperative Subjunctive (marginal) =? Person3No person distinctionsE Number2No number distinctionsE spilum spilið dier spilo ‚we/you (pl.)/they play‘ an spiler dier spilo ‚we/you (pl.)/they play‘

33. 33 Verb morphology 2 SubareaElfdalian Swedish (Central Std.) Winner VoiceActive-middle Deponents exist Active-passive Deponents exist =? Non-finite verb forms Infinitive = Weak conjugation types 4 (Levander 1909)3 (SAG 1999)E Strong conjugation types ≈20 (Levander 1909)≈20 (SAG 1999)=

34. 34 PronounsSubareaElfdalian Swedish (Central Std.) Winner Person33= Number22= Gender34S Case32 (nom, obl)E

35. 35 PronounsSubareaElfdalian Swedish (Central Std.) Winner Person33= Number22= Gender34S Case32 (nom, obl)E ǫ – enner – ona ’she’ (nom/dat/acc)

36. 36 SyntaxSubareaElfdalian Swedish (Central Std.) Winner Subject-verb agreement ExistsDoes not exist(E) Adjective-noun agreement Gender, number, case (both attributive and predicative) Gender, number (both attributive and predicative) (E) Lexically determined case Exists (verbs and prepositions) Does not existE Word orderVerb second rule Inversion in questions Wh-fronting Verb second rule (main clauses only) Inversion in questions Wh-fronting S Pro dropPossible in 1st and 2nd person plural Does not exist (=overt subject generally obligatory) E

37. 37 SyntaxSubareaElfdalian Swedish (Central Std.) Winner Subject-verb agreement ExistsDoes not exist(E) Adjective-noun agreement Gender, number, case (both attributive and predicative) Gender, number (both attributive and predicative) (E) Lexically determined case Exists (verbs and prepositions) Does not existE Word orderVerb second rule Inversion in questions Wh-fronting Verb second rule (main clauses only) Inversion in questions Wh-fronting S Pro dropPossible in 1st and 2nd person plural Does not exist (=overt subject generally obligatory) E Lęs dörum (dat.pl.)! ‚shut the door!‘ i Övdalim (dat.) ’in Älvdalen’ Kumum i kwelld. ‘We’ll come tonight’ Pelle kommer inte ’P. isn’t coming’ att Pelle inte kommer ’that P. isn’t coming’ fast dier var inte iema ’although they weren’t home’

38. 38 Periphrastic constructions SubareaElfdalian Swedish (Central Std.) Winner Passive constructions Periphrastic (morphological marginal) Morphological + periphrastic S Periphrastic TA constructions Perfect Future (weakly grammaticalized) Progressive (not grammaticalized) Perfect Progressive (not grammaticalized) No difference

39. 39 Some conclusions On the whole, Elfdalian comes out as having the greater complexity on a majority of the points where there is a difference It is possible that Swedish is more complex on points which I have not considered in my investigation However, the burden of proof now lies on those who want to claim that a comparison between Elfdalian and Swedish lends support to the balancing hypothesis

40. 40 Further conclusions In some cases, contrary to what the balancing hypothesis would lead us to believe, morphological complexity goes together with syntactic complexity (agreement)

41. 41 Language contact With its history and geographical position, Elfdalian can be expected to be a ”low-contact language” relative to Swedish This then is compatible with the hypothesis that high-contact languages tend to be less complex… …but it is hardly advisable to draw conclusions from a single example