Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A cherished poilitically correct linguistics superstition bites the dust
3 views
Skip to first unread message
anal...@hotmail.com
Feb 9, 2012, 9:46:10 PM2/9/12
to
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Linguistics/SociolinguisticsAnthropologicalL/?view=usa&ci=9780199545223
Reviews
"This edited volume can serve as a first introduction to the issue of
language complexity, but also as an update for those who are more
familiar with the research. The papers are well-written and although
definitions vary widely, they are made explicit in each chapter. In
fact, the variety of ways in which linguistic complexity is
investigated makes the case against equal complexity across languages
much more compelling than any of the individual work would by itself."
--Linguist List
Reviews
"This edited volume can serve as a first introduction to the issue of
language complexity, but also as an update for those who are more
familiar with the research. The papers are well-written and although
definitions vary widely, they are made explicit in each chapter. In
fact, the variety of ways in which linguistic complexity is
investigated makes the case against equal complexity across languages
much more compelling than any of the individual work would by itself."
--Linguist List
Peter T. Daniels
Feb 9, 2012, 11:11:14 PM2/9/12
to
On Feb 9, 9:46 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Linguistics/Sociolingui...
wrote:
> http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Linguistics/Sociolingui...
>
> Reviews
> "This edited volume can serve as a first introduction to the issue of
> language complexity, but also as an update for those who are more
> familiar with the research. The papers are well-written and although
> definitions vary widely, they are made explicit in each chapter. In
> fact, the variety of ways in which linguistic complexity is
> investigated makes the case against equal complexity across languages
> much more compelling than any of the individual work would by itself."
> --Linguist List
So you've never heard of R. M. W. Dixon.
> Reviews
> "This edited volume can serve as a first introduction to the issue of
> language complexity, but also as an update for those who are more
> familiar with the research. The papers are well-written and although
> definitions vary widely, they are made explicit in each chapter. In
> fact, the variety of ways in which linguistic complexity is
> investigated makes the case against equal complexity across languages
> much more compelling than any of the individual work would by itself."
> --Linguist List
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Feb 10, 2012, 12:55:05 PM2/10/12
to
mentioned him (but I don't claim expertise in linguistics either).
However, the quotation stimulates a question: does anyone seriously
maintain the opposite case, of "equal complexity across languages"?
Does anyone seriously maintain, for example, that Malay and Navajo are
of equal complexity? I also wonder if 41 in his or her subject line is
confusing complexity with a different "cherished poilitically correct
linguistics superstition", that all natural languages are (at least
approximately) equally capable of expressing complex ideas? (Whatever
41 may think, I don't regard that as a superstition, I'm just quoting.)
--
athel
António Marques
Feb 10, 2012, 1:26:09 PM2/10/12
to
There are just too many non-quantifiable elements in a given language for it
to be possible to ascribe an objective value to its complexity. The only
other metric I see is the amount of time it takes for natives to acquire the
language fully, but I don't know that that's more feasible.
I would say there's a thing called forgivingness - english passes as 'easy',
'simple', because it's reasonably forgiving in what regards building
sentences - a learner with very little english can usually produce
understandable sentences. I put it down to the typology - english is at one
time analytic enough that you can just string the words together, and
synthetic enough that wrong syntax can still be understood. But that has to
do with intelligibility, not with speaking correctly. All languages that I
know of require an equal (immense) effort to be spoken 100% correctly.
That's why non-natives hardly ever are able to do it.
Tak To
Feb 10, 2012, 2:44:36 PM2/10/12
to
On 2/10/2012 12:55 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2012-02-10 04:11:14 +0000, Peter T. Daniels said:
>
>> On Feb 9, 9:46 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Linguistics/Sociolingui...
>>>
>>> Reviews
>>> "This edited volume can serve as a first introduction to the issue of
>>> language complexity, but also as an update for those who are more
>>> familiar with the research. The papers are well-written and although
>>> definitions vary widely, they are made explicit in each chapter. In
>>> fact, the variety of ways in which linguistic complexity is
>>> investigated makes the case against equal complexity across languages
>>> much more compelling than any of the individual work would by itself."
>>> --Linguist List
>>
>> So you've never heard of R. M. W. Dixon.
>
> I've no idea whether 41 has heard of him, but I hadn't until you
> mentioned him (but I don't claim expertise in linguistics either).
> However, the quotation stimulates a question: does anyone seriously
> maintain the opposite case, of "equal complexity across languages"?
No, the "opposite" case is "_incomparable_ complexity across
> On 2012-02-10 04:11:14 +0000, Peter T. Daniels said:
>
>> On Feb 9, 9:46 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Linguistics/Sociolingui...
>>>
>>> Reviews
>>> "This edited volume can serve as a first introduction to the issue of
>>> language complexity, but also as an update for those who are more
>>> familiar with the research. The papers are well-written and although
>>> definitions vary widely, they are made explicit in each chapter. In
>>> fact, the variety of ways in which linguistic complexity is
>>> investigated makes the case against equal complexity across languages
>>> much more compelling than any of the individual work would by itself."
>>> --Linguist List
>>
>> So you've never heard of R. M. W. Dixon.
>
> I've no idea whether 41 has heard of him, but I hadn't until you
> mentioned him (but I don't claim expertise in linguistics either).
> However, the quotation stimulates a question: does anyone seriously
> maintain the opposite case, of "equal complexity across languages"?
languages", or more precisely, "incomparable complexity
across language aspects" (syntax vs phonology, for example).
Cf incomparable complexity across aspects of "intelligence".
> Does anyone seriously maintain, for example, that Malay and Navajo are
> of equal complexity? I also wonder if 41 in his or her subject line is
> confusing complexity with a different "cherished poilitically correct
> linguistics superstition", that all natural languages are (at least
> approximately) equally capable of expressing complex ideas? (Whatever
> 41 may think, I don't regard that as a superstition, I'm just quoting.)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Peter T. Daniels
Feb 10, 2012, 5:53:01 PM2/10/12
to
On Feb 10, 12:55 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...@imm.cnrs.fr>
wrote:
In his notorious 1998 pamphlet *The Rise and Fall of Languages* (which
Cambridge sold incredibly cheaply at the 1998 LSA meeting), Dixon
argued that no language is, say, 100 times more complex than any
other, but that a language could be, say, 6 times more complex than
another.
His _actual_ claim, though, was that the present condition of
Australian languages _cannot_ be accounted for in a Stammbaum (family
tree) model.
This is disputed, however, by other specialists in Australian
languages, who claim he simply doesn't have enough Sitzfleisch to work
it out. (He _doesn't_ bring the sort of evidence and argument used by
Durie & Ross, who say the close interactions of the New Caledonia
languages has made it virtually impossible to work out the
relationships. Probably if we had as much historical material in those
families as we do in Romance or Germanic, the problems would be less
intractable.)
wrote:
Cambridge sold incredibly cheaply at the 1998 LSA meeting), Dixon
argued that no language is, say, 100 times more complex than any
other, but that a language could be, say, 6 times more complex than
another.
His _actual_ claim, though, was that the present condition of
Australian languages _cannot_ be accounted for in a Stammbaum (family
tree) model.
This is disputed, however, by other specialists in Australian
languages, who claim he simply doesn't have enough Sitzfleisch to work
it out. (He _doesn't_ bring the sort of evidence and argument used by
Durie & Ross, who say the close interactions of the New Caledonia
languages has made it virtually impossible to work out the
relationships. Probably if we had as much historical material in those
families as we do in Romance or Germanic, the problems would be less
intractable.)
0 new messages