Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Is there an inverse relationship between lexical richness and grammatical complexity?

Expand Messages
  • Daniel Bowman
    Hi All, Alex Fink and I had a very interesting conversation today where we considered how lexical richness may (or may not) have an inverse relationship with
    Message 1 of 56 , Mar 19 7:31 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi All,

      Alex Fink and I had a very interesting conversation today where we considered how lexical richness may (or may not) have an inverse relationship with grammatical complexity. I am interested to hear what others on the list think of this concept, and I'm particularly excited to know if anyone's considered this while designing their conlangs.

      This is how it works:

      If a language has a large lexicon, it may be able to use words to describe situations that other languages grammaticalize. For example, English does not grammaticalize formality (unlike Korean and Japanese). Therefore, English speakers have to use words to describe a situation that a Korean speaker would mark using a certain formality inflection. English is richer in vocabulary for formality, whereas Korean is richer in grammar. If Korean has less words for formal situations than English, this would lend support to the inverse relationship hypothesis.

      Another example showing the inverse: my conlang Angosey has evidentiality markers. One of these markers indicates that the speaker considers the source of information doubtful. In this case, I have obviated the need for the word "doubt" since I have a grammatical construction for it. I can likely do away with "dubious, unsubstantiated, unlikely" etc, or at least greatly reduce my usage of these terms.

      I think the absolute inverse relationship is unlikely to hold - I am sure there's a situation where I would need a word for "doubt" in Angosey and be unable to replace it with my evidentiality marker. However, such markers may push certain words - such as "doubt" below the "common use" threshold we recently discussed in the English word count thread. In other words, the word "doubt" will exist, but it will be used quite seldom since the evidentiality marker replaced most of its occurrences.

      Irrespective of whether or not the lexical richness vs grammatical complexity holds for natlangs, it poses an interesting puzzle for conlangers. Is it possible to design a very lexically rich, grammatically minimal conlang? Is it easier to do this than to make (and use) one that is both grammatically and lexically sparse?

      Conversely, is it possible, or do we have examples of, languages with a very minimal lexicon with a correspondingly rich grammar? Perhaps Ithkuil is an example of this?

      Danny
    • R A Brown
      ... [snip - all points noted] ... plus was simply taken from Trask, and being used for convenience (i.e. not having to think of something else - the same
      Message 56 of 56 , Mar 28 6:44 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        On 28/03/2013 13:30, And Rosta wrote:
        > R A Brown, On 27/03/2013 15:32:
        [snip - all points noted]

        > I agree with the basic idea, but "plus" needs to be
        > tightened up, in ways too complicated to fit in an
        > off-topic email discussion, but in simple terms "{CAR} +
        > [plural]" means "{CAR} when it is the phonological shape
        > corresponding to a plural noun node in syntax.

        'plus' was simply taken from Trask, and being used for
        convenience (i.e. not having to think of something else -
        the same applies to shape of brackets). Trask, of course,
        was merely giving a fairly simple dictionary entry, rather
        than elaborating any particular theoretic viewpoint.

        > In {CHILD} + [plural], the shape of {CHILD} is the stem
        > //tS.I.l.d// + //rn// (roughly), but I don't see any
        > grounds for saying that [Plural] is instantiated as
        > //rn//.

        I don't think we're many miles apart - probably coming at
        things from different angles.

        But I'm not intending at the moment to work out any
        hard-and-fast system - I haven't got time for one thing.

        It seems that it is only you and I now exchanging emails on
        this off-topic discussion, and it has certainly helped clear
        some of my thinking - not enough, perhaps, but it can wait.

        We are, I think, both agreed that morphemes, whatever they
        are, are not identical to "units of meaning", which is what
        sparked off this thread. As I say, I don't think we're
        miles apart.

        --
        Ray
        ==================================
        http://www.carolandray.plus.com
        ==================================
        "language … began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
        for individual beings and events."
        [Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.