Article published In: Historiographia Linguistica
Vol. 39:2/3 (2012) ► pp.341–368
‘All Languages Are Equally Complex’
The rise and fall of a consensus
Published online: 23 November 2012
https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.39.2-3.08jos
https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.39.2-3.08jos
Summary
Throughout most of the history of the discipline, linguists have had little hesitation in comparing languages in terms of their relative complexity, whether or not they extrapolated judgements of superiority or inferiority from such comparisons. By the mid 20th century, however, a consensus had arisen that all languages were of equal complexity. This paper documents and explains the rise of this consensus, as well as the reasons that have led to it being challenged in recent years, from various directions, including language diversity, as analysed by Daniel Everett; arguments about Creoles and Creoloids, as put forward by Peter Trudgill, and others; and views from generative linguistics and evolutionary anthropology.
Résumé
Pratiquement tout au long de l’histoire de la discipline, les linguistes n’ont guère eu d’hésitation à comparer les langues en termes de complexité relative, qu’ils aient ou non tiré des jugements de supériorité ou d’infériorité de telles comparaisons. Au milieu du XXe siècle, cependant, un consensus est apparu sur le fait que toutes les langues étaient d’une égale complexité. Cet article documente et explique l’apparition de ce consensus, ainsi que les raisons qui ont conduit à sa remise en cause ces dernières années, de plusieurs côtés : diversité linguistique, telle qu’analysée par Daniel Everett ; arguments sur les créoles et les ‘créolides’, tels qu’avancés par Peter Trugdill et d’autres ; vues émanant de la linguistique générative et de l’anthropologie évolutionniste.
Zusammenfassung
Die Sprachwissenschaftler hatten in der Vergangenheit kaum sonderliche Bedenken, Sprachen hinsichtlich ihrer jeweiligen Komplexität miteinander zu vergleichen, und dies unabhängig von der Tatsache, ob sie daraus Schlüsse auf die jeweilige Überlegenheit bzw. Unterlegenheit zogen. Um die Mitte des 20. Jahrhunderts war schließlich eine Art Konsens entstanden, alle Sprachen seien von gleicher Komplexität. Die Entstehung dieser Auffassung wird in diesem Beitrag nachgezeichnet, aber gleichzeitig auch einsichtig gemacht, wie sie in den letzten Jahren erneut infrage gestellt werden konnte, sei es unter dem Gesichtspunkt der Sprachenvielfalt, wie ihn Daniel Everett darlegt, oder aufgrund von Argumenten zu Kreolsprachen, die Peter Trudgill und andere vortragen, und nicht zuletzt angesichts von Gesichtspunkten, welche von der Generativen Linguistik und der Evolutionsanthropologie formuliert werden.
References (109)
Akmajian, Adrian, Richard A. Demers, Ann K. Farmer, Robert Harnish et al. 1997. Linguistics: An introduction to language and communication. 4th ed. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Andresen, Julie Tetel. 1990. Linguistics in America, 1769–1924: A critical history. London & New York: Routledge.
Baker, Mark C. 2001. The Atoms of Language: The mind’s hidden rules of grammar. New York: Basic Books.
Baltin, Mark & Anthony Kroch, eds. 1989. Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bickerton, Derek. 1984. “The Language Bioprogram Hypothesis”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 71.173–221.
Bisang, Walter. 2009. “On the Evolution of Complexity: Sometimes less is more in East and mainland Southeast Asia”. Sampson et al., eds. 2009.34–39.
Boas, Franz. 1911. “Introduction”. Handbook of American Indian Languages, Part I1, by Franz Boas, with illustrative sketches by Roland B. Dixon, P. E. Goddard, William Jones & Truman Michelson, John E. Swanton & William Thalbitzer (=
Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 40), 1–83. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Bunzl, Matti. 1996. “Franz Boas and the Humboldtian Tradition: From Volksgeist and Nationalcharakter to an Anthropological Concept of Culture”. Volksgeist as Method and Ethic: Essays on Boasian Ethnography and the German Anthropological Tradition, ed. by George W. Stocking, Jr., 17–78. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Burnouf, Eugène. 1825a. Review of Franz Bopp, “Vergleichende Zergliederung der Sanskrita-Sprache und der mit ihm verwandten Sprachen, Erste Abhandlung […]”, Abhandlungen der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 1825, 117–148. Journal Asiatique 61.52–62, 113–124.
. 1825b. Review of Franz Bopp, Ausführliches Lehrgebäude der Sanskrita-Sprache, (Berlin: F. Dümmler, 1824). Journal Asiatique 61.298–314, 359–371.
Chomsky, Noam. 1959. Review of B. F. Skinner, Verbal Behavior (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957). Language 351.26–57.
. 1980. “Discussion”. Language and Learning: The debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky ed. by Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, 73–83. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
. 2004. The Generative Enterprise Revisited: Discussions with Riny Huybregts, Henk van Riemsdijk, Naoki Fukui and Mihoko Zushi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1996. “The ‘Antisymmetric’ Program: Theoretical and typological implications”. Journal of Linguistics 321.447–465.
Colapinto, John. 2007. “The Interpreter: Has a remote Amazonian tribe upended our understanding of language?”. The New Yorker, 16 April, 120–137.
Covington, Michael & Mark Rosenfelder. 2010. “Are All Languages Equally Complex, or are some more primitive than others?”. <[URL]> Accessed 16. Sept. 2011.
Darwin, Charles. 1871. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. 21 vols. London: John Murray.
Deutscher, Guy. 2010. Through the Language Glass: Why the world looks different in other languages. New York: Metropolitan Books.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1972. The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1984. Searching for Aboriginal Languages: Memoirs of a field worker. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
Emonds, Joseph E. 1980. “Word Order in Generative Grammar”. Journal of Linguistic Research 11.33–54.
Everett, Daniel L. 2005. “Cultural Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Pirahã: Another look at the design features of human language”. Current Anthropology 461.621–646.
Freidin, Robert, ed. 1991. Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Fromkin, Victoria A. & Robert Rodman. 1983. An Introduction to Language. 3rd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Gabelentz, Georg von der. 1891. Die Sprachwissenschaft: Ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse. Leipzig: T. O. Weigel.
. 2007. “Creoles, Complexity and Associational Semantics”. Deconstructing creole: New horizons in language creation ed. by Umberto Ansaldo, Stephen Matthews & Lisa Lim, 67–108. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1960. “A Quantitative Approach to the Morphological Typology of Language”. International Journal of American Linguistics 261.192–220.
Hale, Ken. 1976. “The Adjoined Relative Clause in Australia”. Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages ed. by R. M. W. Dixon, 78–105. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Hauser, Marc D., Noam Chomsky & W. Tecumseh Fitch. 2002. “The Faculty of Language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?”. Science 2981.1569–1579.
Hermann, Eduard. 1895. “Gab es im Indogermanischen Nebensätze?”. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 331.481–535.
Hornstein, Norbert & Amy Weinberg. 1981. “Case Theory and Preposition Stranding”. Linguistic Inquiry 121.55–92.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Humboldt, Wilhelm von. 1823, 1824. “Ueber die in der Sanskrit-Sprache durch die Suffixa twâ und yâ gebildeten Verbalformen”. Indische Bibliothek 11.433–473, 21.71–134.
. 1825 [1822]. “Ueber das Entstehen der grammatischen Formen, und ihren Einfluss auf die Ideenentwicklung”. Abhandlungen der historisch-philologischen Klasse der königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin aus dem Jahren 1822 und 1823, 401–430. Berlin.
. 1826. “Lettre à Monsieur Abel-Rémusat”, 7 mars 1826. Sections 1–7, 20–23 and 27–28 published as “Sur le génie grammatical de la langue chinoise, comparé à celui des autres langues” in Journal Asiatique 91 (1826), 115–123. [First complete publication: Lettre à Monsieur Abel Rémusat. sur la nature des formes grammaticales en général et sur le génie de la langue chinoise en particulier par monsieur Guillaume de Humboldt. Observations sur quelques passages de la lettre précédente, par M. A[bel] R[émusat], Paris: Doudey-Dupré, 1827.]
Hutton, Christopher M. 1999. Linguistics and the Third Reich: Mother-tongue fascism, race and the science of language. London & New York: Routledge.
Jakobson, Roman. 1929. Remarques sur l’évolution phonologique du russe comparée à celle des autres langues slaves. (=
Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 2.) Prague. (Repr. in Jakobson, Selected Writings, I: Phonological studies, 2nd ed., 7–116, The Hague: Mouton, 1971.)
. 1959. “Boas’ View of Grammatical Meaning”. The Anthropology of Franz Boas: Essays on the centennial of his birth ed. by Walter Goldschmidt, 139–145. Menasha, Wis.: American Anthropological Association. (Repr. in Jakobson, Selected Writings, II: Word and language, 477–488, The Hague: Mouton, 1971.)
Jespersen, Otto. 1894. Progress in Language, with special reference to English. London: Swan Sonnenschein; New York: Macmillan. (New ed. with an Introduction by James, D. McCawley. Foreword and bibliography by Konrad Koerner, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1993.)
Joseph, John E. 1999. “A Matter of Consequenz: Humboldt, race and the genius of the Chinese language.” Historiographia Linguistica 261.89–148.
2000. Limiting the Arbitrary: Linguistic naturalism and its opposites in Plato’s Cratylus and modern theories of language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
2012a. “Small Universes and Big Individuals: Locating Humboldt in evolving conceptions of language and Individualität
”. Wilhelm von Humboldt: Individualität und Universalität ed. by Ute Tintemann & Jürgen Trabant, 95–111. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.
Lauzon, Matthew. 2010. Signs of Light: French and British theories of linguistic communication, 1648–1789. Ithaca, N.Y. & London: Cornell University Press.
. 2007. “Issues of Phonological Complexity: Statistical analysis of the relationship between syllable structures, segment inventories, and tone contrasts”. Experimental Approaches to Phonology ed. by Maria Josep Solé, Patrice Speeter Beddor & Manjari Ohala, 93–103. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Malmberg, Bertil. 1964. New Trends in Linguistics: An orientation. Transl. by Edward Carney. Stockholm & Lund: Naturmetodens Språkinstitut. [Orig. publication as Nya vägar inom språkforskningen (Stockholm: Svenska Bokförlaget; Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard, 1959); this transl. based on 2nd ed. of 1962.]
Matisoff, James A. 1973. “Tonogenesis in Southeast Asia”. Consonant Types and Tone ed. by Larry M. Hyman, 71–95. Los Angeles: Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics, No. 1.
McWhorter, John H. 2007. Language Interrupted: Signs of nonnative acquisition in standard language grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Miestamo, Matti, Kaius Sinnemäki & Fred Karlsson, eds. 2008. Language Complexity: Typology, contact, change. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Miller, George A. & Noam Chomsky. 1963. “Finitary Models of Language Users”. Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, vol. II1, ed. by R. Duncan Luce, Robert R. Bush & Eugene Galanter, 419–491. New York: John Wiley.
Moro, Andrea. 2008. The Boundaries of Babel: The brain and the enigma of impossible languages. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Nevins, Andrew A., David Pesetsky & Cilene Rodrigues. 2009. “Pirahã Exceptionality: A reassessment”. Language 851.355–404.
Newmeyer, Frederick J., ed. 1988. Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey. Volume II1: Linguistic Theory: Extensions and implications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nordlinger, Rachel. 2006. “Spearing the Emu Drinking: Subordination and the adjoined relative clause in Wambaya”. Australian Journal of Linguistics 261.5–29.
O’Grady, William, Michael Dobrovolsky & Mark Aronoff. 1989. Contemporary Linguistics: An introduction. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Olender, Maurice. 1994. Les langues du Paradis: Aryens et Sémites – un couple providentiel, 2nd ed., Paris: Gallimard/Le Seuil. [English version, Languages of Paradise: Aryans and Semites: A match made in heaven, transl. by Arthur Goldhammer (New York: The Other Press, 2002).]
Passy, Paul. 1890. Étude sur les changements phonétiques et leurs caractères généraux. Paris: Firmin-Didot.
Riddle, Elizabeth M. 2008. “Complexity in Isolating Languages: Lexical elaboration vs. grammatical economy”. Miestamo et al., eds. 2008.133–151.
Riemsdijk, Henk van. 1978. A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness: The binding nature of prepositional phrases. Dordrecht: Foris.
Roberts, Ian. 1999. “Verb Movement and Markedness”. Language Creation and Language Change: Creolization, diachrony, and development ed. by Michel DeGraff, 287–327. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Sampson, Geoffrey, David Gil & Peter Trudgill, eds. 2009. Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Ed. by Charles Bally & Albert Sechehaye, with the assistance of Albert Riedlinger. Lausanne & Paris: Payot. (2nd ed., 1922.) [English transl., Course in General Linguistics by Wade Baskin (New York: Philosophical Library, 1959).]
Saussure, Léopold de. 1899. Psychologie de la colonisation française, dans ses rapports avec les sociétés indigènes. Paris: Félix Alcan.
Schlegel, Friedrich von. 1847. The Philosophy of Life, and Philosophy of Language, in a course of lectures. Transl. by Rev. A. J. W. Morrison. London: Henry G. Bohn; New York: Harper & Brothers, 1855. [Orig. publ. as Philosophie des Lebens, in funfzehn Vorlesungen gehalten zu Wien im Jahre 1827; and Philosophische Vorlesungen, insbesondere über Philosophie der Sprache und des Wortes (Wien: Carl Schaumburg, 1830).]
Schuchardt, Hugo. 1980. Pidgin and Creole Languages: Selected essays. Ed. & transl. by G. G. Gilbert. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Siewierska, Anna. 1998. “Variation in Major Constituent Order: A global and a European perspective”. Constituent Order in the Languages of Europe: Empirical approaches to language typology ed. by Anna Siewierska, 475–551. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Trager, George L. 1948. Review of Lingua, volume I1. International Journal of American Linguistics 141.207–209.
Trager, George L. & Joshua Whatmough. 1966. “Language”. Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. XIII1, 697–704.
. 2011. Sociolinguistic Typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Walls, Laura Dassow. 2009. The Passage to Cosmos: Alexander von Humboldt and the shaping of America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cited by (24)
Cited by 24 other publications
Nel, Joanine Hester & Melissa Rust
Pilares, Allan P. & Rodolfo P. Dizon Jr
Grieve, Jack
Koplenig, Alexander, Sascha Wolfer & Peter Meyer
Oh, Yoon Mi & François Pellegrino
2023. Towards robust complexity indices in linguistic typology. Studies in Language 47:4 ► pp. 789 ff.
Shcherbakova, Olena, Volker Gast, Damián E. Blasi, Hedvig Skirgård, Russell D. Gray & Simon J. Greenhill
Vereeck, Alexandra, Mark Janse, Katja De Herdt, Arnaud Szmalec, Cathy Hauspie & Wouter Duyck
Pennycook, Alastair
Pennycook, Alastair
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt
Leal, Ednei de Souza & Renato Miguel Basso
Newmeyer, Frederick J.
Benedict, Lauryn & Nadje A Najar
Lavidas, Nikolaos
2018. Reorganising voice in the history of Greek. In Reorganising Grammatical Variation [Studies in Language Companion Series, 203], ► pp. 175 ff.
Coloma, Germán
Joseph, John E.
McElvenny, James
2015. The application of C.K. Ogden’s semiotics in Basic English. Language Problems and Language Planning 39:2 ► pp. 187 ff.
McElvenny, James
McElvenny, James
Subbiondo, Joseph L.
Krämer, Philipp
Kilarski, Marcin & Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
