Abstract
The present study addresses the issues of (1) how to define complexity in the study of functions, (2) how to measure complexity in the study of functions, and (3) the benefits of the notion of semantic complexity in the analysis of language. This argues for a metric of complexity narrowed to single domains, something that has been already mentioned in some other studies. Such measures of complexity can then point to areas of further studies, both synchronic and diachronic. Two metrics of complexity are proposed: The first one involves the number of functions encoded in the given domain. The second is the number of functions that the speaker needs to take into consideration in realizing the functions encoded in the given domain. The argumentation for the proposed approach to complexity is based on cross-linguistic examination of the systems of reference of languages belonging to different families. The implication of this study is that the complexity of functional domains is the fundamental motivation of the complexity of the formal means of coding.
Highlights
For more than a 100 years, the study of language complexity has had complete languages in its scope (McWhorter, 2001a,b, 2009; Sampson, 2009; Newmeyer and Joseph, 2012; Dixon, 2016: Chapter 6, 125–146)
For each function the speaker has to consider the fact that each marker may have variants of five genders and, in reference to relations other than the subject, five grammatical and semantic functions marked by case
The discussion of the system of reference in Mandarin just summarizes the hypotheses and argumentations proposed in Frajzyngier et al (2020)
Summary
For more than a 100 years, the study of language complexity has had complete languages in its scope (McWhorter, 2001a,b, 2009; Sampson, 2009; Newmeyer and Joseph, 2012; Dixon, 2016: Chapter 6, 125–146). The term “complexity” in the present study refers to the number of functions the speaker must include when forming a predication in a given domain. Coding of the third-person subject on the verb in Lele (East Chadic, Afroasiatic, Chad) indicates that the subject of the clause is distinct from the preceding third-person subject (Frajzyngier, 2001) It appears that those differences are due to the default value of the linguistic form, first proposed for the systems of reference by Comrie (1998) extended here to lexical items. Given the importance of this issue for the system of reference cross-linguistically and, why noun phrases in English appear to be more complex than in other languages, the following discussion includes the state of the art, the hypotheses and the argumentation. Stvan (2007) reviews the literature concerning the usage of bare singular nouns; concentrates on the use of bare nouns referring to locations, such as campus, cellar, sea, temple, etc.; and analyzes their functions through the analysis of various situations referred to by phrases with bare locative nouns
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
