An Information-Theoretic Approach to Morphosyntactic Complexity in English, Dutch and German

References

• Bane, M. (2008). Quantifying and measuring morphological complexity. In C. Chang & H. Haynie (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 69–76). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
   Google Scholar
• Bentz, C., Gutierrez-Vasques, X., Sozinova, O., & Samardžić, T. (2023). Complexity trade-offs and equi-complexity in natural languages: A meta-analysis. Linguistics Vanguard, 9(s1), 9–25. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2021-0054
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bentz, C., & Winter, B. (2013). Languages with more second language learners tend to lose nominal case. Language Dynamics and Change, 3(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1163/22105832-13030105
   Google Scholar
• Bouma, G., Evie, C., Trude, D., & van der Sijs, N. (2020). The EDGeS diachronic bible corpus. In N. Calzolari, F. Béchet, P. Blache, K. Choukri, C. Cieri, T. Declerck, & S. Goggi, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twelfth language resources and evaluation conference (pp. 5232–5239). European Language Resources Association. (27 February, 2024). https://aclanthology.org/2020.lrec-1.644
   Google Scholar
• Breitbarth, A., Delva, S., & Leuschner, T. (2016). A (Very) Imperfect Sandwich: English should, German Sollte, Dutch Mocht/Moest as grammaticalizing markers of conditionality. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 28(4), 282–316. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542716000143
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, S., Gil, D., Gaponov, S., Reifegerste, J., Yuditha, T., Tatarinova, T. V., Progovac, L., & Benítez-Burraco, A. (2023). Linguistic and memory correlates of societal variation: a quantitative analysis (Preprint ed.). PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/bnz2s
   Google Scholar
• Coogan, M. D. (2011). The oxford encyclopedia of the books of the Bible. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• De Smet, I., Beuls, K., Pijpops, D., & Van de Velde, F. (2017). Language-specific differences in regularization rates of the Germanic preterite. Presented at the ICHL.
   Google Scholar
• De Smet, I., & Van de Velde, F. (2019). Reassessing the evolution of West Germanic preterite inflection. Diachronica, 36(2), 139–180. https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.18020.des
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehret, K. (2017). An information-theoretic approach to language complexity: Variation in naturalistic corpora [ PhD Thesis, Albert-Ludwig-Universität Freiburg].
   Google Scholar
• Ehret, K., & Benedikt, S. (2016). An information-theoretic approach to assess linguistic complexity. In R. Baechler & G. Seiler (Eds.), Complexity, isolation, and variation (pp. 71–94). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110348965-004
   Google Scholar
• Fenk-Oczolon, G., & August, F. (2008). Complexity trade-offs between the subsystems of language. In M. Miestamo, K. Sinnemäki, & F. Karlsson (Eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change (pp. 43–65). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Gleick, J. (2011). The information: A history, a theory, a flood. Fourth Estate.
   Google Scholar
• Greenberg, J. H. (1960). A quantitative approach to the morphological typology of language. International Journal of American Linguistics, 26(3), 178–194. https://doi.org/10.1086/464575
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harbert, W. (2007). The Germanic languages (Cambridge Language Surveys). University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hüning, M. (Ed.). (2006). Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels: Handelingen van de workshop op 30 september en 1 oktober 2005 aan de Freie Universität Berlin (SNL-reeks 15). Stichting Neerlandistiek Leiden.
   Google Scholar
• Jespersen, O. (1894). Progress in language with special reference to english. Swan Sonnenschein.
   Google Scholar
• Juola, P. (1998). Measuring linguistic complexity: The morphological tier. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 5(3), 206–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/09296179808590128
   Google Scholar
• Juola, P. (2008). Assessing linguistic complexity. In M. Miestamo, K. Sinnemäki, & F. Karlsson (Eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change (pp. 89–108). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Karlsson, F., Miestamo, M., & Sinnemäki, K. (2008). Introduction: The problem of language complexity. In M. Miestamo, K. Sinnemäki, & F. Karlsson (Eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change (Vol. 94, pp. vii–xiv). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.94.01kar
   Google Scholar
• Koplenig, A., Meyer, P., Wolfer, S., Müller-Spitzer, C., & Smith, K. (2017). The statistical trade-off between word order and word structure – large-scale evidence for the principle of least effort. (Ed.) Kenny Smith. PLOS ONE, 12(3), e0173614. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173614
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koplenig, A., & Wolfer, S. (2023). Languages with more speakers tend to be harder to (machine-)learn. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 18521. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45373-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kusters, W. (2003). Linguistic complexity: The influence of social change on verbal inflection. LOT.
   Google Scholar
• Kusters, W. (2008). Complexity in linguistic theory, language learning and language change. In M. Miestamo & F. Karlsson (Eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change (pp. 3–21). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Langacker, R. (1977). Syntactic reanalysis. In N. Li Charles (Ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change (pp. 57–140). University of Texas Press. https://doi.org/10.7560/750357-005
   Google Scholar
• Leufkens, S. (2015). Transparency in Language: A Typological Study [ Zugl.: University of Amsterdam, Diss. 2015)]. LOT).
   Google Scholar
• Levshina, N. (2021). Cross-linguistic trade-offs and causal relationships between cues to grammatical subject and object, and the problem of efficiency-related explanations. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 648200. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.648200
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lupyan, G., Dale, R., & O’Rourke, D. (2010). Language structure is partly determined by social structure. (Ed.) Dennis O’Rourke. PLOS ONE, 5(1), e8559. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008559
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McWhorter, J. (2002). What happened to English? Diachronica, 19(2), 217–272. https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.19.2.02wha
   Google Scholar
• McWhorter, J. (2012). Complexity hotspot: The copula in Saramaccan and its implications. In B. Kortmann & B. Szmrecsanyi (Eds.), Linguistic Complexity (pp. 243–266). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229226.243
   Google Scholar
• McWhorter, J. H. (2001). The worlds simplest grammars are creole grammars. Linguistic Typology, 5(2–3). https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2001.001
   Google Scholar
• Miestamo, M. (2006). On the feasibility of complexity metrics. In K. Kerge & M.-M. Sepper (Eds.), FinEst linguistics. Proceedings of the annual Finnish and Estonian conference of linguistics [Publications of the Department of Estonian of Tallinn University 8] (pp. 11–26). Tallinna Ülikooli Kirjastus.
   Google Scholar
• Miestamo, M. (2008). Grammatical complexity in a cross-linguistic perspective. In M. Miestamo, K. Sinnemäki, & F. Karlsson (Eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change (pp. 23–41). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Moscoso Del Prado Martín, F. (2014). Grammatical change begins within the word: Causal modeling of the co-evolution of Icelandic morphology and syntax. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 36, 2657–2662.
   Google Scholar
• O’Neil, W. (1978). The evolution of the Germanic inflectional systems: A study in the causes of language change. Orbis, 27, 248–286.
   Google Scholar
• Roberge, P. (2020). Contact and the history of germanic languages. In R. Hickey (Ed.), The handbook of language contact (1st ed., pp. 323–343). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119485094.ch16
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, S., & Winters, J. (2012). Social structure and language structure: The new nomothetic approach. Psychology of Language & Communication, 16(2), 89–112. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10057-012-0008-6
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, S., Winters, J., & Emmert-Streib, F. (2013). Linguistic diversity and traffic accidents: Lessons from statistical studies of cultural traits. (Ed.) Frank Emmert-Streib. PLOS ONE, 8(8), e70902. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070902
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosemeyer, M., & Van de Velde, F. (2021). On cause and correlation in language change: Word order and clefting in Brazilian Portuguese. Language Dynamics and Change, 11(1), 130–166. https://doi.org/10.1163/22105832-01001500
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruigendijk, E., Van de Velde, F., & Vismans, R , (eds.). (2012). Special issue: Dutch between English and German. Leuvense Bijdragen – Leuven Contributions in Linguistics and Philology, 98(1), 1–176.
   Google Scholar
• Sadeniemi, M., Kettunen, K., Lindh-Knuutila, T., & Honkela, T. (2008). Complexity of European Union languages: A comparative approach. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 15(2), 185–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/09296170801961843
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlegel, A. W. (1846). Observations sur la langue et la littérature Provençales. In E. Böcking (Ed.), OEuvres de M. Auguste-Guillaume de Schlegel, écrites en français (Vol. 2, pp. 213–240). Weidmann.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, A. K. (2016). New directions in comparative Germanic linguistics. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 28(4). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542716000180
   Google Scholar
• Shcherbakova, O., Maria Michaelis, S., Haynie, H. J., Passmore, S., Gast, V., Gray, R. D., Greenhill, S. J., Blasi, D. E., & Skirgård, H. (2023). Societies of strangers do not speak less complex languages. Science Advances, 9(33). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adf7704
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinnemäki, K. (2008). Complexity trade-offs in core argument marking. In M. Miestamo, K. Sinnemäki, & F. Karlsson (Eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change (pp. 68–88). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Smessaert, H., van der Horst, J., & Van de Velde, F. (2013). A Germanic Sandwich 2013. Special issue of Leuvense Bijdragen – Leuven contributions in linguistics and philology 101. Peeters.
   Google Scholar
• Smessaert, H., van der Horst, J., & Van de Velde, F. (2017). Another look at the Germanic sandwich: Dutch between German and English. In Leuvense Bijdragen: Tijdschrift voor Germaanse Filologie (Vol. 101, pp. 77–81). Nijhoff.
   Google Scholar
• Szmrecsanyi, B., & Kortmann, B. (2009). Between simplification and complexification: Non-standard varieties of English around the world. In G. Sampson, D. Gil, & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable (pp. 64–79). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Trudgill, P. (1999). Language contact and the function of linguistic gender. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 35, 133–152.
   Google Scholar
• Trudgill, P. (2001). Contact and simplification: Historical baggage and directionality in linguistic change. Linguistic Typology, 5(2), 371–374.
   Google Scholar
• Trudgill, P. (2011). Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van Haeringen, C. B. (1956). Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. Servire.
   Google Scholar
• Vismans, R., Hüning, M., & Weerman, F., EDS. (2010). Special issue: Dutch between English and German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 22(4). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542710000061
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weerman, F. (2006). It’s the economy, stupid! Een vergelijkende blik op “men” en “man. In M. Hüning, U. Vogl, T. Van der Wouden, & A. Verhagen (Eds.), Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels (pp. 19–47). SNL. (26 February, 2024). https://dare.uva.nl/search?identifier=4b9647ca-37c4-49fe-b22d-defd1fe6fc2f
   Google Scholar