Language Parameters
Identifiying the points of potential variation among languages
Suppose we succeed in identifiying the points of potential variation among languages — call them parameters […]
Noam Chomsky, Powers and Prospects
Chomsky is proposing that all human languages share a set of universal principles — core grammatical rules or structures that are hardwired into the human brain (often called Universal Grammar). For example, all languages have nouns and verbs, hierarchical structures, and ways to ask questions.
However, languages differ in specific, systematic ways. These systematic differences are the parameters — binary or scalar options that a language “chooses” from within a fixed range of possibilities. For instance:
- Word order parameter: Does the language prefer Subject-Verb-Object (e.g., English) or Subject-Object-Verb (e.g., Japanese)?
- Null subject parameter: Does the language allow sentences without an explicit subject (e.g., Spanish “Llueve” for “It is raining”) or require one (e.g., English)?
Chomsky’s idea is that learning a language involves identifying which “settings” a particular language uses for these parameters.
In this article, I want to explore some of these possible parameters, set on scales from 0 to 100 (with examples):
1. Phonetic Complexity
- Definition: The variety and complexity of phonemes (sounds) used in a language.
- Scale Examples:
- 0: Rotokas (spoken in Papua New Guinea) — Has one of the smallest phoneme inventories (11 sounds).
- 50: English — Moderately complex phonetic inventory with ~44 phonemes.
- 100: !Xóõ (a Khoisan language) — Extremely rich with over 100 phonemes, including clicks.
2. Morphological Complexity
- Definition: The degree to which a language uses word modifications (inflections, prefixes, suffixes) to express grammatical relationships.
- Scale Examples:
- 0: Mandarin Chinese — Largely analytic, relying on word order and particles rather than inflection.
- 50: Spanish — Moderate inflection for verbs (e.g., conjugation) but less so for nouns.
- 100: Turkish or Inuktitut — Highly agglutinative, building long words that encode extensive grammatical information.
3. Syntactic Flexibility
- Definition: The freedom to reorder sentence components without losing meaning.
- Scale Examples:
- 0: English — Fixed Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) order.
- 50: Russian — Flexible word order, though context and emphasis guide interpretation.
- 100: Latin — Highly flexible due to rich case marking (e.g., nominative, accusative, genitive).
4. Lexical Density
- Definition: The ratio of content words (nouns, verbs, adjectives) to function words (prepositions, articles).
- Scale Examples:
- 0: Chinese languages (Mandarin/Cantonese) — High reliance on monosyllabic morphemes, with less distinction between content and function words.
- 50: German — Balanced use of content and function words, with clear grammatical structures.
- 100: Classical Arabic — Dense use of content words, with extensive derivational morphology and limited function word usage.
5. Orthographic Complexity
- Definition: The difficulty and irregularity of a language’s written system relative to its spoken form.
- Scale Examples:
- 0: Finnish — Almost perfect phonemic orthography (letters correspond closely to sounds).
- 50: English — Moderate irregularity with many inconsistencies (e.g., “ough” in “through,” “rough”).
- 100: Chinese — Logographic script with thousands of unique characters requiring memorization.
6. Semantic Precision
- Definition: The extent to which a language distinguishes subtle differences in meaning with unique words or structures.
- Scale Examples:
- 0: Pirahã — Few distinctions in numerical or color vocabulary, highly context-dependent semantics.
- 50: English — Moderate precision, with many terms for shades of meaning but still reliant on context (e.g., “blue” vs. “navy blue”).
- 100: Ancient Greek — Exceptionally precise vocabulary, particularly in domains like philosophy and art (e.g., multiple words for “love” such as eros, philia, and agape).
7. Prosodic Expressiveness
- Definition: The reliance on pitch, tone, and rhythm to convey meaning or emotion.
- Scale Examples:
- 0: Finnish — Minimal use of tone or pitch for meaning, largely monotonic speech patterns.
- 50: English — Moderately expressive intonation, used for emphasis and emotional nuance but not grammatical distinction.
- 100: Thai — Tonal language where pitch distinctions (e.g., high, low, falling) are integral to meaning.
8. Loanword Integration
- Definition: The extent to which a language borrows and adapts words from other languages.
- Scale Examples:
- 0: Icelandic — Minimal loanword use, preferring native coinages (e.g., tölva for “computer”).
- 50: German — Borrowing present but often adapted to fit native grammar and phonology (e.g., Handy for “mobile phone”).
- 100: Japanese — Heavy borrowing and integration of foreign words, especially English, often with minimal adaptation (e.g., konpyūta for “computer”).
9. Cultural Embedment
- Definition: The degree to which a language’s structure reflects culturally specific concepts and practices.
- Scale Examples:
- 0: Esperanto — Constructed to minimize cultural embedment and maximize universality.
- 50: Hindi — Reflects moderate cultural concepts, such as kinship terms and religious vocabulary.
- 100: Navajo — Deeply embedded in Navajo culture, with vocabulary and syntax reflecting environmental and spiritual concepts (e.g., verbs that vary based on shape and size of objects).
10. Temporal Expression
- Definition: The granularity and explicitness with which time is encoded in language.
- Scale Examples:
- 0: Hopi — Lacks tense as traditionally understood; expresses time through context and aspect.
- 50: French — Moderately explicit, with clear tenses but less precision than English.
- 100: English — Highly granular, with numerous tenses and precise distinctions (e.g., “I have been walking” vs. “I had walked”).