No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Recent studies on linguistic complexity (Miestamo 2006, 2009, Miestamo et al. 2008 offer me the opportunity for comparing and re-discussing some major theoretical concepts that were at the basis of my model on textual complexity (2002, 2003, 2004) and which are also fundamental assumptions in those studies. Comparability is limited by the different objects of analysis, text in my research vs. cross-linguistic grammars there, but it is justified by a strong similarity in the very conceptualisation of complexity and in the criteria for defining it.The aim of this paper is to re-propose and further elaborate on my theoretical approach and confirm its validity. Text complexity is viewed as an instance of system complexity and text as a complex system. The analysis of text complexity under this light presupposes conceiving of the text as a dynamic configuration of components that, in the course of the text progression, variously interplay and with varied effects. The theory of complex systems offers good instruments for modelling this type of interplay and for explaining the changes and readjustments that follow. A theory of naturalness/markedness can help motivate and predict the emergence, type and scope of textual complexity.

No abstract