On extremes in linguistic complexity

Abstract

Summary This article examines common motifs in the accounts of the sound systems of Iroquoian, Polynesian and Khoesan languages as the most well-known cases of extremes in phonetic complexity. On the basis of examples from European and American scholarship between the 17th and early 20th century, we investigate continuities in the description of their seemingly ‘exotic’ inventories and phonotactic structures when viewed from the perspective of European languages. We also demonstrate the influence of phonetic accounts on the interpretation of other components of language and their role in the construction of biased images of the languages and their speakers. Finally, we show that controversies in descriptions of ‘exotic’ languages concern issues that remain relevant in modern phonetic research, in particular complexity of phonological systems, while notions which were conceived as ‘misconceptions’ have re-emerged as unresolved research questions, e.g., the status of clicks and small and large consonant inventories.

Perspectives on complex click consonants of Khoekhoegowab

“…In this regard, aspirated and ejective segments are routinely represented in International Phonetic Alphabet IPA conventions without people assuming that they are complex segments. We want to argue that we should be cautious of 'exoticising' consonant inventories and phonotactic structures of languages especially where 'complexity' is seen in terms of phonetic deviations or elaborations from well-known languages (Kilarski & Kolaczyk 2012). Therefore, we agree with Miller et al (2007, p. 151) summation that: Khoesan languages may have large inventories, but they are merely making maximal use of categories that are well-motivated cross-linguistically.…”

“…The present paper argues that the first transcriptions of Khoekhoegowab appeared to influence subsequent descriptions of the sounds. Also, the transcriptions of Khoekhoe sounds have always been influenced by external forces in which clicks were described as unique and even exotic because they deviated from well-known consonants (Kilarski & Kolaczyk, 2012). This 'exoticisation' of click consonants has often led to descriptions of the Khoesan languages as difficult and 'complex', and mother tongue speakers are stereotyped as different from the 'ordinary'….?…”

American Indian Languages in the Eyes of 17th-Century French and British Missionaries

“…The earliest phonetic accounts of Huron focus on two characteristic features, i.e., gaps in its phonetic inventory with respect to the sounds found in 'European' languages and the assumed fluctuating character of phonetic elements (for details see Kilarski & Dziubalska-Kołaczyk 2012). The first motif is illustrated by the first reference that was made to the lack of labial consonants in Huron.…”

“…(Andresen 1990: 92) More generally, such an ambivalent attitude towards linguistic complexity was characteristic of descriptions of other 'primitive' or 'exotic' languages and cultures, as illustrated for example by the interpretations of the extremes of phonetic complexity in Khoisan and Polynesian languages (cf. Kilarski & Dziubalska-Kołaczyk 2012).…”