Dimensions of Morphological Complexity

e question of what aspects of a language’s word structure patterns contribute to its overall complexity has a long tradition. With roots in the notions of linguistic typology associated with traditional grammar, Sapir (; see also Anderson : §.) organizes these matters along three dimensions. One of these concerns the range of concepts represented by morphological markers, and refers to the extent of elaboration of the inflectional and derivational category structure of a language. A second refers to the range of marker types, and thereby differentiates transparent affixation of the sort associated with pure “agglutinating” languages from a variety of other formal processes by which morphological information can be conveyed. e third dimension is that of the overall internal complexity of words, the sheer number of distinct pieces of information that are combined in a single word, ranging from the simplest case of “isolating” languages that involve (little or) no morphological combination up to the “polysynthetic” type in which most or all of the components of a full sentence are expressed within a single word. My goal in this chapter is to develop and elaborate a characterization of the morphological characterization of languages along lines similar to Sapir’s, so as not only to serve similar typological goals but also to provide a framework for understanding the questions of linguistic typology that motivate other authors in this volume. In that spirit, I will feel free to propose an agenda of questions to be asked about languages without being obliged to offer a comprehensive set of answers. Before proceeding to that enterprise, however, I want to step back from the details and ask what it is about morphology that constitutes “complexity” in the broader picture of human natural language.