The statistical trade-off between word order and word structure - large-scale evidence for the principle of least effort
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Languages employ different strategies to transmit structural and grammatical information. While, for example, grammatical dependency relationships in sentences are mainly conveyed by the ordering of the words for languages like Mandarin Chinese, or Vietnamese, the word ordering is much less restricted for languages such as Inupiatun or Quechua, as those languages (also) use the internal structure of words (e.g. inflectional morphology) to mark grammatical relationships in a sentence. Based on a quantitative analysis of more than 1,500 unique translations of different books of the Bible in more than 1,100 different languages that are spoken as a native language by approximately 6 billion people (more than 80% of the world population), we present large-scale evidence for a statistical trade-off between the amount of information conveyed by the ordering of words and the amount of information conveyed by internal word structure: languages that rely more strongly on word order information tend to rely less on word structure information and vice versa. In addition, we find that - despite differences in the way information is expressed - there is also evidence for a trade-off between different books of the biblical canon that recurs with little variation across languages: the more informative the word order of the book, the less informative its word structure and vice versa. We argue that this might suggest that, on the one hand, languages encode information in very different (but efficient) ways. On the other hand, content-related and stylistic features are statistically encoded in very similar ways.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 11 Aug 2016.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 2; 2023: 1; 2024: 0; 2025: 3; 2026: 2.
8 papers.
- 2022What do complexity measures measure? Correlating and validating corpus-based measures of morphological complexitycited by 8
- 2022Grammatical cues to subjecthood are redundant in a majority of simple clauses across languagescited by 5
- 2026Apples to Apples? Towards Comparable Crosslingual Language Model Evaluationcited by 3
- 2025BabyLM's First Words: Word Segmentation as a Phonological Probing Taskcited by 2
- 2025Word length predicts word order: "Min-max"-ing drives language evolutioncited by 2
- 2023Still no evidence for an effect of the proportion of non-native speakers on language complexity -- A response to Kauhanen, Einhaus & Walkden (2023)cited by 0
- 2025Do Large Language Models know who did what to whom?cited by 0
- 2026Measuring language complexity from hierarchical reuse of recurring patternscited by 0
- 2026Apples to Apples? Towards Comparable Crosslingual Language Model Evaluation25 Aug 2026
- 2026Measuring language complexity from hierarchical reuse of recurring patterns10 Jun 2026
- 2025Word length predicts word order: "Min-max"-ing drives language evolution20 May 2025
- 2025Do Large Language Models know who did what to whom?23 Apr 2025
- 2025BabyLM's First Words: Word Segmentation as a Phonological Probing Task4 Apr 2025
- 2023Still no evidence for an effect of the proportion of non-native speakers on language complexity -- A response to Kauhanen, Einhaus & Walkden (2023)29 Apr 2023
- 2022What do complexity measures measure? Correlating and validating corpus-based measures of morphological complexity11 Apr 2022
- 2022Grammatical cues to subjecthood are redundant in a majority of simple clauses across languages30 Jan 2022