Linguistics - Redundancy

Expressivity: say what you mean, ensure message comes through. Efficiency: say it briefly

‘She speaks’ - both ‘she’ and ‘-s’ marking indicate third person singular. PRO-3sg speak-3sg

French negation (ne…pas), word choice (collaborated together, past experience, the reason why), politeness conventions, closed loop communication

‘Guess’ frequently takes clauses (62.3%) so speakers include ‘that’ only 1% of time. ‘Worry’ rarely takes clauses (3.2%) so speakers include ‘that’ 75% of time to disambiguate

‘Worry’ more frequently takes noun complements, so ‘I worried the…’ is temporarily ambiguous. Including ‘that’ disambiguates toward clause interpretation

Speakers rationally optimize their information rate (inclusion/omission) to manage redundancy, supporting view that language is for communication

Information is conveyed through a noisy channel from speaker to listener. Speakers minimize information loss (message success) while maximizing channel capacity (avoiding redundancy cost)

If language is primarily for internal thought (I-language), redundancy seems wasteful. But if language is for communication through noisy channels, redundancy helps ensure message transmission

Tool to exchange information. Language primarily serves communicative function rather than as medium of thought. Fedorenko et al. (2024)

Pros: Explains human unique higher-order thinking, thought-content prior to use (Frege, Plato). Cons: Cannot explain why redundancy is so prevalent across languages - wasteful if language is primarily internal

Pros: Explains redundancy (helps ensure message transmission through noisy channel), predicts rational optimization of information density. Cons: Doesn’t fully explain internal verbal reasoning and inner speech

I worry when… I worry about… I worry Sarah… I guessed the answer…

• internal monologues • complex abstract thought • universals reflecting thought not communication