The linguistic niche hypothesis (LNH) posits that the exotericity of languages (how prevalent non-native speakers are) and grammatical complexity are...
GMAT Information and Ideas : (Ideas) Questions
The linguistic niche hypothesis (LNH) posits that the exotericity of languages (how prevalent non-native speakers are) and grammatical complexity are inversely related, which the LNH ascribes to attrition of complex grammatical rules as more non-native speakers adopt the language but fail to acquire those rules. Focusing on two characteristics that are positive indices of grammatical complexity, fusion (when new phonemes arise from the merger of previously distinct ones) and informativity (languages' capacity for meaningful variation), Olena Shcherbakova and colleagues conducted a quantitative analysis for more than 1,300 languages and claim the outcome is inconsistent with the LNH.
Which finding, if true, would most directly support Shcherbakova and colleagues' claim?
Shcherbakova and colleagues' analysis showed a slightly negative correlation between grammatical complexity and fusion and between grammatical complexity and informativity.
Shcherbakova and colleagues' analysis showed a slightly negative correlation between grammatical complexity and exotericity.
Shcherbakova and colleagues' analysis showed a slightly positive correlation between grammatical complexity and fusion.
Shcherbakova and colleagues' analysis showed a slightly positive correlation between fusion and exotericity and between informativity and exotericity.
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Part A: Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| The linguistic niche hypothesis (LNH) posits that the exotericity of languages (how prevalent non-native speakers are) and grammatical complexity are inversely related |
|
| which the LNH ascribes to attrition of complex grammatical rules as more non-native speakers adopt the language but fail to acquire those rules |
|
| Focusing on two characteristics that are positive indices of grammatical complexity, fusion (when new phonemes arise from the merger of previously distinct ones) and informativity (languages' capacity for meaningful variation) |
|
| Olena Shcherbakova and colleagues conducted a quantitative analysis for more than 1,300 languages |
|
| and claim the outcome is inconsistent with the LNH |
|
Part B: Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: Shcherbakova and colleagues found results that contradict the Linguistic Niche Hypothesis's prediction about the relationship between language exotericity and grammatical complexity.
Argument Flow: The passage first explains what the LNH theory claims—that languages become less grammatically complex as more non-native speakers use them. It then introduces Shcherbakova's study, which used specific measures of complexity across many languages and concluded that their findings do not support this theory.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
What's being asked? Which finding would most directly support Shcherbakova's claim that their results are inconsistent with the LNH
What type of answer do we need? A specific research finding/correlation that contradicts what the LNH would predict
Any limiting keywords? 'most directly support' - we need the finding that most clearly contradicts the LNH
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- The LNH predicts that exotericity (prevalence of non-native speakers) and grammatical complexity should be inversely related
- So according to LNH, we should see a negative correlation between these factors
- If Shcherbakova claims their findings are inconsistent with LNH, then their data must show something that contradicts this prediction
- The right answer should show either no correlation or a positive correlation between exotericity and measures of grammatical complexity (fusion and informativity)
- This would directly contradict the LNH's central prediction
Shcherbakova and colleagues' analysis showed a slightly negative correlation between grammatical complexity and fusion and between grammatical complexity and informativity.
- Shows negative correlations between grammatical complexity and fusion/informativity
- This would suggest fusion and informativity are not good measures of complexity
- Does not directly test the LNH's prediction about exotericity
Shcherbakova and colleagues' analysis showed a slightly negative correlation between grammatical complexity and exotericity.
- Shows negative correlation between complexity and exotericity
- This would actually SUPPORT the LNH, not contradict it
- Common trap: confusing 'support Shcherbakova's claim' with 'support the LNH itself'
Shcherbakova and colleagues' analysis showed a slightly positive correlation between grammatical complexity and fusion.
- Shows positive correlation between complexity and fusion only
- Does not address the core LNH prediction about exotericity
- Only covers one measure of complexity
Shcherbakova and colleagues' analysis showed a slightly positive correlation between fusion and exotericity and between informativity and exotericity.
- Shows positive correlations between fusion/exotericity AND informativity/exotericity
- Since fusion and informativity are measures of grammatical complexity, this means complexity increases with exotericity
- This directly contradicts LNH's prediction of an inverse relationship
- Addresses both measures of complexity mentioned in the passage