This article was downloaded by: [Arizona State University]

On: 16 October 2014, At: 16:01

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Quantitative Linguistics

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/njql20

Fractals in language
a
Ludˇk Hrebíček
a
Czech Academy of Sciences , Oriental Institute , Orientální
ústav AVCR, Pod vodórenskou věží 4, 182 08 Praha 8, Prague,
Czech Republic
Published online: 21 Jul 2008.

To cite this article: Ludˇk Hrebíček (1994) Fractals in language , Journal of Quantitative
Linguistics, 1:1, 82-86, DOI: 10.1080/09296179408590001

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09296179408590001

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever
as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any
opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the
authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy
of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified
with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/
page/terms-and-conditions
 Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 0929-6174/94/0101-0082$6.00
1994, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 82-86 © Swets & Zeitlinger

Fractals in Language*
Luděk Hřebíček
Oriental Institute, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague

ABSTRACT

The present paper is an attempt at the derivation of the Menzerath-Altmann law from the postulates of the
Mandelbrot theory of fractals. For this purpose the treatment of language system is characterized briefly, the
basic notions of the theory of fractals are described in an informal way, the sense and canonic derivation of the
Downloaded by [Arizona State University] at 16:01 16 October 2014

Menzerath-Altmann law is reproduced and, finally, the way of moving from the formula of the dimension of
self-similar fractals to this law is exhibited.

LANGUAGE AS A SYSTEM OF SUB- functioning as a educational discipline. The con-

SYSTEMS
Linguistics differs from the other scientific disci-
plines mainly in the unsystematic way of the
construction of its edifice. This building looks
like a construction knocked together out of in-
coherent parts, of cabins and annexes through
which it is impossible to pass. Different lin-
guistic schools present their conceptions based
mainly on definitions and classifications of lan-
guage constructs. This is analogical to the situ-
ation in other sciences. However, linguistics
mostly refuses to build up scientific theories
with reference to the alleged specific position
of natural languages among all other imagina-
ble phenomena. Thus knowledge in general is
divided into two parts which are language, on
the one hand, and all other items subjected to
cognition, on the other hand. Nevertheless, sci-
ence is a cultural phenomenon and it is neces-
sary to understand all cultural phenomena as a
whole. The science of language must be based
on the same principles as the other sciences and
thus act as a part of the culture.
This situation of linguistics is partly due to
the pragmatic demands put on linguistics (or
better said, philology): for compilation of gram-
mars, textbooks, manuals and dictionaries, for
struction of a theory of language, then, seems to
be some sort of excess. It can be said that lin-
guistics as a science is in an evident crisis.
This conclusion was already formulated twen-
ty years ago by Walter A. Koch in his foreword
to a book of collected papers presenting an in-
troduction to linguistic theory:
'Ohne daß sie es selbst eigentlich bemerkte,
ist die Linguistik in eine Krise geraten. Die
Forschung ist aktiv wie nie zuvor. Und den-
noch droht die Gefahr der Paralyse, der Scho-
lastisierung. Das Bewußstwerden einer tief-
greifenden Krise unter gleichzeitiger Mobi-
lisierung hoher wissenschaftlicher Energien
kann andrerseits zu einer fruchtbaren Wende
führen. ' (W.A. Koch 1973, p. XLVII)
This is an exact expression of the truth. Now
we should pose the question: In what way can a
significant turn in the development of linguis-
tics be reached? This can only occur only when
two important conditions are fulfilled: (i) when
linguistics tries to construct real scientific theo-
ries based on the generally accepted epistemo-
logical principles, i.e. when each theory besides
the additional interpretative and conventional
constituents (such as definitions, classifications,

* Correspondence should be addressed to: Dr. Luděk Hřebíček, Orientální ústav AVCR, Pod vodórenskou věží 4,
182 08 Praha 8, Czech Republic.
 FRACTALS IN LANGUAGE
etc.) contains a core in the form of at least one
testable (i.e. refutable) hypothesis; (ii) when lan-
guage and its constructs are understood as items
pertaining to one coherent system both in their
mutual arrangements and in the process of their
generation.
Regarding the first condition: in a set of gen-
uinely theoretical works it was already convinc-
ingly proven that quantitative linguistics is the
only discipline able to construct advanced lin-
guistic theories; see especially the works by G.
Altmann (1988,1992a), or by R.Köhler (1986).
Downloaded by [Arizona State University] at 16:01 16 October 2014
The second condition may appear to be sur-
prising, because linguistics of the twentieth cen-
tury continuously stresses its intention to grasp
language as a system. It can be indicated, how-
ever, that all schools of classical and modern
linguistics explicitly treat language as a system
of relatively independent subsystems. And it is
evident that the formulation of the relativity and
independence of language subsystems is based
on the extent of our theoretical knowledge but
not on the facts determined in languages. This
peculiar relativity reflects our inability to pene-
trate into the ties connecting the individual lan-
guage subsystems.
In philological practice, the units of the indi-
vidual linguistic levels are described independ-
ently of the other levels. Phonemes, morphemes,
lexemes, as well as syntactic constructions, are
related to the semantic level; semantics is un-
derstood as a transparent phenomenon equally
understandable by anybody. Naturally, this is
not in agreement with reality. There are many
works trying to combine two levels as is the
case of morphophonology or morphosyntax, etc.
These disciplines, too, are managed with the
help of definitions and classifications, but with-
out authentic theoretical means. In this connec-
tion it must be stressed that the highest lan-
guage level which theoretical linguistics is able
to take into account is the sentence level, and
this seems to be unsatisfactory.
The concept of function has been coined in
certain linguistic schools with an obvious in-
tention to subordinate many different language
phenomena to this notion. In such attempts, how-
ever, 'function' means something synonymous
to "purpose" or "aim" and has nothing in com-
83
mon with the mathematical meaning of this con-
cept (being rather "coordination" or something
in this sense). Purpose and aim are not varia-
bles; they are not sufficiently transparent cate-
gories.
The same situation occurs in some modern
linguistic denominations. The generative and
transformational school treats certain language
levels as interpretative derivations of the main
chain of the chosen rules; in this way the pho-
nological and semantic levels are interpreted in
relation to the abstract generated structures. This
indicates that the mutual relation of these sub-
systems is also "relative".
Here we try to demonstrate that quantitative
linguistics developed one of the possible means
by which linguistic theory can surpass the par-
ticularistic conception of the language subsys-
tems. We mean the Menzerath-Altmann law,
discovered in 1980, see G. Altmann (1980). Up
to now a large set of works has been published
dealing with this law from the viewpoint of its
theoretical structure as well as from the view-
point of the testing of observed data, see G.
Altmann & M.H. Schwibbe (1989), R. Köhler
(1986), A. Fenk & G. Fenk-Oczlon (1993) and
others. The Menzerath-Altmann law can be ap-
plied to different levels in different languages.
This law can also be exploited for the purpose
of the discovery of new, still unknown language
levels as there is no reason to suppose that the
number of language levels is limited. The law's
immensely wide range of applicability doubt-
less has some general reason. In what follows,
we try to explain this property through refer-
ence to the relation of the law to the theory of
fractals.
SOME FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS OF THE
FRACTAL THEORY
The theory of fractals is today generally known
and applied in many disciplines, but not in lin-
guistics. The concept of 'fractal' was coined by
B.B. Mandelbrot during his investigation of cer-
tain very complex and chaotic phenomena and
processes. Fractal geometry is an ingenious dis-
covery; it is suitable for the explanation of many
 84 LUDËK HREBfÖEK

complicated phenomena which could otherwise line corresponding to the function

not be comprehended.
As for the concept of fractals, B.B. Mandel- N (8) = a 8"°.
brot (1982, p. 15) states the following:
The dimension D, in another example, repre-
'A fractal is by definition a set for which the sents an invariant of the scaling used by an ob-
Hausdorff-Besicovitch dimension strictly ex- server who instantly gets near a measured coast
ceeds the topological dimension. ' and the measure 8 limitlessly approaches zero.
Another model of a fractal set quoted by B.B.
This definition contains at least one concept for
Mandelbrot (and by other theoreticians of frac-
which a linguistic sense can hardly be found.
tal geometry) is the Koch curve. The construc-
Therefore we had better turn to the characteri-
tion of this curve starts from a straight line of
zation of the notion of fractal by J. Feder (1991,
length L(l) = 1. This line is called an initiator
Downloaded by [Arizona State University] at 16:01 16 October 2014

p. 19, sect. 2.3., we translate the author's for-

mulation from the Russian edition):
'A structure consisting of parts, which are in
a sense similar to the whole, is called "frac-
tal". '
A shorter characterization of fractal, by the same
author, is as follows:
'A fractal looks the same regardless of the
and in the second step of construction it can be
substituted by a generator and so forth, so that
each straight line of the unfolded formation is
substituted by the generator. The first three steps
of the construction of the Koch curve are graph-
ically shown in the Figure 1.
INITIATOR

scale in which it is observed. '

This characterization indicates that in the sets
(structures, systems) comprising fractals the
property of similarity is involved in a certain
specific sense. When parts of a whole are simi- GENERATOR
lar to the whole (or vice versa), the system is
self-similar. Let us suppose a curve, the length
of which is measured in the number N(8) of the
straight lines (rods, paces, yard-sticks, etc.) of
length 8 covering the curve. The length of the
curve is L = N(S)8. This way of measuring is
complicated by the fact that L is function of 5.
This is usually exemplified by the measuring of
the coastline by a rod: if the rod shortens ad
Fig. 1. Koch curve.
infinitum (i.e., 8 -> 0), the length of the coast
grows infinitely.
Similarly, instead of a curve a surface can be This set evidently changes in the individual steps.
supposed being measured by the number N(8) Something, however, remains unchanged.
of squares 8 2 , or a volume N(8) by cubes 83, etc. B.B. Mandelbrot presents the following char-
For a very short 8 it can be proved that acteristics in connection with this curve:
N (8) ~ 1/8°. '... we assume that N "parts" into which our
"whole " is divided all involve the same sim-
If the number of squares 8 x 8 required for cov- ilarity ratio r. ' (B. Mandelbrot 1982, p. 56)
ering a coastline is N(8), the graph of the mutu-
al relation of log,0[N(8)] and Iog108 is a straight From Figure 1 it is evident what is denoted as
 FRACTALS IN LANGUAGE 85

"whole" and "part" in the geometrical draft. For After its application to different data con-
the similarity dimension Mandelbrot presents cerning constituents and constructs of different
the following formula: languages, this law remains irrefutable, i.e. no
one has succeeded in refuting it - which has far
logiV reaching consequences. This law represents the
D = (3)
log (1/r) only objective criterion for differentiation of
language levels. As was already mentioned, there
When the respective data for the Koch curve is no reason to suppose that all levels are evi-
are substituted, the formula is as follows: dent at first sight and that their number is finite.
This is the case of the text units called 'aggre-
l0g4
D = (4) gates' (or, better said, 'sentence aggregates',
log (1/3) though both terms are provisional); see L. Hre-
Hence, it is evident what is meant by "parts" bîcek (1989, 1990, 1992a, 1992b, 1993a) and
Downloaded by [Arizona State University] at 16:01 16 October 2014

(N) and by similarity ratio (r) in the quoted C. Schwarz (1992). The other works analysing
passage. Dimension D thus appears to be the different spheres of application of the law are
characteristic of the sought-after invariant proper quoted above. This law also functions as an im-
to the mutable set. portant structure in the distribution of word as-
For the self-similar fractals, the Hausdorff- sociations; see G. Altmann (1992b) and L. Hre-
Besicovitch dimension D is identical to the sim- bfcek (1993b).
ilarity dimension D defined by formulae (1) and Why does this law have such a large range of
(2). application? This question deserves clarifica-
tion.
THE MENZERATH-ALTMANN LAW
A NEW WAY OF DERIVATION OF THE
This law was derived by Altmann on the basis MENZERATH-ALTMANN LAW
of the following differential equation:
The sought-after explanation can possibly be
y (5)
presented as a discrete way of derivation of the
y Menzerath-Altmann law. Let us return to the
Mandelbrot quotation concerning the Koch curve
withy = length of the language construct, which was presented in the preceding section.
x = length of the respective constituent, N "parts" of a "whole" involve the same simi-
b = coefficient. larity ratio r. When these two variables are con-
The solution of (5) results in fronted with the two variables of the Menzerath-
Altmann law, it is obvious that they are parallel
log y = b log x + c in their meanings: the construct of length x (or
N) consists of y (or r) "parts". Formula (1) then
and, consequently: can be rewritten as

y = Ax» (6) log*

D = (7)
log (1/y) -logy
c
with A = e .
Then we obtain:
The Menzerath-Altmann law asserts that
logy = - ( I / o ) log* (8)
the longer the language construct the short-
er its constituents. This expression can be supplemented by the
correction term A in its logarithmic form. Fur-
It is obvious that formula (6) holds only for b < thermore, b can be substituted for 1/D. The equa-
0. tion:
 86 LUDËK H R E B Î C E K
log y = - b log x + log A (9)
is identical with (6), i.e. with the formula of the
Menzerath-Altmann law.
This situation can be interpreted in two ways:
1. The derivation of the Menzerath-Altmann law
represents nothing more than a structural ho-
mogeneity of the two formulae.
2. The identities N = x and r s y, supposed
above, are correct; they are in agreement with
reality and thus the derived law is a real conse-
quence of the fractal structures existing in lan-
guage.
Downloaded by [Arizona State University] at 16:01 16 October 2014
If the second variant is correct, and every-
thing testifies that it really is, then the deriva-
tion presented above can be taken as an expla-
nation of this law's wide range of application.
In addition, we should stress the following facts:
the Menzerath-Altmann law holds for all possi-
ble language constructs and their constituents;
to be a language construct means, therefore, to
have constituents in the sense of the law, and
thus constructs and their constituents represent
two different levels (or subsystems); the Men-
zerath-Altmann law is derivable from the ex-
pression valid for self-similar fractals.
Future investigation should decide whether
the language system is really self-similar or
whether it is affine conglomerate and its self-
similarity is nothing but a consequence of the
statistical approach to the measurement of the
length of constituents; variable y represents a
mean value characterizing the entire distribu-
tion of data displaying the length of constitu-
ents. The fractal dimension D = 1/b, then, rep-
resents an invariant of the process of approach-
ing from one level to the other one (upward or
downward) similar to the process in which an
observer approaches the measured coastline or
when the construction of the Koch curve pro-
ceeds step by step. The dimension D expresses
something which remains fixed during those
changes. Future investigation of languages should
decide whether D (or its reversed value b) is
constant or whether it varies as a function of an
as yet unknown argument. Nevertheless, thanks
to the discovery of the Menzerath-Altmann law,
linguistics has found its own route to fractals.
REFERENCES
Altmann, G. (1980). Prolegomena to Menzerath's Law.
Glottometrika, 2, 1-10.
Altmann, G. (1988). Wiederholungen in Texten. Bochum,
Brockmeyer.
Altmann, G. (1992a). Science and Linguistics. In: R.
Köhler & B.B. Rieger (1993), 3-10.
Altmann, G. (1992b). Two Models for Word Associa-
tion Data. Glottometrika, 13, 105-120.
Altmann, G., & Schwibbe, M.H. (1989). Das Menzerath-
sche Gesetz in informations verarbeitenden Syste-
men. Mit Beiträgen von Werner Kaumanns, Rein-
hard Köhler und Joachim Wilde. Hildesheim-Zürich-
New York, 01ms.
Feder, J. (1988). Fractals. New York, Plenum Press.
[Russian edition (1991): Fraktaly. Moskva, Mir.]
Fenk, A., & Fenk-Oczlon, G. (1993). Menzerath's Law
and the Constant Flow of Linguistic Information. In:
R. Köhler & B.B. Rieger (1993), 11-31.
Hřebíček, L. (1989). Menzerath-Altmann's Law on the
Semantic Level. Glottometrika, 11, 47-46.
Hřebíček, L. (1990). The Constants of the Menzerath-
Altmann Law. Glottometrika, 12, 61-71.
Hřebíček, L. (1992a). Text in Communication: Supra-
Sentence Structures. Bochum, Brockmeyer.
Hřebíček, L. (1992b). The Relation "to Consist of. In:
I. Prosecký (ed.): Ex Pede Pontis. Prague, Oriental
Institute (AS), 80-85.
Hřebíček, L. (1993a). Text as a Construct of Aggrega-
tions. In: R. Köhler & B.B. Rieger (1993), 33-39.
Hřebíček, L. (1993b). Word Associations and Text. Glot-
tometrika, 15, 12-17.
Koch, W.A. (1973). Einleitung. In: W.A. Koch (ed.):
Perspektiven der Linguistik I. Stuttgart, Kröner, XI-
LV.
Köhler, R. (1986). Zur linguistischen Synergetik: Struk-
tur und Dynamik der Lexik. Bochum, Brockmeyer.
Köhler, R., & Rieger, B.B. (1993). Contributions to
Quantitative Linguistics. Dordrecht-Boston-London,
Kluwer.
Mandelbrot, B. (1982). The Fractal Geometry of Na-
ture. New York, Freeman.
Schwarz, C. (1992). Zur Verteilung von Aggregaten in
Texten. [Unpublished seminar work.] Bochum,
Sprachwissenschaftliches Institut der Universität.