English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In a recent paper published in the Journal of Language Evolution, Kauhanen,Einhaus & Walkden (https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzad005, KEW) challenge theresults presented in one of my papers (Koplenig, Royal Society Open Science, 6,181274 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.181274), in which I tried to showthrough a series of statistical analyses that large numbers of L2 (secondlanguage) speakers do not seem to affect the (grammatical or statistical)complexity of a language. To this end, I focus on the way in which theEthnologue assesses language status: a language is characterised as vehicularif, in addition to being used by L1 (first language) speakers, it should alsohave a significant number of L2 users. KEW criticise both the use ofvehicularity as a (binary) indicator of whether a language has a significantnumber of L2 users and the idea of imputing a zero proportion of L2 speakers tonon-vehicular languages whenever a direct estimate of that proportion isunavailable. While I recognise the importance of post-publication commentary onpublished research, I show in this rejoinder that both points of criticism areexplicitly mentioned and analysed in my paper. In addition, I also comment onother points raised by KEW and demonstrate that both alternative analysesoffered by KEW do not stand up to closer scrutiny.

Still no evidence for an effect of the proportion of non-native speakers on language complexity -- A response to Kauhanen, Einhaus & Walkden (2023)