Morphology deals with the internal structure of words BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 . Languages of the world have different word production processes. Morphological richness vary from language to language, depending on their linguistic typology. In natural language processing (NLP), taking into account the morphological complexity inherent to each language could be important for improving or adapting the existing methods, since the amount of semantic and grammatical information encoded at the word level, may vary significantly from language to language.Conceptualizing and quantifying linguistic complexity is not an easy task, many quantitative and qualitative dimensions must be taken into account BIBREF2 . On one hand we can try to answer what is complexity in a language and which mechanisms express it, on the other hand, we can try to find out if there is a language with more complex phenomena (phonological, morphological, syntactical) than other and how can we measure it. miestamo2008grammatical distinguishes between two types of complexity: the absolute, which defines complexity in terms of the number of parts of a system; and the relative, which is related to the cost and difficulty faced by language users. Some authors focuses in the absolute approach since it is less subjective. Another common complexity distinction is between global and particular. Global complexity characterizes entire languages, e.g., as easy or difficult to learn BIBREF2 , while particular complexity refers only to a level of the whole language (for example phonological complexity, morphological complexity, syntactical complexity).We focus on morphological complexity. Many definitions of this term have been proposed BIBREF3 , BIBREF4 , BIBREF5 . From the computational linguistics perspective there has been a special interest in corpus based approaches to quantify it, i.e., methods that estimate the morphological complexity of a language directly from the production of morphological instances over a corpus. This type of approach usually represents a relatively easy and reproducible way to quantify complexity without the strict need of linguistic annotated data. The underlying intuition of corpus based methods is that morphological complexity depends on the morphological system of a language, like its inflectional and derivational processes. A very productive system will produce a lot of different word forms. This morphological richness can be captured with several statistical measures, e.g., information theory measures BIBREF6 or type token relationships. For example, [p. 9]bybee2010language affirms that “the token frequency of certain items in constructions [i.e., words] as well as the range of types [...] determines representation of the construction as well as its productivity”.In this work, we are interested in using corpus based approaches; however, we would like to quantify the complexity not only by the type and token distributions over a corpus, but also by taking into account other important dimension: the predictability of a morph sequence BIBREF7 . This is a preliminary work that takes as a case of study the distant languages Otomi, Nahuatl and Spanish. The general idea is to use parallel corpora, type-token relationship and some NLP strategies for measuring the predictability in statistical language models.Additionally, most of the previous works do not analyze how the complexity changes when different types of morphological normalization procedures are applied to a language, e.g., lemmatization, stemming, morphological segmentation. This information could be useful for linguistic analysis and for measuring the impact of different word form normalization tools depending of the language. In this work, we analyze how the type-token relationship changes using different types of morphological normalization techniques.The type-token relationship (TTR) is the relationship that exists between the number of distinct words (types) and the total word count (tokens) within a text. This measure has been used for several purposes, e.g., as an indicator of vocabulary richness and style of an author BIBREF8 , BIBREF9 , information flow of a text BIBREF10 and it has also been used in child language acquisition, psychiatry and literary studies BIBREF11 , BIBREF12 .TTR has proven to be a simple, yet effective, way to quantify the morphological complexity of a language. This is why it has been used to estimate morphological complexity using relatively small corpora BIBREF13 . It has also shown a high correlation with other types of complexity measures like entropy and paradigm-based approaches that are based on typological information databases BIBREF14 It is important to notice that the value of TTR is affected by the type and length of the texts. However, one natural way to make TTRs comparable between languages is to use a parallel corpus, since the same meaning and functions are, more or less, expressed in the two languages. When TTR is measured over a parallel corpus, it provides a useful way to compare typological and morphological characteristics of languages. kelih2010type works with parallel texts of the Slavic language family to analyze morphological and typological features of the languages, i.e., he uses TTR for comparing the morphological productivity and the degree of syntheticity and analycity between the languages. Along the same line, mayer2014extraction automatically extract typological features of the languages, e.g., morphological synthesis degree, by using TTR.There exist several models that have been developed to examine the relationship between the types and tokens within a text BIBREF15 . The most common one is the ratio $\frac{types}{tokens}$ and it is the one that we use in this work.In NLP, statistical language models are a useful tool for calculating the probability of any sequence of words in a language. These models need a corpus as training data, they are usually based on n-grams, and more recently, in neural representations of words.Information theory based measures can be used to estimate the predictiveness of these models, i.e., perplexity and entropy. Perplexity is a common measure for the complexity of n-grams models in NLP BIBREF16 . Perplexity is based in Shannon's entropy BIBREF17 as the perplexity of a model $\mu $ is defined by the equation $2^{H(\mu )}$ , where $H(\mu )$ es the entropy of the model (or random variable). Shannon's entropy had been used for measuring complexity of different systems. In linguistics, entropy is commonly used to measure the complexity of morphological systems BIBREF6 , BIBREF18 , BIBREF19 . Higher values of perplexity and entropy mean less predictability.Perplexity depends on how the model is represented (this includes the size of the data). In this work, we compare two different models for calculating the entropy and perplexity: a typical bigram model adapted to a morph level BIBREF16 ; and our proposal based on using the word as a context instead of ngrams.We rely in parallel corpora to compare the measures across languages, since the same meaning and functions are shared in the two languages.This model takes into consideration bigrams BIBREF16 as context for determining the joint probabilities of the sub-strings. Here the bigrams are sequences of two morphs in the text (whether they belong to the same word or not). This is a typical statistical language model but instead of using sequences of words, we use morphological segmented texts. In addition, we use a Laplacian (or add one) smoothing for the conditional probabilities BIBREF20 .The word level representation takes the whole word as context for the determination of joint probabilities. Therefore, the frequency of co-occurrence is different from zero only if the sub-word units (morphs) are part of the same word. For example, if $xby$ is a word with a prefix $x$ and a suffix $y$ , the co-occurrence of $x$ with $b$ will be different from zero as both morphs are part of the word $xby$ . Similarly, the co-occurrence of $y$ with $b$ will be different from zero. Conversely, if two morphs are sub-strings of different words, its co-occurrence will be zero. To calculate the conditional probabilities we use and add one estimator defined as: $$p(x|y) = \frac{fr(x,y) + 1 }{fr(x,y) + V}$$   (Eq. 5) Where $V$ is the number of types and $fr(\cdot )$ is the frequency of co-occurrence function.We work with two language pairs that are spoken in the same country (Mexico) but they are typologically distant languages: Spanish (Indo-European)-Nahuatl (Uto-Aztecan) and Spanish-Otomi (Oto-Manguean). Both, Nahuatl and Otomi are low-resource languages that face scarcity of digital parallel and monolingual corpora.Nahuatl is an indigenous language with agglutinative and polysynthethic morphological phenomena. It can agglutinate many different prefixes and suffixes to build complex words. Spanish also has rich morphology, but it mainly uses suffixes and it can have a fusional behavior, where morphemes can be fused or overlaid into a single one that encodes several grammatical meanings. Regarding to Otomi, its morphology also has a fusional tendency, and it is head-marking. Otomi morphology is usually considered quite complex BIBREF21 as it exhibits different phenomena like stem alternation, inflectional class changes and suprasegmental variation, just to mention some.Since we are dealing with low resource languages that have a lot of dialectal and orthographic variation, it is difficult to obtain a standard big parallel corpus. We work with two different parallel corpora, i.e., Spanish-Nahuatl and Spanish-Otomi. Therefore the complexity comparisons are always in reference to Spanish.We used a Spanish-Nahuatl parallel corpus created by GUTIERREZVASQUES16.1068. However, we used only a subset since the whole corpus is not homogeneous, i.e., it comprises several Nahuatl dialects, sources, periods of time and it lacks of a general orthographic normalization. We chose the texts that had a more or less systematic writing. On the other hand, we used a Spanish-Otomi parallel corpus BIBREF22 conformed by 38 texts transcribed from speech. This corpus was obtained in San Andrés Cuexcontitlan. It is principally composed by narrative texts, but also counts with dialogues and elicited data. Table 1 shows the size of the parallel corpora used for the experiments.We used different morphological analysis tools, in order to explore the morphological complexity variation among languages and between the different types of morphological representations. We performed lemmatization for Spanish language, and morphological segmentation for all languages.In NLP, morphology is usually tackled by building morphological analysis (taggers) tools. And more commonly, lemmatization and stemming methods are used to reduce the morphological variation by converting words forms to a standard form, i.e., a lemma or a stem. However, most of these technologies are focused in a reduced set of languages. For languages like English, with plenty of resources and relatively poor morphology, morphological processing may be considered solved.However, this is not the case for all the languages. Specially for languages with rich morphological phenomena where it is not enough to remove inflectional endings in order to obtain a stem.Lemmatization and stemming aim to remove inflectional endings. Spanish has available tools to perform this task. We used the tool Freeling. Regarding to morphological segmentation, we used semi-supervised statistical segmentation models obtained with the tool Morfessor BIBREF23 . In particular, we used the same segmentation models reported in ximena2017bilingual for Spanish and Nahuatl. As for Otomi, we used manual morphological segmentation of the corpus, provided by a specialist.We calculated the type-token relationship for every language in each parallel corpus. Table 2 shows the TTR of the texts without any processing ( $ES$ , $NA$ ) and with the different types of morphological processing: morphological segmentation ( $ES_{morph}$ , $NA_{morph}$ ), lemmatization ( $ES_{lemma}$ ). In a similar way, Table 3 shows the TTR values for the Spanish-Otomi corpus. It is worth mentioning that the TTR values are only comparable within the same parallel corpus.We also calculate the perplexity and complexity for the different languages. Since we are focusing on morphological complexity, we took only the segmented data for computing the entropy and the perplexity. We do not use the lemmatized or non segmented data since this would be equivalent to measuring the combinatorial complexity between words, i.e. syntax. In this sense, the entropy and perplexity reflects the predictability of the morphs sequences. Tables 4 and 5 shows the perplexity and entropy in each language pair.When no morphological processing is applied, Nahuatl has a lot higher TTR value than Spanish, i.e., a greater proportion of different word forms (types). In spite of Nahuatl having fewer tokens because of its agglutinative nature, it has a lot more types than Spanish. This suggests that Nahuatl has a highly productive system that can generate a great number of different morphological forms. In other words, it is more likely to find a repeated word in Spanish than in a Nahuatl corpus. In the case of Otomi-Spanish, Otomi also has a bigger complexity compared to Spanish in terms of TTR. Even though both Otomi and Spanish show fusional patterns in its inflection, Otomi also count with a lot of derivational processes and shows regular stem alternations.In every case, morphological segmentation induced the smallest values of TTR for all languages. Suggesting that greater reduction of the morphological complexity is achieved when the words are split into morphs, making it more likely to find a repeated item. For instance, when Nahuatl was morphologically segmented, TTR had a dramatic decrease (from $26.22$ to $1.23$ ). This TTR reduction could be the result of eliminating the combinatorial variety of the agglutinative and polysynthetical morphology of the language. Therefore, when we segment the text we break this agglutination, leading to significantly less diverse units.In the case of Otomi language, a similar trend can be observed. Otomi seems to be morphologically more complex than Spanish in terms of TTR, i.e., more diverse types or word forms. When morphological segmentation is applied, TTR decreases and Otomi language has a lower TTR compared to Spanish. Even though Otomi is not a polysynthetic language like Nahuatl, these results suggest that Otomi has also a great combinatory potential of its morphs, i.e, when Otomi gets morphologically segmented we obtain less diverse types, these morphs may be recurrent in the text but they can be combined in many several ways within the Otomi word structure. Linguistic studies have shown that Otomi language can concatenate several affixes, specially in derivative processes BIBREF22 .It has brought to our attention that Spanish has a higher TTR than Nahuatl and Otomi, only when the languages are morphologically segmented. It seems that the morphs inventory is bigger in Spanish, we conjecture this is related to the fact that Spanish has more suppletion or “irregular” forms phenomena BIBREF24 .The predictability of the internal structure of word is other dimension of complexity. It reflects the difficulty of producing novel words given a set of lexical items (stems, suffixes or morphs). First of all, as a general overview, we can see that word level models have the lower perplexity and entropy (Tables 4 and 5 ). We believe that this type of models capture better the morphological structure, since they take into account the possible combinations of morphs within a word and not outside the bounds of it (like the bigram model).It is interesting to compare the TTR and the predictability measures for each language. In the case of Nahuatl, TTR shows that there is a lot of complexity at lexical level (many different word forms, few repetitions), however, this contrasts with the predictability of the elements that conform a lexical item: the combination of morphs within a word is more predictable than Spanish, since it obtains lower values of Perplexity and entropy. The combinatorial structure of Nahuatl morphology shows less uncertainty than Spanish one, despite the fact that Nahuatl is capable of producing many more different types in the corpus due to its agglutinative and polysynthetic nature.The case of Otomi language is different, since it seems that it is not only complex in terms of TTR but also in terms of predictability. It obtains higher entropy and perplexity than Spanish. We conjecture this is related to several phenomena. For instance, Otomi and Nahuatl allow a large number of morphs combinations to modify a stem (inflectional and derivational). However, Otomi shows phenomena that is not easy to predict; for example, it has a complex system of inflectional classes, stem alternations and prefix changes. Moreover, tones and prosody plays an important role in the morphology of Otomi verbs BIBREF25 , BIBREF26 . Also, we mentioned before that many of the affixes concatenations in Otomi take place in derivative processes. Derivation tends to be less predictable than inflection phenomena (derivation is less frequent and less regular), and this could be an additional reason of why the entropy values of this language are high.In this work we used corpus based measures like TTR, entropy and perplexity for exploring the morphological complexity of three languages, using two small parallel corpora. We use TTR as a measure of morphological productivity of a language, and we use the entropy and perplexity calculated over a sequence of morphs, as a measure of predictability.There may be a common believe that polysynthetical languages are far more complex than analytic ones. However, it is important to take into account the many factors that lay a role in the complexity of the system. We stressed out that morphological complexity has several dimensions that must be taken into account BIBREF3 .While some agglutinative polysynthetical languages, like Nahuatl, could be considered complex by the number of morphemes the combinations and the information than can be encoded in a single word; the sequence of these elements may be more predictable than fusional languages like Spanish.Languages like Otomi, showed high complexity in the two dimensions that we focused in this work (this is consistent with qualitative perspectives BIBREF26 ).These two dimensions of complexity are valid and complementary. Measures like TTR reflect the amount of information that words can encode in a language, languages that have a high TTR have the potential of encoding a lot of functions at the word level, therefore, they produce many different word forms. Perplexity and entropy measured over a sequence of morphs reflect the predictability or degree of uncertainty of these combinations. The higher the entropy (hence, the perplexity), the higher the uncertainty in the combinations of morphs.This was a preliminary work. Deeper linguistic analysis, more corpora and more languages are needed. However, we believe that quantitative measures extracted from parallel corpora can complement and deepen the study of linguistic complexity. Efforts are currently being made BIBREF27 . However, more studies are needed, especially for low resources languages.Languages of the world have a wide range of functions that can be codified at the world level. Therefore, it would be interesting to consider the study of more complexity dimensions in our work. Popular quantitative approaches are successful in reflecting how many morphs can be combined into a single word. However, it is also important to take into account how complex the format of a word can be, i.e., not only how many elements can be combined but also what type of elements. For example, dahl2009testing argues that when a phoneme is added to a word, this process is not as complex as adding a tone.Another interesting dimension is the complexity of the morphology in terms of acquisition (of native and L2 speakers). miestamo2008grammatical points out that this typo of complexity should be made on the basis of psycho-linguistics analysis in both processing and acquisition.Finally, one important factor that influences language complexity is culture. In many languages, pragmatics nuances are produced via morphological processes. For instance, languages like Nahuatl have a complex honorific or reverential system that is expressed using different types of affixes. Spanish expresses this type of phenomena with morphosyntactic processes. It is a challenging task to be able to quantify all these factors that play a role in the complexity of a language.This work was supported by the Mexican Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT), fund 2016-01-2225, and CB-2016/408885. We also thank the reviewers for their valuable comments and to our friend Morrisé P. Martinez for his unconditional support.

Q: what is the practical application for this paper?
A: Improve existing NLP methods. Improve linguistic analysis. Measure impact of word normalization tools.