Cover not available
Part of
Beyond Markedness in Formal Phonology
Edited by Bridget D. Samuels
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 241] 2017
► pp. 1–22

Chapter 1
Markedness in substance-free and substance-dependent phonology

The true nature of “markedness” in the history of phonology is highly uncertain, in that the term is used to refer to a wide array of facts about language, and there is little agreement over what the term even refers to, much less whether it is a valid concept. This paper reviews certain applications of that concept in phonology, in search of some unity behind “markedness”. I show that “markedness” is about two unrelated things: formal properties of language, and functional probability of occurrence. Much effort has been put into forcing these two conceptions under a single computation umbrella, and that effort bears significant responsibility for the development of substance-dependent theories of grammar. As for whether “markedness” is a worthy topic of investigation, it is argued that the original formal question underlying markedness is still worth scrutiny in the theory of grammar: what is the nature of phonological features?
Keywords: acquisition, computation, features, naturalness, neutralization, phoneme, privativity, typology, underspecification, universals
Article outline
  • 1.From Trubetzkoy to generative phonology
  • 2.The concept of markedness in generative phonology
    • 2.1Simplicity, naturalness and markedness
    • 2.2The impotence of markedness theory
    • 2.3The epistemological basis of the markedness argument
    • 2.4Contemporary concepts of markedness
  • 3.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.241.01odd
References (22)
References
Avery, Peter & Rice, Keren. 1989. Segment structure and coronal underspecification. Phonology 6: 179–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Battistella, Edwin L. 1996. The Logic of Markedness. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
1990. Markedness: The Evaluative Superstructure of Language. Albany NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph. 1966. Language Universals with Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies. The Hague: The Mouton.Google Scholar
Hale, Mark & Reiss, Charles. 2000. Substance abuse and dysfunctionalism: Current trends in phonology. Linguistic inquiry 31: 157–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. The Phonological Enterprise. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & Steriade, Donca. 2004. Introduction: The phonetic bases of phonological markedness. In Phonetically Based Phonology, Bruce Hayes, Robert Kirchner & Donca Steriade (eds), 1–33. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth & Tserdanelis, Georgios. 2002. Labial unmarkedness in Sri Lankan Portuguese Creole. Phonology 19: 441–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman & Lotz, John. 1949. Notes on the French phonemic pattern. Word 5: 151–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1941/1968. Kindersprache, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
. 1949. On the identification of phonemic entities. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague V, 205–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kean, Mary-Louise. 1975. The Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1965. Phonological Change. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
. 2008. Universals constrain change; change results in typological generalizations. In Linguistic Universals and Language Change, Jeff Good (ed.), 23–53. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirchner, Robert. 1998. An Effort-based Approach to Consonant Lenition. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
McCawley, James. 1965. The Accentual System of Standard Japanese. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Odden, David. 1975. Regarding the unordered rule hypothesis. University of Washington Working Papers in Linguistics 1: 69–81.Google Scholar
. 2013. Formal phonology. In A Festschrift on the Occasion of X Years of CASTL Phonology and Curt Rice’s Lth Birthday, Sylvia Blaho, Martin Krämer & Bruce Morén-Duolljá (eds). Nordlyd 40(1): 249–273.Google Scholar
Reiss, Charles. 2003. Quantification in structural descriptions: Attested and unattested patterns. The Linguistic Review 20: 305–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai. 1939[1969]. Principles of Phonology. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1965. Topics in Sanskrit Phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Florian Breit, Bert Botma, Marijn van 't Veer & Marc van Oostendorp
2023. Primitives of Phonological Structure, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.