Cover not available
Part of
Beyond Markedness in Formal Phonology
Edited by Bridget D. Samuels
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 241] 2017
► pp. 153–190

Chapter 7
Markedness and formalising phonological representations

| University of Lyon | UCL – University of London
As a linguistic concept, markedness is in trouble (Hale & Reiss 2000, 2008; Blevins 2004; Haspelmath 2006; Samuels 2011; Reiss 2017). Accepting many of these criticisms and conclusions, this chapter, nevertheless, claims that there is space for markedness in formal phonology. By examining syllable structure from a highly representational viewpoint, I conclude that ‘markedness by complexity’ does have explanatory value and that markedness is explicable in terms of ‘structural complexity’ and ‘length of description’. The core demonstration is based on Charette’s (1990, 1991, 1992) formal typology of consonant clusters (CCs). These papers contain important implicational universals that Charette relates directly to her representations. My contribution will be to enrich the typology and reorganize those principles and parameters into a decision tree or parameter hierarchy that derives the implicational universals. Moreover, the number of parameter settings (the depth in the parameter hierarchy) increases the markedness of the resultant grammar. Crucially, each parametric ‘yes’ setting corresponds to an extra empty phonological category or extra ability to license, or reflects the distance between heads and dependents in the representation. For this reason, markedness is not merely a ‘metaphor’ ‘for a cognitive state’ (Haspelmath 2006), it is directly convertible into linguistic categories. This markedness is not part of the online computation of forms (contra Optimality Theory) and markedness statements cannot be re-ranked to obtain different grammars. However, markedness is one step in the chain of explanation for: (a) the apparent step-wise variation of complexity and implicational universals of consonant clusters, (b) the Trubetzkoy hypothesis.
Keywords: empty categories, markedness, parameter hierarchies, strict CV phonology, phonological complexity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction – finding a definition and a role for markedness
    • 1.1SFP, modularity and markedness
  • 2.Markedness and syllable structure
    • 2.1Formal markedness in phonology
      • 2.1.1Speculation on why markedness = emptiness
  • 3.Consonant clusters and markedness
    • 3.1Syllable structure markedness and CCs
      • 3.1.1CV
      • 3.1.2CCs
    • 3.2Formalising a typology for CCs
    • 3.3Decision trees, empty nuclei and licensing in strict CV
  • 4.Demonstration, P&P decision tree and stepwise increase in markedness
    • 4.1CV only
    • 4.2Direct CCs before filled not before final empty
    • 4.3Indirect CCs but only before filled
    • 4.4Direct CCs also before final empty
    • 4.5Fully marked
  • 5.Nodes in the decision tree and markedness
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.241.07ulf
References
Blevins, Juliette
1995 The syllable in phonological theory. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, John A. Goldsmith (ed.), 206–244. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2004 Evolutionary Phonology. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul
1999 Functional Phonology. The Hague: HAG. (PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam).Google Scholar
Breen, Gavan & Pensalfini, Rob
1999 Arrernte: A language with no syllable onsets. Linguistic Inquiry 30:1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Calabrese, Andrea
1988 Towards a Theory of Phonological Alphabets. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
1995 A constraint-based theory of phonological markedness and simplification procedures. Linguistic Inquiry. 26: 373–463.Google Scholar
2005 Markedness and Economy in a Derivational Model of Phonology. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charette, Monik
1990 License to govern. Phonology. 7: 233–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991 Conditions on Phonological Government. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992 Polish and Mongolian meet government licensing. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 2: 275–291.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1964 Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
1986 Knowledge of Language. New York NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris
1968 The Sound Pattern of English. New York NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Clements, George N.
1986 Compensatory lengthening in Luganda. In Studies in Compensatory Lengthening, Leo Wetzels & Engin Sezer (eds), 37–76. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Clements, George N. & Keyser, Samuel Jay
1983 CV Phonology: A Generative Theory of the Syllable. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Côte, Marie-Hélène
2011 Final consonants. In Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Marc van Oostendorp, Colin Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds). Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cover, Thomas M., Gács, Peter & Grey, Robert M.
1989 Kolmogorov’s contributions to information theory and algorithmic complexity. Annals of Probability Theory 17: 840–865. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cullicover, Peter W.
2013 Grammar and Complexity: Language at the Intersection of Competence and Performance. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Cyran, Eugeniusz & Gussmann, Edmund
1999 Consonant clusters and governing relations. In The Syllable: Views and Facts [Studies in Generative Grammar 45], Harry van der Hulst & Nancy A. Ritter (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Lacy, Paul
2006 Markedness: Reduction and Preservation in Phonology. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demuth, Katherine
1995 Markedness and the development of prosodic structure. In Proceedings of NELS 25, Jill N. Beckman (ed.). Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan
2011 The Contrastivity Hierarchy in Phonology. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Fikkert, Paula
1994 On the Acquisition of Prosodic Structure. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Fudge, Erik C.
1967 The nature of phonological primes. Journal of Linguistics 3: 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gallon, Nicola, Harris, John & van der Lely, Heather K.
2007 Non-word repetition: An investigation of phonological complexity in children with Grammatical SLI. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 21: 435–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gnanadesikan, Amalia E.
1995 Markedness and Faithfulness Constraints in Child Phonology. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Grünwald, Peter
1996 A minimum description length approach to grammar inference. In Connectionist, Statistical and Symbolic Approaches to Learning for Natural Language Processing, Stefan Wermter, Ellen Riloff & Gabriele Scheler (eds), 203–216. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gunasinghe, Hemmali
1983 Gemination as a Syllable Structure Process in Modern Sinhala. Ms, University of Victoria. [URL]
Gurevich, Noami
2001 A critique of markedness based theories in phonology. Studies in Linguisic Sciences 31(2): 89–114.Google Scholar
Hale, Morris & 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
Hall, Daniel Currie
2014 On substance in phonology. Proceedings of the 2014 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, 1–14.Google Scholar
Harris, John
1990 Segmental complexity and phonological government. Phonology 7: 255–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994 English Sound Structure. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Harris, John & Gussmann, Edmund
2002 Word-final onsets. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14: 1–42.Google Scholar
Harris, John, Gallon, Nicola & van der Lely, Heather K.
2007 Prosodic complexity and processing complexity: Evidence from language impairment. Revista da Associação Brasileira de Lingüística 6: 1–19.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2006 Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42(1): 25–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth
2004 Deconstructing markedness: A predictability-based approach. Proceedings of BLS 30: 182–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry M.
2008 Universals in phonology. The Linguistic Review 25(1–2): 83–137.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan
1990 ‘Coda’ licensing. Phonology Yearbook 7: 301–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan
1992 Do you believe in magic? The story of s+C sequences. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 2: 293–313.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan D.
2005 GP: I′ll have to put your flat feet on the ground. In Organizing Grammar: Studies in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, Hans Broekhuis, Corver, Norbert, Huybregts, Riny, Kleinhenz, Ursula & Jan Koster (eds), 283–288. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan, Lowenstamm, Jean & Vergnaud, Jean Roger
1990 Constituent structure and government in phonology. Phonology Yearbook 7:193–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, Robert
2002 A stress-based approach to Ponapean reduplication. WCCFL 21: 222–235.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul
2013 On the empirical bases of phonological typology. Paper presented at the Workshop on Phonological Typology, Oxford.
Lee, Ho-Young
1990 The Structure of Korean Prosody. PhD dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
Levelt, Clara C.
1995 Unfaithful Kids: Place of Articulation Patterns in Early Vocabularies. Colloquium presented at the University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.
Levelt, Clara C., Schiller, Niels O. & Levelt, Willem
2000 The acquisition of syllable types. Language Acquisition 8(3): 237–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lowenstamm, Jean
1996 CV as the only syllable type. In Current Trends in Phonology. Models and Methods, Jacques Durand & Bernard Laks (eds), 419–441. Salford: ESRI.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian
2013 Syllable Structure. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Chapter 12, Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL] (9 January 2016).
Marshall, Chloe R., Harris, John & van der Lely, Heather K.
2003 The nature of phonological representations in children with Grammatical-Specific Language Impairment (G-SLI). In The University of Cambridge First Postgraduate Conference in Language Research, Damien Hall, Theodore Markopoulos, Angeliki Salamoura & Sophia Skoufaki (eds), 511–517. Cambridge: Cambridge Institute of Language Research.Google Scholar
Niang, Mamadou Ousmane
1997 Constraints on Pulaar phonology. Lanham MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Reiss, Charles
2017 Substance free phonology. In Routledge Handbook of Phonological Theory, S. J. Hannahs & Anna R. K. Bosch (eds). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Holmberg, Anders
2010 Introduction: Parameters in minimalist theory. In Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, Teresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Romani, Cristina & Calabrese, Andrea
1998 Syllabic constraints in the phonological errors of an aphasic patient. Brain and Language 64: 83–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salffner, Sophie
2010 Tone in the Phonology, Lexicon and Grammar of Ikaan. PhD dissertation, SOAS, University of London.Google Scholar
Samuels, Bridget
2011 Phonological Architecture: A Biolinguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanoudaki, Eirini
2007 Consonant Clusters and the Acquisition of Greek. PhD dissertation. UCL – University of London.Google Scholar
Scheer, Tobias
2004 A Lateral Theory of Phonology, Vol 1: What is CVCV, and Why Should it Be? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tamburelli, Marco, Sanoudaki, Eirini, Jones, Gary & Sowinska, Michelle
2015 Acceleration in the bilingual acquisition of phonological structure: Evidence from Polish-English bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 18(4):713–725. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tang, Kevin
2015 Naturalistic Speech Misperception. PhD dissertation, UCL – University of London.Google Scholar
Topintzi, Nina
2010 Onsets: Suprasegmental and Prosodic Behaviour. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai Sergeyevich
1939 Principles of Phonology. The Center for Research in Languages and Linguistics. Berkeley CA: University of California Press. [URL]
Turnbull, Rory
2015 Assessing the Listener-oriented Account of Predictability-based Phonetic Reduction. PhD dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Ulfsbjorninn, Shanti
2009 The internal structure of compounds: A phase account of aphasia. Iberia 1(1):143–168.Google Scholar
2014 A Field Theory of Stress: The Role of Empty Nuclei in Stress Systems. PhD dissertation, SOAS – University of London.Google Scholar
van der Lely, Heather K.
2005 Domain-specific cognitive systems: Insight from Grammatical-SLI. Trends in the Cognitive Sciences 9: 53–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Oostendorp, Marc
1995 Vowel Quality and Phonological Projection. PhD dissertation, University of Tilburg.Google Scholar
Vaux, Bert
2009 The appendix. In Contemporary Views on Architecture and Representations in Phonology, Eric Raimy & Charles E. Cairns (eds), 101–143. Cambridge MA: A Bradford Book, The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Cavirani, Edoardo
2022. Silent lateral actors: the role of unpronounced nuclei in morpho-phonological analyses. The Linguistic Review 39:4 ► pp. 615 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 november 2023. 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.