Chapter 9
There is no place for markedness in biologically-informed phonology
Markedness is a pervasive notion in theories of language. In some phonological theories or models, it very much occupies a prominent position. In this chapter it is argued that the notion of markedness is not useful to our understanding of phonology and language in general, for two reasons. The first is that the notion of markedness has convincingly been shown in the literature to be a confusing label for a variety of things, all of which can be explained independently. The second is that if phonology is to be understood as part of a biological system (which we call language), its components must be amenable to investigation in the cognitive and biological sciences. The notion of markedness as part of a phonological component does not seem to qualify for any meaningful kind of investigation in that respect. It follows that markedness has no place in biologically-informed phonology.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
-
2.Markedness
- 3.Biology
- 3.1If markedness were unique
- 3.2If markedness were not unique
- 4.A note on other notions, like Merge
- 5.Conclusion
-
Acknowledgements
-
Notes
-
References
References (35)
Benítez-Burraco, Antonio, Theofanopoulou, Constantina & Boeckx, Cedric
2016 Globularization and domestication.
Topoi 1–14.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Berwick, Robert C. & Chomsky, Noam
2016 Why only us; Language and Evolution. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Blaho, Sylvia
2008 The Syntax of Phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Tromsø.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Blaho, Sylvia & Rice, Curt
2014 Overgeneralization and falsifiability in phonological theory. In
La phonologie de français: Normes, périphéries, modélisation,
Jacques Durand,
Gjert Kristoffersen &
Bernard Laks (eds), 101–120. Paris: Presses universitaires de Paris Ouest.
[URL]
Blevins, Juliette
2004 Evolutionary Phonology: The Emergence of Sound Patterns. Cambridge: CUP.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Boeckx, Cedric
2017 Language evolution. In
Evolution of Nervous Systems, Vol 4: The Evolution of the Human Brain: Apes and Other Ancestors, 2nd edn,
Jon Kaas (ed.), 325–336. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, Noam
2012 The Science of Language: Interviews with James McGilvray. Cambridge: CUP.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris
1968 The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
de Waal, Frans B. M. & Ferrari, Pier Francesco
2010 Towards a bottom-up perspective on animal and human cognition.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14(5): 201–207.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fitch, W. Tecumseh, de Boer, Bart, Mathur, Neil & Ghazanfar, Asif A.
2016 Monkey vocal tracts are speech-ready.
Science Advances 2(12): e1600723.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ghazanfar, Asif A., Takahashi, Daniel Y., Mathur, Neil & Fitch, W. Tecumseh
2012 Cineradiography of monkey lip-smacking reveals putative precursors of speech dynamics.
Current Biology 22(13): 1176–1182.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gurevich, Naomi
2001 A critique of markedness-based theories in phonology.
Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 31(2): 89–114.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hale, Mark & Reiss, Charles
2000 ‘Substance abuse’ and ‘dysfunctionalism’: Current trends in phonology.
Linguistic inquiry 31(1): 157–169.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hale, Mark & Reiss, Charles
2008 The Phonological Enterprise. Oxford: OUP.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haspelmath, Martin
2006 Against markedness (and what to replace it with).
Journal of Linguistics 42(1): 25–70.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hauser, Marc D., Chomsky, Noam & Fitch, W. Tecumseh
2002 The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298(5598): 1569–1579.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hauser, Marc D., Yang, Charles, Berwick, Robert C., Tattersall, Ian, Ryan, Michael J., Watamull, Jeffrey, Chomsky, Noam & Lewontin, Richard C.
2014 The mystery of language evolution.
Frontiers in Psychology 5: 401.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hume, Elizabeth
2004 Deconstructing markedness: A predictability-based approach.
Proceedings of BLS 30: 182–198.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lameira, Adriano R., Hardus, Madeleine E. & Wich, Serge A.
2012 Orangutan instrumental gesture-calls: Reconciling acoustic and gestural speech evolution models.
Evolutionary Biology 39(3): 415–418.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Martins, Pedro Tiago & Boeckx, Cedric
2016a Language evolution: Insisting on making it a mystery or turning it into a problem? In
Papers Dedicated to Anne Reboul,
Ludivine Dupuy,
Adrianna Grabizna,
Nadège Foudon &
Pierre Saint-Germier (eds), 1–8. Lyon: Institut des Sciences Cognitives.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Martins, Pedro Tiago & Boeckx, Cedric
2016b What we talk about when we talk about biolinguistics.
Linguistics Vanguard 2(1).
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McCarthy, John & Prince, Alan
1995 Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In
Papers in Optimality Theory [University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18],
Jill Beckman,
Laura Walsh Dickey &
Suzanne Urbancyk (eds), 249–384. Amherst MA: GLSA.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McCarthy, John J.
2002 A Thematic Guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge:CUP.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Moczek, Armin P.
2008 On the origins of novelty in development and evolution.
BioEssays 30(5): 432–447.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Muller, Gerd B. & Wagner, Gunter P.
1991 Novelty in evolution: Restructuring the concept.
Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 22: 229–256.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Okanoya, Kazuo
2012 Behavioural factors governing song complexity in bengalese finches.
International Journal of Comparative Psychology 25(1).
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pigliucci, Massimo & Müller, Gerd B.
2010 Evolution. The Extended Synthesis. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Poeppel, David
2012 The maps problem and the mapping problem: Two challenges for a cognitive neuroscience of speech and language.
Cognitive Neuropsychology 29(1–2): 34–55.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Poeppel, David & Embick, David
2005 Defining the relation between linguistics and neuroscience. In
Twenty-first Century Psycholinguistics,
Anne Cutler (ed.), 103–118. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul
1993[2004] Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Reiss, Charles
2017 Substance free phonology. In
S. J. Hannahs &
Anna Bosch (eds),
The Routledge Handbook of Phonological Theory. London: Routledge.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Samuels, Bridget D.
2011 Phonological Architecture: A Biolinguistic Perspective, Vol. 2. Oxford: OUP.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Samuels, Bridget D.
2015 Can a bird brain do phonology? Frontiers in Psychology 6.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
West-Eberhard, Mary Jane
2003 Developmental Plasticity and Evolution. Oxford: OUP.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Theofanopoulou, Constantina, Gastaldon, Simone, OʹRourke, Thomas, Samuels, Bridget D., Messner, Angela, Martins, Pedro Tiago, Delogu, Francesco, Alamri, Saleh, & Boeckx, Cedric
2017 Comparative genomic evidence for self-domestication in Homo sapiens.
BioRxiv.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by 1 other publications
Boswijk, Vincent, Hanneke Loerts & Nanna Haug Hilton
2020.
Salience is in the eye of the beholder: Increased pupil size reflects acoustically salient variables.
Ampersand 7
► pp. 100061 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 june 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.