Cumulative Effect Of Markeness In Phonology
Article Sidebar
Published:
Jun 30, 2020
Keywords:
markeness ; frequency ; implication ; universality ; phonology
Main Article Content
Abstract
The essence of this research can be encoded as: “towards a dual marked/ unmarked thought of language surface representations”. Accordingly, this research is an attempt to offer a thorough description of a modern and highly influential theory known as the Markedness Theory, which was initiated in the Prague School of Structural Linguistics and shaped in the theories of Trubetzkoy (1939) and Jakobson (1941). As Markedness has interestingly captured different linguistic domains with rather far reaching implications in the phonological domain. So, this research seeks to reflect on its major defining principles, including universality and implicational criteria, in phonological and non-phonological terms. The importance of markedness can be captured with regards to the pivotal role it has played in addressing many issues related to second language phonology acquisition. Thus, this paper aims at providing important stretches of Markedness Theory into Eckman’s (1977) Markedness Differential Hypothesis. Likewise, it attempts to cover its major failure areas within Schmid’s (1997) Naturalness Differential Hypothesis.
Article Details
How to Cite
Zaidi, H. (2020). Cumulative Effect Of Markeness In Phonology. AL-Lisaniyyat, 26(1), 435-449. https://doi.org/10.61850/allj.v26i1.604
Section
Articles
References
Ait Aissa, M. (2010). The Role of phonological awareness in promoting the oral performance of
English secondary school learners. MA thesis in Apllied Linguistics and Foreign Language Teaching.
Setif University.
Alezetes, E. D. (2007). A Markedness approach to epenthesis in Arabic speakers’L2 English. MA
thesis in English: Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana. 2004. Presented in the University of
Montana Missoula, MT.
Azieb, A & Mahadin, S. (2015). Noun diminutive formation in Algerian Arabic as used in Jijel: an
Optimaliy analyis. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 150, 5-12.
Broselow, E. (1984). An Investigation of transfer in second language acquisition. International
Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 253-269.
Bruce, H. (2009). Introductory Phonology. Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK. Blackwell by Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Bybee, J. L. (1985). Morphology: A Study of the relation between meaning and form.
Amsterdam: Benjamins, Ch.3.
Caroll, D. W. (2004). Psychology of Language. 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth / Thomson.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N., & Morris, H. (1968). The Sound Pattern of English. New York, Harper and Row.
De Lacy, P. (2006). Markedness: Reudction and preservation in phonology. Cambridge Studies in
Linguistics. Cambridge. University Press.
De Lacy, P. (2007). The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology .New York, Cambridge University .
Donegan, P., & Stampe, D. (1979). The Study of natural phonology. En: Dinnsen, D.A, Current
approaches to phonological theory. Bloomington, London University Press.
Dresher, B. E. (2008). The Contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Department ofLinguistics. University
of Toronto. Toronto, Ontario. Canada M5S3H1.
Eckman, R. (1977). Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis: Language Learning, 27,
315-330.
Eckman, R. (2003). Typological markedness and second language phonology.
Ms.Under consideration for Zampini and Hansen (Eds). University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Cambridge University Press. Milwaukee, W53201.
Galal, M. (2004). An OT approach to loanword adaptation in Cairene Arabic. In O.
Abdel-Ghafer, B. Montgomery-Anderson, and. Parafita Couto,M (Eds.), 68 Kansas Working Papers
in Linguistics, 27.
Greenberg, J. (1976). Language Universals. The Hague. Mouton.
Gundel, J, K., & Sanders, G. (1986). Markeddness distribution in phonology and syntax. In Eckman,F,
Moravcsik,E & Wirth, J. Markeddness. New York. Plenum Press .
Haye, B. (2009). Introductory phonology. Blackwell by Wiley & Sons Ltd .Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK.
Hall, T.A. (2007). Segmental phenomena. Part 3 in De Lacy, P. (2006). Markedness: Reudction and
preservation in phonology. Cambridge.Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
Haoues, A.S. (2008). Code variaiton among Algerian Universiyt students. PhD thesis in Linguistis.
Constantine University.
Hooper, J. L. (1976). An Introduction to natural phonology. New York. Academic Press.
Hockett, C. F. (1966). The Problem of universals in language. In Greenberg, J. H (Ed), Universals of
language (2nd ed). Cambridge, MA: Mitt Press.
Hjelmslev, L. (1935). La Categorie des cas I: Acta Jutandica Aarhus Copenhagen and Munich.
Jakobson, R. (1941). Child language: Aphasia and phonological universals. The Hague. Mouton.
Kager, R. (1999). Optimality theory. Foreign Language Teaching and Press. Cambridge University
Press.
Kean, M. (1975). The theory of markedness in generative grammar. PhD dissertation, MTA.
Kisparsky. (1985). Some consequences of lexical phonology. In Ewen,C .,& Kaisse,E. Phonology year
book (2). Cambridge University Press.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Arizona State University: Tempe. Arbor, A.
Martinet, A. (1957). Economie des changements phonétique. The American Journal of Philosophy,
78, No. 4, 433-440.
McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1993). Generalized alignment. In Booij,G., & Van Marle,J (eds).
Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 79-153.
McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1993).Prosodic morphology I: Constraint interaction and satisfaction.
University of Massachusetts. Amherst & Rutgers University.
McCarthy, J. (1995). Extensions of faithfulness. Rotuman Revisited. Ms. UMass, Amherst.
Paradis, C., & La Charite, D. (1997). Preservation and minimality in loanword adaptation. Journal of
Linguistics, 33,379-430
Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar:
Rutgers University and the University of Colorado at Bouder.
Schmid, S. (1997). The Naturalness differential hypothesis: Cross-Linguistic influences and
universal preferences in interlanguage phonology and morphology. Folia Linguistica XXX, 13-4,
331-348.
Stampe. (1972). How I spent my summer vacation. PhD dissertation on Natural Phonology:
University of Chicago. New York. Garland.
Trubetzkoy, N. (1939). Principles of Phonology. Paris: Klincksiec.
English secondary school learners. MA thesis in Apllied Linguistics and Foreign Language Teaching.
Setif University.
Alezetes, E. D. (2007). A Markedness approach to epenthesis in Arabic speakers’L2 English. MA
thesis in English: Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana. 2004. Presented in the University of
Montana Missoula, MT.
Azieb, A & Mahadin, S. (2015). Noun diminutive formation in Algerian Arabic as used in Jijel: an
Optimaliy analyis. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 150, 5-12.
Broselow, E. (1984). An Investigation of transfer in second language acquisition. International
Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 253-269.
Bruce, H. (2009). Introductory Phonology. Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK. Blackwell by Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Bybee, J. L. (1985). Morphology: A Study of the relation between meaning and form.
Amsterdam: Benjamins, Ch.3.
Caroll, D. W. (2004). Psychology of Language. 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth / Thomson.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N., & Morris, H. (1968). The Sound Pattern of English. New York, Harper and Row.
De Lacy, P. (2006). Markedness: Reudction and preservation in phonology. Cambridge Studies in
Linguistics. Cambridge. University Press.
De Lacy, P. (2007). The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology .New York, Cambridge University .
Donegan, P., & Stampe, D. (1979). The Study of natural phonology. En: Dinnsen, D.A, Current
approaches to phonological theory. Bloomington, London University Press.
Dresher, B. E. (2008). The Contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Department ofLinguistics. University
of Toronto. Toronto, Ontario. Canada M5S3H1.
Eckman, R. (1977). Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis: Language Learning, 27,
315-330.
Eckman, R. (2003). Typological markedness and second language phonology.
Ms.Under consideration for Zampini and Hansen (Eds). University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Cambridge University Press. Milwaukee, W53201.
Galal, M. (2004). An OT approach to loanword adaptation in Cairene Arabic. In O.
Abdel-Ghafer, B. Montgomery-Anderson, and. Parafita Couto,M (Eds.), 68 Kansas Working Papers
in Linguistics, 27.
Greenberg, J. (1976). Language Universals. The Hague. Mouton.
Gundel, J, K., & Sanders, G. (1986). Markeddness distribution in phonology and syntax. In Eckman,F,
Moravcsik,E & Wirth, J. Markeddness. New York. Plenum Press .
Haye, B. (2009). Introductory phonology. Blackwell by Wiley & Sons Ltd .Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK.
Hall, T.A. (2007). Segmental phenomena. Part 3 in De Lacy, P. (2006). Markedness: Reudction and
preservation in phonology. Cambridge.Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
Haoues, A.S. (2008). Code variaiton among Algerian Universiyt students. PhD thesis in Linguistis.
Constantine University.
Hooper, J. L. (1976). An Introduction to natural phonology. New York. Academic Press.
Hockett, C. F. (1966). The Problem of universals in language. In Greenberg, J. H (Ed), Universals of
language (2nd ed). Cambridge, MA: Mitt Press.
Hjelmslev, L. (1935). La Categorie des cas I: Acta Jutandica Aarhus Copenhagen and Munich.
Jakobson, R. (1941). Child language: Aphasia and phonological universals. The Hague. Mouton.
Kager, R. (1999). Optimality theory. Foreign Language Teaching and Press. Cambridge University
Press.
Kean, M. (1975). The theory of markedness in generative grammar. PhD dissertation, MTA.
Kisparsky. (1985). Some consequences of lexical phonology. In Ewen,C .,& Kaisse,E. Phonology year
book (2). Cambridge University Press.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Arizona State University: Tempe. Arbor, A.
Martinet, A. (1957). Economie des changements phonétique. The American Journal of Philosophy,
78, No. 4, 433-440.
McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1993). Generalized alignment. In Booij,G., & Van Marle,J (eds).
Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 79-153.
McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1993).Prosodic morphology I: Constraint interaction and satisfaction.
University of Massachusetts. Amherst & Rutgers University.
McCarthy, J. (1995). Extensions of faithfulness. Rotuman Revisited. Ms. UMass, Amherst.
Paradis, C., & La Charite, D. (1997). Preservation and minimality in loanword adaptation. Journal of
Linguistics, 33,379-430
Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar:
Rutgers University and the University of Colorado at Bouder.
Schmid, S. (1997). The Naturalness differential hypothesis: Cross-Linguistic influences and
universal preferences in interlanguage phonology and morphology. Folia Linguistica XXX, 13-4,
331-348.
Stampe. (1972). How I spent my summer vacation. PhD dissertation on Natural Phonology:
University of Chicago. New York. Garland.
Trubetzkoy, N. (1939). Principles of Phonology. Paris: Klincksiec.