A critique of markedness-based theories in phonology

The notion of markedness has been prevalent in phonology since its use by one of the founders of the Prague school of phonology, Trubetzkoy (1939).In contemporary writing it is most often used as a measure of the relative naturalness of linguistic elements.In this paper I explore the use of markedness in phonology literature and argue that it is an ill-defined notion that relies on circular reasoning and, quite of- ten, leads to conflicting or vacuous predictions.Specifically, I question the generative theory-internal notion that markedness is encoded in the grammar.I focus on the multidimensional aspect of markedness in phonology and the various criteria used as diagnostics for the assign- ment of markedness values.I conclude that the predictive and descriptive powers of the dimensions of markedness, when taken individually, are far superior to those of markedness used as a cover term.1. Literature survey 1.1 Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 31:2 (Fall 2001) erativist theorists, is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.'It is a deus ex machina: like the Greek literary mechanism used as a last resort to resolve overcomplicated plots, markedness is a supposed faculty that humans possess which can somehow re- solve the tangled plot of phonology by linking the generativist-posited symbolic system to some physical reality.Despite the lack of evidence for the existence of some such faculty or even, as is shown in the present paper, agreement on what MARKEDNESS means, it is a commonly used notion in the field of phonology as well as in other domains of linguistics.Markedness goes by many names and a variety of definitions.It is a notion that is deeply embedded, although to varying degrees, in linguistic theories.And yet there is no consensus on what the term means.A similar sentiment is often ar- ticulated in other surveys that target the notion of markedness.(Recent work on this front includes Battistella (1990, 1996) and Rice (1999).)Battistella (1990:ix) notes that Different approaches to markedness (and there are many) define the markedness relation in different ways, apply the concept to different domains of inquiry, and integrate it into different theoretical approaches.And Rice (1999:37) ends her paper with the following conclusion:Markedness is something about which linguists come to have strong intuitions.In many areas there is agreement: Something called markedness exists.It is multidimensional, with several factors involved at various levels (e.g., featural, combinatorial, positional).Variation exists in what can pattern as unmarked, although it is not without limit.However, many questions remain.... The issues surrounding markedness do not appear to be ones that will find quick solutions, and the area promises to continue to be one of lively debate for some time to come.For the reasons detailed above, and others that will be expanded on within this pa- per, exploring the notion of markedness is both important and difficult.In this part of the paper I consider and evaluate some of the major definitions of markedness that have been explored in the literature.I examine the entrance of the term markedness into mainstream linguistics jargon, how this notion gained ground, and how it became so closely tied to linguistic universals, and hence to some psychological reality.I also attempt to isolate the often controversial theory- specific (more often than not, generative theory-specific) assumptions that are pre- supposed in various uses of markedness theory.The present discussion calls atten- tion to the complications and misconceptions involved in the use of the notion of markedness in contemporary theories and helps build a case against the view that markedness is in some way significant to speakers.My exploration of the notion of markedness in phonology literature is, at first, chronological.I start with the origin of the term in the writings of one of the founders of the Prague school of phonology, Trubetzkoy's Principles of Phonol- ogy (1939), where the notion of markedness is heavily utilized in the classification Naomi Gurevich: A critique of markedness-based theories in phonology 91 of types of neutralization.Chomsky & Halle (1968:402) note that 'the notion of markedness is hardly mentioned in the phonological literature of the 1940s and 1950s/ Hence The Sound Pattern of English (1968) is the next work I explore on the subject.Guitart's Markedness and a Cuban Dialect of Spanish (1976) draws on both Trubetzkoy's and Chomsky & Halle's work, as well as on Jakobson's (1968.1971) and Postal's (1968), and offers a clear idea of the development of markedness after its entrance into the generativist framework.Herbert's Univer- siils (uul Markedness (1986) and Greenberg's Lcuii^uai^e Universals (1966), as is obvious from the titles, further the view of markedness as a universal.Kaye's 'On the alleged correlation of markedness and rule function ' (1979) showcases the complications of utilizing markedness notions within definitions of rule types in phonology.1 finish with Rice's Featural Markedness in Phonology: Variation ( 1999), which begins with a review of various studies related to markedness and, perhaps inadvertently, leads to the conclusion that existing work complicates, rather than explicates, the situation. 1.2Principles of Phonology (Trubetzkoy 1939) It is commonly agreed that the term mark originates with Trubetzkoy, one of the founders of the Prague school of phonology.The notion of markedness in his work is associated, to varying degrees, with articulatory complexity, combinatory possi- bilities of sounds, phonological statistics, functional load, and neutralization.Most prevalent, and most often cited, is Trubetzkoy's observation that the outcome of