Cover not available

In:Beyond Markedness in Formal Phonology
Edited by Bridget D. Samuels
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 241] 2017
► pp. 219–232

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 9
There is no place for markedness in biologically-informed phonology

 | Universitat de Barcelona
Published online: 16 November 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.241.09mar
Abstract
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)
References
Benítez-Burraco, Antonio, Theofanopoulou, Constantina & Boeckx, Cedric. 2016. Globularization and domestication. Topoi 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berwick, Robert C. & Chomsky, Noam. 2016. Why only us; Language and Evolution. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blaho, Sylvia. 2008. The Syntax of Phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2012. The Science of Language: Interviews with James McGilvray. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & RowGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fitch, W. Tecumseh, de Boer, Bart, Mathur, Neil & Ghazanfar, Asif A. 2016. Monkey vocal tracts are speech-ready. Science Advances 2(12): e1600723. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gurevich, Naomi. 2001. A critique of markedness-based theories in phonology. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 31(2): 89–114.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, Mark & Reiss, Charles. 2000. ‘Substance abuse’ and ‘dysfunctionalism’: Current trends in phonology. Linguistic inquiry 31(1): 157–169. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. The Phonological Enterprise. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42(1): 25–70. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth. 2004. Deconstructing markedness: A predictability-based approach. Proceedings of BLS 30: 182–198. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016b. What we talk about when we talk about biolinguistics. Linguistics Vanguard 2(1). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2002. A Thematic Guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge:CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moczek, Armin P. 2008. On the origins of novelty in development and evolution. BioEssays 30(5): 432–447. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Muller, Gerd B. & Wagner, Gunter P. 1991. Novelty in evolution: Restructuring the concept. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 22: 229–256. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Okanoya, Kazuo. 2012. Behavioural factors governing song complexity in bengalese finches. International Journal of Comparative Psychology 25(1).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pigliucci, Massimo & Müller, Gerd B. 2010. Evolution. The Extended Synthesis. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul. 1993[2004]. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reiss, Charles. 2017. Substance free phonology. In S. J. Hannahs & Anna Bosch (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Phonological Theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Samuels, Bridget D. 2011. Phonological Architecture: A Biolinguistic Perspective, Vol. 2. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2015. Can a bird brain do phonology? Frontiers in Psychology 6. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
West-Eberhard, Mary Jane. 2003. Developmental Plasticity and Evolution. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Peters, Elijah
2024. Perception and Asymmetry in the High German Consonant Shift. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 36:3 ► pp. 208 ff. DOI logo
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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue