WORKSHOP III

Markedness in Phonology

Aristotle Univeristy of Thessaloniki, April 18th 2004

Invited speaker: Donca Steriade (MIT)

Workshop organizers: Ioanna Kappa (University of Crete, Rethymno), Marc van Oostendorp (Meertens Institute, Amsterdam) and Anthi Revithiadou (University of the Aegean, Rhodes)

The notion of phonological markedness has been a matter of controversy for almost as long as the field of phonology has existed. The central role markedness has played in the development of linguistic thinking is also reflected in the fact that the term has become multiply polysemic. "Markedness" is used to refer to: (a) specification for a feature (Trubetzkoy 1939), (b) a cluster of correlating properties of certain linguistic categories ("typological markedness"), (c) dispreference for complex structures, and (d) infrequency and unexpectedness. Despite its long history and because of its ambiguity, markedness remains one of the most problematic notions in phonological theory and a constant source of debate among theorists. Some fundamental issues regarding the role of this concept in phonological theory are addressed below.

Many scholars maintain that phonology is principally the study of markedness relations whereas others claim that this concept is devoid of phonological substance and reduce its effects to performance. Even among those who agree that markedness cannot be reduced to performance, there is no consensus on how exactly markedness should be formally expressed and whether it displays any degree of functional adaptation to the requirements of performance ("grounding").

In an attempt to define markedness, a great deal of work in Optimality Theory has focused on the construction of segmental markedness hierarchies where the least marked feature is placed at one end of a hierarchy and the most marked feature at the other end. This line of research, however, separates the study of markedness relations between features from the study of their relation to phonological representations (i.e. the structures that organize those features). Moreover, it sometimes leads to variable and even conflicting markedness generalizations.

In addition, the examination of prosodic representations bears directly on notions of markedness and the relation between phonology and phonetics and, consequently, can also prove valuable in exploring whether structural complexity serves as a basis to unite segmental and supersegmental aspects of markedness.

Furthermore, "Classical" Optimality Theory assumes a universal constraint set CON, which is argued to be subdivided into two non-intersecting subsets: the set of faithfulness constraints, and the set of markedness constraints. Although it is sometimes assumed that the two types of constraints can be formally distinguished (faithfulness links input and output representations, and markedness only looks at one representation), the distinction is arguably vague within Correspondence Theory, and has become even more blurred in recent developments such as Comparative Markedness.

Finally, there are many topics regarding markedness still waiting for an answer: to what extent can the different 'meanings' (a)-(d) mentioned above be conflated to one? Why are certain markedness distinctions conflated in some languages but not in others? Does markedness determine the preservation/deletion of phonological elements? Can markedness hierarchies be relativized to prominent structural positions (onsets, stressed syllables, etc.)? Is there strong empirical evidence in favour of positional markedness? Which phonological processes endorse markedness-driven asymmetries and which ones persistently ignore them? What is the role of markedness in diachronic change, creolization, and L1 & L2 acquisition?

In this GLOW workshop, we wish to discuss the relevance and formal status of phonological markedness in current linguistic theory. Papers are invited within all theoretical frameworks on all issues which can shed light on the concept of "markedness". Given the clear connection of markedness to language acquisition, language change and typology, we also invite papers within these research areas.

CALL FOR PAPERS: Abstracts are invited for 40-minute presentations plus 10 minutes for questions. Submissions are limited to one singly authored and one jointly authored abstract per author or two jointly authored abstracts.

ABSTRACT SUBMISSION: Abstracts should be electronically submitted as PDF, DOC, or RTF attachments to revithiadou@rhodes.aegean.gr. Special IPA fonts should also be included in the attachment. Please use the subject GLOW ABSTRACT in your e-mail, including the following information in the body of the message:

ABSTRACT FORMAT: Abstracts should be limited to one page in length, with 1 inch margins and use no smaller than 12 point font. Abstracts may also include a second page limited to examples and references, also with 1 inch margins and 12 point font. Upon acceptance, authors will be asked to submit a named, camera-ready abstract.

Deadline for submission December 1, 2003.

For further information please e-mail the conference organizers at: revithiadou@rhodes.aegean.gr