One of the earliest and
most striking discoveries in linguistics was that there are systematic
gaps in sound patterns: the same consonants, vowels, and prosodic
structures are consistently avoided in a diverse range of languages.
Further research has revealed the complex nature of gaps: while
languages avoid the same sound patterns they can do so in different
contexts; there are also implicational relations with some sound
patterns requiring (or preventing) others from appearing in the same
language. The issue of how to explain these gaps, has been and
continues to be one of the most debated in linguistics. One of the
major issues is basically empirical: which consonants, vowels, and
structures are avoided? The others issues are at the level of theory
and explanation. Do all gaps have the same source? (ie, are some due to
restrictions in the part of the brain that processes speech sound (the
‘phonology’) and others the result of phonology-external processes like
language transmission?). A third and perhaps the most complex issue has
been the nature of phonological restrictions and how they are enforced
on language. My research has focused on these three inter-connected
issues, often referred to as 'markedness'.
 My
most comprehensive work on markedness is in
Markedness:
Reduction and Preservation in Phonology (2006, Cambridge University
Press). It discusses the three issues raised
above. On the empirical side, it identifies many patterns
previously thought to not exist in languages. It discusses ways to
tell whether a pattern is due to historical accident or a phonological
restriction. On the theoretical side, it proposes a theory of
constraints and feature value form set in Optimality Theory. The
themes behind the constraints are that there are two semi-antagonistic
sets of constraints for any hierarchy: one that seeks to eliminate
marked elements in the hierarchy and one that seeks to preserve them.
These interact to allow markedness effects to show through in some
situations and not others.
Empirical
My work has uncovered
some interesting asymmetries in place neutralization, assimilation,
deletion, coalescence, and vowel reduction. Some of the most
revealing phenomena in studying markedness are tone- and sonority-driven stress.
See this page for details.
Sources of markedness
Some limits on sound
patterns are due to limits on historical change (more specifically on
language transmission and actuation). However, some are clearly due to phonological restrictions. This issue is
raised briefly in Markedness (sec.8.2), but discussed in more
detail in Transmissibility and the role of the phonological component
(2006), and my article with John Kingston Synchronic explanation
(2006).
It is also discussed in Phonological evidence (2008), which takes
a broader look at what counts as valid evidence for phonological phenomena.
Theory of markedness
The concepts of
markedness reduction and preservation can be found in my
doctoral
dissertation (2002), and are further expanded in Markedness
(2006) (chs.2-7). A mechanism to effect conflation is also
introduced in the dissertation, and expanded in
Markedness conflation
in Optimality Theory (2004); importantly, chapter 5 of Markedness
discusses a case of conflation involving a 'simple' hierarchy (ie, not
one combined with a prosodic environment). Some of the ideas about
conflation can be traced back to my MA thesis (1997).
Another important theme
has been how segmental, sonority, and tonal hierarchies combine with
prosodic structures to form constraints. I argued in
Markedness
in prominent positions (2001) that prosodic hierarchies like
sonority and tone can combine with 'prominent positions' in constraints.
This idea was also advocated by Jen Smith (ROA
570), but we differ in that she seeks to derive the restrictions on
constraints by functional pressures.
My dissertation (2002)
proposed that the correct element of prosodic reference to use in
constraints is the DTE, based on work by Liberman & Prince (1977) but
significantly expanded. The dissertation is the primary source of
information on DTEs; I focus on other issues in later work.
References
de Lacy, Paul (2007). The
interaction of tone, sonority, and prosodic
structure. In Paul de Lacy (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ch.12.
· Provides an overview of several core concepts in markedness
theory.
de Lacy, Paul & John
Kingston (2006). Synchronic explanation. ms.
Rutgers University and the University of Massachusetts Amherst. [Abstract] [Article]
de Lacy,
Paul (2006). Markedness: Reduction and
Preservation in Phonology. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics
112. Cambridge University Press.
[abstract]
[Google
books excerpt] [corrections]
[handout]
[talk]
de Lacy, Paul (2006).
Transmissibility and the role of the phonological component. Theoretical
Linguistics 32.2: 185-196. [Article]
[Target
article] [Blevins'
reply] [Sources]
· The two articles above argue against the proposal that markedness asymmetries
are solely due to side-effects of historical change.
de Lacy, Paul (to appear). Phonological
evidence. In Steve Parker (ed.).
Phonological argumentation: Essays on evidence and motivation. Equinox
Publications, ch.3. [Article]
· Discusses the difference between Competence and Performance, and how
it relates to the study of markedness.
de Lacy, Paul (2004). Markedness
conflation in Optimality Theory.
Phonology 21.2:145-199. [Abstract] [Article]
· Argues for the possibility that distinctions between markedness
categories can be ignored in specific languages. Proposes constraint
formulations to solve the problem.
de Lacy,
Paul (2002). The formal expression of markedness. PhD
dissertation, University of Massachusetts
Amherst. ROA
542.
de Lacy, Paul (2002). The interaction of
tone and stress in Optimality
Theory. Phonology 19.1: 1-32. [Abstract] [Article]
· Examines the tone markedness hierarchy, and its relation to prosodic
structure.
de Lacy, Paul (2001). Markedness in
prominent positions. In Ora
Matushansky, Albert Costa, Javier Martin-Gonzalez, Lance Nathan, and
Adam Szczegielniak (eds.) HUMIT 2000, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics
40. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL, pp.53-66.
ROA 432.
· Proposes a theory that accounts for restrictions imposed on prominent
positions, such as onsets and stressed syllables.
de Lacy, Paul (1997).
Prosodic categorization. MA Thesis, University of Auckland.
ROA
236.
· Early work on hierarchies, but main focus is on prosodic structure and
its relation to stress.
|
