Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-ksp62 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T16:09:45.501Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Markedness in stratificational phonology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

David G. Lockwood
David G. Lockwood*
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The use of phonons in stratificational phonology is compared with the use of marked vs. unmarked features by transformationalists. In connection with a Bulgarian vowel alternation, the simplicity of the total description is taken as a basis for preferring one possible assignment of markedness over another within the stratificational view. The assignment of markedness preferred here runs counter to that taken as universal in recent transformational discussion. At the same time, it allows an analysis which agrees with some basic intuitions of classical phonemics. Markedness, it is concluded, is not necessarily universal; and its implications for simplicity must also be considered.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 45 , Issue 2-Part1 , June 1969 , pp. 300 - 308
Copyright
Copyright © 1969 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bennett, David C. 1968. English prepositions: a stratificational approach. Journal of Linguistics 4.153–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bidwell, Charles E. 1963. Slavic historical phonology in tabular form. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Gleason, H. A. jr. 1964. The organization of language: a stratificational view. Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics 17.75–95, ed. by Stuart, C. I. J. M.. Washington D. C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Klagstad, Harold L. jr. 1958. A phonemic analysis of some Bulgarian dialects. American contributions to the Fourth International Congress of Slavicists, 157-68. (Slavistic printings and reprintings, 21). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lamb, Sydney M. 1964a. On alternation, transformation, realization, and stratification. Monograph series on languages and linguistics 17.105–22, ed. by Stuart, C. I. J. M.. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Lamb, Sydney M.. 1964b. The sememic approach to structural semantics. American Anthropologist 66:3, part 2, 57–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, Sydney M.. 1965. Kinship terminology and linguistic structure. American Anthropologist 67:5, part 2, 37–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, Sydney M.. 1966a. Prolegomena to a theory of phonology. Lg. 42.536–73.Google Scholar
Lamb, Sydney M.. 1966b. Outline of stratificational grammar. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1968. Aspects of phonological theory. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Reich, Peter A. 1968. Symbols, relations, and structural complexity. New Haven: Linguistic Automation Project, Yale University (mimeographed).Google Scholar