Markedness 2006
DOI: 10.1017/cbo9780511486388.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Markedness reduction

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
45
1

Year Published

2007
2007
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(47 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
45
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Accounting for (37) requires two additions. I claim that a low templatic epenthetic vowel [aː] surfaces in (37a) (rather than a high vowel [iː] as in (39a)) due to the preference for stressed vowels to be more sonorous (de Lacy 2002). Since this stressed vowel is epenthetic, it can assume the least marked quality for a stressed vowel: [a], the most sonorous vowel 11…”
Section: Analysis Of Templatesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Accounting for (37) requires two additions. I claim that a low templatic epenthetic vowel [aː] surfaces in (37a) (rather than a high vowel [iː] as in (39a)) due to the preference for stressed vowels to be more sonorous (de Lacy 2002). Since this stressed vowel is epenthetic, it can assume the least marked quality for a stressed vowel: [a], the most sonorous vowel 11…”
Section: Analysis Of Templatesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, velars and labials can trigger assimilation of preceding consonants, while coronals systematically fail to do so. This property of Korean place assimilation has received considerable attention in recent phonological literature, and is often interpreted as evidence for the relative markedness of places of articulation: dorsal>labial>coronal (Jun 1995, de Lacy 2002; but see Rice 1999, Hume 2003).…”
Section: Korean Place Assimilation: Background and Predictionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On this approach, some output candidates are harmonically bounded and consequently some processes are impossible in synchronic grammars. For example, Kiparsky (2006, 2008) identifies several combinations of sound changes that would lead to final voicing, but the process is never attested (or at least is morphologically limited; see Blevins 2004, Yu 2004, de Lacy 2002). CB faces difficulties explaining this mismatch and AB is invoked to explain it (Kiparsky 2006, 2008; de Lacy & Kingston 2013).…”
Section: Implications For the Channel Bias Model Of Typologymentioning
confidence: 99%