The markedness of the unmarked

Abstract

There are several phonological categories whose markedness -as inferred from typical markedness metrics-fails to match the representational complexity posited for them. More specifically, glottal stops, geminate clusters, and onsetless syllables are representationally the simplest of their category, yet other criteria, like implicational hierarchies, mark them as special. This paper aims at comprehending this paradox.

The floating C-Place node in Latin

“…This would indeed be in line with much of the literature on coronality, default place and unmarkedness (e.g. Paradis & Prunet 1991; Szigetvári 1994, 2006; Rice 1996, 2007; cf. also note 13).…”

“…This would also explain why Marius Victorinus gives examples of the ninm>nimm assimilation before the labial consonants [p b f m], but not before [w]. Paradis & Prunet 1991 ;Szigetvári 1994Szigetvári , 2006Rice 1996Rice , 2007 cf. Given that the bfinal prefixes also assimilate more or less systematically to stem-initial velars (sub+gererepsuggerere 'pile up ', ob+gererepoggerere 'heap'), why do we not find forms like **sugnoscere [sunn-]<[sugn-]<[sub]+ [Dorsal] [n]-next to suggerere and oggerere ?…”