Notions of marking are described and elaborated by Greenberg (1966,
1969, 1975), drawing on earlier work of Prague school linguists such as Jakobson
and Trubetzkoy. Crucial to these
notions is a distinction between unmarked and marked linguistic categories,
environments, and items within those environments, which extends to all
components of language: phonology, grammar, and lexicon. The following statements contrasting
unmarked with marked items are typical of marking relationships:
Unmarked Marked
a. The implied in an
implicational The implier in an implicational
relationship relationship
b. Greater frequency of use
within Lesser frequency of
use
language
c. Less complex
phonologically or More
complex
morphologically
d. Appears in neutralized
context Does not appear in neutralized
context
e. May not be overtly
marked Will
be overtly marked
f. Early child
acquisition Late acquisition
g. Occurs in many languages Occurs in fewer languages
h. Usually first added and
last lost Last added and first
lost
in language change
Simply put, the unmarked member
of any pair is the most natural, the most frequent, the simplest, the more
basic, the logically prior, the more universal, the first learned, the one
implied by the marked member; the one
understood, unstated, taken for granted, ordinary, usual., etc.
1. Zero Expression
of unmarked category: it may not appear overtly at all.
2. Appearance of unmarked category in
environments where the opposition
between
two (or more) categories is suppressed, i.e. in an environment or
position of neutralization. (the
unmarked category is more simply markered or not markered at all)
3. Greater Frequency
of the unmarked member/category.
4. Greater (allophonic/allomorphic) variability of the unmarked
member of
a correlative set,
except when it is expressed by Zero.
5. Greater
Differentiation of unmarked categories.
6. Greater Independence
(in relation to the environment) of the unmarked member.
7. Earlier Acquisition
in child development of the use of unmarked categories (features, sounds,
forms,
meanings).
8. Greater Frequency
of occurrence of unmarked feature in languages of the
world. (Greater
frequency of occurrence of unmarked member in a given language.)
In universal
implicational statements (e.g. if a language has X then it also has Y but not
necessarily
vice versa), the Y is unmarked and the X marked.
9. Earlier Development
of unmarked member in the history of a language.
Brown, C. and S.
Witkowski 198O. "Language universals." in
D. Levinson et. al, Toward Explaining Human Culture, pp. 359‑384. HRAF.
Greenberg, J.H. 1966
Language Universals With Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies.
Mouton.
Greenberg, J.H. 1975
"Research on language universals." Annual Review of Anthropology 4:75‑94.
Eckman, Fred R., Moravcsic,
Edith A., and Jessica R. Wirth
1986. Markedness. Plenum Publishing.
Battistella, Edwin L. 1990.
Markedness: The Ultimate Evaluative Superstructure of Language. S.U.N.Y. Press. (ISBN O‑7914‑O37O‑X)