Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific

Research- University of Baghdad- Ibn Rushd

College for Humanities- English Department

Markedness Theory

Submitted by: Mustafa Taha Odeh

Phonetics and Phonology

Supervised by: ASST. PROF. Majed Rassim Younis (PhD)

24 Dec 2023
 Abstract
This paper seeks to analyze the marked and unmarked phonetic acquisition of children
and adults’ phonetic system. Research on language acquisition has recognized that a
child’s speech production at the early stages is influenced by unmarked structures. hence,
this type of data plays an important role in testing the basic assumptions of markedness
theory. Markedness has been utilized in a number of linguistic theories to explain
language's hierarchical and asymmetrical relationships. Even though a wide range of
theories have been proposed, frequency is a crucial factor in establishing markedness.
Furthermore, in addition to normal acquisition data, pathological data also has the
potential to provide new insights to better understanding the mechanism that underlies
markedness and linguistic theory. The aim of this paper is to explore how linguistic theory
can account for phonological acquisition and disorder data by focusing on Optimality
Theory, one of the leading phonological theories proposed at present. Optimality theory
is used as a model to analyze the marked and unmarked features. Furthermore, a
qualitative method is utilized to explain and answer the research questions and then
analyzing the data. Foot structure is important in acquisition because it is claimed that
there is a stage of development where the child output conforms to a binary foot. The
binary foot structure in acquisition is documented extensively based on data from many
diverse languages. Throughout this problem, the present research tries to answer the
following questions:

1. Does markedness theory only relate to the presence and absence of sound features
or it can be applied to other data like lexical items and distribution of opposed
grammatical structure ?
2. What are the most common constraints concerning optimality theory used to
analyze marked and unmarked features ?
3. To what extent the word size may affect the understanding of phonemes and words?
This study aims to analyze markedness by selecting some words from English as data to
gain a better understanding of the phonetic context. The current study hypothesizes that
the marked theme is the highest among the selected data. Also, word size can affect the
ways some words are comprehended.

1. Introduction

The study of human sound production, especially speech sounds, and the creation of
systems for their transcription, categorization, and description is known as phonetics. The
field of phonetics is divided into three recognized branches: (a) articulatory phonetics,
which studies how the vocal organs produce (or "articulate") speech sounds; (b) acoustic
phonetics, which studies the physical characteristics of speech sounds as they are
transmitted between the mouth and the ear; and (c) auditory phonetics, which studies how
the ear, auditory nerve, and brain mediate speech sound perception. Any of these features
of the subject studied with physical instruments, like sound wave analyzers or airflow
meters, is referred to as instrumental phonetics. Those who study phonetics are known as
phoneticians (Crystal,2008). A branch of linguistics called phonology studies language
sound systems. Just a small number of the sounds that the human voice may produce and
that phonetics studies are used uniquely in each given language. The theory that is applied
states that the sounds are arranged into a system of contrasts and subsequently analyzed
in terms of phonemes, distinctive characteristics, or other phonological units.

Markedness theory can be defined as an analytical approach in linguistics where a pair

of linguistics elements seen as contrasts or oppositions, that contain ways of marked
(positive) or unmarked (neutral or negative), (Crystal, 2008). Optimality Theory
(hereafter OT) has become one of the most predominant phonological models in formal
phonological theory. Although the generative framework is presumed in OT, the basic
traditional notions such as phonological rules and derivations have been replaced by a set
of interacting constraints. This has led to explanatory advances in dealing with both stable
and variable patterns observed in phonological data, in particular, typological variation
and phonological development.

2. Literature Review
2.1 Phonetics and Phonology
Phonetics is the physical or concrete description of the actual speech sounds utilized
in human languages. On the other hand, the way sounds are articulated and produced
via the speech organs is referred to as phonology, (Davenport, 2020). Phonetics and
phonology are only indirectly linked. The voice and vocal apparatus are the principal
means of expression in the majority of human languages. Yet there are fully developed
human languages which use a distinct manner of expression, or 'modality'. Sign
languages, such as British Sign Language, American Sign Language, Dutch Sign
Language, and many more, rely heavily on manual rather than verbal movements.
Because these sign languages encode and decode human language using modalities
other than speaking and hearing, we must keep phonetics - the surface manifestation
of spoken language - separate from phonology - the abstract system that organizes the
surface sounds and gestures.

Figure 1

Organs of Speech
Phonetics is the science that examines the properties of human sound making,
particularly speech sounds, and develops methods for their description, classification,
and transcription. There are three recognized branches of the subject: (a) Articulatory
phonetics is the study of how speech sounds are produced ('articulated') by the vocal
organs; (b) acoustic phonetics is the study of the physical properties of speech sound
as transmitted between mouth and ear; and (c) auditory phonetics is the study of the
perceptual response to speech sounds as mediated by the ear, auditory nerve, and brain.
The term instrumental phonetics refers to the study of any of these aspects of the
subject using physical apparatus such as airflow meters or sound wave analyzers.
Phoneticians are people who study phonetics, (Crystal, 2008).

Phonetic categories are typically described using words derived from other topics
covered include anatomy, physiology, and acoustics. Consonant sounds, for example,
are characterized in terms of anatomical location of articulation, (as in dental, palatal,
etc.) or to their physical structure (sound wave frequency and amplitude
characteristics). Because these methods of analysis are applicable to all human speech
sounds, independent of language or speaker, the field is frequently referred to as
general phonetics. This term also denotes the aim of the phonetician to discover
universal principles governing the nature and use of speech sounds. Experimental
phonetics is another term which reflects the general nature of this ‘pure’ scientific
endeavor, (Crystal, 2008).

Phonetics data can thus be divided into two major categories: (a) generic studies of
articulation, acoustics, or perception of speech, and (b) studies of the phonetic features
of individual languages. In this latter meaning, it is obvious that a further dimension
will be required in order to investigate how sounds are used within a language's
pronouncing system. This 'functional' approach to phonetics is commonly referred to
as phonology. However, because phoneticians are specifically interested in the study
of individual (groups of) languages or dialects, it may be argued that phonetics is a
branch of linguistics.

Turning to phonology, phonology is subfield of linguistics that examines language

sound systems. Only quite a few of the sounds that the human vocal apparatus may
make and that are examined by phonetics are employed distinctively in any one
language. According to the theory utilized, the sounds are organized into a system of
contrasts that are then examined in terms of phonemes, distinguishing features, or
other such phonological units. The goal of phonology is to explain the patterns of
distinctive sound found in a language and to make as broad statements about the nature
of sound systems in languages around the world as possible. To put it another way,
phonology is concerned with the range and function of sounds in specific languages
(also known as 'functional phonetics'), as well as the rules that can be written to show
the types of phonetic relationships that relate and contrast words and other linguistic
units. A phonologist is someone who studies phonology, (O’Connor, 1973).

There are two main ways that phonology is viewed in linguistic theories: (a) as a level
of linguistic organization, where it is compared to the levels of phonetics, grammar,
and semantics; or (b) as the phonological component of a generative grammar, where
it is compared to other components (such as syntactic/semantic in early generative
grammar; covert in the minimalist program). Two fields of research within phonology
are typically identified: segmental and suprasegmental. Segmental phonology breaks
down speech into distinct segments, such phonemes; suprasegmental or non-
segmental phonology breaks down speech into elements that span many segments, like
intonation contours. There is also a difference between diachronic and synchronic
phonology; the former studies how sounds have changed during language history,
while the latter studies how sounds have changed independent of historical events. The
goal of experimental phonology is to provide a hypothesis-based analysis of
phonological phenomena (of the kind which is usual in the experimental sciences) by
integrating research in experimental phonetics, experimental psychology, and
phonological theory, (O’Connor, 1973).

2.2 Markedness Theory: General Remarks

This theory can be defined as an analytical approach in linguistics where a pair of

linguistics elements seen as contrasts or oppositions, that contain ways of marked
(positive) or unmarked (neutral or negative), (Crystal, 2008). This contrast, in the
broadest sense, deals with the presence vs absence of a certain language property. For
instance, most English nouns include a formal characteristic that designates the plural
as "marked," while the single is "unmarked." When one considers the alternative,
which is to state that the opposed features only work in parallel and lack any
directionality, it becomes evident why such a relationship is postulated. On the other
hand, it makes more sense, intuitively, to argue that dogs are the plural of dogs rather
than that dogs are the singular of dogs, or that dogs are the ancestors of dogs. Most of
the theoretical discussion of markedness, then, centers on the question of how far there
is intuitive justification for applying this notion to other areas of language (e.g.
prince/princess, happy/unhappy, walk/walked, etc.).

The concept of Markedness Theory was first applied in Prague School phonology,
where a sound was considered unmarked if it lacked a particular characteristic (voice,
for example) and marked if it had (the unmarked member being the one which would
be employed in circumstances of neutralization). The idea evolved into a key standard
in generative phonology for formalizing the relative naturalness of various approaches
to phonological issues. Here, in contrast to the language-specific, phonological
approach of the Prague School, evidence from historical linguistics, language
acquisition, and frequency of occurrence is used to support the idea that marking is a
fundamental principle for assigning universal (and possibly innate) values to phonetic
features, (Yule, 2010).
Each of the distinguishing characteristics is given a marking value; for example,
[+voice] is regarded as marked and [−voice] as unmarked. According to this
perspective, segments can be viewed as combinations of marked or unmarked qualities
and can therefore be compared to one another. For example, the maximally unmarked
vowel is /a/, which is [−high], [−back], and [−round]. On the other hand, /Ñ/ is more
complex, being [+low] and [+round], and so on. Several other interpretations of the
notion of marking are found in the literature, where the concept of ‘presence v.
absence’ does not readily apply, (O’Connor).

One interpretation relates marking to frequency of occurrence, as when one might say
a falling intonation pattern was unmarked, compared with a rising one, because it is
more common. Another is found in the semantic analysis of lexical items, where pairs
of items are seen as unmarked and marked respectively, on the grounds that one
member is more specific than the other (e.g. dog/bitch, where the latter is marked for
sex – one can say male/female dog, but these adjectives are inapplicable with bitch).
Later generative linguistics produced a broader theory of markedness. An unmarked
property in this case is one that complies with the universal patterns present in all
languages; a noticeable characteristic is one that defies these patterns, or is unique (a
relative worldwide).

This kind of markedness can be thought of as a continuum that links language-specific

and language-universal qualities, (Crystal, 2008). For example, in relation to the
proposed phonological universal that words must start with a consonant + vowel
structure (CV), some languages (e.g. Yawelmani) totally satisfy this universal, whereas
others (e.g. English) do not; English is therefore more marked than Yawelmani, in this
respect. In optimality theory, the ranking of constraints and constraint violations
allows the notion of markedness to be encoded directly into the model. It is worth
noting that markedness theory, as Jakobson (1963) conceived it, is a qualitative theory
of oppositional binary relations.
 The notion of marked and unmarked values of a category was first applied to
phonological systems by Trubetzkoy (19691939) and to morphosyntactic categories
and lexical meaning by Jakobson (1963). In Jakobson’s early work, concerned with
the structuring of oppositions, markedness emerged as a binary relation between a less
delimited, inclusive unmarked category and a more delimited, exclusive marked
category. In his later work on language universals and linguistic typology, markedness
was extended as a coding of universal hierarchies, and features of grammar were
treated as showing crosslinguistic, universal rankings of categories. These two notions
of markedness in Jakobson’s work have been adapted in quite different ways by the
typological and generative approaches to linguistic theory.

2.3 Criteria of Markedness

Croft (1990 ) suggests that there are three criteria concerning the universal and relative
or specific oppositions:

1. Structural: Number of morphemes used to code a category. Unmarked, less marked

and more prototypical categories tend to have shorter (or zero) forms.

2. Behavioral: Number of crosscutting distinctions/phonemes the marked and

unmarked values contain; number of syntactic/phonological environments and
language types in which the marked and unmarked values occur. The unmarked has
a greater quantity of inflectional sub-distinctions or a wider range of phonological,
morphosyntactic or crosslinguistic environment.

3. Frequency (textual and crosslinguistic): Number of occurrences of the marked and

unmarked values in text; number of languages in which the marked and unmarked
values are found. The unmarked is more frequent.

Croft (1990, p.92) states that “the structural criterion is applicable to a subset of
morphosyntactic phenomena only. The behavioral and the frequency criteria are the
broadest, being applicable to the full range of both phonological and morphosyntactic
phenomena.”

2.4 Derivational and non-Derivational Rule-Based Analysis

A key element factor in this section is to distinguish between derivational and non-
derivational rule-based analysis. The nature of rule-based analysis is derivational. In other
words, phonological principles are applied to derive segments' and words' phonetic
surface forms from their abstract underlying representations. Non-derivational
approaches to phonology have been developed recently to connect the form that truly
emerges to the abstract, underlying phonological structure without the need for rules and
derivations. There will not be any rules or derivations, one of the benefits of this kind of
approach is that it could be able to address some of the issues with derivative phonology,
(Davenport & Hannah, 2020).

2.4.1 Optimality Theory

Optimality theory excludes rules and suggests that there is no derivation involved in the
relationship between an underlying form and its surface manifestation. Optimality theory
(hence, OT ) suggests that underlying forms be directly linked to surface forms by means
of evaluation by a set of constraints, rather than by use of rules. An example of such a
constraint is IDENT-IO(voice). This constraint states that the voicing specification (i.e.
[+ voice] or [− voice]) for a segment will be identical in the input – the underlying form
– and the output – the surface form. The OT conceptual apparatus states that a function
called "Generator" (Gen) randomly manipulates an underlying form. For example, Gen
can alter characteristics, add, remove, or rearrange segments. a set of candidates – an
infinite set of randomly generated outputs from a single underlying form. One of these
candidate outputs will be selected as optimal. This is done through evaluation of the
candidate set by the set of constraints contained in the function ‘Evaluator’ (Eval). So, for
an underlying form like /kæt/, Gen might produce candidates like [kæt], [kh æt], [kæ],
[ækt] etc., and Eval would choose [kh æt] as the optimal form.
The constraints determine which candidate in the set is the "most harmonic," or which
candidate performs best in relation to the set of constraints, by evaluating each candidate's
well-formedness (e.g., how well the candidate conforms to expected syllable structure
requirements, phonotactics, resemblance to the input, and other criteria). The candidate
that appears to be the most harmonious, or ideal, manifestation of the relevant underlying
representation is the one that is under consideration.

Figure 2

Optimality Theory

Gen acts on the input form and produces the candidate set. After that, Eval evaluates the
candidate set generated by Gen and produces an output form, also known as the surface
form. Markedness constraints, faithfulness constraints, and alignment constraints are the
three main categories or families of constraints. Specific structural configurations are
dealt with by markedness constraints; for example, NoCODA indicates the universal
trend for languages to favor syllables lacking codas. The restriction known as ONSET
expresses the cross-linguistic trend for languages to priorities syllables that have an onset.
The purpose of the faithfulness constraints is to make sure that outputs are "faithful" to
inputs in the sense that output segments match input segments. An output is less faithful
to an input if it has segments added, removed, or altered in any way when compared to
that input. The third type, alignment constraints, are used to ensure structural alignment
between different linguistic structures, for instance making sure that the right edge of a
word coincides with the right edge of a syllable.

2.4.2 Markedness and Phonological Acquisition

Markedness has been utilized in a number of linguistic theories to explain language's

hierarchical and asymmetrical relationships. Even though a wide range of theories have
been proposed, frequency is a crucial factor in establishing markedness. Let's begin our
discussion by concentrating on the syllable unit. The consonant + vowel (CV) syllable is
considered to be ‘‘unmarked,’’ and this status is claimed to be relevant to its ‘‘frequency,’’
both in terms of typology and its occurrence rate in a particular language. In the case of
typological frequency, although languages worldwide allow syllable types with different
degrees of complexity such as CCVC or CCVCCC, the one syllable type that they all
have in common is CV. The proponents of the markedness theory claim that this reflects
the unmarked status of CV.

As for occurrence frequency, even in English, which exhibits a wider variety of syllable
structures compared to Japanese, the most frequently used syllable type is CV. In addition
to frequency, acquisition data also provide fruitful information concerning markedness.
Generally, children at early stages of acquisition are assumed to produce unmarked
structures. Even for languages that exhibit a wide variation of complex syllables such as
English and Dutch, the starting point of the learning path is CV. This accounts for why
children’s output forms come out as follows: dog > [do], slow > [lo].

The consonant in coda position or in onset cluster is eliminated in order to conform to the
unmarked CV syllable structure. Although there is no denying the fact that the CV
structure is unmarked compared to the other syllable types, a closer observation of the
data reveals that there are examples that seem to go counter to this claim. One common
‘‘counterevidence’’ found in child speech, especially among the child’s first 50 words is
the preference for the CVCV truncation form. This tendency to prefer disyllabic or heavy
monosyllabic truncation forms is not just limited to English.
2.5 Optimality Theory and Acquisition

Optimality Theory has become one of the most predominant phonological models in
formal phonological theory. Although the generative framework is presumed in OT, the
basic traditional notions such as phonological rules and derivations have been replaced
by a set of interacting constraints. This has led to explanatory advances in dealing with
both stable and variable patterns observed in phonological data, in particular, typological
variation and phonological development. Within OT, Universal Grammar is presumed to
include the following:

1) a linguistic alphabet (i.e., the forms and items that construct the inputs)

2) a set of universal constraints (CON)

3) the two functions Generator (GEN) and Evaluator (EVAL). The roles of CON, GEN
and EVAL are illustrated in:

Figure 3

Optimality and Phonological Acquisition

Inputs are composed from the linguistic alphabet provided by Universal Grammar, hence
are all linguistically well-formed objects. In the case of child language, the input is
assumed to correspond to the adult surface form (/banæna/). In OT, the relation between
input and output is mediated by two formal mechanisms, GEN and EVAL. GEN is a
function that relates the input to a set of candidate representations. It can add, delete, and
rearrange the items without restriction as long as the candidate corresponds in some way
with the input representation (e.g. [bæna], [næna], [blæna], etc.). EVAL selects the best
candidate(s) from the candidate set created by GEN by making use of the hierarchically
ranked constraints. Since the constraints may be reranked, the ‘‘optimal’’ output may
differ according to the ranking of these constraints. This allows typological variation as
well as language acquisition to be captured straightforwardly: that is, in the case of
acquisition, for example, the linguistic patterns attested in early language and their
relation to the fully developed patterns of adults can be accounted for by presuming the
same set of universal constraints differing only in their ranking.

In the OT framework, markedness is encoded via constraints and constraint violations.

Therefore, unlike the case of traditional generative phonology, the markedness
(naturalness) of phonological processes and segment inventories is not attributed to a
grammar-external evaluation measure. Markedness constraints express universal
preferences for unmarked structure, such as CV syllable types preferred over other
syllable types, or oral vowels over nasal vowels, etc. Therefore, when Markedness
constraints dominate Faithfulness constraints (M - F), the unmarked structure surfaces;
the opposite ranking (i.e., F - M) suppresses the unmarked structure, and the surface
output structure becomes more ‘‘faithful’’ to the input.

Acquisition in terms of OT can be rephrased as a process of acquiring the language-

specific ranking of the mother tongue. Markedness constraints are initially presumed to
outrank faithfulness. The grammar in this state prefers structurally unmarked outputs to
faithful ones. By promoting faithfulness constraints in the ranking (i.e., demoting the
markedness constraints), the output forms that are ‘‘faithful’’ to the input (adult surface
form) and have a more marked (complex) structure are selected as ‘‘optimal.’’ In other
words, language development can be interpreted as the reranking of constraints.

3. Methodology

This paper examines the markedness theory in terms of phonological linguistic

acquisition of child’s production of the speech sounds to tackle the speech disorders,
which result in marked and unmarked phonetic features. A qualitative research approach
is used to explain and interpret elaborately the concept of markedness theory in terms of
research questions posed in the first page of the current research. OT is used as a model
of analysis consisting of markedness and faithfulness constraints to analyze markedness
and phonological acquisition for adults and children speech utterances. The consonant +
vowel (CV) syllable is considered to be ‘‘unmarked,’’ and this status is claimed to be
relevant to its ‘‘frequency,’’ both in terms of typology and its occurrence rate in a
particular language.

3.1 Data Selection and Description

The data in the present research focuses on foot structure of children when acquire their
phonological acquisition. Foot, in general terms, can be characterized as consisting of a
string of one relatively strong syllable together with any number of relatively weak
syllables dominated by a single node. Foot structure is important in acquisition because
it is claimed that there is a stage of development where the child output conforms to a
binary foot. The binary foot structure in acquisition is documented extensively based on
data from many diverse languages. The argument for foot structure comes from the fact
that many of the patterns attested in the child output suggest a preference for sequences
of stressed followed by unstressed syllables, (Miyakoda, 2012). By presuming the foot
binarity principle, we may be able to account for why there is a strong preference for the
disyllabic CVCV or the heavy monosyllabic form in child speech. Some words are chosen
as data to investigate marked and unmarked features, such as ‘another’ ‘banana’ ‘stomach’
‘radio’ ‘hard’ ‘tofu’ ‘meal.’

3.2 Model of Analysis

Alan and Smolensky’s (1991) model of Optimality Theory has been used as one of the
most predominant phonological models in formal phonological theory. Although the
generative framework is presumed in OT, the basic traditional notions such as
phonological rules and derivations have been replaced by a set of interacting constraints.
This has led to explanatory advances in dealing with both stable and variable patterns
observed in phonological data, in particular, typological variation and phonological
development. Additionally, In the OT framework, markedness is encoded via constraints
and constraint violations.

4. Data Analysis

In this section, we examine how constraint ranking and violation handle the restriction on
the bimoric word size of child language and how adults ‘‘overcome’’ this restriction. In
OT, constraint tableaux are used as a graphic device for showing the interaction of
constraints. The constraints are ranked across the top, with the highest, most dominant
constraint placed on the left side and the lower ranked constraints on to the right. In other
words, the more left a constraint is situated, the higher ranked it is; in contrast, the more
right a constraint is, the lower ranked it is. The top left cell shows the input (i.e. adult
surface form) and its candidates are listed in the leftmost row. The optimal candidate is
the one that does not violate the higher ranked constraints.

The constraint tableau in (1) depicts the developmental stage where the child’s speech
production is dominated by the restriction on word size, while the one in (5) shows the
adult stage:

Table1

Child Stage
 /katai/ ‘hard’ Word size -Markedness Faithfulness constraints
constraints
*/tai/ *
/katia/ *!

Table 2

Adult Stage

/katai/ ‘hard’ Faith Word size

/t. ai/ *! *
*/ka.ta.ai/

When comparing the two tableaux, we discover that distinct output representations are
chosen for the input /katai/ even though the same restrictions are applied. The best
candidate for the child stage is [tai], but for the adult stage, [katai] has been chosen. This
discrepancy results from the interplay between the two categories of constraints, namely
the variation in the markedness and faithfulness constraints' rankings. Word length is
subject to a bimoraic size restriction by the markedness constraint WORD SIZE. The
output representation is guaranteed to match the input by the faithfulness constraint
FAITH. The more prominent and higher ranked restriction in (4) is the markedness
constraint WORD SIZE. Consequently, the candidate who disobeys this restriction is
more "fatal" than the one who transgresses the lesser-ranking FAITH. Tai does not violate
the higher, more dominating requirement, which is the reason it is chosen as the best
choice. Conversely, katai does not meet the higher-ranking WORD SIZE, so it is not the
best option at this time. On the other hand, (5) presents an alternative image. The two
restrictions used here are the same as in (4), but they have a different dominant
relationship since FAITH is placed higher than WORD SIZE, making it more dominant.
As opposed to the juvenile stage seen in (4), [katai] is chosen as the best option since it
doesn't conflict with the stronger, more dominant FAITH. On the other hand, as [tai] goes
against the higher rated FAITH, it is not chosen.

In terms of OT, the developmental stage where the word size restriction is repressed can
be understood as the stage where the markedness constraint is demoted and reranked into
a lower place, hence promoting the faith constraint. One crucial aspect of restrictions is
their practicality. OT and is vastly different from so-called "traditional" theories that
presuppose that limitations (or norms) are never breached. An output candidate that
satisfies the requirements for faithfulness constraints will surely break at least one of the
markedness constraints, as the tableaux in (4) and (5) demonstrate. "Perfect" output forms
are essentially nonexistent in OT. The "optimal" output in OT might be defined as the
"best possible" form in terms of the ranking of constraints, rather than the "perfect," based
on the assumption that every output form would violate some requirements. OT has been
able to formally define developmental and diachronic changes as a continuum thanks to
this "soft" approach to language.

5. Discussion of the Results

Markedness theory can be used through using OT to analyze how the presence and
absence of features indicate universality and relative universality of a language.
Moreover, the markedness constraints (marked and unmarked) of binary oppositions are
higher than faithfulness. the markedness constraint word size is the more dominant, higher
ranked constraint. Therefore, the candidate that violates this constraint is more ‘‘fatal’’
than the one that violates the lower ranked faithfulness. In terms of OT, the developmental
stage where the word size restriction is repressed can be understood as the stage where
the markedness constraint is demoted and reranked into a lower place, hence promoting
the faith constraint. The output of this reranking is similar to the input adult surface form.
 6. Conclusion

In this research, the researcher attempted to investigate phonological acquisition

problems from a markedness standpoint. We've covered the fundamental OT
presumptions. The unmarked bimoraic foot is significant, according to our examination
of phonological acquisition and disorder data. This may be explained in terms of OT by
relying on the supremacy of the markedness constraint word size. Furthermore, we
discovered that the stage at which the word size restriction is suppressed can also be
understood as the point at which the trust constraint is elevated and the markedness
constraint is devalued. Markedness has been utilized in a number of linguistic theories to
explain language's hierarchical and asymmetrical relationships. Even though a wide range
of theories have been proposed, frequency is a crucial factor in establishing markedness.
References

Alan and Smolensky. (1991). Optimality.Theory Oxford University Press.

Croft, W (1990). Typology and Universals. Cambridge University Press.

Crystal, D. (2008). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Blackwell.

Davenport, M., & Hannahs, S. J. (2010). Introducing phonetics and phonology. Hodder.
G. B. Archangeli. (1997). Optimality Theory. Blackwell.
J. McCarthy and A. Prince. (1995). Prosodic morphology,’’ in The Handbook of
Phonology. pp. 318– 366. Blackwell.
Jakobson, R (1963). Implications of language universals for linguistics. In Universals of
Language, ed. by Joseph Greenberg, 263–278. Cambridge Press: MIT Press.

Miyakoda, H. (2012). Markedness within phonological theory: Focus on acquisition and

disorder data. Journal of the Acoustical Society of Japan. 43.70.Bk
[doi:10.1250/ast.33.142]
O'Connor, J.D (1973). Phonetics. Penguin Group.

Yule, G. (2020). The study of language (7th ed.). Cambridge University Press.