Phonological markedness

< Previous | Next >

toscairn

Banned
Japan
Hi there:) I'm interested in linguistics, and I hope you'll join me in this discussion.

(1)As far as phonological aspects are concerned, markedness decreases in the order of "t>p>k" (in other words, "t" is easier to pronounce than "k"). Do you agree or disagree? Do you think "Tastaskia" is easier to pronounce than you pronounce "Kaskaskia?"

(2)What are common errors chidren make in your language?

(3)I think "s" is difficult to pronounce in some (or many) of languages. "Mississippi" becomes "Mishshippi" for example. What about it in your language?
 
  • Pivra

    Senior Member
    ...
    (1) The soft R in English was hard for me when I was young and I always used RR instead.
    (2) Thai writing is not very phonetic and so small children have hard time writing.
    - Proper pronouns
    - Definite Articles (We don't have indefinite) and nouns of multitudes
    - Sanskrit Derived words and their definitions
    - Compounded Vowels (eg. e+e would be equal to something else unrelated)
    (3) No, S is alot easier to pronounce than Sh
     

    Flaminius

    coclea mod
    日本語 / japāniski / יפנית
    toscairn said:
    (1)As far as phonological aspects are concerned, markedness decreases in the order of "t>p>k" (in other words, "t" is easier to pronounce than "k"). Do you agree or disagree? Do you think "Tastaskia" is easier to pronounce than you pronounce "Kaskaskia?"
    What do you mean by "phonological markedness"? Maybe you could explain it in a nutshell? The outcome of the theory strikes me as strange since P is acquired a lot earlier than T in the first language acquisition of many languages. This is by far the most plausible reason that P or M (labials) turn up in words denoting a baby's basic needs: father, mother, food among others.

    Kaskaskia reminds my of Cordwainer Smith and it is intuitively a lot easier to pronounce than Tastaskia. As /s/ and /t/ use similar points of articulation, "Tastaskia" may involve more difficulty in utterance.

    Salve
    Flaminius
     

    kamome

    Senior Member
    italian - italy
    今晩は、toscairn…you are entering a domain where I seem to be mostly at my ease: phonetics and glottology,my specific ones together with the language philosophy…so I hope this reply will helpfully suit your needs.

    それから…I live in a country (and an area) where BILLIONS languages (commonly said, but none of them is – “dialects”) survive, and still are spoken today according to the BILLIONS ”adstrata/superstrata” they have been modifying themselves with along the centuries – from Saracens to Vikings, from Albania to Portugal – so that I can rightly enough witness the truth of the following sentence, as I could check many times and LIVE its well aimed analysis:

    “….as for the COMMON articulation of a spoken single sound, we are obliged to consider….how fundamentally the localisation (i.e.,teeth or lips or throat) of the sound itself….is modified within a single language pronouncing attitudes….so we will say for instance that a FRICATIVE [f] and an ALVEOLAR OCCLUSIVE [t] register two of the widest ranges of expressions, no matter which language groups are considered…whereas an UVULAR OCCLUSIVE [k] (we mean the ADVANCED/ANTERIOR variety of it, differently articulated than for instance the POSTERIOR [k’ – k’h] of arabs)…..is far more often found (and registered with technical items) in a similar smallest range of sonorities…”

    The quotation is unfortunately unsigned, although I feel as to say that I can recognize maybe the hand of the Author himself, and appears on a page (french edition, 1978) of the well known opera
    JOHN LYONS, “Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics”
    CambridgeUniversity Press, London 1968
    Please let me know if all this was clear enough and forgive my translation, as the copy of the book I have since 1979 is in italian・・・直ぐにまたね!:)

    かもめ。
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top