PDF Markedness and Antonymy - Semantic Scholar

Markedness and Antonymy Author(s): Adrienne Lehrer Source: Journal of Linguistics, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Sep., 1985), pp. 397-429 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: Accessed: 28/01/2010 18:20 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@.

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Linguistics.



J. Linguistics 21 (I985), 397-429. Printed in Great Britain

Markedness and antonymy*

ADRIENNE LEHRER

Universityof Arizona (Received20 FebruaryI985)

I. INTRODUCTION

Standardtreatmentsof antonymyregularlystatethatof a pairof antonyms, one memberis markedwhilethe otherone is unmarked.Certainsemantic and syntacticpropertiesare predicatedof the unmarked(or in some cases of the marked)memberof thepair.A fewexamplesaregiven,usually20 or so, whichbearout the predictions.

In thispaperI will investigatea largenumberof antonympairsto see to whatextentthe propertieswhicharetrueof the commonestantonympairs also hold of the largerclass. I hope to show that some resultsfollow from the meaningand structurarl elationshipof the wordsthemselves.

FirstI willlist the sensesof markednessrelevantto the studyof antonyns and givethosepropertieswhichhavebeenpredicatedof one memberof the antonympair.ThenI will evaluateeach of thesepropertieswith respectto my database before I discuss the implications.The ultimate aim is to understandbetterthe natureof lexical-semanticstructures.FinallyI will discussthe relevanceof this studyto moregeneralissuesin semanticsand pragmatics. By semantics I refer to entailments and non-cancellable implicationsw, hereaspragmaticsincludesimplicaturesc,ancellableimplications, affectivemeaning,and beliefsaboutthe world.

Theterm'antonymy'isusedfora numberof differenkt indsof oppositions, eachwitha differentkindof structure(.Geckeler,I980, presentsa surveyof such categories.)The semanticsof reversives(e.g. tie-untie)is completely differentfromthat of gradableantonyms(oftencalledcontraries),suchas big-small.In thispaperI shalldealonly withgradableantonyms,by which I include a categoryCruse has called gradablecomplementariesa, term explainedlater.

Gradableantonymsare words, typicallyadjectives,that name opposite parts,usuallyends,of a singledimensionaslcale.Thescalehasamiddlepoint, usuallya middleinterval.Gradabilityrefersto the abilityof the wordto be modifiedby a class of qualifierssuch as more,somewhat,very,and the superlativew, hichspecifythe positionand/or directionof the wordon the scalewithrespectto themiddlepoint.(Lehrer&Lehrer,I982, presentformal definitionsof antonyms.)

* I wish to thank Tom Larson and anonymous reviewersfor JL for comments on an earlier draft, and Keith Lehrer and Barbara Hollenbach for assistance with the data analysis.

397

ADRIENNE LEHRER

Therefore,the opposition I am interestedin excludes pairs such as man-woman, tie-untie, buy-sell, present-absent, etc. because there is no scale involved. Many of the scales I deal with are perhaps not completely single-dimensionabl,ut arerathera clusterof qualitiesthatcan be mapped on to a single-dimensionaslcale.An examplewouldbe masculine-feminine, which I presumeconsists of a complexof qualities,and just what those qualities are would differ, depending on the referent and the context (includingthe non-linguisticcontext).Referenceis contextuallydetermined. For instance,no particularage can be assignedto old or to young;it all dependson the contextto determinethe relevantnorm.

2. MARKEDNESS

Lyons(1977) pointsoutthatmarkednesiss an 'extremelyimportantconcept' in linguistics,which unfortunately'covers a number of disparateand independentphenomena'(p. 305). Moreover,thereis some inconsistency in the terminologyconcerningmarkedand unmarkedM. ost writerson the subjectdescribeone memberof an antonympairas marked(e.g.small)and the otheras unmarked(e.g. large).Thisis the generalterminologicapl olicy I will follow.However,somewriterstalk abouta wordas havinga marked andunmarkedsense.Therefore,bighas an unmarkedsensein

(I) How big is yourhouse? but a markedsensein

(2) My, but yourhouseis big!

2.1 Criteriafor markedness The most generalcriterionis neutralizationof the unmarkedmemberin questionsandnominalization(sGreenbergI, 966;Lyons,1977; Zwicky,I978; Waugh, I982; Bolinger, 1977; Van Overbeke, I975; Dubois, I984; and others).Neutralizationof anoppositionoccursin questionsof theform,How X is it (he, she)? or Is it (he, she) X? Stress must go on the adjective, not the how (Ljung, 1974). In such questions,the unmarkedform carriesno suppositionas to whichpartof the scaleis involved,whilethemarkedform does carrya supposition.'

Innominalizationsi,f thescaleis nominalizedbya morphologicallyrelated form,it will be relatedto the unmarkedmember.Contrast

(3) (a) I was amazedby the lengthof the table.(It was only 3 feet.) (b) I was amazedby the shortnessof the table.(It was only 3 feet.)

The(b)sentencesupposesthatthetableis short,whereasthe(a)sentencedoes not implythatit is long.

[i] Presupposition is too strong a notion. I have used 'supposition' to convey the fact that the speaker holds certain assumptions.

398

MARKEDNESS AND ANTONYMY

2.2. Another criterionof markednessrelevantto antonyms is that the unmarkedmemberof an opposition can appearin more contexts than themarkedterm(Waugh,I982). A thirdpropertyis, therefore,thatonlythe unmarkedmemberof an antonympair may appearin measurephrases of the form: QuantityMeasureAdjective.Thusexpressionslike 5 feet tall and 8 years old are normal, but 5 feet short and 8 years young are odd.

Limitationson nominalizationcontextscan also be noted.

(4) The lengthof the tablewas 3 feet.

is fullyacceptable,but

(5) The shortnessof the tableis 3 feet.

is less so.

2.3. Anothercriterionof markednesswhichhasbeenproposedis frequency. Greenberg(I966) andZwicky(1978) mentionthattheunmarkedmemberof an oppositionis morefrequentthanthemarkedmember.Althoughthismay be true,I thinkthatwe can agreewithWaugh(I982) thatfrequencycannot be part of the definitionof markednessbut rather follows from other principles.Since the unmarkedmembermay occur in a wider range of contextsandwillappearwhenthecontrastis neutralizedi,t willalsobemore frequent. 2.4. A fourthgeneralcriterionof markednessis thatif onetermhasan overt marker, it is the marked member (Greenberg, I966, and Zwicky, 1978). Appliedto antonyms,thismeansthatif onememberof an antonympairhas an affixaddedto theothermember,it is themarkedformwiththeadditional material.Thushappyis unmarked,whileunhappyis marked.

It maybepeculiarto suggestthepossibilitythattheunmarkedformcould have an affix attachedto the markedform (i.e. that unhappycould be unmarked),since the additionalmaterialwould seem to make something markedby definition.However,it is importantto discoverwhetherall the predicatedpropertiesgo togetherorwhetheronememberof anantonympair is unmarkedwithrespectto onecriterionbutmarkedwithrespectto another. 2.5. Thereareseveralotherpropertieswhicharespecialto antonymsandare not generalpropertiesof markednessfoundin morphology,phonology,etc.

Among antonymsproportionsand ratios can be used only with the unmarkedmember.

(6) (a) Johnis thalf as tall as Bill.

(b)

*Sallyis

twice half

as shortas Sue.

In looking at the evaluativeor connotative'meaning', the unmarked memberhas a positiveconnotationand the markedmemberhas a negative

399

ADRIENNE LEHRER

one. Thus happy,clean andfriendly, which come out as unmarked according to the criteria listed above, have favourable connotations, while their antonyms, sad, dirty and unfriendlyhave negative connotations.

Unmarked members of an antonym pair denote more of a quality, while the marked member denotes less. According to the previous criteria, big, tall, heavy and old are unmarked and indeed these terms denote more size, height, weight and age than their corresponding antonyms small, short, light and young.

There may be asymmetries in entailments. The chicken is worse than the steak entails The steak is better than the chicken but the reverse entailment does not hold if both the steak and chicken are good. (At least, this inference is misleading.) Or consider the following:

(7) (a) The steak is better than the chicken, but both are bad. (b) *The chicken is worse than the steak, but both are good.

Table i summarizes the predicted markedness properties of antonyms. Before looking at the data, let me make some caveats. First, judgments among groups of speakers are highly variable, and within each individual

I Neutralization of an opposition in questions by unmarked member.

II Neutralization of an opposition in nominalizations by unmarkedmember.

III Only the unmarkedmember appears in measure phrases of the form Amount Measure Adjective (e.g. three feet tall).

IV If one member of the pair consists of an affix added to the antonym, the affix form is marked.

V Ratios can be used only with the unmarkedmember (e.g. Twice as old).

VI The unmarkedmember is evaluatively positive; the marked is negative.

VII The unmarkedmember denotes more of a quality; the marked denotes less.

VIII If there are asymmetrical entailments, the unmarked member is less likely to be 'biased' or 'committed'. Cf. A is better than B. A and B could be bad. B is worse than A. B must be bad, and A may be as well.

Table I Markedness properties of antonym pairs

400

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download