Beyond Time - Linguistics - University of California, Berkeley

(236) esi ufose muchiTotela, ndilakusikulula
esi u-fos-e
cond 2sg-make.mistake-fv.sbjv
ndi-la-ku-sikulul-a
1sg-noncmpl-2sg-correct-fv
mu-chiTotela,
cl18(loc)-cl7.Totela
‘if you make a mistake in Totela, I’ll correct you’ (ZT2006Elic31)
4.3.8 Markedness: -la- vs. -Ø- and non-completion
Throughout this chapter, -la- has been treated as an “unmarked” form in contrast to both
perfective -a- and posthodiernal na-. The linguistic concept of markedness is somewhat problematic
because of an abundance of uses in various subfields. Haspelmath (2006) lists twelve
possible meanings, and suggests that the term “markedness” be done away with altogether
in favor of more specific terms. The two senses relevant for this chapter are “markedness as
overt coding” (for which Haspelmath recommends the designations “overt coding” vs “zero
coding”) and “markedness as deviation from default parameter setting (for which Haspelmath
recommends “deviation from default parameter setting”)(Haspelmath 2006:64-65). In
many languages, the basic “present” form is less marked morphologically than other tenses
and aspects: it has less overt morphological coding. However, in most narrative genres, it
represents a “deviation from [the] default parameter setting”, since narratives are typically
recountings of situations in the real or imagined past. Important here is the idea of morphological
marking, i.e. overt coding – which, it shall be seen, interacts with “default parameter
setting[s]”.
Fleischman (1990:53-54) lists three possible interpretations of an unmarked form rather
than an overtly coded form. 24
a. minus interpretation: The morphological mark (e.g. past tense marking) is missing
and therefore its typical semantic specification does not hold.
b. zero interpretation: The absence of a morphological marker signifies that its semantic
specifications are irrelevant; they may or may not hold. “For the [present] tense this zerointerpretation
is the basic meaning of ‘timelessness’ or ‘atemporality’. . . In these examples
24 The morphologically unmarked form represents a parameter deviation in some cases. Fleischman’s
discussion is specifically related to present forms in narratives, which are assumed to describe past events
and states. Larry Hyman (p.c.) notes that the lack of morphological marking may be semantically marked,
as is the case with noun class augments in Luganda (JE.15) and Totela. In Luganda, for example omulimi
means ‘farmer’, while mulimi means ‘he’s a farmer’. The form with augment marking represents the general
reading, while omission of an augment creates a copular form.
What is specifically considered in Fleischman’s categorization above is not semantically marked meaning
for morphologically unmarked forms, but rather the interpretation of morphologically unmarked forms
where overtly coded forms are expected, based on what typically would appear in that context. Unmarked
forms in these contexts can be interpreted as having the feature corresponding to the marked form (plus
interpretation), being underspecified with regard to the feature (zero interpretation), or indicating absence
of the missing form’s feature (minus interpretation).
191