Frequency and pragmatically unmarked word order

“Frequency and pragmatically unmarked word order” is a paper by Matthew Dryer, published in 1995 within the compilation "Word Order in Discourse", analyzing various definitions of markedness as it might apply to word order. It advanced a definition of pragmatic markedness in which unmarkedness was only possible if all markedness cases could be enumerated (establishing the unmarked situation as the default case).

Dryer's comparisons of Markedness vs. Frequency

“Frequency and pragmatically unmarked word order“ argues against the idea of markedness which was established in Greenberg 1966, equating markedness with rarity. It does so by analyzing cases in which specific languages had word orders whichm while considered unmarked, were not actually the most frequent.

The proposed definition of markedness

The definition of pragmatic markedness proposed in “Frequency and pragmatically unmarked word order“ focuses upon the role of a given construction as being the 'default' construction. This is contrasted against definitions of markedness proposed by Greenberg (who equated it with frequency), Talmy Givon (who equated it with cognitive complexity to the hearer), and Doris Payne (who defined it as 'counterexpectation'). While the empirical evidence provided in the paper focuses breaking the assumed connection between markedness and frequency [Reid-Heimerdinger, J. 200. The Bezan Text of Acts: A Contribution of Discourse Analysis to Textual Criticism ] , the definitions of markedness proposed by Givon and Payne are treated as being possibly valid, yet irrelevant to the analysis of constructions. Dryer in this sense makes a distinction between markedness of constructions as a whole (which, Dryer proposes, must be independent of context) and markedness as found in specific situations (towards which the definitions of Givon and Payne might apply).

The Studies Mentioned in Dryer 1995

An analysis of Tojolabal

The analysis presented in Brody 1984 - which establishes that the more common SVO word order is marked because it involves topicalization of the subject - is criticized by Dryer as being unspecific. Topicalization is hard to define, and Dryer proposes that the word order that Brody considered unmarked (VSO) might just as equally be prominent because it contains exceptionally non-topical terms.

An analysis of Ojibwa

The second word order analyzed is that of Ojibwa, an order which both Dryer, the original paper of Tomlin and Rhodes(1979), and later studies [Christianson, Kiel 2002. Sentence Processing in a "nonconfigurational" Language, p.47] agree as being VOS. The proposed justification for this, modified slightly to fit into Dryer's framework, is that VOS order is used when the subject and object in a phrase are very predictable, while other orders are utilized when they are not.

An analysis of Yagua

Looks at data provided by Payne (1990) on Yagua. This data both provided a table recounting the pragmatic functions utilized in various instances of preverbal constituents, accounting for 81% of them with definitive pragmatic functions. While Payne and Dryer both come to the conclusion, using that data, that preverbal constituents are therefore marked, and postverbal constituents unmarked, Payne uses her own data to establish the idea of counterexpectation, while Dryer points out that since all the situations calling for preverbal constituents may be enumerated, then the postverbal functions must of the 'else', or default case.

An analysis of Macushi

Like the approach of Payne in the analysis of Yagua, Abbott (1991) makes an analysis of Macushi which is defined around pragmatic functions - that SV functions are used to 'highlight a change of topic" or in fronting a subject for particular effect - while VS is considered to be used when the subject is not particularly highlighted. Dryer again claims that this conclusion fits with his own definition of unmarkedness as being the 'default' situation.

References to (Dryer 1995)

“Frequency and pragmatically unmarked word order“ is treated, most recently, in Haspellmath's 2006 paper "Against markedness (and what to replace it with)".