![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
Does this only apply to examples when the masculine term is used as a neutral term for both female and male things, or is there a broader scope to it? Zigzig20s 22:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Agrees that this needs non-gendered examples. Yuck.
Amber388 (
talk)
19:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Added some examples of a more theoretical sort, they should also clarify to some extent the use of the term better than the redundant gender markedness examples. Also, the fact is that this category isn't poorly defined in the sense of "lacking skill" or "insufficiently". This is a rubber tool for working on flexible systems, a rigid, over-defined term cannot in fact cope with natural language. Instead markedness gives a truly structuralist tool for an astounding amount of tasks, the markedness is not in fact ever "zero" (do not mistake with zero marking), that is; there is not a set that includes an unmarked form and then a number of marked forms. Rather every member of a set is assumed to be marked to some extent, the point is that the relative amount of marking varies between the members of the set, it is the least marked that is called "unmarked", after that comes the rest of the set in order of increasing markedness. -- AkselGerner ( talk) 23:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I mean, I'm no sociologist, but I hear about marked/unmarked gender/race/sexuality. Can someone who knows more write something about this?
The lead section currently states "The term derives from the 'marking' of a grammatical role with a suffix or other element". This is a bit beyond my area of expertise, but my recollection is that for Trubetzkoy (and then for Jakobson) the distinction was originally phonological (nasality of Russian consonants, if memory serves), not morphological. Am I misremembering or misinformed? Cnilep ( talk) 12:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)