The contrastive hierarchy in phonology 2009 Dresher.pdf - CUNY ...

these assumptions is necessary. This train of reasoning, however, leads Hockett
(1955: 174–175) to reject the possibility of making any distinctions between
contrastive and redundant features:
Furthermore, it turns out that in general we cannot divide the
ostensible ultimate phonologic constituents of a system neatly into
‘determining’ and ‘determined,’ assigning the latter some
secondary status. In the actual complexity of speech, a given
feature or difference turns up in some contexts as of primary
relevance, in other contexts as subsidiary…Thus, for French
obstruents, we have no choice but to recognize (1) two voicing
terms; (2) two occlusion terms; (3) six combinations of articulator,
point of articulation, and contour of articulator – ten features in all.
The fact that this system could lead one to expect twice as many phonemes as
there are — for example, a bilabial spirant or a labio-dental stop — ‘is simply a
limitation on privilege of occurrence.’
Against Hockett’s arguments in this section, one can observe first that it is
incorrect to reduce any example of distinguishing between a contrastive and
redundant feature to an arbitrary binary coding. One could have empirical, non-
arbitrary reasons for deciding that some features are contrastive. Moreover,
contrastive features need not be the mathematically minimal set. Second, Hockett
adduces no empirical evidence in favour of his own analysis of the French
obstruents. Thus, we have no reason to think it is superior to either of the two
analyses he rejects.
105