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

edundant value of f turns out to be, all three segments end up distinct in their
values for features g and h, and again a binary feature has functioned in ternary
fashion (4.18). Stanley (1967: 414) argues that this is an ‘improper use of blanks’
that gives ternary power to a binary system.
(4.18) Rule application: Distinctness interpretation (Stanley 1967: 413)
a. Initial matrices
A B C
⎡
⎣ ⎢ :
⎤
⎦ ⎥
⎡ +f
⎣ ⎢ :
⎤
⎦ ⎥
b. Phonological rules
⎡ -f
⎣ ⎢ :
⎤
⎦ ⎥
i. [ ] [–g, –h] ii. [+f] [+g]
iii. [–f] [+h] iv. Default: [ ] [+f]
c. Derived matrices
A B C
⎡ +f ⎤
⎢ –g ⎥
⎢
⎢
–h
⎥
⎥
⎣ : ⎦
⎡ +f⎤
⎢ +g⎥
⎢
⎢
-h
⎥
⎥
⎣ : ⎦
⎡ –f ⎤
⎢ –g⎥
⎢
⎢
+h
⎥
⎥
⎣ : ⎦
On logical grounds, Stanley’s argument is perfectly correct. However, it
rests on the empirical assumption that distinctive features must function in a
strictly binary way. Although this assumption was adopted by almost all
generative phonologists in the subsequent decade, it is actually inconsistent with
the Contrastivist Hypothesis, which posits that the phonology treats contrastive
specifications differently from noncontrastive specifications.
151