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

equire a different tree in which [sharped] is higher in the contrastive hierarchy
than [voiced]. Therefore, Stanley argues, the branching tree incorrectly limits the
possible archiphonemes (neutralizations) that can be represented, and thus fails
to capture the relevant notion of archiphoneme.
Stanley is correct if we look only at the tree structure without considering
the representations derived from the trees. The contrastive hierarchy of which
the tree in (4.19) is a part yields the representations in (4.20). Reading off the
table, we see that voiced and voiceless counterparts are indeed minimal pairs,
distinguished only by the feature [voiced]. Therefore, to the extent that
representations are important apart from the contrastive hierarchy that generates
them, the branching tree does not limit possible neutralizations as much as
Stanley claimed they do.
(4.20) Feature specifications: Russian labial consonants (Halle 1959)
p b pJ bJ m mJ f v fJ vJ
vocalic – – – – – – – – – –
consonantal + + + + + + + + + +
compact – – – – – – – – – –
low tonality + + + + + + + + + +
strident – – – – – – + + + +
nasal – – – – + + 0 0 0 0
continuant 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
voiced – + – + 0 0 – + – +
sharped – – + + – + – – + +
Of course, any choice of a contrastive hierarchy does limit possible
neutralizations beyond what we can obtain with full specification. For example,
156