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

common three-vowel inventory is /i, a, u/, not /i, a, Å/ or even less probably,
/a, Å, u/. Whichever vowels we choose, there is no notion that some feature
values are contrastive whereas others are not.
5.2.5. Linking to the phonology
In the SPE-Kean approach to markedness, the markedness statements are largely
insulated from the phonology proper. Recall that the motivation for this was to
enable the phonology to operate with fully specified +/– feature values, and to
avoid bringing into the phonology any underspecified feature values, or features
specified in terms of the u/m notation of markedness theory. The disadvantage of
this strategy, however, is that the phonology cannot refer to either markedness or
underspecification in cases where such reference would be useful in capturing
generalizations about phonological processes. In effect, a theory in which the
active phonological component is entirely insulated from the markedness
component embodies the claim that markedness is relevant only to underlying
phonological inventories and phonotactics, but ceases to play any role in the
phonology proper.
For example, recall the pairs of rules in (5.1a, b). These are listed by
Chomsky and Halle as being examples where the rule in (i) of each pair is
formally more complex than (ii), though more natural and more expected. The
markedness theory they propose has the effect of making the derived segment in
the rule in (i) less marked than the one in (ii). But the rule component
179