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

[voiced] > [sonorant]. Such a hierarchy is relatively rare. 14 Similarly, we have
seen numerous cases where the choice of [back] or [round] is not arbitrary, but
dictated by considerations of phonological patterning and activity. As in other
areas of linguistic theory, there may be situations in which the feature order is
not clear, for lack of decisive evidence pointing to one or another ordering. But
such indeterminacy arises for empirical reasons, not because the theory lacks
coherence or is inherently arbitrary.
In Chapter 7 I will pursue these issues in the framework of Modified
Contrastive Specification, a theory that developed partly in response to the
shortcomings of these theories of underspecification.
5.4. Theories of feature organization
In addition to markedness theory and underspecification theory, generative
phonology produced a third family of subtheories that crucially involve
hierarchical relations between distinctive features. These theories posit that
features are organized into various kinds of structures. This idea was developed
in a number of quite different ways, giving rise to distinct theories of
phonological representation. Some examples include what has come to be known
as feature geometry (Clements 1985, Sagey 1986, McCarthy 1988, Clements and
14 It may be premature to rule out such systems, however; compare Hockett’s analysis of Lifu
discussed in §3.6. It is noteworthy that Lifu has voiceless sonorants, in his analysis. There also
appear to be languages where the feature [sonorant] does not play a major role at all; compare the
dialect of Inuktitut discussed in §7.3.
205