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

feature, F, is a dependent of a class node, C. This means that F cannot exist
without C. Now it could be the case that C is not contrastive, but F is. In that
case, F must be specified, a specification that in turn requires specification of the
noncontrastive C.
This situation arises commonly. One recurring example concerns the
feature [coronal]. In (5.32), as well as many other versions of feature geometry,
[coronal] functions both as a feature and as a class node, as it has dependents,
[anterior] and [distributed] in (5.32). An example is Sanskrit, which has a contrast
between plain and retroflex coronals. Assuming that the latter have some
marked feature that is a dependent of [coronal], say [–anterior], their
representation must include [coronal], as in (5.35a).
(5.35) Representation of coronal contrasts
a. Retroflex b. Plain (minimal) c. Plain (NAC)
Place Place Place
| |
[coronal] [coronal]
|
[–anterior]
But how should the plain coronal consonants be represented? If we
assume that [coronal] is the unmarked place for consonants, there is no need to
specify [coronal] for such consonants, and they could be represented like coronal
consonants in languages without internal coronal contrasts, as simply having a
Place node, as in (5.35b).
Taking (5.35b) together with (5.35a), however, it appears that there are
more differences between plain and retroflex consonants than there are.
213