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

5.4.4. Spreading of class nodes?
Our comparison of feature geometry and the contrastive hierarchy reveals that,
for the most part, the two either encode similar relations or else can be reconciled
so that they do so. This raises the prospect that the two can be identified; put
differently, that we can dispense with feature geometry as an independent
theoretical entity in favour of the contrastive hierarchy. The major obstacle in the
way of doing this is the participation of class nodes in phonological rules. If a
class node is targeted by phonological processes, then it cannot be dispensed
with, at the risk of losing the ability to formulate phonological rules that express
significant generalizations.
It is thus interesting that some recent approaches to feature geometry no
longer allow class nodes to spread. For example, the Revised Articulator Theory
(RAT) (Halle 1995, Halle, Vaux and Wolfe 2000) requires that terminal features
spread separately. Further, designated articulators are indicated by features, not
by nodes in the geometry. Similarly, Padgett (2002) proposes that feature classes
like Place, Color, Laryngeal, etc., are not nodes in a structure, but features of
features, or sets of features. Phonological processes or constraints can mention
these classes, but apply directly to the features that make them up. Padgett
argues that this approach preserves the advantages feature geometry was
supposed to have in being able to refer to certain groups of features, while
escaping some of the negative consequences of feature geometry.
If class nodes are not required to participate in phonological operations,
then there are no compelling reasons why they are required in phonological
215