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

epresentations beyond the needs of contrast. If this is correct, then we can do
away with noncontrastive ‘specification from below’ and retain only
phonological features motivated by contrast.
It remains an empirical question whether feature geometry may indeed be
subsumed into the contrastive hierarchy, or whether certain dependencies
between features must be represented independently of requirements of contrast.
In what follows I will assume the former; that is, I will assume that the only
hierarchical relations among features that need to be represented are those
dictated by the contrastive hierarchy.
5.5. Conclusions
Though early pre-SPE generative phonology was characterized by extensive use
of underspecification, a heritage from the work of Jakobson and Halle, the
‘classical’ theory initiated by SPE barred underspecification from the phonology.
I have tried to show that the distinction between contrastive and noncontrastive
feature specifications kept reappearing, sometimes disguised as something else,
as did the notion of a feature hierarchy. I also argued that markedness theory,
underspecification theory, and feature geometry all have affinities with the
Contrastivist Hypothesis and the contrastive hierarchy, but also important
differences. I have also contended that all these subtheories suffer from a clear
understanding of how to assign contrastive features.
The result was that by the mid 1990s both versions of underspecification
theory discussed here, RU and CS, had been largely repudiated by their earlier
216