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

Following Jacobsen (1968), Rigsby and Silverstein (1969), Zwicky (1971),
and Hall and Hall (1980), Mackenzie (2002) assumes that surface [i] represents a
merger of /i/ and a [–ATR] vowel that can be represented as /E/. In (7.28a, b)
the underlying stem vowel is [–ATR] /E/ and in (7.28c, d) it is [+ATR] /i/. 21
Thus, every vowel has a counterpart that contrasts with it in the feature [ATR].
(7.29) Nez Perce underlying vowels
i [+ATR] u
E [–ATR] ç
[+ATR] [–ATR]
Q A
By any definition, [ATR] would appear to be a contrastive feature in the
underlying vowel system of Nez Perce. What are the other contrastive features?
Abstracting away from [ATR], we have a classic three-vowel system, which we
can designate /I, A, U/. In such systems it is usual to have a height feature,
either [low] or [high], and a place feature, either [back] or [round]. 22 [low] is a
better choice than [high] because the surface non-low [ATR] pairs are not strictly
[+high], whereas the low pair are both [+low]. Following Jakobson and Halle’s
(1956) assumption that a contrast between high and low sonority is, preferably,
21 In its dual behaviour, Nez Perce /i/ is quite different from Classical Manchu /i/. It is more like
Classical Manchu /u/, which represents the surface merger of two underlying vowels when not
following a velar or uvular consonant.
22 The feature names are chosen to facilitate comparison with Bakovic@’s analysis.
301