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

and, in the framework of generative phonology, at least since Hyman 1970a, b,
1973. Many basic issues in loan phonology remain controversial. Some have
argued that the input to loan phonology is analyzed in terms of the phonemes of
the lending language (LaCharité and Paradis 1997, Paradis 1988, Paradis and
Prunet 2000, Jacobs and Gussenhoven 2000). Paradis and her collaborators, for
example, assume that speakers responsible for borrowing are bilingual, and
familiar with the grammar of the lending language. Others have assumed that
the input to loan phonology is phonetic (Silverman 1992, Yip 1993, Steriade 2001,
Kenstowicz 2003). It appears that both views may be correct depending on the
social context in which borrowing takes place (Kiparsky 1973: §3.2, Heffernan
2005, 2007).
There is much evidence that the sound structure of one’s native language
affects one’s perception of foreign sounds (Hancin-Bhatt 1994, Best 1995, Flege
1995, Dupoux et al. 1999, Brown 2000). In recent years, some studies have argued
that noncontrastive features also play an important role in the adaptation of
sounds (Brannen 2002, Pater 2003; see Kang 2007 for discussion of this and
related issues). However, as with other aspects of phonology, much discussion of
contrastive and redundant features in loanword phonology suffers from the lack
of a satisfactory account of which features actually are contrastive.
Turning to our main theme, I will focus on the relationship between loan
phonology and the contrastive hierarchy of a language. In §6.6 we considered
abstractly how the contrastive hierarchy might be brought to bear on loan
phonology. In §7.7.1 I review some early proposals by Jakobson, and §7.7.2
320