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

essentially the same as the one assumed here. However, Clements does not tie
activity to contrast, as supposed in the strong version of the Contrastivist
Hypothesis. Clements (2001: 77–78) proposes three conditions for feature
specification, corresponding to the lexical, phonological, and phonetic levels,
respectively (8.29).
(8.29) Conditions for feature specification (Clements 2001: 77–78)
a. Lexical level: distinctiveness
A feature or feature value is present in the lexicon if and only if
it is distinctive (in a sense to be defined).
b. Phonological level: feature activity
A feature or feature value is present at a given phonological
level if it is required for the statement of phonological patterns
(phonotactic patterns , alternations) at that level.
c. Phonetic level: pronounceability
Feature values are present in the phonetics if required to
account for relevant aspects of phonetic realization.
Condition (a) requires that only contrastive features may be specified in
the lexicon; the method of determining what these are is discussed below.
Condition (b) allows for the specification of features if required in the phonology,
that is, if they are active. This condition represents a severe weakening of the
Contrastivist Hypothesis, essentially abandoning it and allowing redundant
features to be added freely in the phonology, with no restrictions. Given the
success of the Contrastivist Hypothesis in the various types of cases discussed in
382