10.04.2013 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

[round] > [back] (8.38b). This may be a problem for Clements, but s<strong>in</strong>ce I do not<br />

assume a universal order<strong>in</strong>g, the order<strong>in</strong>g [round] > [back] is possible. 15<br />

(8.38) Two <strong>contrastive</strong> hierarchies for /i, y, u/<br />

a. [back] > [round] b. [round] > [back]<br />

[back] [round]<br />

–ei+ –ei+<br />

[round] u i [back]<br />

– ty+ – ty+<br />

i y y u<br />

Calabrese’s argument actually cuts the other way. If Trubetzkoy is to be<br />

believed about Polabian (§3.3.3), <strong>in</strong> that language the three vowels /i, y, u/ have<br />

different <strong>contrastive</strong> relations than they do <strong>in</strong> F<strong>in</strong>nish and Hungarian; <strong>in</strong><br />

Polabian, /i/ and /y/ are both <strong>contrastive</strong>ly [–back] aga<strong>in</strong>st [+back] /u/. That is,<br />

whereas <strong>in</strong> F<strong>in</strong>nish and Hungarian /y/ and /u/ are partners with respect to<br />

[back] while /i/ is neutral, <strong>in</strong> Polabian /i/ and /y/ are partners with respect to<br />

[round] while /u/ is neutral. <strong>The</strong>se different relations correspond to different<br />

<strong>contrastive</strong> hierarchies. It is Calabrese’s theory that cannot capture this<br />

variability.<br />

Similar arguments can be made for other <strong>in</strong>ventories where we have seen<br />

variation <strong>in</strong> the system of contrasts. To take just one more example, consider<br />

aga<strong>in</strong> the four-vowel /i, a, o, u/ system of Yowlumne, discussed above <strong>in</strong> several<br />

different contexts. We have seen that the phonological pattern<strong>in</strong>g of this<br />

language is best accounted for by assum<strong>in</strong>g that [labial] (or [round]) is<br />

15 See D’Arcy (2003b) for a <strong>contrastive</strong> analysis us<strong>in</strong>g other features.<br />

394

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!