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

Divided up as in (8.42a), the lack of voiced continuants could be called
‘accidental’: the feature [continuant] occurs in the domain of [–voiced], but there
happen not to be any continuants under [+voiced]. Another way of dividing up
the inventory (8.42b) makes the gap appear to be more ‘systematic’: voicing
contrasts are permitted in the domain of [–continuant], but not in the domain of
[+continuant]. On this analysis the fricatives have no contrastive specification for
[voiced], a result that is contradicted by their behaviour with respect to voicing
alternations. It follows that whether a gap is considered systematic or accidental
is to some extent a matter of point of view, influenced by the scope relations
assigned to the relevant features.
8.7. ‘Minimal’ contrast
Though Calabrese’s procedure for assigning (non)contrastive specifications is
different in a number of ways from the Pairwise Algorithm, it shares the
assumption that contrast is determined (only in part, in Calabrese’s case) by
considerations of logical redundancy and minimal pairs. I have argued
throughout this book that contrastive specifications must be derived
hierarchically, and not by inspection of minimal pairs. This was the main theme
of Chapter 2, and I have shown in subsequent chapters that contrast based on
minimal pairs has been a recurring approach in the history of phonology.
It is fitting, then, to conclude our survey of contemporary approaches to contrast
by emphasizing that the minimal pairs approach is not just a historical artefact,
but remains a popular method for determining contrastive specifications, even
399