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

uniting phonologists who do not otherwise share the same frameworks. We have
seen an appeal to minimal differences in the work of Padgett and Calabrese
discussed above. Campos Astorkiza (2007) proposes a special role for minimal
contrast, two sounds that differ in just one property. Nevins (2004: 142) defines
contrast as in (8.43).
(8.43) Contrastiveness (Nevins 2004)
A segment S with specification αF is contrastive for F if there is
another segment S´ in the inventory that is featurally identical to S,
except that it is –αF.
I have raised various logical and empirical arguments against basing
contrast on minimal pairs, and I will not rehearse them all here. It is worth
emphasizing, however, that many supposed minimal pairs appear to be so only
because the analyst is willing to overlook phonetic differences that are known
not to be relevant to the phonological patterning of the sounds. That is, many
analyses that appear to be based on minimal pairs actually tacitly impose a
partial feature ordering on the data, silently removing irrelevant phonetic
differences.
The surface phonetics is a particularly inhospitable place to look for
minimal pairs; recall Hall’s observation (2007: 165), cited in §2.5.4, that phonetic
enhancement and other modifications tend to obscure the phonologically
contrastive dimensions, augmenting them with further phonetic distinctions. A
typical example is provided by Campos Aztorkiza (2007: 32), who diagrams the
Lithuanian vowel inventory as in (8.44).
400