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

In a hierarchical conception of contrast, however, such differences
between velars and coronals can be expected, if not predicted. Russian coronal
consonants participate in more contrasts than the velars, so there are more
chances that the feature [back] will be above other features in the coronals than
in the velars. In the contrastive hierarchy in (8.14), illustrated by the trees in
(8.15), the feature hierarchy for the velars runs out before [back] can play a
contrastive role. Even though the same hierarchy obtains among the coronals,
there are more coronals than velars, and [back] can play a contrastive role in
every coronal consonant. In the case of /dJ, d/in (8.15), the contrast in [back] is
the lowest feature in the contrastive hierarchy. In the other cases, it is not, and
the notion of ‘partnership’ plays out at a higher level. Thus, given the hierarchy
in (8.14), the palatalized partner of /Z/ is /zJ/, a partner it shares with /z/.
In a hierarchical conception of contrast assignment, not all features can
have lowest scope, so we expect that minimal pairs may represent the limiting
cases, where contrast is required, but not the only cases of contrastive features. A
famous example is the feature [voiced] in Russian, which has played an
important role in the development of phonological theory, and which has been
discussed here in a number of contexts (see especially §4.6). With respect to this
feature, too, there are ‘paired’ and ‘unpaired’ consonants, but here all the
unpaired consonants have a specification for [voiced], against the prediction of
minimal contrast: this is true of coronal /ts, tS/, velar /x/, and labial /f/
(assuming /v/ does not contrast minimally with it).
404