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

. All three segment-types are ‘different’.
{A} {B} {C}
Feature 1 + – –
Feature 2 0 + –
By the terms of the Distinctness Condition, /p/ and /m/ in (2.13) are not
different from each other. Therefore, the pairwise approach fails to contrast these
elements of the inventory, and hence fails to provide an adequate set of
contrastive specifications, according to the Distinctness Condition.
The Distinctness Condition has not been uncontroversial in linguistic
theory, and some readers may question whether it is really necessary. Why can’t
the absence of a specification count as a value distinct from the presence of a
value? After all, the system in (2.13) will result in three distinctly specified
members once we apply the redundancy rules, so what is the problem?
The problem is that we are abusing the notion of contrast. Consider a
language that has bilabial /p/ and /m/, but lacks /b/ (a fairly common
situation, as many languages lack phonemic voiced obstruents). If asked to
provide a contrastive specification of such an inventory, would anybody choose
(2.17)? The relation between /p/ and /m/ in (2.17) is the same as that between
/p/ and /m/ in (2.13); but without the middle member /b/ that forms minimal
pairs with both of them, the specifications in (2.17) appear bizarre. It does not
make sense to assert that one member in a two-member set is contrastively
voiceless and the other is contrastively nasal. In contrast with what? If something
is contrastively voiceless, it can only mean in contrast to something that is
33