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

substantive specifications of the listed sounds (except for the parenthetical
comments about the obstruents in the fourth column). Therefore, the basis of the
similarities in the patterns of C and D is, in the first place, in the typographical
arrangement of the sounds. C and D have isomorphic patterns because each
segment in one corresponds to a unique segment in the other, and the relative
position of each segment in the pattern is the same as that of its correspondent.
But what is the meaning of these typographical layouts? They surely
imply some phonological feature specifications, though these are not listed
explicitly. Moreover, by arranging the systems of C and D isomorphically, Sapir
is suggesting that the specifications for the two languages are parallel, if not
identical. He writes that the reasons for placing [Z] (which he represents as j) in D
where it is may have to do with the alternations it enters into (it might alternate
with /i/ but never with /S/), or the phonotactic combinations it enters into (for
instance, that v- and Z- are possible initials, like /r, m, N/, but that /B, D, ƒ, “/
are not). He continues, ‘In other words, it ”feels” like the y [= IPA j] of many
other languages, and as y itself is absent in D, we can go so far as to say that j
[=[Z]] occupies a “place in the pattern” that belongs to y elsewhere.’
The notion of ‘place in the pattern’ can be interpreted in a number of
ways. One interpretation in terms of generative theory is that the corresponding
segments in C and D have the same underlying specifications, which, in classical
generative phonology, are full, not contrastive, feature specifications. Thus, we
could understand Sapir to be suggesting that the lexical (underlying)
phonological specifications of the phonemes /v/ and /Z/, that appear to be in
63