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

the wrong place in the pattern of D, are to some extent at odds with their
phonetics. In derivational generative terms, we can justify their positions in the
pattern of D by assuming that they are specified as sonorants rather than
obstruents, just like /w/ and /j/ in C, and assume their phonetic forms by late
rules that alter some of their specifications. On this interpretation, /v/ and /Z/
in D correspond to /w/ and /j/ in C because they are those sounds at an abstract
level of analysis.
While such an analysis is tenable in these cases, it does not extend to the
rest of the phonemes whose phonetics do not deviate so spectacularly from their
positioning in the phonological pattern. According to Sapir, /b/ occupies a place
in the pattern of C that corresponds to the place of /B/ in D. In this case we have
no reason to suppose that one of these sounds derives from the other. Looking at
their fully specified lexical representations would not show us in what way they
can be said to occupy the same position in the pattern of their respective
languages. Rather, in this case, we must understand the notion of ‘place in the
pattern’ to refer to the contrastive role of speech sounds. What /b/ in C and/B/
in D have in common is that they are both the only voiced labial obstruents in
their respective languages; no further specifications are required to distinguish
them from every other phoneme. That /b/ is also a stop whereas /B/ is a
fricative is not relevant to their contrastive positioning, in this analysis.
Similarly, /l/ in C corresponds to /r/ in D because each is the only liquid
in the language, and /n/ in C corresponds to /N/ in D by being a non-labial
64