Introduction

In this chapter I will consider some other approaches to phonological contrast that have been advanced in the recent phonological literature. I will start with theories that are conceptually quite different from the approach I have been taking and then consider those that have more in common with it.

In section 8.2 I consider an alternative explanation of the typology of labial harmony triggers reviewed in section 7.4.3. There, I argued that the observed relation between harmony triggers and inventories supports the Contrastivist Hypothesis. Kaun (1995) advances what appears to be a very different explanation, grounded in perceptual-functional phonetic constraints. I will argue that her account is not, in fact, a real alternative to the explanation I proposed in chapter 7.

Dispersion Theory is concerned with contrast at a perceptual phonetic level, and in section 8.3 I review a dispersion-theoretic account of a phonological change in the history of Russian, proposed by Padgett (2003a). I will argue that this version of Dispersion Theory is enmeshed in descriptive and explanatory complications that may be difficult to sort out. I will present an MCS-style alternative solution that is conceptually much simpler.

Section 8.4 looks at Structured Specification, or natural classes, theory (Broe 1993; Frisch 1996; Frisch, Pierrehumbert and Broe 2004). Rather than designate features as being ‘contrastive’ or ‘redundant’, as the SDA does, this theory is indirectly sensitive to the contrasts in an inventory.