Introduction

In this chapter I offer a comparison between my model and a selection of other, prevalent models. While it will of course be important to highlight how the RCVP model differs from other models, primarily in its radical proposal of reducing all contrastive distinctions to two elements which occur in multiple roles (head, dependent) in multiple element classes and in different syllabic positions, I will be more interested in showing how the RCVP model is compatible with feature sets and FGs that have been proposed, and motivated, in other proposals. After all, to the extent that these proposals have been made on solid empirical grounds, they support the RCVP choices. What RCVP adds to these specific proposals is that it shows how they can be derived from a small set of basic principles. This adds an element of explanatory adequacy to these proposals. In Chapter 2 I have already extensively discussed DP and GP. Both models, but especially DP, have been highly influential in the development of RCVP and I have discussed in detail how RCVP builds on and yet differs from these two theories. This chapter will focus on a comparison between RCVP and some other models of segmental structure, but it will also include some discussion of a recent version of GP, as well as a new model, Q-phonology. I will thus focus on some striking parallels between RCVP and other proposals, which have often been developed independently from DP and RCVP and with no apparent knowledge of these models, which only adds to these proposals’ value as independent confirmation of the model proposed here.

Feature Geometry models

The idea of representing segments in terms of a structured hierarchy of feature classes is fundamental to RCVP. As mentioned in Chapter 2, this idea was developed in DP and then later independently in the work of Clements (1985) and Sagey (1986), foreshadowed by some other proposals. Den Dikken & van der Hulst (1988) and McCarthy (1988) describe the emergence and development of such ‘FG’ models. Since then, as one would, expect, variants of this approach have been proposed by many phonologists. Phillips (1994), Morén (2007) and Duanmu (2016) provide overviews of later developments.