Stress pattern in “Little Red Riding Hood”

A. They sell all kinds of toys in here. Pick something and I'll buy it for you.
B. I don't like anything round.
A. Well, what would you like then?
B. Something red.
A. Okay, something red, but what would you like?
B. I hate that bear.
A. I don't want to know what you hate. What would you like?
B. Jane likes drawing.
A. What would you like?

So the meanings break down as:

1. What would you like? (as opposed to some other property such as when or how you would like it)

2. What would you like? (as opposed to what you wouldn't or don't like)

3. What would you like? (as opposed to what another person would like)

4. What would you like? (as opposed to what you might hate, or remember, or do something other than liking with)

Yes, there is a connection between losing one phonemic property and gaining another. Most approaches to phonology conceptualize words as having double lives: on the one hand, they are made of a particular sound sequence which you have to pronounce correctly; on the other hand, the sounds in sequences are only recognized as discrete parts because they contrast with other sounds.

This property of phonology was termed double articulation by the French phonologist Martinet. One also speaks of form vs. substance: form being properties of speech sounds which they have by virtue of being in contrast with other sounds, or undergoing meaning-preserving alternations involving other sounds, and substance being the physical phonetic details of their pronunciation. (Quite confusingly, one also hears of function vs. form, where form coincides with substance from the other, roughly equivalent, dichotomy.)

These two factors frequently come into play in the evolution of vowel systems. To characterize it approximately: Consider a set system of 14 vowels, with 7 basic vowel qualities and two lengths. For such a system, the pertinent formal properties are that each vowel is contrastive with every other, and that the vowels may also be divided into pairs (e.g., e and e:) on the basis of meaning-preserving alternations. The fact that the pairs are differentiated by length and not by quality instead relates to the substance.

When a language undergoges sound change such that the phonetic substance is altered, but the formal relations between the sounds are preserved, it is usually referred to as transphonologization. Such a process is quite common historically, because languages do have a tendency of conservatism in form, if not in substance.

For further reading and numerous examples, consider a 2008 paper by the phonologist Larry Hyman and references included therein. For further reading treating English phonology more specifically, see various studies by Roger Lass, esp. English Phonology and Phonological Theory, and Old English Phonology.