This would account for the apparent movement of lexical accent following reduplication. However, this solution fails to explain how lexical accent shifts leftward onto a conventional
prefix, i.e., one which does not involve reduplication, as in [hi-] + chúpnake → híchupnake. It would be totally ad hoc to claim that every prefix copies lexical accent from the stem.
To summarize, the Mayo data require an enrichment of HV’s theory in terms of the properties that may be attributed to lexical accent. Specifically, HV’s theory must be
expanded to allow for a cyclic rule which moves a lexical accent to the edge of a word following affixation. Without such an enrichment, HV’s theory is incapable of explaining the
Mayo stress and reduplication data. In contrast, the autosegmental approach that was proposed in section 5.1.1 utilizes only independently-required principles from prosodic theory and
autosegmental theory to provide a uniform account of all the data that have been presented thus far. Thus, the Mayo data constitute an argument in favor of the autosegmental theory of
stress and against HV’s theory.
5.1.4. Summary
The preceding discussion has pointed out three significant facts about the grammar of Mayo. First, there is an underlying contrast between accented and unaccented words, and this
contrast is preserved following affixation. Second, the rule of foot-building crucially has to precede and follow reduplication. Third, the reduplicative base consists of more than one
syllable in unaccented words but is limited to the first syllable in accented words.
The autosegmental theory of stress accounts for all of these facts with the following analysis. First, it is assumed that accented words contain a floating stress autosegment which
links from left to right at the beginning of each cycle as well as postlexically and delinks at some later point in the cycle. Second, the presence of a stress autosegment linked to any
element that is being incorporated into a foot forces that foot to become degenerate the Degenerate Foot Principle. Third, a stress autosegment is inserted into each unaccented foot
and links from right to left. Except for the Degenerate Foot Principle, each of the above processes is independently attested in other languages besides Mayo. As was pointed out
earlier, the Degenerate Foot Principle is required even if some other metrical theory, such as that of HV, is applied to the Mayo data.
HV’s theory, on the other hand, requires further enrichment in order to account for the cyclic preservation of the contrast between accented and unaccented stems. Specifically, HV’s
theory must admit the possibility that lexical accent can float underlyingly. This property makes lexical accent look very much like an autosegment, raising the question of why it should
be treated as formally different from an autosegment in this theory.
There is more to the story, however. These two theories differ crucially in terms of how they view the relationship between foot structure and stress. The theory of HV assumes that
heads which eventually become the anchors for stress are assigned at the time of foot- building, whereas the autosegmental theory of stress views foot construction and stress
assignment as totally separate processes. The Mayo data presented in the next section provide further evidence in favor of the latter view and against the former view.
5.2. The Interaction of Stress and Length in Mayo
Thus far, this chapter has examined alternations in the patterns of stress and reduplication in Mayo words containing only short vowels. These alternations were accounted for first using
the autosegmental theory of stress assignment, then using HV’s theory. It was argued that the autosegmental approach is to be preferred over that of HV because the former requires less
theoretical innovation than the latter.
This section considers the remaining body of data, i.e., those words which contain long vowels and, in some cases, consonant gemination. Based upon this additional set of data, it is
argued that the distribution of stress in Mayo cannot be explained using HV’s theory, nor can Hayes’ theory account for it. In contrast, the autosegmental theory of stress is able to account
for the patterns that are observed.
The arguments are organized as follows. Section 5.2.1 introduces two prosodic rules, Mora Insertion and Phrase-Final Extrametricality, and describes the application of these rules first to
unaccented words, then to accented words. It is shown that stress can be assigned to an inserted mora in an unaccented word and that an inserted mora in an unaccented word always
receives its segmental content from the preceding vowel. On the other hand, an inserted mora in an accented word usually but not always receives its segmental content from the following
onset. These facts are explained in terms of the autosegmental analysis that was presented in the preceding section.
Next, section 5.2.2 argues that the distribution of stress in words which contain long vowels cannot be explained in terms of HV’s theory of stress, nor can Mayo feet be categorized in
terms of Hayes’ 1987, 1991 inventory of primitive feet. It is concluded that the autosegmental theory of stress is the only theory that is able to account for the Mayo data without appealing
to any ad hoc devices.
5.2.1. The Minimal Word and Phrase-Final Extrametricality
Length occurs in both vowels and consonants in Mayo, but in most cases it is derived rather than underlying. Furthermore, derived vowel length and derived consonant length are in near-
complementary distribution with respect to stress. On the one hand, there is a correlation between the distribution of derived vowel length and the distribution of second syllable stress.
On the other hand, there is a similar correlation between the distribution of derived consonant length and the distribution of first syllable stress. I discuss these two sets of phenomena in
sections 5.2.1.1 and 5.2.1.2, respectively, and propose a straightforward formal account which makes use of the autosegmental analysis that was proposed in the preceding section. Insofar as
other theories are unable to account for the same set of data as argued in section 5.2.2, this analysis constitutes a further argument for the autosegmental theory of stress.
