a delinking rule at some later point in the same cycle; this process is repeated in each cycle.
23
The linking rule never gets turned off i.e., it is both lexical and post-lexical, but the delinking rule is “turned off” at the end of the lexical phase of the phonology i.e., after all word-level
morphological processes have applied. As a result, a lexical accent is always linked to the leftmost stress-bearing unit at the end of a derivation. Finally, I argue that the application of
foot-building to an accented i.e., already-stressed stress-bearing unit produces a degenerate foot rather than the usual binary foot. The empirical basis for this latter claim is presented in
section 5.1.2.
Given this set of assumptions, the facts of stress and reduplication in Mayo are readily accounted for. The above scenario does not introduce anything that is not already found in
autosegmental theory except for the claim that a linked accent affects the output of foot- building by forcing a degenerate foot to be built instead of the usual binary foot. Section 5.1.2
argues that this claim or its equivalent is needed regardless of whether or not one assumes cyclic linking and delinking.
Next, the Obligatory Contour Principle is briefly defined and discussed. This principle is invoked in a number of the analyses that are presented in the remaining chapters.
1.2.4. The Obligatory Contour Principle
The Obligatory Contour Principle henceforth, OCP was originally proposed in Leben 1973 in order to account for an observed asymmetry in the tonal system of Mende. As
originally formulated, the OCP prohibits the occurrence of adjacent identical tones. McCarthy 1986 extended the application of this principle to the realm of segmental phonology,
claiming that adjacent identical phonological features of any kind are prohibited.
A number of arguments have since been raised against the OCP, most notably by Odden 1988. However, Archangeli 1986, Myers 1987, and Yip 1988a all note that virtually all
of the objections to the OCP may be dismissed if the notion of adjacency is properly defined. In particular, they claim that the OCP prohibits the occurrence of two identical features in a
representation only when the identical features are linked to adjacent structural nodes. This is illustrated in 23, where F is some feature and X is some structural node which is capable of
being linked to F.
23 a. Disallowed: b. Allowed:
F F F F | | | |
X X X X X The crucial difference between 23a and 23b is that the two F-bearing X’s are adjacent and
hence illicit in 23a but not in 23b. Archangeli 1986 argues for this view of the OCP based
23
Pulleyblank 1986:114–116 argues that a delinked tone cannot relink during the same morphological cycle in which it was delinked. Indeed, section 5.1.2 demonstrates that the facts of Mayo stress and reduplication require that linking be ordered
before delinking and that both rules be cyclic. Thus, the use of delinking and relinking in the analysis of Mayo stress is consistent with Pulleyblanks results.
on the facts of vowel harmony in Nyangumarda, an Australian language, and Myers 1987 argues for the same view based on tonal processes in Shona.
24
Furthermore, McCarthy 1979, 1981, 1986, Halle and Vergnaud 1987a, 1987b, and Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1987 all claim that even the representation in 23a may occur
when the superficially adjacent F-bearing X’s are considered to be on separate morphemic tiers, as illustrated in 24.
24 F |
X X |
F This claim, known as the Morphemic Plane Hypothesis, is discussed briefly in section 2.2.3.
To summarize, the OCP prohibits adjacent identical elements within a given domain, but such adjacency is not prohibited if the identical elements are on different morphemic tiers. This
view of the OCP is assumed throughout this study.
1.3. Outline of the Remainder of the Study
