linking. Also, rule 210d has no effect on the stress pattern of a foot in which Weight-to-Stress has already applied, for the OCP blocks the linking of a second stress within the foot.
4.3. Other Analyses of Yidin
y
Stress
This section reviews and critiques three analyses of Yidin
y
stress, arguing in each case that there are theoretical complications which are avoided by the autosegmental analysis of Yidin
y
. I consider first the proposal of Hayes 1982b, followed by Halle and Vergnaud 1987b and,
finally, Hammond 1990b.
4.3.1. Hayes’ 1982b Analysis
Because of his assumption that feet are inherently headed, Hayes’ 1982b analysis is necessarily more complex than mine. Hayes’ proposal is as follows in 211.
211 Tree Construction:
Going from left to right across the word, group syllables into binary feet, labeled w s.
113
Following Tree Construction, Hayes applies Penultimate Lengthening, which has the effect of lengthening the penultimate syllable in a word with an odd number of syllables. Finally, he
posits the rule in 212.
114
212 Stress Shift:
Relabel all sister nodes s w, unless there is a strong node dominating a long vowel.
The application of Tree Construction, Penultimate Lengthening, and Stress Shift is illustrated in 213 and 214.
213 Input: Tree Constr: Penult
Length: F
F \
\ w s
w s g u d a g a
g u d a g a g u d a: g a
Stress Shift: Output:
NA gudá:ga
113
The terms w and s refer to weak i.e., non-head and strong i.e., head, respectively. As Hayes himself points out, the labeling in this rule is not actually required by the data; all that matters at this point is the location of foot boundaries. Notice that such a
syllabic foot i.e., with the labeling [w s] is prohibited under the theory of Hayes 1991, which requires all syllabic feet to be left-headed.
114
Hayes also discusses other foot-bound rules which do not directly bear on the issue of separating stress and feet.
214 Input: Tree Constr: Penult
Length: F F
\ \ w s w s
¹ u n a ¹g a r a ¹ u n a ¹g a r a
NA Stress
Shift: Output: F F
\ \ s w s w
¹ u n a ¹g a r a ¹úna¹gára
Although Hayes’ analysis produces the correct surface forms, it is suspect in that the rule of Stress Shift applies globally. Normally, rules of stress shift are local, i.e., they have a single
trigger typically another stress which is adjacent to the stress that is being shifted.
115
In this case, however, Stress Shift applies throughout the word as though it were another foot-building
rule, and yet Hayes does not formalize it as a foot-building rule. In contrast, the autosegmental analysis in the preceding section appealed to the Uniform Linking Constraint in order to
override the default direction of linking in the same context where Hayes’ rule of Stress Shift applies. Unlike Stress Shift, the autosegmental analysis is not subject to the charge of globality
because the Uniform Linking Constraint is presumably innate, i.e., it holds in all languages. Consequently, it would not impose any burden on the language learner. Stress Shift, on the
other hand, is a language-particular rule which must be learned.
In summary, Hayes’ 1982b claim that feet have inherent heads forces him to posit a rule of Stress Shift which changes the headedness of all feet in the middle of the derivation just in
case the dominant node of any foot branches. This rule should be rejected because, unlike most stress shift rules, it applies globally. The autosegmental analysis is able to avoid this problem
precisely because it rejects Hayes’ implicit claim that feet have inherent heads.
Next, I review the analysis of Yidin
y
that is proposed in Halle and Vergnaud 1987b.
4.3.2. Halle and Vergnaud’s 1987b Analysis
