exceptions have been explained in terms of independently-needed constraints. In contrast, if the direction of the spread rule were specified to be rightward, then it would not be possible to
utilize existing rules and constraints to account for those cases in which the direction of spread is actually leftward.
In summary, the autosegmental approach is able to formally relate the contrast between vowel lengthening and consonant gemination to the absence versus presence of lexical accent,
respectively, by assuming that the direction for the rule of spread is leftward, and that this rule applies late in the derivation both lexically and postlexically. In particular, when it applies
during the postlexical phase it has to be ordered after the insertion and linking of in monosyllabic unaccented words.
In section 3.1.1.2, the possibility was raised that Mayo’s contrast between first and second syllable stress might be represented by including a “pure diacritic” in the underlying
representations of words in one of the two stress classes. This diacritic would have the effect of preventing a word from undergoing the regular rules of stress assignment, forcing it to undergo
some other set of rules instead. The problem with such an approach is now apparent in that the observed correlation between stress class and lengthening class would be totally coincidental.
In other words, the analysis would have to stipulate something like the following: “words of class A have first syllable stress and exhibit consonant gemination; words of class B have
second syllable stress and exhibit vowel lengthening.” In contrast, the autosegmental analysis proposed here relates a word’s stress pattern to its lengthening pattern in a principled way. For
this reason, the autosegmental analysis is to be preferred over a “pure diacritic” analysis.
The next section considers how the theories of HV and Hayes might handle the above Mayo data. It is argued that neither of these theories is able to account for all of the facts of
Mayo stress in a uniform manner. This constitutes yet another argument against the theories of HV and Hayes and in favor of the autosegmental theory of stress.
5.2.2. Further Problems for Other Theories
It was pointed out in the preceding section that Mayo has both derived and underlying vowel length, and an autosegmental account of both derived vowel length and derived
consonant gemination was presented. This section evaluates two theories of stress, that of HV and that of Hayes 1987, 1991, in terms of their ability to account for the same data that were
presented in the preceding sections. I conclude that neither of these theories is able to predict the alternations that occur, especially in words with long vowels.
I consider first the theory of HV, and then Hayes’ theory.
5.2.2.1. Analyzing the Mayo Data Using the Theory of Halle and Vergnaud
An important assumption of HV’s theory is the Faithfulness Condition, which claims that there is always a one-to-one correspondence between prominence and constituency in the
output of the phonology. In what follows, I show that the interaction of stress with segmental lengthening effects in Mayo provides an indirect argument against the Faithfulness Condition.
148
The preceding section demonstrated, using the autosegmental analysis that was proposed for Mayo, that the stress pattern of phrase-final disyllabic unaccented words such as siíka
cannot be accounted for unless it is assumed that foot-building occurs much earlier in the derivation than the rule which inserts a stress autosegment into feet. This supports the claim
that feet are inherently headless.
149
Consider, now, how the analysis that was arrived at using HV’s theory might attempt to formally relate the contrast between vowel lengthening as in
siíka and consonant gemination as in míssi to the independently-needed contrast between
unaccented and accented words. As was argued earlier, there has to be some way to formally relate these two sets of phenomena, for the presence or absence of lexical accent is the only
thing that consistently determines whether it will be the vowel or the consonant that lengthens in these words.
It turns out that there is no way to accomplish this using HV’s theory apart from stipulation. For example, the analysis that was devised in section 5.1.3 on the basis of HV’s
theory assumed that a single foot-building algorithm, repeated in 342, applies to every Mayo word to produce binary feet in unaccented words and degenerate feet in accented words.
342 Mayo Stress Assignment Using HV’s theory: a. Construct bounded right-headed feet from left to right.
b. Construct an unbounded left-headed word tree. c. Conflate lines 1 and 2.
Using this analysis, the derivation of stress and length following the application of Phrase-Final Extrametricality is illustrated in 343 and 344 for an unaccented word and an accented
word, respectively.
343 Input: Phrase-Final EM: Mora
Insertion: Refoot:
s i k a s i k a
s i μ k a s i μ k a
148
This argument against HVs Faithfulness Condition also constitutes an argument against Hayes 1991 Bijectivity Principle, for these are essentially equivalent to one another.
149
Halle and Vergnaud 1987b:172 claim, for theory-internal reasons which I do not discuss here, that lexical accent cannot be utilized by a grammar that creates headless feet. Thus, the existence of headless feet in Mayo as instantiated in the foregoing
discussion constitutes another counter-argument to HVs theory.
Spread: Output:
s i i k a siíka
Notice that the inserted mora in 343 is assigned its own line 0 asterisk; this is because HV’s formalism requires that a segment have a line 0 asterisk in order to be eligible to bear stress.
The empty mora is then forced to copy the melody of the vowel rather than the consonant, since the latter is incapable of bearing stress. In order to be consistent, however, the inserted
mora in 344 is likewise assigned a line 0 asterisk. This time, the inserted mora ends up in a foot by itself because the lexical accent forces the initial foot to be degenerate. But now the
empty mora is formally stressable even though it never actually surfaces with stress, so it should be unable to copy the melody of the consonant, and míisi should be the output.
344 Input: Phrase-Final EM: Mora
Insertion: Refoot: .
. m i s i
m i s i m i μ s i
m i μ s i Spread: Output:
. m i i s i
míisi In fact, míssi is the attested output, so something is wrong with the above analysis.
The problem cannot be attributed to rule ordering, for the inserted mora in siíka has to be assigned a line 0 asterisk before either the Refooting rule or the Spread rule applies, and it is
the line 0 asterisk that is claimed to prevent Spread from copying the consonant. Furthermore, if one were to assume that an inserted mora does not have its own line 0 asterisk, then
although the correct accented form míssi could now be derived, there would no longer be any way to explain how the inserted mora in siíka acquires its line 0 asterisk.
It turns out, then, that Mayo’s relationship between quantity alternations and stress class has to be derived under HV’s theory via a stipulative rule such as spread leftward if the word is
accented, else rightward; another possible analysis would be spread rightward to a stressed empty
mora, else leftward. While such rules would generate the correct outputs, they open up the
possibility of other rules such as spread leftward if the word contains [+NASAL], else rightward, or spread rightward to a nasalized empty mora, else leftward. Since such rules seem to be
unattested, and since there is almost no limit to the number of logically possible but unattested
rules that this approach would admit, I conclude that HV’s theory is incapable of accounting for the Mayo data in a principled manner.
In fact, any analysis which assumes a one-to-one surface correspondence between prominence and constituency i.e., the Faithfulness Condition and Hayes’ 1991 Bijectivity
Principle will have to stipulate the relationship between stress class and lengthening class in terms of an ad hoc rule, for there is no principled means available for relating the size or type
of a foot to the direction of a spread rule.
150
In contrast, the autosegmental theory of stress is able to formalize the relationship between stress class and lengthening class by treating stress
as an autosegment which can exist independently of feet; no ad hoc devices are necessary. Next, I apply Hayes’ theory to the Mayo data and show that it, too, is unable to provide a
uniform account of the patterns that are observed.
5.2.2.2. Categorizing Mayo Stress using the Theory of Hayes
