The motivation for the Degenerate Foot Principle comes from the fact that Mayo’s base of reduplication consists of a disyllabic foot for unaccented words and a single syllable for
accented words; the evidence for this conclusion is presented in section 5.1.2. In order to treat both accentual classes in a uniform manner, it is necessary to assume that accented words have
a degenerate foot at the point in the derivation when reduplication applies.
It should be emphasized that this approach does not entail any claim regarding what might happen to previously-constructed feet when autosegmental stresses are assigned to them. That
is, the Degenerate Foot Principle claims only that a linked stress autosegment may affect the process of foot-building, just as certain segmental features may directly influence the process of
syllabification.
62
The Degenerate Foot Principle does not claim that the assignment of stresses to previously-constructed feet triggers any change in the boundaries of those feet.
In summary, the Degenerate Foot Principle, like the Weight-to-Stress Principle, reflects a property that is unique to the stress autosegment. The Degenerate Foot Principle simply says
that any rule of foot-building must build a degenerate foot whenever it encounters a linked stress autosegment.
2.3.3.4. The Uniform Linking Constraint
Halle and Vergnaud 1978 and Stowell 1979 observe that it seems to be the case across languages that all feet within any given word agree in headedness at the output of the
derivation. Hammond 1990b formalizes this generalization as the Uniform Headedness Constraint,
which he invokes in the analysis of Yidin
y
. This study adopts Hammond’s idea. In my terms, however, headedness can refer only to the
direction of linking of the stress autosegment since I have already argued against the existence of metrical heads. Accordingly, I henceforth use the term Uniform Linking Constraint rather than
Uniform Headedness Constraint.
The Uniform Linking Constraint prohibits at all levels of representation representations such as the following in 101, where X represents any element of a foot i.e., either õ or μ.
101 | |
X X ... X X word
The problem with 101 is that a single word contains two stressed feet in which the stress autosegment is linked to opposite edges; one foot is left-stressed and the other is right-stressed.
No matter where they occur within the word, the Uniform Linking Constraint prohibits the simultaneous existence of both types of stressed feet.
62
For example, many languages have constraints on what features may be present in syllable codas. See Ito 1986, 1989 for a discussion of this type of phenomenon.
Notice that the Uniform Linking Constraint concerns only the relationship between stress autosegments and feet. No claim is being made regarding other autosegments besides stress,
nor is it claimed to apply to the relationship between stress and any other domain besides the foot.
The Uniform Linking Constraint is nothing more than a reflection of the basic role which the foot plays in a number of stress systems, and it actually follows from a more general
principle. To see this, consider the following. In order for the foot to be a relevant part of a grammar, there must be evidence for some specific foot structure in the output; Halle and
Vergnaud 1987b formalize this as the Recoverability Condition. Now, if a grammar were to include a rule linking stress to feet without simultaneously requiring those feet to adhere to the
Uniform Linking Constraint, the evidence for the role of the foot in stress assignment would be highly obscure at best. Why? Because stress cannot serve as a diagnostic for the presence of
feet unless there is some kind of regularity to the stress pattern within a given word. If stress were permitted to surface on the left edge of one foot and on the right edge of another foot
within the same word, as illustrated in 101, then foot structure could not be deduced from the locations of stress, and the Recoverability Condition would be violated. Thus, the Uniform
Linking Constraint follows from HV’s Recoverability Condition. To the extent that the latter is a valid part of universal grammar, the Uniform Linking Constraint is also valid.
The Uniform Linking Constraint is invoked in the analysis of Yidin
y
in section 4.2, where it is argued that the direction of linking within the foot is from left to right unless this would
result in a word whose feet are non-uniformly stressed. If the latter is the case, then linking will occur from right to left in order to conform to the direction of linking in the first foot that was
stressed.
In conclusion, the Uniform Linking Constraint prohibits the existence, at any level of representation within a single word, of two stressed feet in which the stress autosegment is
linked to opposite edges. The Uniform Linking Constraint actually follows from HV’s more general Recoverability Condition.
2.4. Summary
This chapter began by defining the concepts of metrical head and stress. It was argued that, since stress is the only diagnostic for the presence of a metrical head, the latter is redundant
and should be eliminated from phonological theory. It was then argued, on the basis of the theory of prosodic morphology as well as on the basis of the facts of Yidin
y
stress, that feet can exist apart from stress. I then explored the hypothesis that stress is autosegmental. After
reviewing the properties of autosegments and comparing those properties to the list of properties of stress that was compiled earlier, and after eliminating those differences that
pertain only to phonetic substance and not to formal behavior, it was concluded that the formal behavior of stress is identical to the formal behavior of autosegments. That is, stress is an
autosegment.
