however, there are four additional principles which, although largely independent of my central proposal, nevertheless play important roles in the analyses that are presented in the
ensuing chapters. These principles concern the
i. concept of the foot as a domain for the application of autosegmental processes Foot-as- Domain Principle
ii. linking of stress directly to heavy syllables Weight-to-Stress Principle iii. interaction of lexical accent with foot-building Degenerate Foot Principle, and
iv. Uniform Linking Constraint adapted from the Uniform Headedness Constraint of
Stowell 1979, Halle and Vergnaud 1978, and Hammond 1990b, which requires all of the stressed feet in a word to be stressed on the same edge at any given point in the
derivation.
The first three of the above principles define the three ways in which individual stresses may be linked within feet, whereas the Uniform Linking Constraint is a universal constraint on
word-level representations. Each of these is discussed in turn below.
2.3.3.1. The Foot-as-Domain Principle
The concept of domains is inherent in all versions of lexical phonology. Simply stated, a domain is that entity, defined in phonological, morphological, andor syntactic terms, in which
phonological rules operate. For example, the terms lexical and postlexical generally reflect a distinction between rules which apply to words and rules which apply to phrases, respectively.
The innovative aspect of my proposal, with respect to the concept of domains, is that the foot constitutes a legitimate domain for the application of phonological rules; this is henceforth
referred to as the Foot-as-Domain Principle. In particular, I assume that any set of rules of stress assignment must conform to the established principles of autosegmental theory. This means
that the relationship between a stress autosegment and the foot in which it ends up is formally identical to the relationship between a tonal autosegment and the domain in which it ends up
in a language such as Mende, Etsako, or Tiv.
The use of Foot-as-Domain for inserting and linking autosegmental stress was illustrated schematically in the preceding section. The application of this principle to actual languages is
illustrated in chapter 3.
2.3.3.2. The Weight-to-Stress Principle
As section 2.1.1 pointed out, Prince 1990 argues for the Weight-to-Stress Principle, restated in 92, based largely on the observation that unbounded feet, if they exist, should be
available to function in templatic morphological processes such as reduplication, just as binary feet have been observed to do. Since this appears to be unattested, Prince concludes that
unbounded feet do not exist. Instead, he claims that the effect of unbounded stress is achieved in languages such as Huasteco and Khalkha Mongolian by assigning stress directly to heavy
syllables without the use of feet.
92 Weight to Stress Principle Prince 1990: If heavy, then stressed. Kager 1989 also proposes the Weight-to-Stress Principle as a well-formedness condition on
the output of representations in Dutch and English. In this study, I apply the Weight-to-Stress Principle in three ways. First, at the word level,
Weight-to-Stress is an option which individual grammars may invoke to derive what has generally been referred to as unbounded stress; this process makes no reference to metrical
structure. However, it is also possible for a grammar to apply Weight-to-Stress within the foot in one of two ways. First, a grammar may optionally apply Weight-to-Stress to a footed string.
This differs from unbounded stress systems in that disyllabic feet are required, but it also differs from quantity insensitive stress systems in that stress is attracted to heavy syllables.
Crucially, Weight-to-Stress does not apply to unfooted heavy syllables in such a language.
The other way in which a grammar may choose to apply Weight-to-Stress within the foot is to define the foot as iambic, in which case Weight-to-Stress is the only means by which stress
may be assigned. Each of these ways of applying the Weight-to-Stress Principle is discussed below. I begin
with the word level. Whenever a grammar invokes Weight-to-Stress at the word level, it must choose a setting
for each of two parameters. First, Weight-to-Stress may apply either from left to right or from right to left. Second, it may apply either iteratively or non-iteratively. If it is iterative, then
every heavy syllable in the domain will be stressed, but if it is non-iterative, then only the leftmost or rightmost heavy syllable will be stressed, depending on the setting of the
directionality parameter. The use of these parameters is illustrated schematically below, where μ μ and μ represent a heavy syllable and a light syllable, respectively.
93 Left to Right; Non-iterative: |
μ μμ μ μμ μ → μ μμ μ μμ μ
94 Right to Left; Non-iterative: |
μ μμ μ μμ μ → μ μμ μ μμ μ
95 Left to Right; Iterative: |
| | μ μμ μ μμ μ
→ μ μμ μ μμ μ → μ μμ μ μμ μ
96 Right to Left; Iterative: |
| | μ μμ μ μμ μ
→ μ μμ μ μμ μ →
μ μμ μ μμ μ Notice that the final outputs in 95 and 96 are the same. Different results might be expected
when two heavy syllables are adjacent. In that case, the OCP might be expected to block the second application of Weight-to-Stress, so directionality would be relevant. Of course, the OCP
would come into play only if stress links to the syllable and not to the mora; I leave this as an open question. Otherwise, the setting of the directionality parameter is irrelevant when
Weight-to-Stress applies iteratively to a word in which there are no adjacent heavy syllables.
In each of the preceding examples, the domain in which the Weight-to-Stress Principle applied was the word. However, it is also possible for a grammar to apply Weight-to-Stress
within a foot in one of two ways. First, a grammar may opt to apply Weight-to-Stress directionally to a word, as in the above examples, but with the added stipulation that the target
must be a terminal element of a foot. Chapter 4 applies Weight-to-Stress in this manner in the analyses of Yidin
y
and Capanahua. Finally, some grammars build iambic feet, i.e., feet whose right terminal element is
required or preferred to be heavy. In these languages, the application of Weight-to-Stress is obligatory and the domain in which it applies is the foot. Iterativity is not relevant since an
iambic foot has at most one heavy syllable. Directionality is relevant, but this is only because it is the right member of the foot that is heavy in the preferred iamb.
60
In order to avoid violating the Weight-to-Stress Principle in a system that utilizes iambic feet, the direction of linking has
to be from right to left. I assume that this direction applies to all iambic feet, including those which do not contain a heavy syllable; see the discussion below. In other words, in this case
the Weight-to-Stress Principle overrides the otherwise-independent ability of grammars to select either direction of autosegmental linking. This is illustrated in 97.
97 Domain = Canonical Iambic Foot: In
μ μ μ, Weight-to-Stress applies; directionality is irrelevant: |
μ μμ →
μ μμ Although the Weight-to-Stress Principle forces some feet to be right-stressed, it cannot directly
account for the stress patterns of all putatively iambic feet, for in some cases iambic feet have the form μ μ. Consequently, it must be assumed that the stress pattern of canonical iambs,
which is determined entirely by the Weight-to-Stress Principle, forces the stress autosegment to
60
Recall that I am assuming Hayes 1991 inventory of primitive feet, minus the heads. In this system, the iamb is the only foot in which the Weight-to-Stress Principle obligatorily applies. Left-stressed asymmetric feet, if they exist, would be handled in the
same manner as iambs, and applying Weight-to-Stress in a foot of the form [μμ μμ], if it exists, would be equivalent to setting the directionality parameter without applying Weight-to-Stress.
link to non-canonical iambs from right to left. This interplay of Weight-to-Stress and directionality in non-canonical iambic feet is summarized in 98.
98 Domain = Non-canonical Iambic Foot: In
μ μ, Weight-to-Stress is inapplicable, but is inserted and links from right to left in order to conform to the stress pattern of canonical iambs:
| μ μ →
μ μ Notice that the two parameters of Weight-to-Stress—directionality and iterativity—are
common to virtually all autosegmental rules. It is only the target of Weight-to-Stress, i.e., the heavy syllable, which is not commonly invoked in autosegmental rules. As stated in section
2.2.1, I assume that this is simply an idiosyncratic feature of the stress autosegment.
The Weight-to-Stress Principle is used to derive unbounded feet in a number of languages in sections 3.2 and 4.2.
Next, I discuss the interaction of foot-building with lexical accent.
2.3.3.3. The Degenerate Foot Principle
