structure can exist apart from stress. This is the topic of the present section. Section 2.2 argues for the final point, which is that the observed behavior of stress is consistent with what is
known about autosegments, and vice versa.
What are the arguments, then, for the claim that feet can exist independently of stress? This section reviews two kinds of evidence for this claim. The first line of evidence comes from the
realm of prosodic morphology and the second concerns the interaction of stress and length in Yidin
y
, a language of Australia. These are presented in sections 2.1.2.1 and 2.1.2.2, respectively.
2.1.2.1. Stressless Feet in Prosodic Morphology
This section argues that metrical constituents i.e., feet can exist without stress. The basis for this argument comes from the theory of prosodic morphology as developed in McCarthy
1981 and McCarthy and Prince 1986, 1987, 1990 henceforth, MP. This theory is concerned not with stress but rather with the interaction between prosodic structure
particularly the mora, the syllable, the foot, and the prosodic word and morphology. Since MP’s theory examines feet from a different perspective using data that are somewhat different
from the data which are addressed by theories of stress, one might well expect it to shed new light on the nature of stress assignment. This is, in fact, suggested but not pursued in McCarthy
and Prince 1990. Crowhurst 1991b makes extensive use of MP’s theory in separating foot- building which she formalizes as inserting, associating, and projecting a foot from stress
assignment. In Crowhurst’s theory, however, stressed feet have heads and stress is not autosegmental.
How, then, does MP’s typology of morphological feet compare to the various typologies of stressed feet that have been proposed? It turns out that the inventory of morphological feet is
essentially identical to the inventory of Hayes’ stressed feet except for one striking difference. All of Hayes’ stressed feet have heads which surface as stress, while the feet of prosodic
morphology exhibit no evidence of having heads or stress except in those cases where stressed feet and morphological feet are coterminous.
One might be tempted to dismiss this apparent difference by claiming that morphological feet do, in fact, have heads which they simply never make use of except when the same feet are
used for both morphology and stress. However, there are two problems with this claim. First, the preceding section argued that heads are not needed even for stressed feet. Second, the
claim that morphological feet have heads incorrectly predicts that grammars should be able to refer to those heads. For example, in Hayes’ theory, stress is assigned to metrical heads
although the preceding section argued that those heads are redundant. In the case of purely morphological feet, there are no rules which refer to the heads of these feet. If it is true that
morphological feet have heads, then the complete absence of rules referring to these heads remains unexplained.
Thus, it cannot be the case that morphological feet have heads, and yet Hayes’ theory like many others assumes that heads are present in stressed feet. The theory of MP handles this
discrepancy by proposing that stressed feet and morphological feet are, in fact, two different entities, each subject to the same set of principles and parameters but nevertheless having
different functions and, therefore, capable of operating independently of one another. Following this same approach, Hammond 1989a argues that the type of foot used in
morphological processes, which he terms the parsing foot, is also used in certain purely phonological processes. Under this view, the observation that some feet seem to be headless
while others have heads has a functional explanation: stressed feet need heads and parsing feet do not need heads. However, the many apparent similarities between these two classes of feet
are simply accidental, and Hammond’s solution essentially creates the new binary parameter [stress footparsing foot].
Before such a solution can be accepted as valid, it must be shown that there is no way to relate these two nearly-identical entities in terms of independently needed
principles andor parameters. Crowhurst 1991b solves this problem by arguing for the separation of foot-building from
stress assignment. Given this separation, the difference between parsing feet and stressed feet finds a principled explanation: both kinds of processes utilize the same set of feet, but stress
assignment involves performing operations on or in those feet.
This aspect of Crowhurst’s proposal is the starting point of the present study. I differ from Crowhurst 1991b in terms of the approach to stress assignment but not in the concept of
separating foot-building from stress assignment. In summary, the foot typology that is required in order to account for prosodic
morphological processes is essentially identical to the typology which Hayes 1991 proposes for stressed feet, with one major difference: the feet that are used in morphological processes
do not have heads. Following Crowhurst 1991b and contrary to Hayes 1991, I assume that stress systems make use of the same inventory of feet as that which is used in prosodic
morphology. The surface differences between morphological feet and stressed feet are accounted for by processes which are distinct from foot-building.
One prediction stemming from this conclusion is that it should be possible for other phonological rules to intervene between the construction of feet and the assignment of stresses
to those feet. The next section provides a brief overview of how such intervention is instantiated in the grammar of Yidin
y
.
2.1.2.2. The Use of Stressless Feet in the Derivation of Yidin
