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
As was discussed in section 1.2.2, Hayes 1987, 1991 argues for the inventory of primitive foot types that is shown in 345. In the representations of the moraic trochee and the iamb,
the or construction means that the leftmost representation is constructed wherever possible. Otherwise, the rightmost representation is constructed. In the case of the iamb, there is a three-
way hierarchy of preferences; the leftmost representation is the preferred iambic foot.
345 Hayes’ 1987, 1991 Foot Inventory: KEY: õμ
= light syllable; õμμ = heavy syllable; õ = any syllable Syllabic
Trochee: .
õ õ Moraic
Trochee: .
õμõμ or õμμ
Iamb: Preferred: Else: .
. õμõμμ
õμõ or õμμ
Now consider how Mayo might be categorized within this system. Recall that codas are moraic in Mayo, as evidenced by the failure of Mora Insertion to apply to words like 346a
bwíksu bwiíksu following the application of Phrase-Final Extrametricality. Nevertheless,
150
Another explanation for Mayos contrast between vowel lengthening and consonant gemination is suggested in Burnham 1988, where the contrast between the two types of lengthening is attributed to a lexical contrast between two types of vowels.
Specifically, Burnham claims that the [i] in words like siká has the ability to lengthen itself in the appropriate phrasal context, resulting in siíka, while the [i] in words like mísi has the ability to lengthen the following consonant in that same phrasal context,
resulting in míssi. This approach, however, fails to relate the lengthening contrast to the stress contrast. That is, the fact that the first type of vowel occurs only in unaccented words while the second type occurs only in accented words is a distributional
accident.
neither long vowels nor codas seem to affect stress assignment.
151
This is evident from the non- phrase-final form of bwiksú bwíksu and hooté hoóte in 346b and 347b, respectively, for
if stress assignment were sensitive to syllable weight, then one would expect to find bwíksu and hoóte
or hóote in all environments, not just phrase-finally. Phrase-finally:
Elsewhere: Gloss: 346 a. bwík-su
b. bwik-sú sing-COMPLETE
347 a. hoó-te b. hooté
sit PL-CAUSE
In terms of Hayes’ foot inventory, then, it would appear that Mayo feet are not iambic. If they were, then the heavy syllable in a word like bwiksú would be expected to attract stress, but
this is not observed. This leaves only the two types of trochees as possible foot types for Mayo. It might seem
that accented words such as mísi and híchupa could be categorized as syllabic trochees. However, Hayes claims that trochees are optimally binary, and yet the facts of Mayo
reduplication clearly indicate that accented words do not have binary feet.
152
Consequently, those Mayo words which exhibit first syllable stress cannot be classified as syllabic trochees.
Furthermore, they cannot be moraic trochees for two reasons. First, the moraic trochee is optimally binary, and it has already been argued that words with first syllable stress have
degenerate feet. Second, the moraic trochee is sensitive to syllable weight, and it was already demonstrated in section 3.2.1.2 that neither of Mayo’s two stress types is sensitive to syllable
weight. I conclude, therefore, that the stress pattern of words with first syllable stress cannot be attributed to moraic trochees.
It might seem possible to categorize the feet in words with second syllable stress as syllabic trochees by claiming that the first syllable of every such word is extrametrical, either by rule
in which case lexical accent blocks extrametricality from applying to words with first syllable stress or because it is lexically marked as such. However, this proposal will not work for the
following reason. The preceding section showed that, whenever the rule of Phrase-Final Extrametricality applies to a disyllabic word with regular second syllable stress, its stress shifts
to the first syllable. If the first syllable were already extrametrical, then it would not be possible for Phrase-Final Extrametricality to apply because, as is argued in Hayes 1982a and
Inkelas 1989, a rule of extrametricality cannot apply if it would render an entire word extrametrical. I conclude, therefore, that the extrametricality analysis cannot be correct.
In conclusion, it is simply not possible to categorize either of Mayo’s two stress patterns in terms of Hayes’ inventory of primitive feet. In fact, if one were to attempt to categorize the
stress pattern of each individual Mayo word as an instance of one of Hayes’ primitive foot types, it would be necessary to utilize all three types, and some stems would have to be
categorized as more than one type because of the stress alternations which result from the
151
As the preceding section demonstrated, vowel length sometimes does perturb stress assignment, but the alternations that occur cannot be accounted for simply by saying that stress is attracted to heavy syllables. On the contrary, the interaction that is
observed between stress and vowel length only serves to further complicate the picture if it has to be explained in terms of Hayes theory.
152
See section 5.1.2 for the arguments for this conclusion.
application of Phrase-Final Extrametricality. Thus, the descriptive generalization about Mayo stress, i.e., that every stem exhibits one of two simple stress patterns in all of its forms, would
be lost. This appears to be unavoidable if Hayes’ theory of stress is assumed.
5.2.3. Summary
