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.
This conclusion was then formalized as the Autosegmental Stress Hypothesis. It was argued that this hypothesis is a logical extension of HV’s idea of treating stress by means of the same
basic formalism as tone, although HV apply this idea only in limited ways. Next, I proposed a typology of primitive feet similar to that of Hayes 1987, 1991 but
differing from Hayes’ theory in that my feet are inherently headless. The Autosegmental Stress Hypothesis was applied to this typology, producing a set of stressed feet which is equivalent to
Hayes’ inventory of metrical feet except for two additional stressed feet which are not predicted by Hayes’ theory.
Finally, I presented four basic principles that are assumed in the remaining chapters. These included the
•
Foot-as-Domain Principle
•
Weight-to-Stress Principle
•
Degenerate Foot Principle, and
•
Uniform Linking Constraint. The latter is a universal constraint on word-level representations which follows from HV’s
Recoverability Condition; it is required by other theories of stress as well. The remaining three principles define the three ways in which individual stresses may be linked within feet. The
Weight-to-Stress Principle additionally makes it possible to account for unbounded stress systems without the use of feet. By assuming that stress is an autosegment distinct from tone
and other autosegments, it is possible for these special principles to apply uniquely to stress although the Foot-as-Domain Principle applies to other autosegments as well just as other
principles apply only to certain other autosegments.
The chart in 102 summarizes the typology of prominence that is predicted by autosegmental theory in conjunction with the Foot-as-Domain Principle and the Weight-to-
Stress Principle. All of the languages listed as examples in 102 were discussed earlier with the exception of Old English. Based on the existence of various foot-based rules in Old English,
Dresher and Lahiri 1991 argue for a new foot type. However, Hagberg 1993 argues that the foot-based rules may be accounted for using a headless bimoraic foot, and that stress is derived
via a rule which inserts and links a stress autosegment directly to the word from left to right. Thus, Old English instantiates a language whose grammar builds feet which are irrelevant to
stress assignment, for the domain of the latter is the word rather than the foot.
102 Word and Foot as Domains of Stress Assignment: Foot-Building:
Yes Foot-Building: No
Stress Domain: Word Old English
Huasteco Stress Domain: Foot
Warao, C. Arabic Not possible
Huasteco is listed as an another example of a language whose grammar utilizes the word as the exclusive domain into which stress is inserted and linked. Unlike Old English, however,
Huasteco exhibits no evidence of foot structure. Furthermore, the Huasteco stress pattern is derived via the application of Weight-to-Stress; sample derivations are given in section 3.2.
Example 102 lists Warao and Cairene Arabic as examples of traditional stress languages; all such languages use the foot as the primary domain in which stress assignment occurs. The
autosegmental analyses of these stress systems are presented in section 3.1. The next chapter instantiates the typology of stressed feet that was presented in section
2.3.2 as well as the predicted typology of Weight-to-Stress, thus supporting the claim that the autosegmental theory of stress is capable of generating all of the varieties of stress that have
been observed without generating any unattested stress patterns.
70
3. Instantiating the Typology of Stress
The preceding chapter argued for the inherent headlessness of all feet and the autosegmental nature of stress; the latter claim was formalized as the Autosegmental Stress
Hypothesis. The primary task of the remaining chapters is to demonstrate that all and only those stress systems which are predicted by this theory are actually attested. Chapters 4 and 5
are largely devoted to exploiting the Autosegmental Stress Hypothesis in the analysis of data that are problematic for other theories of stress. Before proceeding to these more complex
cases, however, this chapter instantiates the basic typology that is predicted by the Autosegmental Stress Hypothesis. For each language that is considered, the autosegmental
analysis is compared to other proposals that have been made for that stress system. In some cases, most notably for Mayo and Turkish, it is shown that the autosegmental approach is able
to avoid certain ad hoc devices which are required by other theories.
Therefore, the present chapter is organized as follows. Section 3.1 instantiates the typology of binary stressed feet with data from five languages. This typology is divided into two groups:
symmetric and asymmetric stressed feet. Symmetric stressed feet, which always contain exactly two identical constituents, are further subdivided into syllabic and moraic stressed feet. Section
3.2 illustrates the derivation of “unbounded” stress systems via the application of Weight-to- Stress in the word domain. It is argued that all and only those “unbounded” systems which are
predicted by the autosegmental theory of stress are actually attested.
3.1. The Typology of Binary Stressed Feet
The Autosegmental Stress Hypothesis implies that stress may be inserted by rule into a foot and linked to either edge of that foot regardless of the foot’s composition, just as any
autosegment may in principle be inserted and linked by rule to either edge of any domain. Assuming the primitive inventory of stressless binary feet syllabic, moraic, and asymmetric
that was proposed in section 2.3.2.1, there are six logically possible ways to combine these feet with a stress autosegment. These are listed in 103.
103 Predicted Inventory of Stressed Feet: Left-Stressed Syllabic
Right-Stressed Syllabic Left-Stressed Moraic
Right-Stressed Moraic Left-Stressed Asymmetric
Right-Stressed Asymmetric With the exception of the left-stressed asymmetric foot, each of the combinations in 103 is
instantiated below.
63
Section 3.1.1 presents Warao and Mayo as examples of languages with left-stressed and right-stressed syllabic feet, respectively. Mayo’s right-stressed syllabic foot is
not included in Hayes’ 1991 foot typology, but it is argued that this foot type is required in order to account for the Mayo data. Section 3.1.2 presents Cairene Arabic and Turkish as
63
I know of no language in which the left member of the foot is required to be heavy. Dresher and Lahiri 1991 propose such an analysis for Old English, but Hagberg 1993 proposes an alternative analysis which uses symmetric feet. I assume that the
absence of left-stressed asymmetric feet is due to extralinguistic principles of rhythm, as argued in Hayes 1987.
