was argued that foot-building must occur in other morphological cycles. This can be seen by examining the pair of forms in 278. Since the reduplicated prefix in nok-nóka has copied more
than the first syllable of the stem, it must be the case that the reduplicative base is the foot. However, the actual foot structure of noká is not carried over to noknóka, for stress occurs on a
different vowel in noknóka than in noká. Consequently, it must be the case that foot-building reapplies following reduplication.
278 noká speak nok-nóka
keep speaking This conclusion has interesting implications regarding the behavior of Mayo’s
autosegmental accent. In order to maintain an analysis that applies the reduplication process to accented and unaccented words in a consistent manner, it must be assumed that
i. the presence of a stress autosegment linked to any element that is being incorporated into a foot forces that foot to become degenerate, and
ii. lexical accent undergoes cyclic and non-cyclic linking as well as cyclic delinking. The latter claim was argued for earlier on the basis of the cyclic perseverance of first syllable
stress in accented words. However, the parallel cyclic perseverance of the distinction between the reduplication patterns of accented and unaccented words constitutes an additional
argument for the cyclic linkingdelinking analysis. This is because a lexical accent has to be linked to the leftmost vowel prior to the application of reduplication, but the accent cannot
remain there after reduplication applies.
The next section uses the facts of Mayo reduplication to argue against the theory of HV. In particular, it is shown that HV’s theory must be enriched in order to account for the contrast
between first and second syllable stress while simultaneously accounting for the cyclic application of foot-building. In contrast, the autosegmental theory of stress has been shown to
be capable of handling these facts in a straightforward manner.
5.1.3. A Problem for the Theory of Halle and Vergnaud
This section considers the question of how one might account for the Mayo data of the preceding sections utilizing the theory of HV. It is argued that, although many of the basic
stress facts may be accounted for under HV’s theory, it is nevertheless impossible for HV’s theory to generate the correct stress patterns when the cyclic nature of stress assignment,
which is required by the facts of reduplication, is taken into account.
Recall that each of the loan words from Spanish that were cited in chapter 3 ended up with second syllable stress in the Mayo form. This was the basis for claiming that second syllable
stress is unmarked in Mayo, i.e., that second syllable stress may be derived without the use of lexical accent or lexical extrametricality. This means, in terms of HV’s theory as well as my
theory, that first syllable stress must be attributed to the presence of either lexical accent or lexical extrametricality. But since the very nature of extrametricality prevents it from being
used to account for first syllable stress, it was concluded that lexical accent is the source of first syllable stress.
Assuming, then, that second syllable stress is the unmarked case for Mayo words, how might this stress pattern be derived using the theory of HV? At first glance there is more than
one possible set of rules. One such set is presented in 279, and a sample derivation for an unaccented word is given in 280. The feature of 279 which crucially distinguishes it from
other possible analyses is that the feet in 279 are bounded, which means they are maximally binary.
279 Mayo Stress Assignment Using HV’s theory: a. Construct bounded right-headed feet from left to right.
b. Construct an unbounded left-headed word tree. c. Conflate lines 1 and 2.
280 Input: Step a: Step
b: line 2
line 1 line 0
h i p o n n a k e h i p o n n a k e
h i p o n n a k e Step
c: Output:
line 2 .
line 1 line 0
h i p o n n a k e hipónnake
The application of 279 to an accented word is shown in 281. 281 Input: Step
a: Step b:
line 2 line 1
line 0 ch u p n a k e
ch u p n a k e ch u p n a k e
Step c:
Output: line 2
. line 1
line 0 ch u p n a k e
chúpnake An alternative to 279 is given in 282 with a corresponding derivation. Notice that this
analysis has unbounded feet, and that it utilizes extrametricality. Although lexical extrametricality was ruled out in the above discussion of loan words, this does not necessarily
preclude the assignment of extrametricality by rule as in 282.
282 Alternative analysis using extrametricality and unbounded feet: a. Mark the first syllable extrametrical:
Cannot apply when the first syllable has lexical accent. hiponnake
b. Construct an unbounded left-headed foot: hi ponnake
It is also possible to conceive of another analysis which utilizes extrametricality, but this time with bounded feet, as in 283.
283 Alternative analysis
using extrametricality and bounded feet:
a. Mark the first syllable extrametrical: Cannot apply when the first syllable has lexical accent
hiponnake
b. Construct bounded, left-headed feet from left to right: hi ponna ke
c. Construct an unbounded left-headed word tree: hi ponna ke
. d. Conflate lines 1 and 2.
hi ponna ke It turns out that each of the last two analyses, i.e., 282 and 283, has to be rejected
because 282 incorrectly creates unbounded feet for both accented and unaccented words, and 283 incorrectly creates disyllabic feet for both classes of word. Contrary to both of these
analyses, the reduplication data from the preceding section showed not only that feet must be created prior to reduplication but also that accented words have degenerate feet, as 279
predicts. Thus, both 282 and 283 are eliminated from the list of analyses that might be proposed under the theory of HV. This leaves 279 as the only alternative, i.e., it must be the
case that right-headed feet are constructed from left to right and that the head of the leftmost foot becomes the stress of the word.
Given this conclusion, the only remaining task is to provide a formal account of Mayo’s floating lexical accent within the framework of HV’s theory. Section 3.1.1.2 argued that, since
the prefix [hi-] is stressed in accented words such as híchupnake but not in unaccented words such as hipónnake, it must be the case that lexical accent is a feature of the stem and not of the
prefix [hi-]. Notice that this conclusion is independent of how a theory formalizes the properties of lexical accent. The problem for HV’s theory is, how does the lexical accent
manage to move from the first syllable of a stem such as chúpnake over to the prefix in híchupnake?
There is no precedence for such movement in HV’s theory, where lexical accent is assumed to be prelinked.
131
Nevertheless, within HV’s framework, there is no alternative but to stipulate that lexical accent somehow moves to the leftmost syllable following prefixation.
This is illustrated in 284. 284 Input: Add
Prefix: Move Accent:
chupnake hi-chupnake
hichupnake If this movement of lexical accent were not stipulated, then the process of prefixation would be
expected to neutralize the contrast between accented and unaccented words. As a result, all prefixed forms, including accented ones, would have second syllable stress as in 285b. This,
however, is not the case.
285 a. hí-chupnake b. hi-chúpnake
Thus, a new kind of metrical rule is required in order to account for the Mayo data within the framework of HV. At first glance, it might appear that this innovation could be avoided
by assuming that the reduplication process copies the stem’s lexical accent along with the rest of the melody. If this were the case, then the original accent would still be on the first syllable
of the stem; conflation would presumably prevent this accent from surfacing, as illustrated in 286.
286 Input: Add Prefix: Copy
Melody:
hichupnake μ- hichupnake
hihichupnake Build
Feet: Word Tree: Conflate:
. . . hi hichupna ke
hi hichupna ke hihichupnake
131
Although HV allow for cyclic stress erasure, the latter cannot account for the Mayo data because lexical accent does not disappear in between cycles. Rather, it moves. The cyclic perseverance of accent is attested by the fact, noted earlier, that the
contrast between accented and unaccented stems is not neutralized by affixation.
This would account for the apparent movement of lexical accent following reduplication. However, this solution fails to explain how lexical accent shifts leftward onto a conventional
prefix, i.e., one which does not involve reduplication, as in [hi-] + chúpnake → híchupnake. It would be totally ad hoc to claim that every prefix copies lexical accent from the stem.
To summarize, the Mayo data require an enrichment of HV’s theory in terms of the properties that may be attributed to lexical accent. Specifically, HV’s theory must be
expanded to allow for a cyclic rule which moves a lexical accent to the edge of a word following affixation. Without such an enrichment, HV’s theory is incapable of explaining the
Mayo stress and reduplication data. In contrast, the autosegmental approach that was proposed in section 5.1.1 utilizes only independently-required principles from prosodic theory and
autosegmental theory to provide a uniform account of all the data that have been presented thus far. Thus, the Mayo data constitute an argument in favor of the autosegmental theory of
stress and against HV’s theory.
5.1.4. Summary
