autosegment affects the process of foot-building, just as certain segmental features may directly influence the process of syllabification.
In summary, given that Mayo’s reduplicative base must be expressed as a single prosodic unit, there is only one possible conclusion: it must be the case that the foot is the base of
reduplication. This conclusion is valid only if it is assumed that the foot is monosyllabic in accented words, and the latter assumption entails the claim that lexical accent undergoes cyclic
and non-cyclic i.e., postlexical linking as well as cyclic delinking. The next section presents an overview of the analysis of Mayo reduplication in terms of these conclusions.
5.1.2.3. A Summary of Reduplication
Based upon the conclusions of the preceding two sections, the analysis of Mayo reduplication is summarized in 275 to 277 in chart form.
T A R G E T Monomoraic
Bimoraic Unattested
Accented μ
μ μ |
| | 275 Stem = nokwa
n o k nokwa n o k nokwa
Base = [nok] [nónokwa]
[nóknokwa] [nónnokwa]
Accented μ μ μ
| | \
276 Stem = noka n o noka
n o noka Base = [no]
[nónoka] [nónnoka]
[nóknoka] Unaccented μ
μ μ |
| | 277 Stem = noka
n o k a noka n o k a noka
Base = [noka] [nonóka]
[noknóka] [nonnóka]
The monomoraic prefix takes the same form in each example, but this is not observed with the bimoraic prefix. The accented stem in 275 begins with a bimoraic syllable, so the bimoraic
prefix is completely satisfied by the base. In contrast, the accented stem in 276 begins with a monomoraic syllable, so spreading applies to fill the second mora of the bimoraic prefix. The
stem in 277 is unaccented, so the base is long enough to completely satisfy the bimoraic prefix even though the first syllable is monomoraic.
To summarize the point of all the reduplication data, the reduplicative base for Mayo is the foot, but this foot is somewhat unusual in that it consists of only one syllable in the case of
accented words. One further point needs to be made regarding the interaction of foot-building and
reduplication. Since the foot is the reduplicative base, the rule of foot-building has to precede reduplication. However, it is also necessary for foot-building to follow reduplication, just as it
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
