link to non-canonical iambs from right to left. This interplay of Weight-to-Stress and directionality in non-canonical iambic feet is summarized in 98.
98 Domain = Non-canonical Iambic Foot: In
μ μ, Weight-to-Stress is inapplicable, but is inserted and links from right to left in order to conform to the stress pattern of canonical iambs:
| μ μ →
μ μ Notice that the two parameters of Weight-to-Stress—directionality and iterativity—are
common to virtually all autosegmental rules. It is only the target of Weight-to-Stress, i.e., the heavy syllable, which is not commonly invoked in autosegmental rules. As stated in section
2.2.1, I assume that this is simply an idiosyncratic feature of the stress autosegment.
The Weight-to-Stress Principle is used to derive unbounded feet in a number of languages in sections 3.2 and 4.2.
Next, I discuss the interaction of foot-building with lexical accent.
2.3.3.3. The Degenerate Foot Principle
We now come to what is perhaps the most innovative aspect of my proposal. As was indicated in the preceding discussion, the facts of Mayo stress and reduplication together make
it necessary or at least desirable to assume the Degenerate Foot Principle, stated in 99.
61
99 Degenerate Foot Principle: During foot building, the presence of a stress autosegment linked to any element that is being incorporated into a foot
forces that foot to become degenerate. The application of the Degenerate Foot Principle is illustrated schematically in 100.
100 |
| |
õ õ õ →
õ õ õ õ õ õ
As far as I can tell, this kind of innovation is required of any theory that would attempt to account for the Mayo data that are presented in chapter 5. Furthermore, the facts of
Macedonian stress are consistent with the Degenerate Foot Principle. Section 2.1.1 argued that words with exceptional final stress must have a degenerate i.e., monosyllabic foot if they
have any foot structure at all, and the formation of that degenerate foot can be attributed only to the presence of lexical accent.
61
It may be possible to derive the Degenerate Foot Principle from the Uniform Linking Constraint discussed in the next section for, if a binary foot were to be built around a stressed element, the direction of linking would be determined by the location of
that particular stressed element rather than by the grammar. If, on the other hand, a unary foot were to be built in that instance, it would have no effect on the direction of linking. I do not pursue this idea here.
The motivation for the Degenerate Foot Principle comes from the fact that Mayo’s base of reduplication consists of a disyllabic foot for unaccented words and a single syllable for
accented words; the evidence for this conclusion is presented in section 5.1.2. In order to treat both accentual classes in a uniform manner, it is necessary to assume that accented words have
a degenerate foot at the point in the derivation when reduplication applies.
It should be emphasized that this approach does not entail any claim regarding what might happen to previously-constructed feet when autosegmental stresses are assigned to them. That
is, the Degenerate Foot Principle claims only that a linked stress autosegment may affect the process of foot-building, just as certain segmental features may directly influence the process of
syllabification.
62
The Degenerate Foot Principle does not claim that the assignment of stresses to previously-constructed feet triggers any change in the boundaries of those feet.
In summary, the Degenerate Foot Principle, like the Weight-to-Stress Principle, reflects a property that is unique to the stress autosegment. The Degenerate Foot Principle simply says
that any rule of foot-building must build a degenerate foot whenever it encounters a linked stress autosegment.
2.3.3.4. The Uniform Linking Constraint
