Mora Insertion: Relink
: Spread: Output: |
| õ õ
õ |õ õ | õ
|\ | |\| |
|\| | |
μ μ | μ | μ μ | μ |
μ μ | μ | | | |
| | | | | | | |
s i k a s i k a
s i k a siíka
The above derivation is plausible when considered in isolation, but, in fact, it cannot be utilized to account for the stress pattern of monosyllabic unaccented words such as hoó and
kaá. Extrametricality plays no role in the derivation of these words, and yet their stress pattern
contrasts with that of monosyllabic accented words such as wée ‘go SG’ and yáa ‘do’ see 295 and 296. On the other hand, the right-to-left linking of to the unaccented forms and
the left-to-right linking of lexical in accented forms, as argued in section 5.1.2 correctly derives this contrast. I conclude, therefore, that the right-to-left assignment of to a footless
unaccented word is needed independently of the way in which interacts with extrametricality. This is not possible in a theory which treats stress and metrical feet as
inseparable.
In conclusion, this section has demonstrated two significant facts about unaccented Mayo words. It was observed, first, that stress can be linked directly to an inserted mora in order to
satisfy Mayo’s requirement that every word have exactly one . Second, it was shown that an inserted mora always receives its segmental content from the preceding vowel in unaccented
words. These observations were explained in terms of the autosegmental analysis that was presented in section 5.1, and it was argued that foot-building does not occur in monosyllabic
unaccented words even though they surface with stress. This conclusion was supported not only by theory-internal arguments but also by independent arguments that were based upon
the distribution of stress in words that contain long vowels.
Next, I demonstrate that the rules of Mora Insertion and Phrase-Final Extrametricality apply to accented words in exactly the same manner as they apply to unaccented words, and yet the
surface forms differ significantly from those of unaccented words not only in terms of stress but also in terms of the application of the rule of Leftward Spread. These differences are readily
explained by the principles of autosegmental theory.
5.2.1.2. Derived Onset Gemination in Accented Words
As was mentioned earlier, approximately half of the words in Mayo exhibit the presence of lexical accent. These words differ from unaccented words not only in stress placement but also
in the type of quantity alternation that occurs following the application of Phrase-Final Extrametricality and Mora Insertion. This is illustrated in 330 through 334. Notice that
phrase-final lengthening occurs not on the penultimate vowel, as was observed for unaccented words in the preceding section, but on the following consonant.
Phrase-finally: Elsewhere: Gloss: 330 míssi
mísi cat
331 chókki chóki
star 332 kóbba
kóba head
333 tóppa tópa
stomach 334 tónno
tóno knee
This phrase-final onset gemination is not attested when the first syllable is already bimoraic. This can be seen by comparing 335 with 336 and 337 with 338.
Phrase-finally: Elsewhere: Gloss: 335 a. chúpp-a
b. chúp-a harvest-PRES
336 a. chúp-su b. chúp-su
harvest-COMPLETE 337 a. mákk-a
b. mák-a give-PRES
338 a. mák-la b. mák-la
give-PERFECTIVE Thus, accented words exhibit quantity alternations in an environment that corresponds, in
all relevant respects, to the environment that was attested for similar alternations in unaccented words in the previous subsection. However, the respective quantity alternations in
these two classes of words differ in one crucial aspect: accented words exhibit onset gemination while unaccented words exhibit vowel lengthening. Under the autosegmental approach, this
difference is accounted for as follows.
It was already argued that Leftward Spread cannot apply in an unaccented word because to do so would result in a consonant bearing stress. Consequently, the inserted mora receives its
melody from the vowel to its left. In contrast, the corresponding inserted mora of an accented word cannot be assigned a because the word already has a linked lexical at this point; the
OCP would block the linking of another adjacent to the existing one. Now, given that an inserted mora in an accented word cannot be assigned a , the inserted mora is free to
participate in Leftward Spread. In other words, the condition which blocks Leftward Spread in unaccented words cannot occur in accented words.
The derivation for unaccented words was illustrated in the preceding section. Next, a sample derivation for accented words is given in 339.
147
The input step 339a corresponds to the output of the lexical stratum. In step 339b, the floating accent links and foot-building
subsequently constructs a degenerate foot; these two processes are collapsed into a single step for convenience. Next, Phrase-Final Extrametricality applies. Unlike what occurred in the
derivation of the disyllabic unaccented word, the application of this rule has no effect on the existing foot structure because the foot is degenerate. However, Mora Insertion still applies
step 339d. In this case, the inserted mora is free to participate in Leftward Spread because it
147
Syllable nodes have been omitted from 339 for ease of representation. I assume in steps 339d and 339e that the two moras in the foot are tautosyllabic.
is not associated to a stress autosegment, as was the case for the unaccented word. As a result, consonant gemination occurs step 339e instead of the vowel lengthening that is observed in
unaccented words.
339 a. Input: b. Link, Degen þ:
c. Phrase-Final EM: |
| μ μ
μ μ μ μ
| | | |
| | m i s i
m i s i m i s i
d. Mora Insertion: e. Spread:
f. Output: |
| μ μ μ
μ μμ | |
| \ | m i s i
m i s i míssi
Recall that the rule of Leftward Spread was independently motivated in section 5.1.2 on the basis of the facts of reduplication. The following data provide further evidence that the
grammar specifies the direction of Spread as leftward, not rightward. Stress occurs on the first syllable of báre ‘intend’ and táruk ‘roadrunner’ in all environments, as shown in 340 and
341. This indicates that both words have lexical accent. Nevertheless, both exhibit phrase- final vowel lengthening instead of the expected onset gemination. Notice, however, that the
phrase-final form of each of these words differs from that of unaccented words in that stress generally occurs on the second mora of a phrase-final unaccented word, whereas it occurs on
the first mora of these and all other accented words.
Phrase-Finally: Elsewhere: Gloss: 340 báare bárre báre
intend 341 táaruk tárruk táruk
roadrunner This unexpected vowel lengthening may be reconciled with the normal pattern of onset
gemination if it is assumed that Mayo has a language-specific constraint which prohibits [r] from being moraic. This assumption is supported by the observation that [r] is never found in
coda position in Mayo words, nor does it ever geminate. Given this constraint, the vowel length alternations in 340 and 341 may be attributed to the blocking of the rule of Leftward
Spread that was illustrated in 339. In these words, therefore, the inserted mora has to receive its melody via rightward spread, as was argued for a slightly different reason for unaccented
words.
This explanation is available only if it is assumed that the direction of the spread rule as specified by the grammar is leftward, for this is the direction that is attested for the
reduplication data of section 5.1.2 as well as for the data in 330 through 334, and the
exceptions have been explained in terms of independently-needed constraints. In contrast, if the direction of the spread rule were specified to be rightward, then it would not be possible to
utilize existing rules and constraints to account for those cases in which the direction of spread is actually leftward.
In summary, the autosegmental approach is able to formally relate the contrast between vowel lengthening and consonant gemination to the absence versus presence of lexical accent,
respectively, by assuming that the direction for the rule of spread is leftward, and that this rule applies late in the derivation both lexically and postlexically. In particular, when it applies
during the postlexical phase it has to be ordered after the insertion and linking of in monosyllabic unaccented words.
In section 3.1.1.2, the possibility was raised that Mayo’s contrast between first and second syllable stress might be represented by including a “pure diacritic” in the underlying
representations of words in one of the two stress classes. This diacritic would have the effect of preventing a word from undergoing the regular rules of stress assignment, forcing it to undergo
some other set of rules instead. The problem with such an approach is now apparent in that the observed correlation between stress class and lengthening class would be totally coincidental.
In other words, the analysis would have to stipulate something like the following: “words of class A have first syllable stress and exhibit consonant gemination; words of class B have
second syllable stress and exhibit vowel lengthening.” In contrast, the autosegmental analysis proposed here relates a word’s stress pattern to its lengthening pattern in a principled way. For
this reason, the autosegmental analysis is to be preferred over a “pure diacritic” analysis.
The next section considers how the theories of HV and Hayes might handle the above Mayo data. It is argued that neither of these theories is able to account for all of the facts of
Mayo stress in a uniform manner. This constitutes yet another argument against the theories of HV and Hayes and in favor of the autosegmental theory of stress.
5.2.2. Further Problems for Other Theories
