In de Chene & Anderson's (1979) article on compensatory lengthening, the authors make two strong claims as to the universal nature of compensatory lengthening. These claims are: (i) that compensatory lengthening occurs in two stages, involving the weakening of a consonant to a glide and the subsequent merger of the resulting diphthong; and (ii) that compensatory lengthening can only occur when there is a pre-existing vowel-length contrast in the language in question.Both of these claims have received considerable attention in the literature. The first claim has never gained widespread acceptance, and has been challenged in several studies. Challenges have come from, for example, Hock (1986), Poser (1986), Sezer (1986) and more recently Gildea (1995). Each of these scholars provides a strong case against the view that compensatory lengthening is always decomposable into two distinct stages. The ensemble of their arguments renders this claim simply untenable.The second claim has gained widespread acceptance, as discussed below. Nevertheless, it has been challenged by a few scholars, for example, Hock (1986), Hayes (1989), Morin (1992) and Lin (1997). Hock (1986) mentions in a footnote that this claim is also ' dubious, except maybe as a tendency', citing as a counterexample final /h/-deletion in Andalusian Spanish, with compensatory lengthening and no pre-existing vowel length contrast. Hayes (1989), in another important article on compensatory lengthening, suggests that, according to moraic theory, a pre-existing distinction between heavy and light syllables should be a sufficient condition to allow compensatory lengthening to occur. Hayes mentions two cases that he knows of that bear out his prediction: Ilokano and, citing * An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1997 meeting of the Linguistic Society of America in Chicago. I wish to thank the audience there, and Stuart Davis in particular. I also wish to thank the three anonymous reviewers for Phonology, as well as the anonymous associate editor, whose comments on earlier versions of this article led to substantial improvements.