Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:19:46.814Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intonation and the assessment of information1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

J. Taglicht
J. Taglicht
Affiliation:
Department of English, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. It is now a commonplace that one of the functions of intonation in English is to divide a discourse into ‘units of information’ and to structure these units by singling out within each one a focal part which contains what the speaker is presenting to the listener as ‘new’, in the sense of ‘newsworthy’ (Halliday, 1967; Quirk et at., 1972; Bolinger, 1958, 1972). The remainder of the information unit (if there is a remainder - some units are all focus) is said to contain ‘given’ information. 2 According to some versions of the theory, many information units – in fact the majority of those with ‘unmarked tonicity’ (Halliday), or with the focus in the ‘neutral position’ (Quirk et at.) – are ambiguous in structure, and the choice between two or more structural possibilities is made in accordance with the context. The principle is illustrated in the following examples, in which the A-sentences provide the context, the nuclear syllable is marked with an accent, and the focal unit is in capitals (Halliday's term for the focal unit is the ‘domain of focus’; Quirk et al. speak of the ‘new element’ or the ‘unit marked as new’)

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , September 1982 , pp. 213 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Akmajian, A. (1979). Aspects of the grammar offocus in English. New York: Garland (MIT thesis, 1970).Google Scholar
Albrow, K. H. (1968). The rhythm and intonation of spoken English. (Programme in Linguistics and English Teaching, Paper 9.) London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Allerton, D. J. (1978). The notion of givenness and its relation to presuppositions and to theme. Lingua 44. 133–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allerton, D. J. & Cruttenden, A. (1979). Three reasons for accenting a definite subject. JL 15.49–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. L. (1958). Stress and information. American Speech 33. 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. L. (1961). Contrastive accent and contrastive stress. Lg 37. 83–96.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. L. (1972) Accent is predictable (if you're a mind-reader). Lg 48. 633–644.Google Scholar
Brazil, D. (1978). Discourse intonation II. (Discourse Analysis Monographs, No.2.) Birmingham: University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1974). Language and consciousness. Lg 50. 111–133.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Charles, Li (ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1971). Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In Steinberg, D. D. & Jakobovits, L. A. (eds), Semantics: an interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics, and psychology. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Coleman, H. O. (1912). Intonation and emphasis. In Miscellanea phonetica I. 6.26. London:International Phonetic Association.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (1969). Prosodic systems and intonation in English. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, I.) Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. & Quirk, R. (1964). System of prosodic and paralinguistic features in English. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, A. (1973). Tone-sequences in English. ArchL 4. 17–26.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967a). Notes on transitivity and theme in English, Pt. 2. JL 3. 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967b). Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1970a). A course in spoken English: intonailon. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1970b). Language structure and language function. In Lyons, J. (1970), 140–165.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1971). On generative semantics. In Steinberg, D. D. & Jakobovits, L. A. (eds), Semantics: an interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics, and psychology. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1970) (ed.) New horizons in linguistics. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
O'Connor, J. D. & Arnold, G. F. (1961). Intonation of colloquial English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
O'Connor, J. D. & Arnold, G. F. (1973). Intonation of colloquial English 2nd ed. London:Longman.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Cole, P. (ed.), Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Sweet, H. (1898). A new English grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Taglicht, J. (1977). Relative clauses as postmodifiers: Meaning, syntax, and intonation. Forum Linguisticum 6. 73–107.Google Scholar