Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T13:44:13.910Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Under stress: a functional explanation of English sentence stress

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Nomi Erteschik-Shir  and
Shalom Lappin
Nomi Erteschik-Shir
Affiliation:
Ben Gurion University of the Negev and University of Ottawa
Shalom Lappin
Affiliation:
Ben Gurion University of the Negev and University of Ottawa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper we argue that it is possible to account for sentential stress in English in terms of the pragmatic property of Dominance, which is assigned to a constituent in discourse contexts. We have shown elsewhere (Erteschik-Shir & Lappin, 1979) that constraints on extraction from syntactic islands, and conditions on certain rules of semantic interpretation are best formulated in terms of the notion of Dominance. In the first part of the paper we review our definition of Dominance and provide operational tests for discerning its presence. In part 2 of the paper we state a rule which assigns primary stress to the constituent of the sentence which is marked for Dominance. We illustrate the operation of this rule with examples of stress patterns which it generates. In part 3 we then compare our analysis of stress with various other proposals for dealing with this phenomenon which are current in the literature. In part 4 we defend the distinction between contrastive and non-contrastive stress, while rejecting the notion of normal sentence stress. We claim that contrastive stress is, in fact, an instance of a distinct set of stress patterns which we refer to as restrictive stress. The assignment of restrictive stress is not marked, but is independently conditioned by three pragmatic features. We characterize these features and formulate rules for the prediction of restrictive stress. We also discuss the relationship between Dominant and restrictive stress. Finally, in the last section of the paper we indicate how the occurrence of primary stress on pronouns and reflexives can be analysed within the framework of our theory.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , September 1983 , pp. 419 - 453
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

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

Bailey, Charles-James N. (1978). System of English intonation with gradient models. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Berman, Arlene & Szamosi, Michael (1972). Observations on sentential stress. Lg 48. 304–325.Google Scholar
Bing, Janet (1980). Aspects of English prosody. University of Massachusetts, Ph.D. dissertation. Reproduced by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Blom, A. & Daalder, S. (1977). Syntaktische theorie en taalbeschrijving. Coutinho: Muiderberg.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight (1972). Accent is predictable (if you're a mindreader). Lg 48. 633–644.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan (1971). Sentence stress and syntactic transformations. Lg 47. 257–280.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan (1972). Stress and syntax: a reply. Lg 48. 326–342.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1974). Language and consciousness. Lg 50. 111–133.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1975). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and points of view. In Li, C. (ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1970). Deep structure, surface structure and semantic representation. In Steinberg, D. & Jakobovits, L. (eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cooper, W. E. & Paccia-Cooper, J. (1980). Syntax and speech. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi (1973). On the nature of island constraints. M.I.T. Ph.D. dissertation. Reproduced by Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1977.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi (1979). Discourse constraints on dative movement. In Givon, T. (ed.), Syntax and semantics 12 (Discourse and Syntax). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi (1981). On extraction from noun phrases (picture noun phrases). ASNP, special issue.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi & Lappin, Shalom (1979). Dominance and the functional explanation of island phenomena. TL 6. 41–85.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi & Lappin, Shalom (1983). Dominance and extraction: Reply to Grosu. TL. 10, 81–96.Google Scholar
Firbas, J. (1974). Some aspects of the Czechoslovak approach to problems of functional sentence perspective. In Danes, F. (ed), Papers on functional sentence perspective. Prague: Academia.Google Scholar
Guéron, Jacqueline (1980). On the syntax and semantics of PP extraposition. LIn 11. 637–678.Google Scholar
Gunter, Richard (1966). On the placement of accent in dialogue: a feature of context grammar. JL. 2 159–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967 a). Notes on transitivity and theme in English, Part 2. JL 3. 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967 b). Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1976). System and function in language. Selected papers, edited by Kress, G. R.. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Höhle, T. N. (1979). Zur Explikation von ‘Normalbetonung’ und ‘normaler Wortstellung’. Unpublished paper, University of Cologne.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1972). Functional sentence perspective. LIn 3. 269–320.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert (1980). The structure of intonational meaning. Bloomington, IND: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George (1972). The global nature of the nuclear stress rule. Lg 48. 285–303.Google Scholar
Lehman, Christina (1977). A re-analysis of givenness: stress in discourse. PCLS 10.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1972). General semantics. In Davidson, D. & Harman, G. (eds.), Semantics of natural languages. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark (1975). The intonational system of English. M.I.T. Ph.D. dissertation. Reproduced by Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1978.Google Scholar
Liberman, M. & Prince, A. (1977). On stress and linguistic rhythm. LIn 8. 249–336.Google Scholar
Newman, Stanley (1946). On the stress system of English. Word 2. 171–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. M.I.T. Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya (1976). The syntactic domain of anaphora. M.I.T. Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Schmerling, Susan F. (1973). Aspects of English Sentence stress. University of Illinois, Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Schmerling, Susan F. (1974). A re-examination of ‘Normal Stress’. Lg 50. 67–73.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C. (1974). Pragmatic presupposition. In Munitz, M. & Unger, P. (eds.), Semantics of philosophy. New York.Google Scholar
Thorsen, Nina (1978). An acoustical investigation of Danish intonation. JPhon 6. 151–175.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie (1979). On contrastive stress. Unpublished MS. Free University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin (1980). Remarks on stress and anaphora. Manuscript. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar