Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:53:55.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The English Rhythm Rule as an accent deletion rule*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2008

Carlos Gussenhoven
Carlos Gussenhoven
Affiliation:
University of Nijmegen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In order to account for the accentual and rhythmical structure of English, a binary-branching prosodic constituent structur is assumed, in which minimally the syllable and the foot must be headed. Feet are potentially marked as accented. This representation makes it possible to describe the prominence patterns of word groups as resulting from three accent deletion rules, the Compound Rule, the Initial Accent Deletion Rule and the Rhythm Rule. It was shown that the structural change effected by Initial Accent Deletion cannot be expressed in theories which represent stress as a relative concept. Moreover, this rule, which like the Compound rule is a lexical rule, provided evidence for the existence of a stratum in the lexical phonology of English in which compounding and so-called ClassII derivation take place. The Rhythm Rule is a postlexical rule, which was shown to apply to the output of the other two rules. Without the aid of any conditions or constraints, it accounted effortlessly for the stress-shift data presented in the recent literature. It could moreover be shown that apparent cases of stress shift in unaccented speech (in which the Rhythm Rule does not apply) should not in fact be viewed as the output of any stress-shift rule at all, but should be explained as the effect of preboundary lengthening as applying to the different constituents in the prosodic hierarchy. It was argued that an analysis of sentence accentuation whereby focused constituents have to be assigned accents can run into problems that do not exist in a ‘deaccenting’ analysis, in which nonfocused constituents are deprived of their accents. Finally, it was argued that English, unlike Dutch, lacks phonological rules that refer to primary word stress, and that, at best, primary stress may reveal itself in low-level timing distinctions.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , May 1991 , pp. 1 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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

Beckman, E. M. & Edwards, J. (1987). Lengthenings and shortenings and the nature of prosodic constituency. Paper presented at the 1st Laboratory Phonology Conference, Colombus, Ohio.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1958). A theory of pitch accent in English. Word 14. 109–149. Reprinted in Bolinger (1965b). 17–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1964). Around the edge of language: intonation. Harvard Educational Review 34. 282–293. Reprinted in Bolinger D. (1972). Intonation: selected readings. Harmondsworth. Penguin. 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1965a). Pitch accent and sentence rhythm. In Bolinger (1965b). 139–180.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1965b). Forms of English: accent, morpheme, order. Ed. Isamu, Abe & Tetsuya, Kanekiyo. Tokyo: Hokuou.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1986). Intonation and its parts: the melody of language. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. &Gerstman, L. (1957). Disjuncture as a cue to constructs. Word 13. 246–255. Reprinted in Bolinger (1965b). 85–93.Google Scholar
Booij, G. & Rubach, J. (1987). Postcyclic versus postlexical rules in Lexical Phonology. LI 20. 1–44.Google Scholar
Borowsky, T. J. (1986). Topics in the lexical phonology of English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Cooper, W. & Eady, S. (1986). Metrical phonology in speech production. Journal of Memory and Language 25. 369–384.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1986). An introduction to English prosody. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Cruttenden, A. (1986). Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cutler, A. (1986). Forbear is a homophone: lexical prosody does not constrain lexical access. Language and Speech 29. 201–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A. & Norris, D. (1988). The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. Journal of Experimental Phonology: Human Perception and Performance 14. 113–121.Google Scholar
Dasher, R. & Bolinger, D. (1982). On preaccentual lengthening. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 12. 58–71.Google Scholar
Faure, G.Hirst, D. J. & Chafcouloff, M. (1980). Rhythm in English: isochronism, pitch, and perceived stress. In Waugh, L. R. & van Schooneveld, C. H. (eds.) The melody of language. Baltimore: University Park Press. 71–79.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (1976). Autosegmental phonology. PhD. dissertation, MIT. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (1984). On the grammar and semantics of sentence accents. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (1986). Review of Selkirk (1984). JL 22. 455–474.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (1988). Adequacy in intonation analysis: the case of Dutch. In van der Hulst, H. G. & Smith, N. S. H. (eds.) Autosegmental studies on pitch accent. Dordrecht: Foris. 95–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (in preparation). Lexical accent rules in English.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Mohanan, K. P. (1985). Segmental phonology of Modern English. LI 16. 57–116.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Vergnaud, J.-R. (1987). An essay on stress. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hammond, M. (1984). Constraining metrical theory. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. (1981). A metrical theory of stress rules. PhD dissertation, MIT. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. (1984). The phonology of rhythm in English. LI 15. 33–74.Google Scholar
Heuven, V. J. van (1987). Stress patterns in Dutch (compound) adjectives: acoustic measurements and perception data. Phonetica 44. 1–12.Google Scholar
Home, M. (1990). Empirical evidence for a deletion analysis of the rhythm rule in English. Linguistics 28. 959–981.Google Scholar
Hulst, H. G. van der (1984). Syllable structure and stress in Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Jassem, W. & Gibbon, D. (1980). Re-defining English accent and stress. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 10. 2–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kager, R. & Visch, E. (1988). Metrical constituency and rhythmic adjustment. Phonology 5. 21–71.Google Scholar
Kaisse, E. M. (1985). Connected speech. Orlando, Fl.: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kaisse, E. M. (1987). Rhythm and the cycle. CLS 23:2. 199–209.Google Scholar
Kaisse, E. M. & Shaw, P. A. (1985). On the theory of Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2. 1–30.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1966). Über den deutschen Akzent. Studia Linguistica 7. 69–98.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1982). From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In van der Hulst, H. G. & Smith, N. S. H. (eds.) The structure of phonological representations. Part 1. Dordrecht: Foris. 131–175.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1985a). Some consequences of Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3. 85–138.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1985b). The role of quantity in Finnish and English meters. Paper presented at the 11th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (ms). Systematic optionality in the lexical phonology of Chamorro. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. R. (1980). The structure of intonational meaning: evidence from English. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. R. & Monaghan, A. (1987). Modelling rhythmic and syntactic effects on accent in long noun phrases. In Layer, J. & Jack, M. A. (eds.) Proceedings of the European Conference on Speech Technology. Vol. 2. Edinburgh: CEP. 29–32.Google Scholar
Lehiste, I. (1970). Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Liberman, M. (1975). The intonational system of English. PhD dissertation, MIT. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Liberman, M. & Prince, A. (1977). On stress and linguistic rhythm. LI 8. 249–336.Google Scholar
Lieberman, P. (1967). Intonation, perception and language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Loots, M. (1983). Syntax and assimilation of voice in Dutch. In van den Broecke, M. P. R., van Heuven, V. J. & Zonneveld, W. (eds.) Studies for Antonie Cohen: sound structures. Dordmecht: Foris. 173–182.Google Scholar
Mascarò, J. (1976). Catalan phonology and the phonological cycle. PhD dissertation, MIT. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. (1982). Lexical Phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. (1986). The theory of Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Nakatani, L. H. & Schaffer, J. A. (1978). Hearing ‘words’ without words: prosodic cues for word recognition. JASA 63. 234–245.Google Scholar
Nespor, M. & Vogel, I. (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Nespor, M. & Vogel, I. (1989). On clashes and lapses. Phonology 6. 69–116.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. B. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. PhD dissertation, MIT. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Prince, A. (1983). Relating to the grid. LI 14. 19–100.Google Scholar
Rischel, J. (1983). On unit accentuation in Danish–and the distinction between deep and surface structure. Folia Linguistica 17. 51–97.Google Scholar
Rochemont, M. S. (1986). Focus in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmerling, S. F. (1976). Aspects of English sentence stress. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1980). The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. LI 11. 563–605.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1981). On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. In Fretheim, T. (ed.) Nordic Prosody II. Trondheim: TAPIR. 111–140.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1984). Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1986). On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3. 371–405.Google Scholar
Sharp, A. E. (1958). Falling-rising intonation patterns in English. Phonetica 2. 127–152.Google Scholar
Trager, G. L. & Smith, H. L. (1957). An outline of English structure. Washington, DC: American Council of Learned Societies.Google Scholar
Vanderslice, R. & Ladefoged, P. (1972). Binary suprasegmental features and transformational word-accentuation rules. Lg 48. 819–838.Google Scholar
Van, Lancker D., Kreiman, J. & Bolinger, D. (1988). Anticipatory lengthening. JPh 16. 339–347.Google Scholar
Vogel, I. (1989). The role of the clitic group in prosodic phonology. In Szende, T. (ed.) Proceedings of the Speech Research '89 International Conference. Budapest: Linguistics Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. 140–148.Google Scholar
Wells, J. C. (1982). Accents of English. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wells, R. (1987). Voicing assimilation across word boundaries in Russian. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 68. 170–181.Google Scholar