Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:45:29.672Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two views of accent: a reply

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Carlos Gussenhoven
Carlos Gussenhoven
Affiliation:
Instituut Engels-Amerikaans, University of Nijmegen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Bolinger (1972) argued against the notion that the occurrence of sentence accents can be explained on the basis of syntactic structure, a position taken by, among others, Chomsky & Halle (1968) and Bresnan (1971, 1972), at least with regard to a (putative) corpus of sentences with ‘normal intonation’. Bolinger's chief argument against this ‘syntactic’ position was his richly supported observation that sentence accents function independently as markers of information content, and that therefore an approach that derives them from anything other than the intention of the speaker is misguided. In my own approach to the description of the position of sentence accents the view that sentence accents are the expression of the speaker's communicative intentions is fully endorsed. The issue in ‘Two views of accent’ (above, pp. 79–123) is no longer whether sentence accents are derived from syntax, but to what extent the particular word that a sentence accent is placed on is the unit on which these communicative intentions focus. For Bolinger the relation is direct: ‘accents mark individual words focused for their informativeness’, where ‘informativeness’ is subordinate to ‘interest’, which in turn shares with ‘power’ the assignment of accent. In his article, Bolinger criticises an alternative approach exemplified in Gussenhoven (1983) in which the relation is indirect.1 In this approach, which builds on work by Schmerling (1976), Ladd (1980) and others, the speaker is assumed to translate his communicative intensions into choices from a number of linguistic options, most importantly into a focus marking of the semantic constituents in his sentence (fragment). Sentence accent assignment rules translate these choices (again, mainly the focus marking) into sentence accents on particular words. I will adopt the term ‘highlighting’ for the former approach, and will refer to the latter as the ‘focus-to-accent’ approach.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 1985 , pp. 125 - 138
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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

Bolinger, D. (1972). Accent is predictable (if you're a mind-reader). Lg 48. 304–325.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1983). Affirmation and default. Folia Linguistica 17. 99–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brazil, D., Coulthard, M. & Johns, C. (1980). Discourse intonation and language teaching. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1971). Sentence stress and syntactic transformations. Lg 47. 257–281.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1972) Stress and syntax: a reply. Lg 48. 326–342.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Fuchs, A. (1984). ‘Deaccenting’ and ‘Default Accent’. In Gibbon, D. & Richter, H. (eds), Intonation, accent and rhythm: studies in discourse phonology. Berlin: Heidelberg. 134–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (1983). Focus, mode and the nucleus. JL 19. 377–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (1984). On the grammar and semantics of sentence accents. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraak, A. (1970). Zinsaccent en syntaxis. Studia Neerlandica 4. 41–62.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. R. (1980). The structure of intonational meaning: evidence from English. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. R. (1983). Even, focus and normal stress. Journal of Semantics 2, 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Schmerling, S. F. (1976). Aspects of English sentence stress. Austin: Texas University Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar