Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T07:19:43.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Focus, mode and the nucleus

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

This article argues for the hypothesis that the location of the nucleus of the intonation contour is rule-governed. The term ‘nucleus’ is taken to refer to what has elsewhere been discussed as the ‘nuclear syllable’ (Crystal, 1969), ‘tonic’ (Halliday, 1967a), ‘sentence stress’ (Schmerling, 1976), ‘[I stress]’ (Chomsky & Halle, 1968), and ‘Designated Terminal Element’ (Liberman & Prince, 1977) (ignoring certain differences of analysis, such as that between double-nucleus and single-nucleus interpretation of some contours). Drawing on the facts of English and Dutch, it does so by attempting to identify the linguistic options available to speakers that are relevant to the location of the nucleus. The main argument hinges on the assumption that the chief functions of the location of the nucleus are (1) to signal the focus distribution of the sentence and (2) to signal whether the sentence is or is not meant as a counter-assertion, with the proviso that in many instances the location of the nucleus allows of more than one interpretation of one or both variables. Section 1 devotes some discussion to the problem of predictability, while the concepts of ‘focus’ and ‘normal stress’ are explored in Sections 2 to 4. Section 5 states the sentence accent assignment rule (SAAR), giving illustrations of its application. In Section 6, special attention is devoted to the pragmatic effects of SAAR in subject + predicate sentences. Section 7 attempts to give a fuller definition of the constituents the rule refers to and puts a general condition on its application. Section 8 introduces the variable mode, while Section 9 defines the problem of the location of the nucleus in sentences with minimal focus and introduces another accent assignment rule (PFR). A summary in the form of a set of propositions concludes the article. I should like to point out that most of the examples in this article are attested; it is only the more pedestrian ones that have been made up for the purpose of illustrating certain points.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , September 1983 , pp. 377 - 417
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

Allerton, D. J. (1978). The notion ‘Givenness’ and its relations to presupposition and 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
Berman, A. & Szamosi, M. (1972). Observations on sentential stress. Lg 48. 304–325.Google Scholar
Bing, J. M. (1979). Aspects of English prosody. Bloomington: IULC.Google Scholar
Bing, J. M. (1980). The given/new distinction and the unmarked stress pattern. NELS xi. 13–21.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1958). A theory of pitch accent in English. Word 14. 109–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1961). Contrastive accent and contrastive stress. Lg 37. 83–96.Google Scholar
Reprinted in Bolinger, D. (Abe, I. & Kanekiyo, T., eds.), Forms of English: accent, morpheme, order. Tokyo: Hokuou (1965). 101–117.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1972). Accent is predictable (if you're a mind-reader). Lg 48. 633–644.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1978). Review of Schmerling (1976). American Journal of Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Brazil, D. (1975). Discourse intonation vol. 1. Birmingham University: Department of English.Google 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
Brown, G. (1977). Listening to spoken English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Brown, G., Currie, K. L. & Kenworthy, J. (1980). Questions of intonation. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1970). Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and points of view. In Li, C. (ed.), Subject and topic. London: Academic Press. 25–56.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1969). Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. IULC.Google Scholar
Reprinted in Chomsky, N., Sudies on semantics in generative grammar. The Hague: Mouton (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Cruttenden, A. (1981). Falls and rises: meanings and universals. JL 17. 77–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D. (1969). Prosodic systems and intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (1975). The English tone of voice. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Dik, S. (1978). Functional grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Dik, S. (1980). Perspectives on functional grammar. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dik, S. et al. (1980). On the typology of focus phenomena. Leids Taalkundig Bulletin GLOT 3. 41–74.Google Scholar
Edwards, E. A. (1979). Topic marking in Haida. IJAL 45. 149–156.Google Scholar
Firbas, J. (1979). Post-intonation-centre prosodic shade in the modern English clause. In Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (eds), Studies in English linguistics for Randolph Quirk. London: Longman. 125–133.Google Scholar
Fuchs, A. (1980). Accented subjects in ‘all-new’ sentences. In Wege zur Universalienforschung (Festschrift fur Hans-Jakob Seiler). Tübingen: Gunter Narr. 449–461.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (1978). Review of Schmerling (1976). Dutch Quarterly Review 8. 233–240.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (1981). Nucleus, focus and mode. Paper given at the Tenth PILEI Symposium held at Cornell University (1 August), Ithaca (NY).Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967 a). Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967 b) Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part 2. JL 3. 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höhle, T. N. (1972). ‘Normalbetonung’ und ‘Normale Wortstellung’: eine pragmatische Explikation. Leuvense Bijdragen 68. 385–437.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jong, J. de (1980). On the treatment of focus in functional grammar. Leids Taalkundig Bulletin GLOT 3. 89–115.Google Scholar
Kraak, A. (1970). Zinsaccent en syntaxis. Studia Neerlandica 4. 41–62.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. R. (1978). Stylized intonation. Lg 54. 517–540.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. R. (1980). The structure of intonational meaning: evidence from English. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. R. (1981 a). ‘Rhythm and sentence stress in a modified Liberman–Prince theory.’ Paper given at the Phonology Colloquium held at Cornell University (24 July), Ithaca (NY).Google Scholar
Ladd, D. R. (1981 b). A first look at the semantics and pragmatics of negative questions and tag questions. Papers from the seventeenth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 164–171.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1972). The global nature of the nuclear stress rule. Lg 48. 285–303.Google Scholar
Leek, F. C., van, der (1980). Reflexive or non-reflexive. Dutch Quarterly Review 10. 124–146.Google Scholar
Liberman, M. (1975). The intonational system of English. MIT Dissertation.Google Scholar
Liberman, M. & Prince, A. (1977). On stress and linguistic rhythm. LIn 8. 249–336.Google Scholar
Lodewyckx, A. (1944) A handbook of Dutch. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1981). Language, meaning and context. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
Oakeshott-Taylor, J. (1981). /Nót to stress/ or tó stress/? On the location of ‘Tonic Prominence’ in English. Linguistic Agency University of Trier paper, Series A, no. 86.Google Scholar
O'Connor, J. D. & Arnold, G. F. (1973). Intonation of colloquial English, 2nd edition. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Paardekooper, P. C. (1963). Beknopte ABN-syntaxis. Den Bosch: Malmberg.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1979) Toward a taxonomy of the Given/New distinction. In Cole, P. (ed), Radical pragmatics. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Schmerling, S. F. (1974). A re-examination of normal stress. Lg 50. 66–73.Google Scholar
Schmerling, S. F. (1976). Aspects of English sentence stress. Austin: Texas University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taglicht, J. (1982) Intonation and the assessment of information. JL 18. 213–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watters, J. R. (1979). Focus in Aghem. In Hyman, L. M. (ed.), Aghem Grammatical Structure. Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics 7. 137–197.Google Scholar