Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-nlwjb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T00:27:28.480Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Binary suprasegmental features and transformational word-accentuation rules

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Ralph Vanderslice  and
Peter Ladefoged
Ralph Vanderslice
Affiliation:
Hunter College of the City University of New York
Peter Ladefoged
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper demonstrates that the rules of the transformational stress cycle can be rewritten and simplified by substituting binary suprasegmental features for degrees of stress. The new prosodic features proposed for English are: (1) heavy, (2) accent, (3) intonation, (4) cadence, (5) endglide, and (6) emphasis. This binary suprasegmental feature system accounts for the grammar-expounding prosodic distinctions of English in an intuitively satisfying way; it factors out accentual and intonational phenomena conflated in ‘stress’; and it incorporates linguistically significant generalizations about the syntactic conditioning of prosodic patterns. In addition, it explains rhythmic and stylistic variations disregarded by previous stress rules; and it allows revision of the stress cycle in ways which enhance its economy and explanatory power while retaining its insights and concinnities.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 48 , Issue 4 , December 1972 , pp. 819 - 838
Copyright
Copyright © 1972 by Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bierwisch, Manfred. 1968. Two critical problems in accent rules. Journal of Linguistics 4.173–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1948. The intonation of accosting questions. English Studies 29.109–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1957. Intonation and grammar. Language Learning 8.31–38. (Reprinted in Bolinger 1965:95–100.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1958a. A theory of pitch accent in English. Word 14.109–149. (Reprinted in Bolinger 1965:17–55.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1958b. Stress and information. American Speech 33.5–20. (Reprinted in Bolinger 1965:67–83.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1965. Forms of English: Accent, morpheme, order. Edited by Isamu Abe and Tetsuya Kanekiyo. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L, and Gerstman, Louis J. 1957. Disjuncture as a cue to constructs. Word 13.246–255. (Reprinted in Bolinger 1965:85–93.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Gunter, Richard. 1966. On the placement of accent in dialogue: a feature of context grammar. Journal of Linguistics 2.159–179.10.1017/S0022226700001456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1963. The tones of English. Archivum Linguisticum 15.1–28.Google Scholar
Heidolph, Karl-Erich. 1966. Kontextbeziehungen zwischen Satzen in einer generativen Grammatik. Kybernetika 2.274–281.Google Scholar
Jones, Daniel. 1917. An English pronouncing dictionary. London: Dent. (11th ed., 1956.).Google Scholar
Jones, Daniel. 1918. An outline of English phonetics. Cambridge: Heffer. (9th ed., 1964.).Google Scholar
Kenyon, John S. 1924. American pronunciation. Ann Arbor: Wahr. (9th ed., 1946.).Google Scholar
Kenyon, John S., and Knott, T. A. 1944. A pronouncing dictionary of American English. Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 1967. Three areas of experimental phonetics. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 1970. An alternative set of vowel shift rules. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 17.25–28.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 1971. Preliminaries to linguistic phonetics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lehiste, Ilse. 1970. Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lieberman, Philip. 1965. On the acoustic basis of the perception of intonation by linguists. Word 21.40–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malone, Kemp. 1926. Pitch patterns in English. Studies in Philology 23.371–379.Google Scholar
Newman, Stanley S. 1946. On the stress system of English. Word 2.171–187.10.1080/00437956.1946.11659290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1970. Aspects of the control and production of speech. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 15.Google Scholar
Pike, Kenneth L. 1945. The intonation of American English. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Pittenger, Robert E., Hockett, Charles F.; and Danehy, John J. 1960. The first five minutes. Ithaca: Martineau.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. ms. A re-analysis of English word stress.Google Scholar
Sledd, James. 1956. Superfixes and intonation patterns. Litera 3.35–41.Google Scholar
Trager, George L., and Smith, Henry Lee Jr. 1951. An outline of English structure. Studies in Linguistics, Occasional papers, 3. (7th printing, 1957.).Google Scholar
Vanderslice, Ralph. 1968. The prosodic component: lacuna in transformational theory. (Report P-3874.) Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
Vanderslice, Ralph. 1970. Occam's Razor and the so-called stress cycle. Language Sciences 13.9–15.Google Scholar
Vanderslice, Ralph. ms. Stress, accent, and emphasis. Paper read at 1967 Summer Meeting of LSA.Google Scholar
Vanderslice, Ralph, and Pierson, Laura Shun. 1967. Prosodic features of Hawaiian English. Quarterly Journal of Speech 53.156–166.10.1080/00335636709382828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster. 1961. New international dictionary, 3rd ed. Springfield: G. & C. Merriam.Google Scholar