Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-ktprf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T13:17:44.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stress and Syntax: A Reply

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Joan W. Bresnan
Joan W. Bresnan*
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Ordering Hypothesis of Bresnan 1971a projects the stress contours of simple S's onto complex syntactic structures by permitting stress rules to apply systematically within the transformational derivation. This hypothesis, a principle governing the application of stress rules, is distinct from the stress rules themselves. Berman and Szamosi 1972 fail to observe this distinction in their attempt to demonstrate the futility of any principle like the Ordering Hypothesis. As a result, their ‘counter-examples’, together with facts they do not consider, actually support the Ordering Hypothesis, which is necessary to project onto complex cases any valid generalizations about stress and surface structure or meaning. Lakoff 1972 also makes mistakes of interpretation and argument; his global alternative compares unfavorably with the Ordering Hypothesis in describing and explaining the apparent ‘optionality’ of stress contours.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , June 1972 , pp. 326 - 342
Copyright
Linguistic Society of America 1972

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

Baker, C. L., and Brame, M. K. 1972. ‘Global rules’: a rejoinder. Lg. 48.51–76.Google Scholar
Berman, A. ms. Abstract and agentive sentences.Google Scholar
Berman, A., and Szamosi, M. 1972. Observations on sentential stress. Lg. 48.304–325.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. 1971a. Sentence stress and syntactic transformations. Lg. 47.257–281.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. 1971b. Contraction and the transformational cycle in English. Dittoed.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. ms. Stress and the syntax of relative clauses.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. Readings in English transformational grammar, ed. by Jacobs, R. and Rosenbaum, P., 184–221. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. ms. Some empirical issues in the theory of transformational grammar.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., and Halle, M. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, K. 1968. The passive construction in English. Lg. 44.230–243.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1972. The global nature of the Nuclear Stress Rule. Lg. 48.285–303.Google Scholar
Maling, J. 1971. Sentence stress in Old English. Linguistic Inquiry 2.379–399.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ross, J. 1969. A re-analysis of English word stress: part I. Preliminary version. Dittoed.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. ms. Liaison in French.Google Scholar
Siegel, D. 1971. Deep and surface suffixation filters in phonology. Paper read at the New England Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Stockwell, R. 1971. The role of intonation: reconsiderations and other considerations. (Working papers in phonetics, 21.25–49). Los Angeles: UCLA Phonetics Laboratory.Google Scholar
Wasow, T., and Roeper, T. ms. On the subject of gerunds. To appear in Foundations of Language.Google Scholar