Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T00:20:22.369Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sentence stress and syntactic transformations

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

If the Nuclear Stress Rule of English is ordered within the transformational cycle after all the syntactic transformations, many apparent exceptions to Chomsky & Halle 1968 are predictable, for the stress patterns of certain syntactically complex constructions reflect those of the simple sentences embedded within them in deep structure. This preservation of basic stress pattern through the syntactic derivation provides a new method for determining underlying grammatical representations and deciding questions of syntax. The consequences for linguistic theory, in particular regarding the lexical vs. transformational hypotheses, are discussed.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , June 1971 , pp. 257 - 281
Copyright
Copyright © 1971 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. 173–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1958. Stress and information. American Speech 33. 5–20. (Reprinted in Forms of English, ed. by Isamu Abe and Tetsuya Kanekiyo, 67–83. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1970a. An argument against pronominalization. Linguistic Inquiry 1. 122–3.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1970b. On complementizers: toward a syntactic theory of complement types. Foundations of Language 6. 297–321.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. ms. The theory of complementation in English syntax.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. Readings in English transformational grammar, ed. by Jacobs, R. and Rosenbaum, P., 184–221. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam., and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Dougherty, Ray. 1969. An interpretive theory of pronominal reference. Foundations of Language 5. 488–519.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1970. Root and structure preserving transformations. MIT doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1969. Some rules of semantic interpretation for English. MIT doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1970. Some properties of non-referential noun phrases. Studies in Oriental and general linguistics, ed. by Jakobson, Roman and Kawamoto, Shigeo, 348–73. Tokyo: TEC Co.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert. 1960. A multiply ambiguous adjectival construction in English. Lg. 36. 207–21.Google Scholar
McCawley, James. 1970. English as a VSO language. Lg. 46. 286–99.Google Scholar
Newman, Stanley. 1946. On the stress system of English. Word 2. 171–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1968a. Crossover phenomena. Yorktown Heights, N.Y.: IBM. (Now published by Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, 1971.).Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1968b. On coreferential complement subject deletion. Yorktown Heights, N.Y.: IBM.Google Scholar
Ross, John. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. MIT doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar