1|Page

A COMPARISON OF THE APPROACH OF A. C. GIMSON TO

ENGLISH STRESS WITH THAT OF H. J.
GIEGERICH
Unubi, Sunday Abraham
Department of Igala Language and Culture, School of Languages, Kogi State College of
Education, PMB 1033, Ankpa, Nigeria
unubi4u@gmail.com
Ikani, Friday Eneojo
Department of Igala Language and Culture, School of Languages, Kogi State College of
Education, PMB 1033, Ankpa, Nigeria
ikani.Friday@yahoo.com
Akonti, Christopher
Department of English, School of Languages, Kogi State College of Education, PMB 1033,
Ankpa, Nigeria
graciougrace03@yahoo.com
Abstract: This paper compares the approach of A. C. Gimson to English stress with that of H. J.
Giegerich, which is an aspect of their works. According to Firbas (1992) as cited in Johansson
(2008:9), a comparative study of this sort proves to be a useful, dynamic heuristic tool capable
of throwing valuable light on the characteristic features of the works compared. In other words,
when we compare two works, we can see the characteristics of each of them more clearly in
terms of differences and similarities, and the comparison can contribute to a better
understanding of both works (as paraphrased by us). Bearing this in mind, the researchers
painstakingly examine the subject of stress in both works in order to uncover to the readership
the differences and similarities in the approaches of both scholars.

Key word: stress

INTRODUCTION

Stress is the degree of muscular energy or force with which a word is pronounced. Both scholars

capture this definition and other sundry issues relevant to the discussion of stress as a topic in

English phonology. Since English is a stress-timed language, the notion of stress is very crucial

in the study of the English Language.

2|Page

The individual approach of these scholars to the notion of stress, being a topic in English

phonology is almost similar but there are slight differences, hence, the need for comparison as

follows:

Gimson’s approach is pedagogical and descriptive. The simple but pungent way in which he

presents his data and the myriad of examples given, no doubt, suggest that he has his teacher-

readers in mind. Also, his advice to both native and foreign learners towards the end of the

chapters of accent in words and in connected speech is a confirmation of this fact. Giegerich’s

approach, on the other hand, is scientific, generative and prescriptive.

Gimson avoids the term stress and rather uses accent due to the many different ways in which it

(stress) has been used. Even few cases of where he uses the term (stress), he always places it in

quotes. Conversely, Giegerich does not use the term accent – thus we have Gimson’s accent-

neutral, accent-attracting and accent-fixing suffixes and Giegerich’s stress-neutral and stress-

shifting suffixes.

Gimson describes how a syllable is rendered more prominent than its neighbours using four

criteria which are: pitch change, loudness, quantity and quality. On his part, Giegerich says that

for a syllable to bear stress it must satisfy certain structural requirements and these are: (1)

stressed syllable must be heavy while unstressed syllable may be light and (2) ambisyllabicity

(the association of a consonant with two syllables at the same time). According to him, it would

appear, then, that any syllable can become heavy provided a consonant is available for

ambisyllabicity – making it to receive stress.

Gimson refers to various stress patterns of words and in connected speech as stating tendencies

rather than rules. According to him, this is because efforts to reduce the placement of primary
3|Page

accent in English words to a set of rules are bedevilled by the existence of large numbers of

exceptions to almost any rule. Whereas Giegerich refers to the stress patterns of words and in

connected speech as rules of English word stress in which he formulates: foot-level rule, word-

level rule, phrasal prominence rule and the compound prominence rule.

Gimson indicates syllables by dots (.) and accented syllables by large dots (●) or tone mark (`).

Then Giegerich indicates secondary stress by subscript (ˌ) and primary stress by superscript (').

Both scholars agree that accent/stress-neutral suffixes have no effect or make no difference to the

stress pattern of the stem to which they are attached. But Giegerich goes further to add that they

are always unstressed even where they constitute heavy syllables, and even where such suffixes

are stacked together, as in pennilessness. He summarizes that stress-neutral suffixes, then, are

simply appended as unstressed materials to an entirely unmodified base or stem.

For the stress pattern of bisyllabic nouns/adjectives and verbs, where the stress falls on the first

syllables of nouns and adjectives ([`- -]) and on the final syllables of verbs ([-`-]), Gimson says

that this is due to the distinctive patterns exhibited by them. According to him, the distinction lies

only in the alternation between reduced vowel in the first syllables of verbs and full vowel in the

final syllables of verbs, in most cases. Below are some examples:

Noun/Adjective Verb

Envelop(e) enveˋlop(e)

Attribute attriˋbute

Subject subˋject

Combine comˋbine

Conduct conˋduct
4|Page

Contact conˋtact

Progress proˋgress

Produce proˋduce, etc.

On his part, Giegerich accounts for the noun/adjective and verb distinctive patterns as follows: it

is common for nouns to have nonfinal stress and that final stress (primary or secondary) is only

possible in such words as have heavy final syllables. So, nouns are mostly stressed on the first

syllables. On the other hand, it is common for verbs to have final stress based on his theory that

stressed syllables must be heavy.

Gimson mentions the accentual instability of words in which he points out the unstable nature of

primary accent in some compounds. He says that these (compounds) may vary in their accentual

patterns between RP and General American (GA). He gives some interesting examples of these:

Adam’s `apple (RP) vs `Adam’s apple (GA), peanut `butter (RP) vs `peanut butter (GA), shop

`steward (RP) vs `shop steward (GA), stage `manager (RP) vs `stage manager (GA), vocal

`cords (RP) vs `vocal cords (GA), etc. These involve a shift from final accent in RP to initial

accent in GA, he adds. Whereas Giegerich mentions non-predictability of English word stress in

which he proposes that phonemic properties of a word are unpredictable. According to him, such

properties distinguish words from one another. Every word of a language is learnt in its

phonological form by the speaker as he/she learns the language. Thus, the speaker learns word

individually in their phonemic form.

While discussing compound stress, Giegerich says that the distinction between compound words

and syntactic phrases is marked in English, by a difference in stress patterns: black `bird is a

noun phrase and has final stress while `blackbird is a compound noun with stress on the first
5|Page

element. However, he admits that the distinction between compound and phrases is hard to draw.

Similarly, Gimson admits the difficulty in drawing the distinction between compound and

phrases but offers some explanation: it is particularly difficult in those cases where the sequence

of word classes involve regular constitutions of a phrase (and where the primary accent is kept

on the second item) but where the collocation has become idiomatic (i.e. semantically

specialised), as, for example, in ethnic `cleansing, global `warming, third `world, where

adjective and noun are regular constitutions of a noun phrase but where the sequence has

acquired a specialized meaning.

Gimson presents a detailed account of accentual patterns in compounds as against that of

Giegerich. He identifies three broad classes of compounds, as follows: compounds functioning as

nouns, compounds functioning as adjectives and verbs, and pseudo compounds. Of these three,

the most revealing is pseudo compounds. He says they are complex words of Greek origin made

up of two bound forms which individually are like prefixes and suffixes and it is thus difficult to

analyse such words as prefix plus root or root plus suffix. Since they have no clear root, they are

regarded as pseudo compounds. Examples are: `microwave, `telegram, `thermostat, an`tithesis,

`circumflex, `monochrome, ka`leidoscope, etc.

Furthermore, all the examples of compound words presented by Gimson are those made up of

two words only but Giegerich goes further to present examples of compounds made up of two or

three words.

Giegerich does not mention stress-attracting suffixes. In addition, he ignores prefixes but Gimson

mentions both.
6|Page

While discussing the accentual patterns of words, Gimson mentions word-initial and word-final

phonemes, as follows: initial V, initial CV, initial CCV, initial CCCV, final V, final VC, final

VCC, final VCCC and final VCCCC. On his part, Giegerich mentions final and nonfinal stress in

a way that is slightly different. Under final stress, he makes reference to VC, V:, V:C and VCC

as he attempts the correlation between syllable weight and stress.

Both scholars mention isochrony – the rhythmic intervals that are roughly equal in time (in a

speech delivered fluently without interruption or hesitation). Both scholars also mention that

English is a stress-timed language (i.e., the intervals between stressed syllables are isochronous).

The word foot or feet is not found in Gimson’s account of English stress both in word accent and

accent in connected speech. But to Giegerich, discussing English stress both in words and in

connected speech without the concept of foot or feet seems incomplete. Therefore, the word

features prominently in his work.

Since it is not possible to mention the concept of metrical structure without that of the foot,

Gimson does not mention metrical structure. Instead, he makes a superficial mention of what he

calls appendices or ‘extrametrical’ in relation to syllable structure.

Furthermore, Gimson does not mention the concept of eurythmy (the arrangement of weak and

strong units in sentences) which is an important concept in English stress. But Giegerich gives us

a detailed account of the concept. According to him, English tends to favour the regular

alternation of weak and strong syllables both in the foot and above the foot.

Only Gimson mentions epenthesis – the addition of one or more sounds (vowel or consonant) to

the interior of a word to ease pronunciation. The common examples are epenthetic /t/ as in

anthem /æn(t)θ∂m/, pension /pen(t)∫∂n/ and /p/ as in warmth /wɔ:m(p)θ/, triumphs /traɪʌm(p)fs/,
7|Page

etc. On the other hand, only Giegerich mentions enclisis – the phonological attachment of an

unstressed syllable i.e., an unstressed function word, to the preceding stressed syllable where in

syntactic terms it may well be more closely associated with the next word. The unstressed

syllable is then called an enclitic and the word it attaches to is the host. In English, the host and

the enclitic are contracted into a single syllabic (and sometimes even monosyllabic) unit, which

looks and behaves like a single word despite the fact that the enclitic belongs to a different

syntactic constituent from the host. Here are some examples:

does not — doesn’t

is not — isn’t

has not — hasn’t

will not — won’t

should not — shouldn’t

can not ― can’t

must not ― mustn’t

shall not ― shan’t, etc.

Gimson presents an in-depth account of intonation in connected speech. He outlines three

principal functions of intonation, the forms of intonation, the types of nuclear tones (falling,

rising, falling–rising (fall-rise), rising-falling (rise-fall) and level nuclear tones), the meaning of

tones; under which he lists nine: major declaratives, minor declaratives, yes/no–interrogatives,

wh-interrogatives, tag-interrogatives, imperatives, exclamatives, social formulae and tonal

sequences. On his part, Giegerich mentions intonation superficially and nothing more.

Both scholars extensively discuss reduction, assimilation, elision and liaison in connected

speech. However, it is only Giegerich who points out that assimilation (the spread of features of
8|Page

a given segment unto a neighbouring segment) frequently causes the breakdown of phonemic

distinctions that are operative in citation forms. Also, he adds that the spread of features is often

‘leftward’.

Furthermore, both scholars mention juncture but it is only Gimson who goes a step further to

discuss the concept elaborately with array of examples. Giegerich only mentions the word

passively under his discussion of stress-neutral suffixes while talking about geminate (double)

consonants in word stress as in open–openness, pointing out that such geminates (nn) are only

possible in English at the juncture of two morphemes.

Lastly, both scholars acknowledge the role of Syntax and Morphology in Phonology, especially

in this subject of stress in English. The unstressed form or function words (e.g. articles,

prepositions, conjunctions) and the stressed lexical words (e.g. nouns, verbs and adjectives, and

compounds made up of two or more lexical words) belong to Syntax while prefixes, suffixes

(whether inflectional or derivational) as well as roots and stems belong to Morphology. These

have played a major part in the regularities that govern the stress placement in English.

CONCLUSION

The individual approach of these authors to English stress is quite scholarly, unique and

informative. In fact, the academic prowess and ingenuity with which both scholars handle

English stress in their works have immensely helped in simplifying this topic in phonology,

which many students of English often find difficult. Above all, we consider the approaches of

these erudite authors to English stress as complementary rather than competitive, and as such,

both works are seen as invaluable assets to the present and future generations of students of

English in particular as well as students of linguistics in general.

9|Page

References

Giegerich, H. J. (1992). English Phonology: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.

Gimson, A. C. (2008). Gimson’s Pronunciation of English. 7th ed. Revised by Alan Cruttenden.
Holder Education.
Johansson, S. (2008). Contrastive Analysis and Learner Language: A Corpus-based Approach.
University of Oslo. Retrieved from:
http://www.hf.uio.no/ilos/forskning/grupper/Corpus_Linguistics_Group/papers. 6th
September, 2017.