Comments | mutecornett: Nuclear stress rule

mutecornett

Nuclear stress rule

Dec 16, 2006 02:56

Hey, linguists, could any of you explain the Nuclear Stress Rule to me? I'm having a lot of trouble understanding it because I'm really not familiar with the Chomskyan side of the field. (I'm all sociolinguistics and discourse analysis here, so I would super appreciate any help ( Read more... )

Comments 9

general_jinjur December 16 2006, 15:29:59 UTC

i was only a linguistics major for a semester and a half, unfortunately, but i have several linguists on my flist - trochee and kirinqueen are both grad students and very nice people and i'm sure either would be happy to help. troke is currently at a conference, so he may not be able to answer on short notice. i think kirinqueen is pretty good with the chomskyan stuff, and i think she is around and online often. have you tried asking at linguists? they look pretty friendly, and responsive.

sorry to have more advice than answer. :/

mutecornett December 17 2006, 07:01:48 UTC

No, it is EXCELLENT advice. I will probably end up looking to one of your resources when I get hopelessly mired in confusion. ♥!!

zee December 16 2006, 20:10:28 UTC

Oi, Chomsky. You know, I started typing out the basic premise (the most important word in a sentence, which Chomsky called the 'nucleus' of the sentence, is stressed more than the others); then thought to check Wiki, to see if anyone had gone into it more comprehensively, because I'm totally not equipped to 'splain in depth. This is probably the best, concise explanation. Hope that helps?

mutecornett December 17 2006, 07:00:47 UTC

Ah, thank you! I hadn't thought to look in the article on focus in Wikipedia. *facepalm* Thank you again!

(The comment has been removed)

Re: Okay... mutecornett December 17 2006, 06:28:28 UTC

This is wonderful! Thank you so much, you're fantastic, this is exactly the kind of explanation I needed!! And yeah, I'm not fond of what I know of the NSR, since it doesn't predict stress very well, but I'm finding it surprisingly useful for looking at stress in--get this--Brenda Starr, which is what I'm writing my paper on.

So, again, this was wonderful. You're the best!!

(The comment has been removed)

Re: part 2 mutecornett December 17 2006, 06:50:11 UTC

Haha, about the Chomskyan side thing, theoretical linguistics is all one big weird mass of Chomsky to me, even though I know that's not true. Applied linguistics is definitely more my thing though.

eavanmoore December 20 2006, 02:05:14 UTC

Wow, Ang, this is one of my favorite LJ comment threads ever.

mutecornett December 20 2006, 04:23:05 UTC

♥♥♥

Also, I'm sure your paper was wonderful. ♥

eavanmoore December 20 2006, 04:24:06 UTC

Haha, no, it wasn't. But it was time to be done.