How in the world do you tell stressed syllables from unstressed ones??

Is English not your first language? If it isn't, I'm not really sure how else it could be explained.

It's the syllable that gets the most air time when you say a word, basically.

Requirement --- you don't say "REquirement" do you? You say "ReQUIrement"

HELPful
SYLLable

Don't put the emPHAsis on the wrong syllABLE.

Are you by any chance Japanese or Chinese? I've heard they give each word equal emphasis- I'm not sure.

Anyhow, a stressed syllable is the sound that is most important in the word- the one you say more forcefully. You can have more than one, like EM pha SIS beware though, some people put emphasis on differing syllables.

So are you meaning stressed words in poetry for meter and rhyming or just in reading an unknown word and wondering where the accent goes?

JJM said:

Specifically, I want to know how to determine stress so I can analyze, and hopefully write poetry in correct meter.

Click to expand...

If worse comes to worst you can look it up in the dictionary. The primary stress in a word is marked by ' before the stressed syllable. But the real answer is practice. Compare the word reefer, which has a stressed first syllable, with refer, with a stressed second syllable. Apart from the stresses, the two words sound pretty similar. If you say reefer with lots of emphasis on the second syllable, it will sound an awful lot like refer.

Most of us just say it aloud to find the meter:
"What are you supposed to say to a voice that lives inside your head?"
'You could say nothing. Nobody said that I actually wanted to speak to you.'


We call it stress, or saying one part more forcefully, but actually, I think it's just louder and more clearly. "Often" is pronounced with the accent on the first syllable and practically no sound on the second. Off-n. In metered verse, sometimes the meter is broken, on purpose, for variety. This is still iambic pentameter, even though not all the feet are iambs.

When in /disgrace /with for/tune and /men's eyes/
I all/ alone/ beweep/ my out/cast state

But you could, if you wanted to, say it all iambically, like this:

When in/ disgrace /with for/tune and /men's eyes,
I all /alone /beweep /my out/cast state,

It would sound a little jiggety-trot, but it would help train your ear. Another thing that might help is to march to the poem, or to use your muscles in some other way, to get the meter in your brain. Or find a tune that fits.

(But don't try it on anything too modern; stick to older stuff.)

And it is a bit subjective. The only place it's not subjective is with normal speech and individual words -- requirement, not requirement, but requiem, not requiem.

Good luck.

Here's a lesson targeted at non-native speakers (American English). The first half of part 2 is also useful, even though the lesson glosses over secondary stress. The second half of part 2 as well as parts 3 & 4 are dedicated to word stress in the states & capitals of the USA, which can get tedious.

One way to figure out stress is to use minimal pairs; words or phrases that sound the same except for stress, but have different meanings. For example:

"A black bird" vs. "a blackbird".

Or you can try to transcribe the story of Ladle Rat Rotten Hut from Anguish into English. My favourite line: "Oh Grammar, water bag mousy gut." --> "Oh Grandma, what a big mouth you got." -- Note how "mouth you got" --> "mousy gut" and "what a" --> "water"? That's because stress works similarly in words and phrases. As a rule of thumb (but it's way more complicated, and it's really a bad rule-of-thumb) you put the stress on the thing that changes, the thing that carries more meaning.

In words, for example, you tend to stess the root, rather than the suffix: "WATer", "MOUSy". In phrases, you tend to stress the words that carry the meaning:

"WHAT a", "MOUTH you". If you said "mouth YOU", then you'd be putting emphasis on "you" rather than "mouth". Your promoting the word.

So, for example, you'd say:


because the "you" carries the information. If you said [TO you], you'd be implying something like ("not taken it from you"). See?

Notice the "I've" above? The contraction is probably a function of an extremely unstressed "have". The same thing happens for common expressions in speech, such as "wanna" (WANT to --> WANna) or "gonna" (GOing to --> GONna).

But as I said, stress is way more complicated. There is such a thing, for example, as wandering stress:

PHOtograph --> phoTOgrapher --> photoGRAPHic

=

/.. --> ./.. --> \./. [/ = primary stress; \ = secondary stress; . = no stress]

When it comes to poetry, you might be confused, because you're assuming that - when people talk about the "iambic pentameter" - the line should read:

./ ./ ./ ./ ./

But that doesn't work out for you. The lines don't scan that way. Are you wrong?

Nope. Poets rarely do regular metre, for the fear of "sing song". Most literary poetry (such as sonnets) gravitate around the metre rather than slavishly adhering to it. Extreme regularity tends to be feature of more popular forms, such as the limmerick.

For example, Shakespear's famous sonnet Shall I compare thee to a summer's Day:

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
\/./\ ..\./
Thou art more lovely and more temperate.
\../. ../.
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
././ ./././
And summer's lease hath all too short a date.
././ ./././
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
.\./ ./././
And often is his gold complexion dimm'd;
./. ../././
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
./. \.\./ ./
By chance or nature's changing course untrimm'd;
././. /.\./
But thy eternal summer shall not fade
./././. /./
Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow'st;
/./.. .././
Nor shall Death brag thou wander'st in his shade,
..// ./.../
When in eternal lines to time thou grow'st:
/././././
So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
.\./\/ ./\/
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.
././ ./././

This is not an authoritative reading. This isn't the only reading. One thing: what's the difference between "/\/" (primary stress -- secondary stress -- primary stress) and "/./" (primary stress -- unstressed -- primary stress)? To me, it's a slowing of my reading. I'm putting more stress than usual on the unstressed words, and I'm slowing down more. The cut-off point is very subjective.

You'll see that the above poem is loosely based around ./././././ -- but it's not absolute. For example, sometimes a stress gets lost, which is made up for by "speed mumbling" (such as "nor lose possession of that fair though ow'st;" in my reading). There are names for a lot of the variations, but you don't really need to know them. The upshot is that - if you expect poetry to always be regular - stress will make no sense, because poetry varies stress to keep the language interesting.

I've translated poetry from English into German, and often I would stumble over a line. When this happens, I've usually confused stress-levels for a syllable. There are always multiple readings, and often more than one of those result in rhythmic language worthy of a poem. Metre is usually a guide-line, not a rule.

Hope some of this is more helpful than confusing.

bonitakale said:

When in /disgrace /with for/tune and /men's eyes/
I all/ alone/ beweep/ my out/cast state

Click to expand...

This is actually a good example of how people can read that poem differently.

My intuitive reading of the beginning of the second stanza would have been:

___ I / all-a LONE...

Note that Bonita's reading is more regular with the metre, and since it makes sense to pronounce it that way, it's probably the "better" reading.

The difference is one of emphasis: My reading emphasises the "I", and the word "alone" equally, de-emphasising the "all". This makes it sound more "whiny".

Bonita's reading de-emphasises the I, and puts major stress on the "all" (I think even more than on the "Lone"), thus emphasising a feeling of loneliness.

A lot in poetry depends on reading. Metre helps us make choices, which - without more clues - I tend towards Bonita's reading rather than my intuition (with the assumption that my reading stems from me being a more whiny than lonely person, rather than from the poem itself).

Word stress is well defined (you'll find it in pronunciation dictionaries). Sentence stress varies, though.

I tend to lean forward a little when I'm speaking the stressed syllables, I think my throat muscles also clench a little because as part of projecting that syllable more forcefully. Or for a more amusing mental image, stressed syllables are the ones where a passionate speaker is likely to spit by accident.

Also, have you tried singing? Stressed syllables come out more loud and clear, unstressed ones tend to get mumbled or slurred.

Good lord...Dawnstorm you're amazing. I've never understood a lick of this stuff, either. Great explanation!

In poetry, you have to read a poem more than once to get the rhythm. After a while you will just fall into the rhythm.

In Shakespearean verse, you get an accent above the 'e' of a verb sometimes, which means that you pronounce the 'ed' ending:

Damned (we'd probably say this as one syllable, emphasis on the 'da' phonic)
Damn-ed (sorry, I can't add the accent on here. But here there is a stress on the ending)

Dawnstorm said:

This is actually a good example of how people can read that poem differently.

My intuitive reading of the beginning of the second stanza would have been:

___ I / all-a LONE...

Note that Bonita's reading is more regular with the metre, and since it makes sense to pronounce it that way, it's probably the "better" reading.

Click to expand...

Except it's not a better reading.

People do scansion looking for the pattern that's dominant--and we have to do that.

But what is interesting and important is when the poet (or a reader) alters that dominant pattern, and why they alter it.

Shakespeare is notorious for screwing with meter--with intent. Meter is one more way to call attention to a line or phrase, to make the words stand out.

There's something that happens when the meter we expect is altered--and something else appears.

There's also a lot of discussion and useful stuff about meter and scansion and poetry on this AW thread.

Medievalist said:

Except it's not a better reading.

People do scansion looking for the pattern that's dominant--and we have to do that.

But what is interesting and important is when the poet (or a reader) alters that dominant pattern, and why they alter it.

Shakespeare is notorious for screwing with meter--with intent. Meter is one more way to call attention to a line or phrase, to make the words stand out.

There's something that happens when the meter we expect is altered--and something else appears.

There's also a lot of discussion and useful stuff about meter and scansion and poetry on this AW thread.

Click to expand...

I agree, which is why I put "better" in quotation marks. I do use the metre as a sort-of reading guide, and if my intuitive reading goes against the regular reading, I need more evidence from the poem that this reading is supported - something I don't have in only two lines (I didn't recognise the sonnet). I've now looked up the poem and think that I'd probably stick to my reading if...

...Bonita hadn't forgotten to quote a comma:


which alters the syntax, and thus I'd probably not emphasise the I too much, instead having a quick line-intro, sprinting through "I all a-" and making the "lone" the first important syllable (but still having a secondary stress on "I").

Here's the poem.

***

Edit: Oh, and your link doesn't work for me. Is it this thread?

***

Man, this thread shows me how much I neglected poetry in the last couple of years. I really should head over to the subforum more.

Dawnstorm said:

I've now looked up the poem and think that I'd probably stick to my reading if...

...Bonita hadn't forgotten to quote a comma:

When, in disgrace with fortune...​

)

Click to expand...

Well hang on there--this is Shakespeare, and that's an editorial comma.

Not all editors (and hence, not all readers) put a comma there.

Here's the way the text was printed the first time, in 1609:

When in disgrace with Fortune and mens eyes,
I all alone beweepe my out-cast state,
And trouble deafe heauen with my bootlesse cries,
And looke vpon my selfe and curse my fate.
Wishing me like to one more rich in hope,
Featur'd like him, like him with friends possest,
Desiring this mans art, and that mans skope,
With what I most inioy contented least,
Yet in these thoughts my selfe almost despising,
Haplye I thinke on thee, and then my state,
(Like to the Larke at breake of daye arising)
From sullen earth sings himns at Heauens gate,
For thy sweet loue remembred such welth brings,
That then I skorne to change my state with Kings.

As you know, there's a BUNCH of perfectly legitimate ways to read that line, metrically and others.

I all alone could be read as two spondees in a row:

////.

There's a famous reading of this line where the actor deliberately read "I all alone" to match the pattern of the famous Beethoven "Knock at the door" in the Fifth Symphony. It's pushing it a bit, but hey, it's a dramatic reading.

And every editor has done stuff with punctuation.

The key in terms of "doin' it for a grade" is often to make sure that your scansion matches your reading.

(and thanks--I've fixed the URL)

JJM - try it without the words. Read this out loud, saying the syllables in CAPITALS with a bit more force - not a ton more, just the variation you use in normal conversation:

DAda DAda DAda DA
daDA da DAH da DAH
da DAdaDA da DAda da
da DA da DA da DA.

Then try it again with words, same rhythm:
MAry HAD a LITtle LAMB,
its FLEECE was WHITE as SNOW.
and EV'ryWHERE that MAry WENT
the LAMB was SURE to GO.

I'd also add that while I applaud you for going outsidethe classroom to gether more information and explanation, and while in most cases I'm not really in favor of the "student as consumer" idea (because it's more often used to get grades inflated) in this case I'd point out that you are paying this professor to teach you. I think the least he owes you is to try explaining material a few different ways, if you're not getting it the first time.

To add onto what Dichroic suggested, pretend you're speaking to a small child, trying to get the child to repeat after you. Syllable stress is something we do almost instinctively with children, to teach them the language.

(I heard on the radio the other day that some recent research proves that even babies in the womb are picking up on linguistic patterns - they said when German babies just out of the womb start crying, they do so with a falling pitch at the end. French babies' cries rise.)

Medievalist said:

Well hang on there--this is Shakespeare, and that's an editorial comma.

Not all editors (and hence, not all readers) put a comma there.

Click to expand...

Deary me, I really need to be more careful. In theory, I have the education to do so. I need to stop being so lazy.

Thanks for the link. It's very interesting to compare the versions.

I all alone could be read as two spondees in a row:

////.

There's a famous reading of this line where the actor deliberately read "I all alone" to match the pattern of the famous Beethoven "Knock at the door" in the Fifth Symphony. It's pushing it a bit, but hey, it's a dramatic reading.

Click to expand...

Ooh, I can so hear that. I doubt I'd have thought thought of it, unless I'd have done permutations (which I sometimes did if a line baffled me).

The key in terms of "doin' it for a grade" is often to make sure that your scansion matches your reading.

Click to expand...

Which, I suspect, contributes to a lot of confusion about what a stressed syllable is. Every native speakers intuitively gets stress right, but when they have to analyse it where it matters, expectation of too much regularity screws things up. I know I never got metre at school. I had to get to university and learn about the various irregularity-techniques to make sense of the basic principle. Before, I had a specific poetry-reading voice - dreadful, now that I think back.

JoNightshade said:

(I heard on the radio the other day that some recent research proves that even babies in the womb are picking up on linguistic patterns - they said when German babies just out of the womb start crying, they do so with a falling pitch at the end. French babies' cries rise.)

Click to expand...

I read about the study on language log, where they tend to put reported scientific finds into perspective. I haven't yet thought this through properly, but here's the summary:

Mark Liberman on language log said:

So let's sum up. This is a really interesting and suggestive study, which needs to be replicated to be entirely convincing. It finds a fairly large difference in the distribution of pitch and amplitude profiles of French and German neonates, with the French babies tending to produce cries with later peaks that the German babies. The effect size in the reported data is a large one (d=1.0), which is large enough that (if the estimates generalize to new data) a randomly selected French or German baby would be correctly classified as French or German, on the basis of one cry, about 2/3 of the time.

The authors attribute this difference to the typical differences between French and German intonation patterns, through exposure in the womb. It's certainly true that the proportion of final rises in French speech is much greater than in German. But French non-terminal intonational patterns — the ones that generally involve final rises — are not at all like the pitch contour of the "typical" French neonate shown in this paper. The adult phrases will typically involve a large rise on the first or second syllable — to a peak that will often be the highest point in the phrase — with a subsequent fall and then a rise at the very end of the very last syllable, so that there is no final fall. (Today's breakfast hour is over for me, but I promise to give more information on this question within the next few days.)

Click to expand...

I wonder if someone tried listening to the French language as it would sound from inside the womb? I can imagine that some of the final falls would be inaudible. or maybe higher pitches are harder to hear. Plus, since babies have imperfect muscle control, some changesin how they cry (from adult patterns) could be purely physical.

Lady Ice said:

Are you by any chance Japanese or Chinese? I've heard they give each word equal emphasis- I'm not sure.

Click to expand...

By the way, that isn't true (for Chinese, at least). It's just that emphasis in Chinese is more due to the tones than to a stressed meaning. But for instance, in Mandarin, "ni hao," (hello) is very distinctly said as "NI hao". Also, syllables are generally not slurred as they are in English. (Native Chinese speakers learning English have a heck of a time learning to blend one syllable into the next, as native English speakers do.)

Dawnstorm said:

Every native speakers intuitively gets stress right, but when they have to analyse it where it matters, expectation of too much regularity screws things up. I know I never got metre at school. I had to get to university and learn about the various irregularity-techniques to make sense of the basic principle. Before, I had a specific poetry-reading voice - dreadful, now that I think back.

Click to expand...

But don't you think one of the problems is that we don't allow kids to go through the natural sing-song phase, so they get meter in the blood, so to speak? Later, they can learn the exceptions, but they need to start with ba-boom, ba-boom.


Little Jack Horner sat in a corner
Eating his Christmas pie.

Mary, Mary, quite contrary,
How does your garden grow?

How was the hunting, hunter bold?
Brother, the watch was long and cold.

The moon was a ghostly galleon, tossed upon cloudy seas.
The road was a ribbon of moonlight over the purple moor.

We tell them, "Read it as you would speak it," but that's just making poetry into prose. Let them enjoy the rhythm and rhyme. Let them chant. Why not? When they're older is time enough to learn another way--not a better way, just a different style, one that to us seems more 'adult,' more 'educated.'

Hmm -- does anyone know how actors spoke in Shakespeare's time? Not the accent and language, but the poetry? Did they try to make it sound 'natural' as we do, or did they go all out for meter?

bonitakale said:

But don't you think one of the problems is that we don't allow kids to go through the natural sing-song phase, so they get meter in the blood, so to speak? Later, they can learn the exceptions, but they need to start with ba-boom, ba-boom.


Little Jack Horner sat in a corner
Eating his Christmas pie.

Mary, Mary, quite contrary,
How does your garden grow?

How was the hunting, hunter bold?
Brother, the watch was long and cold.

The moon was a ghostly galleon, tossed upon cloudy seas.
The road was a ribbon of moonlight over the purple moor.

Click to expand...

Nursery rhymes and songs, as two examples, are well fit to do that. I agree, actually. My experience is that this sort of rhythm-speak comes naturally to kids and is fun. I'm not at all against language play.

But once you start to teach formal characteristics, with the terms, you need to state right from the bat not to expect too much regularity. I thought I had a tin ear for poetry, because all the teaching was emphasising the formal poetry. I stared at a line of ostensible iambic pentametre (or what have you) and I just didn't see it. I could have dealt with a couple of exceptions (nursery rhymes and songs do have those), but in much poetry irregularity goes beyond exceptions. It's a feature.

We tell them, "Read it as you would speak it," but that's just making poetry into prose. Let them enjoy the rhythm and rhyme. Let them chant. Why not? When they're older is time enough to learn another way--not a better way, just a different style, one that to us seems more 'adult,' more 'educated.'

Click to expand...

By all means. My point, as I hoped to explain above, is a different one. Once you explain the theory of metre, you shouldn't neglect to teach irregularity. There are certain patterns to irregularities (such as dropping the first unstressed syllable of a line, or the "calculated pause" - by dropping an unstessed syllable; google "catalexis") that are just as important to understand metre as the regular pattern (which is simple as long as you don't have to actually read poetry).

I was just told that a certain poem was a certain metre, and the result was that I questioned my ear, or thought I was incapable of reading poetry. Then there was a regular line giving me hope, and an almost regular line making me wonder about clumsy poets, and an utterly irregular line that made no sense at all...

Once I knew what to look for, reading poetry was easier. Way easier. (Btw, I don't actually read poetry as I would speak it. For example, I vary speed more consciously.