Page images
PDF
EPUB

particularly marking these people out as persons of good sense, seems to obviate an objection that they might possibly be fools, and as it would not be very wise to suppose this objection, it would show as little wisdom to endeavour to preclude it by a more than ordinary stress; the plain words of the author, therefore, without any emphasis on them, sufficiently show his meaning.

From these observations, the following definition of emphasis seems naturally to arise: Emphasis, when applied to particular words, is that stress we lay on words which are in contradistinction to other words either expressed or understood. And hence will follow this general rule: Wherever there is contradistinction in the sense of the words, there ought to be emphasis in the pronunciation of them; the converse of this being equally true, Wherever we place emphasis, we suggest the idea of contradistinction.

Emphasis thus investigated and defined, we may observe, that all words are pronounced either with emphatick force, accented force, or unaccented force; this last kind of force we may call by the name of feebleness; or, in other words, where the words are in contradistinction to other words, or to some sense implied, we may call them emphatick; where they do not denote contradistinction, and yet are more important than the particles, we may call them accented, and the particles and lesser words we may call unaccented or feeble; for if we observe the pronunciation of these latter words, we shall find they have exactly the same feebleness as the unaccented syllables of a word whose accented syllable is pronounced with some degree of force: we shall see likewise, that an accented word, which has a degree of force, when compared with unaccented words; when it is joined with an emphatick one, and pronounced immediately before or after it, sinks into a feebleness equal to the unaccented words; and that the unaccented syllables, even of

an emphatick word, are pronounced with as much less force than the accented syllable, as the unaccented syllables of an accented word, are less forcible than the accented syllable of an unemphatick word. These observations are exemplified in the pronunciation of the following sentences:

Exercise and temperance strengthen the constitution.

Exercise and temperance strengthen even an indifferent constitution.

In the first of these sentences, the particles and and the are pronounced like unaccented syllables of temperance and constitution: in the last sentence, the word constitution is pronounced with the same feebleness as the particles and and the; and the two last syllables of the emphatick word indifferent are as much below the second syllable in force, as the particles and unaccented syllables are below those which have an accent.

By this threefold distinction we are enabled to make very considerable advances in the methods of conveying instruction in reading; we can not only mark the emphatick words as usual, but distinguish them from the accented: these again may be distinguished from the unaccented, and by these means we make a nearer approach to the sense of composition, and to a method of conveying our delivery of it to others. But a still greater advance remains to be made by another distinction, a distinction which, to the former advantages of marking the different degrees of force on words,adds the still more striking difference of inflection of voice. This distinction, though obvious and palpable, is perfectly new; and it is hoped it has been so explained in the first part of this work, as to be readily comprehended by the reader; for when it is once comprehended, we may strongly presume that it cannot fail to add greatly to instruction in speaking, as

these two different inflections of voice are the most marking and significant distinctions of speech.

As a specimen of the utility of these distinctio s of emphasis and inflection, we may observe, that a difference of character máy express the different degrees of force with which every word is pronounced, and a different accent may show what inflection each of these forces must adopt. Thus in the following example:

Exercise and temperance strengthen éven án INDIFFERENT constitution.

Here we see a threefold distinction of force the word indifferent is emphatical, and has the greatest stress; the words exercise, temperance, and strengthen, have a lesser degree of force; and the words and, even, an, and constitution, have a still smaller degree of stress, and may be said to be absolutely feeble: and these different forces are diversified by the difference of inflection, as marked in the example. But although, in certain critical cases, where the sense of an author is difficult to point out, all these three distinctions may greatly assist us in conveying the exact pronunciation; yet, in general, it will be quite sufficient to mark the emphatick word with small Italicks, and the rest with Roman letters, without entering into the distinction of the feeble words from those that have a secondary force: which feeble words, if necessary to be pointed out, may be denoted by the small Roman letter, and their different inflections by a different accent.

Those who wish to see this notation more distinctly delineated, may consult the RHETORICAL GRAM. MAR; where, it is presumed, they will find the fullest satisfaction respecting the relative force of unaccented words.

Theory of Emphatick Inflection.

HAVING thus endeavoured to give a clear anddistinct idea of the two different kinds of emphasis, and attempted to prove, that emphasis, properly so called, always supposes contradistinction or antithesis, either expressed or understood; it will now be necessary to show that every emphatick word, properly so called, is as much distinguished by the inflection it adopts, as by the force with which it is pronounced.

We have seen already, that where there is no emphasis, the most significant words in a sentence adopt a different inflection of voice for the sake of variety and harmony: for, provided the sentence reads well, it is of no consequence on which words the different inflections are placed. Thus in the following sentence:

Exercise and témperance strengthen the constitution.

In this sentence, I say, the words temperance and strengthen have the rising, and exercise and constitution the falling inflection; but if this sentence were lengthened by the addition of another member, we should find the inflections shift their places. Thus in the following sentence:

Exercise and temperance strengthen the constitútion and swéeten the enjoyments of life.

Here, I say, the words exercise and constitution have the rising, and temperance and strengthen the falling inflection, as most agreeable to the harmony of the whole sentence: but if a word really emphatical had been in the first sentence, no additional

member would have obliged it to alter its inflection, Thus in the following sentence:

Exercise and témperance strengthen even an indifferent con

stitution.

Here the word indifferent, which is really emphatical, has the falling inflection; and this inflection it will still preserve, though we lengthen the sentence in imitation of the former by an additional member. For example:

Éxercise and temperance strengthen even an indifferent constitútion, and supply' in sóme measure the imperfections of nature.

Here we find that, however the inflection may change place on the rest of the words, the word indifferent must always have the falling inflection, or the sense of the sentence will not be brought perfectly out. In the same manner we may observe, that the same word in another sentence, when it requires the rising inflection, cannot alter that inflection to the falling, without injuring the sense. Thus in the fol

lowing sentence:

He that has but an indifferent constitution ought to strengthen it by exercise and temperance.

Here the word indifferent must necessarily have the emphasis with the rising inflection, whatever may be the inflection on the other words.

As a farther proof that emphatick words cannot alter their inflection, we need only attend to the pronunciation of a line in Milton, where two emphatick words are opposed to each other; speaking of Nimrod, he says

Hunting (and mèn not béasts shall be his game.) B. xii. v. 30.

« PreviousContinue »