The fourth progressive reader

by Anonymous

The following admirable observations on emphasis are worthy of attention.

“In every sentence, and clause of a sentence, there is one or more words which require to be pronounced with a greater degree of force than the other words. Without knowing and marking the accented syllables in words, we cannot give them their proper pronunciation; nor can we bring out the full meaning of a sentence, unless we know and mark the emphatic words. The accented syllables of words we learn by imitating the pronunciation of correct speakers; and by referring, in cases of doubt, to a dictionary in which they are given. The emphatic words in a sentence we can only learn by knowing their relative importance in it, and the precise meaning which the writer of it intended each of them to convey. In fact, if we know the meaning and drift of the sentence, we shall have no difficulty in discovering the emphatic words. In all such cases they are naturally and spontaneously suggested to us, just as they are to persons uttering or speaking their own sentiments. For even the most illiterate persons are sure, when uttering their own sentiments, to lay the proper emphasis on their words; though they may, and very often do, give them the wrong accents. If a laboring man, for example, were to say, “It is a spade, and not a shovel that I want,” he would be sure to pronounce the words “spade” and “shovel” with a greater degree of force than the other words; because he wishes to draw the particular attention of the person whom he addresses to the ideas or things which they represent. Had he merely said, “It is a spade I want,” he would nevertheless have pronounced the word “spade” emphatically, because he wished it to be particularly understood that it was a spade, and not any other implement, such as a shovel, that he wanted. Should he say, “Is the spade broken?” he would pronounce the word “broken” emphatically; because his object is to obtain precise information on that point. But if he should say, “Is it the spade that is broken?” he will lay the emphasis on the word “spade,” and not upon “broken;” because, understanding that there is some implement broken, he wishes to be informed whether it is the spade. Again, should he say, “Is it my spade that is broken?” he will lay the emphasis on the word “my”; because he desires to know whether the spade that is broken is his or not. Should he ask, “Who broke the spade?” he will lay the emphasis on the word “who;” because, being already aware that the spade is broken, his object in making the inquiry is, to learn the name of the person who broke it. And, lastly should he say, “How was the spade broken?” he will make “how” the emphatic word; because, in this case, he wishes to be informed of the manner or way in which the accident occurred.

“It is obvious from what has been said, that if we understand the meaning of what we read, in the same degree as a person understands the thoughts which he utters, we shall, like him, naturally and spontaneously lay the emphasis on the proper words. It is equally obvious, that if we do not understand the meaning of what we read, we shall either have to pronounce all the words with the same degree of force—which would be absurd—or to run the risk of perverting the meaning of the author, by laying the emphasis on the wrong words. The following sentence will exemplify this:—“O fools and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have written concerning me.” If we perceive that the intention of our Saviour was to reproach his disciples for their backwardness in believing, we shall, in reading it, naturally lay the principal emphasis on the word “slow.” But if we do not see that this was the object of the speaker, the chances are we shall lay the emphasis on one of the other words, and thus change or pervert the meaning. For example, if we lay the emphasis on “believe,” it would imply that the disciples were reproached for believing; if on “all,” then the inference would be that they might have believed some of the things which the prophets had written, but that it was foolish in them to believe all. If we lay the emphasis on “prophets,” it would imply that they might have believed others, but that they were fools for believing the prophets; if on “written,” the inference would be, that though they might have believed what the prophets had said, it was foolish in them to believe what they had written; and, finally, if we lay the emphasis on “me,” it would imply that though they might have believed what the prophets had written concerning others, yet they were fools for believing what they had written concerning the Saviour.

Even in the most familiar sentences, illustrations of this may be found. The simple question, for example: “Do you ride to town to-day?” may, by varying the position of the emphasis, be made to suggest as many different meanings as it contains words. If we lay the emphasis on “you,” we wish to ascertain from the person addressed, whether it is he or some other person that is to ride to town to-day; if on “ride,” we mean to ask him whether he purposes to ride or walk; if on “town,” our purpose is to inquire whether it is to the town or to the country he means to ride; and, finally, if we make “to-day” the emphatic word, we wish him to say whether it is to-day or to-morrow he intends to ride to town. Even the preposition “to,” if made emphatic, would imply, though obscurely, that we wished the person addressed to say whether he intended to ride quite as far as the town, or only part of the way.

“We shall show, by a few illustrations, the power which emphasis has over accent when the sense or meaning requires it:—

1. He must increase, but I must decrease.

2. Neither justice nor injustice has any thing to do with the matter.

3. What is done cannot be undone.

4. Religion raises men above themselves, irreligion sinks them below the brutes.