Voilitional function of rhythm

Rhythm is functioning as a frame work of speech organization and is very effective means of expressiveness. Rhythm is a difficult thing to teach/ learn. ER is the stumbling block for Russians. Faulty rhythm (intonation) make your speech poor, unnatural, highly intelligible.

The Phoneme conceptions in our country and abroad

scholar

psychical

fictitious

dental

to exaggerate

underestimate (over)

The conceptions of phoneme put forward at various times in our country and abroad are really too numerous and various. Many of them have common features which provide a basis for classifying this conceptions into certain groups according to which aspect of the phoneme is denied, ignored or underestimated.

Most linguists consider the phoneme to be one of the basic language units. But not all of them have described it in the same way. Some of them define the phoneme in purely “psychological” terms. Others prefer physically grounded definitions. Some scholars take into consideration only the abstractional aspect of the phoneme. Others stick to its material aspect. This has divided the various schools of phonology.

1) “The mentalistic (psychological) view” regards the phoneme as an ideal mental image or a target at which the speaker aims. It is characterized by the denial of the material aspect and the exaggeration of the abstractionally generalized aspect of the phoneme.

This view was originated by the founder of the phonetic theory – Иван Александрович Бодуэн де Куртене. According to his conception, phonemes don’t exist objectively. To his understanding, they only exist in the mind of the speaker and actually pronounced speech sounds are just imperfect realizations of ideal psychical images.

So the phoneme is defined as “психологический эквивалент звука”.

His conception has a clearest psychological colouring. Thus, “a phoneme doesn’t exist objectively, it exists in the mind of the speaker as a complex perception of articulatory movements and muscular sensations. He views phonemes as fictitious units. Just like an invention of scientists and nothing else.

It’s an idealistic conception, since it treats phoneme as a mental units, existing in the mind but not in the reality.

2) Anyway, his theory was developed by Щерба, his decipal. He was under his influence and at first shared his conception. But later (middle 30^th) he gave a truly materialistic conception.

Thus, he was the first to define the phoneme as a real independent distinctive unit which manifests itself in the form of phonetic variants – that is allophones.

3) But Professor Васильев who was an admirer of Щерба's conception developed his theory and finally presented a detailed definition. He states that “a phoneme is a dialectical unity of three aspects. The phoneme serves to perform the following functions: constitutive, distinctive and recognitive”. He writes that the phoneme is material, real and objective because it really exists in the material form of speech sounds – allophones. It is an objective reality existing independently from our will or intention. It is an abstraction because we make it abstract from concrete realizations. It functions to make one word or its grammatical form distinct from the other. It constitutes words and helps to recognize them.

4) The, so-called, “functional view” regards the phoneme as the minimal sound unit by which meanings may be differentiated without much regard to actually pronounced speech sounds, but mining differentiation should be a defining characteristic of phonemes. Thus, the absence of palatalization in [€ ] and palatalization in [L] don’t differentiate meanings.

Лet – let (phonetic mistake; doesn’t change a meaning)

Therefore dark € and L cannot be assigned to different phonemes, because both form allophones of the phoneme [L]. If we turn to the Russian language, the same articulatory features of the Russian Л and ЛЬ do differentiate meaning, thus they must be assigned to different phonemes in Russian.

Пыл – пыль

мол – моль

Лог – лёг

Угол – уголь

According to this conception the phoneme is not a family of sounds because in every sound only a certain number of the articulatory features are involved into differentiation of meaning. So this function approach takes non-distinctive features from the phonemes, thus divorcing the phoneme from actually pronounced speech sounds. This view is actually shared by many linguists: Bloomfield and Jasperson.

5) “The abstractional view of the phoneme” have originated by Фердинанд де Соссюр. They denied the objective reality of the phoneme and defined the phoneme as something totally abstractional. Mr. Twaddle, an American phonetician, declares a phoneme “as an abstractional, fictitious unit, a scientific fiction”. But as a matter of fact, these are only declarations, because he offers his own definition of the phoneme which is only terminologically new. (He introduces the word “microphoneme” which is equivalent to minimal distinctive feature. And “macrophoneme” which is actually equivalent to phoneme. To his understanding, macrophoneme is a sum total of microphonemes which is equivalent to Bloomfield definition of the phoneme as a branch or a bundle of distinctive features.

These theories can be qualified as idealistic, existing in the mind, but not in the reality.

6) “The physical view of the phoneme” was originated by Daniel Jones, the head of the London phonological school. He defined a phoneme as a “family” of related sounds. According to Daniel Jones “a phoneme is a family of sounds in a given language, which are related in character and are used in such a way, that no member of the “family” ever occurs in a word in the same phonetic context that any other” He regards the phoneme as a mechanical total sum of it allophones, but he exaggerated in fact the material aspect of the phoneme and underestimated it’s functional and abstractional aspects. This approach seems to be vulgarly materialistic.

To sum it up, we may say, that the materialistic conception of the phoneme, first put forward by Щерба and later developed by профессор Васильев may be regarded as the most suitable for the purpose of teaching.

Methods of phonological analyses

The aim of phonological analyses of language is the identification of the phoneme and finding out the patterns of relationship into which they fall as the sound system of the language. Actually, there are 2 ways of analyzing speech sounds: if the speech sounds are studied from the articulatory point of view, we speak about the differences and similarities of their production, but phonological approach suggests studying the sound system which is a set of relationships and oppositions which have functional value.

Each language has its own system of phonemes. The aim of the phonological analyses is to determine which differences of sounds are phonemic and which are non-phonemic, and also to find the inventory of the phonemes of this or that language. We are to speak about distributional and semantic methods. The phoneticians who supported the distributional method (Harris) underestimated the distinctive function of the phoneme. They actually consider it possible just to group all the sounds into phonemes according to the laws of phonemic and allophonic distribution: allophones of different phonemes occur in the same phonetic context, allophones of the same phoneme NEVER occur in the same phonetic context.

In any language certain sounds do not occur in certain positions. (the sound “h” in English never occur word-finally; N – never occur word-initially; the sound “t” (unaspirated variant) – never occur word-initially before stressed sounds, while the aspirated variant never follow the sound “s”). Such characteristics permit an identification of phonemes on the ground of distribution. Anyway, to be able to distinguish the meaning the same sounds must be capable of occurring in exactly the same environment (the sounds [p\b] in words “pit\bit”, ‘lay\day”). If different sounds occur in the same phonetic context, they should be allophones of different phonemes. In this case their distribution is contrastive. If similar sounds occur in different positions and never occur in the same phonetic context, they are allophones of one and the same phoneme.

Semantic method is used to determine the phonemic stators of sounds which are not easily identified from the phonological point of view. This method is based on a phonemic rule that phonemes are able to distinguish words and morphemes when opposed to one another. The semantic method attaches great significance to meaning. It consists in substitution of the sound for another in order to ascertain in which cases when the phonetic context remains the same, such substitution leads to a change of meaning. In this case the procedure is called “the commutation test”. It consist in finding minimal pairs of words and their grammatical forms.

[pin] – if we substitute [p] for [b] the substitution leads to the change of meaning. If aspirated [p] to unaspirated [p] the pronunciation would be wrong, but they would be recognizable.

The phonemes of a language form a system in opposition in which any phoneme may be opposed to other phonemes in at least one position in order to establish the phonemic structure of the language. It is necessary to establish the whole system of oppositions (all the sounds should be opposed in word-initial, word-medial and word-final positions). We can speak of 3 kinds of opposition. if members of the opposition differ in one feature, the opposition is called “single”. If 2 distinctive features are marked, the opposition is called “double” (pen-den), if 3 features are marked, the opposition is “triple” (pen-then). The features of a phoneme that are capable of differentiating the meaning are called relevant or distinctive. The features that do not take part in differentiating the meaning are called irrelevant or non-distinctive.

To study the sounds of the language from the functional point of view means to study the way they function, that is, to find out which sounds a language uses as part of its communication system, how sounds are grouped into functionally similar units, termed phonemes. The final aim of the phonological analyses of language is the identification of the phonemes and finding out the patterns of relationship into which they fall as the sound system of the language.

The aim of the phonological analysis is, firstly, to determine which differences of sounds are phonemic and which are non-phonemic and, secondly, to find the inventory of phonemes of the language.

As it was mentioned above, phonology has its own methods of investigation. Semantic method is applied for phonological analysis of both unknown languages and languages already described. The method is based on a phonemic rule that phonemes can distinguish words and morphemes when opposed to one another. It consists in systematic substitution of one sound for another in order to find out in which cases where the phonetic context remains the same such replacing leads to a change of meaning. This procedure is called the commutation test. It consists in finding minimal pairs of words and their grammatical forms. For example:

pen [pen]

Ben [ben]

gain [gain]

cane [kain]

ten [ten]

den[den]

Minimal pairs are useful for establishing the phonemes of the language. Thus, a phoneme can only perform its distinctive function if it is opposed to another phoneme in the same position. Such an opposition is called phonological. Let us consider the classification of phonological oppositions worked out by N.S. Trubetzkoy. It is based on the number of distinctive articulatory features underlying the opposition.

1. If the opposition is based on a single difference in the articulation of two speech sounds, it is a single phonological opposition, e.g. [p]-[t], as in [pen]-[ten]; bilabial vs. forelingual, all the other features are the same.

2. If the sounds in distinctive opposition have two differences in their articulation, the opposition is double one, or a sum of two single oppositions, e.g. [p]-[d], as in [pen]-[den], 1) bilabial vs. forelingual 2) voiceless-fortis vs. voiced-lenis

3. If there are three articulatory differences, the opposition is triple one, or a sum of three single oppositions, e.g. [p]- [ð ], as in [pei]-[ ð ei]: 1) bilabial vs. forelingual, 2) occlusive vs. constrictive, 3) voiceless-fortis vs. voiced-lenis.

American descriptivists, whose most zealous representative is, perhaps, Zellig Harris, declare the distributional method to be the only scientific one. At the same time they declare the semantic method unscientific because they consider recourse to meaning external to linguistics. Descriptivists consider the phonemic analysis in terms of distribution. They consider it possible to discover the phonemes of a language by the rigid application of a distributional method. It means to group all the sounds pronounced by native speakers into phoneme according to the laws of phonemic and allophonic distribution:

1. Allophones of different phonemes occur in the same phonetic context. In this case their distribution is contrastive.

2. Allophones of the same phoneme(s) never occur in the same phonetic context. In this case their distribution is complementary.

There is, however, a third possibility, namely, that the sounds both occur in a language but the speakers are inconsistent in the way they use them, for example, калоши-галоши, and [‘ei∫ э - ‘егжэ]. In such cases we must take them as free variants of a single phoneme. We could explain the case on the basis of sociolinguistics. Thus, there are three types of distribution: contrastive, complementary and free variation.

Вопросы к экзамену:

1) Phonetics as a branch of Linguistics

2) The main branch of the phonetics

3) Methods used in Phonetic investigation

4) The essence of the phoneme

5) 3 aspects of the phoneme

6) Phonemes and allophones

7) Phonetic and phonological mistakes

8) Types of transcription

9) Main trends in the phoneme theory

10) Methods of phonological analyses

11) National varieties of the English Language. Standard pronunciation

12) The northern English pronunciation

13) The standard Scottish pronunciation

14) English dialects

15) Cockney accent

16) Received pronunciation as a phonetic norm. Types of RP

17) Stages of articulation

18) Modifications of phonemes in connected speech (accommodation, assimilation, reduction, elision)

19) The syllabic structure of the English language

20) Theories of syllable formation and syllable division

21) Functional characteristics of syllables

22) The linguistic and acoustic nature of word stress

23) Types and degrees of word stress

24) Functional aspect of Word Stress

25) The concept of intonation

26) The anatomy of English intonation group

27) Functional approach to intonation

28) The subject matter of phonostylistics

29) The speech situation as the key concept

30) Linguistic and extra-linguistic factors

31) The distinction between 2 kinds of speech activities: reading and speaking

32) The problem of classification of phonetic style

33) Rhythm as the linguistic notion

34) Verbal fillers in speech. repetition

35) Introductory fillers

36) American English pronunciation