Шпаргалка по "Английскому языку"

Thus, until recently it was considered that the oppositions /p—b/, /t—d/, /k— ɡ/, /f—v/, / s-z/, /θ- ð/, etc. were based on the presence and absence of voice. But it has been proved that the presence or absence of voice in these oppositions is not a constant distinctive  feature,  because  the so-called "voiced" consonants  in many phonetic positions are actually not voiced throughout,  (/d/ in "Do that" is voiceless in its initial stage, while /d/ in final position is voiceless either in its last phase or throughout, as in "Yes, I did". Ch. Barber states that the so-called "voiced" /b, d, ɡ/are actually voiceless after diphthongs and historically long vowels, as in "rogue", "feed"). Consequently, their voiced character cannot be considered to be a phonologically relevant feature. Yet, the oppositions /p—b/, /t—d/, etc. exist in the English language, and "cob" is never pronounced as "cop", "had" can never be substituted for "hat", and so on. So there must be at least one phonologically relevant feature on which such oppositions are based.

Acoustic and physiological analyses have proved that the so-called "voiced" consonants in English are always I e n i s  (lax, weak) irrespective of their phonetic environment and position, as compared to the so-called "voiceless" consonants in English which are always fortis (energetic, strong) in all phonetic positions. Compare /pɪk/ and /bɪɡ/. /p/ and /k/ are pronounced with the lips quite tense, with aspiration (especially in the initial /p/) and with the vocal cords not vibrating: the /b/ and /ɡ/ are pronounced with the lips more relaxed, with no aspiration, and with the vocal cords vibrating only in the initial /b/.

Therefore, the phonological oppositions /p—b/,./t—d/, /k—ɡ/, /f-v/, /s-z/, /θ-ð/, etc. are primarily based on fortis vs. lenis articulation, which are their phonologically relevant features. Besides the energy difference, the fortis/lenis correlation also implies that the lenis sounds are regularly shorter than the fortis ones. Thus/z/is a good deal shorter and much less energetic than /s/ (cf. "lose" — "loose", "as" — "ass"). The presence of voice in /b, d, ɡ, v, z, ð/ is an incidental feature that can be neutralized in certain phonetic positions. That is why, when teaching English pronunciation, the importance of the voiced character of these sounds should not be overestimated, whereas special attention should be drawn to their lenis character.

Or again, until recently duration in the English language was regarded as a phonologically relevant feature capable of distinguishing /i:—ɪ/, /u:—ʊ/, /ɔ:-ɒ/, /ɑ:- ʌ/. But in English the quality of the historically long and short vowels differs, so length is not the only feature that distinguishes them. Besides, length differences are conditioned, they therefore cannot be distinctive. Acoustic analysis shows that the length of vowels varies in different phonetic environment and in different positions.

/si: — si:d — si:t/

It is a well known fact that /i:/ in /si:/ is longer than the same sound in /si:d/, and that/i:/ in/si:t/ is the shortest: it is almost as short as /ɪ/ in /sɪd/.

It has also been established that a vowel is longer in front of a fricative than in front of a stop. Thus, / æ / is longer in / æs/ than in / æt/. Besides that, vowel length depends on whether the syllable it occurs in is stressed. Stressed vowels are generally longer than the unstressed vowels. Vowel length also depends on the number of syllables in a word. Compare the duration of /ɑ:/ in "arm" — "disarm" — "disarmament".

As length varies and does not characterize all the allophones of a historically long vowel, length cannot be considered its phonologically relevant feature. But there are perceptual features which constantly distinguish all the English vowels: these are distinctions in their quality, which are based on the slight differences in the tongue positions when producing these vowels, i.e. their articulatory differences.

Thus, the opposition /i:—ɪ/ is based on the following phonologically relevant features: high—narrow vs. high-broad, fully—front vs. front—retracted. The opposition / ɔ:— ɒ / based on the following phonologically relevant features: back—advanced vs. fully back, low—narrow vs. low—broad.

Duration, though it is an incidental feature and therefore cannot be considered phonologically relevant, is nevertheless a very important feature that serves as an additional means of identifying English sounds. For example, the shortening of a vowel generally signals that the following consonant is fortis and voiceless (cf. "seed"—"seat", "had—"hat").

When a monophthong is opposed to a diphthong, there is one extra distinctive feature that differentiates them: it is absence vs. presence of a glide.

THE INTERRELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE PHONEMES OF A LANGUAGE

Once the phonemes of a language are established and their phonologically relevant features are determined, there arises another phonological problem: to describe the interrelationships among the phonemes of a language.

Can different phonemes have common allophones? Can allophones of a phoneme lose any of their phonologically relevant features in certain phonetic positions?

There are three views on the problem.

Scholars who support the morphonological viewpoint (R. Avanesov, P. Kuznetsov, A. Reformatsky and others) claim that a phoneme in a "weak" position may lose one of its distinctive {phonologically relevant} features and, therefore, lose its distinctive function. For example, Russian voiced consonants lose their voiced character and are pronounced as voiceless in final position (as in "луг" /к/ "глаз" /c/, etc.). This leads to the loss of the distinction between /k/ and /г/, /c/ and /з/. Therefore, in word final position the phonological oppositions based on the phonologically relevant features "voiced vs. voiceless" are neutralized in Russian. Scholars term this phenomenon neutralization of phonological oppositions.

Neutralization of phonological oppositions is the loss of a distinctive {phonologically relevant) feature by one of the phonemes of an opposition.

Those who support this view consider that a phoneme is morphemically bound and, therefore, in all the derivatives of "луга" (лугов, луг) we deal with the allophones of one and the same phoneme /г/, and in all the derivatives of "лука" (луком, лук) we deal with the allophones of the phoneme /k/.

Consequently, different phonemes may have common allophones and sometimes a sound may be assigned to either of two phonemes. In the case of [k], it may either be considered an allophone of the phoneme /k/ (as in "лук") or an allophone of the phoneme /г/ (as in "луг").

But the Russian language is the only language in which the phenomenon of neutralization has been examined more or less in depth.

The supporters of the phonological viewpoint (L. Shcherba, D. Jones, K. Pike and others) reject the notion of "neutralization of phonological oppositions". They consider that an allophone cannot lose any of its distinctive features. If it does, it becomes an allophone of the phoneme the distinctive features of which it acquires. Thus, [k] in "луг" is an allophone of /k/, /ə/ in "addition" is an allophone of the schwa vowel phoneme /ə/ (and is not an allophone of /æ/, as in "add"); [t]  in "walked" is an allophone of /t/.

The third viewpoint is that of N. Trubetzkoy, R. Jakobson, and some other linguists who consider that there are phonological units higher than a phoneme - the archiphonemes.

The archiphoneme is an abstraction which combines the distinctive features common to two phonemes. According to this viewpoint both [к] and [г] in "луг" and "лук" are assigned to the archiphoneme /K/ which is neither voiced, nor voiceless.

We assume that for teaching purposes the most suitable viewpoint is that of L. Shcherba and his followers. Accordingly, the phoneme is characterized by definite articulatory and acoustic characteristics and can be easily described as a separate unit of the sound system of language. Whereas the other viewpoints treat the phoneme as a phonological unit which is actually devoid of articulatory and acoustic characteristics, because even its phonologically relevant features appear to be unstable {they can be neutralized). Moreover, the phoneme in that sense embraces sounds that can be assigned to other phonemes as well (the so-called "common" allophones). Such an approach hinders the practical application of phonology to teaching pronunciation. The existence of a number of viewpoints on phonological problems can be explained by the well-known fact that language is too complicated for all its features to be described in terms of any one theory.

TYPES OF TRANSCRIPTION

Besides the problems of phonological analysis of speech sounds discussed above, phonology deals with the problem of representing speech visually. This problem is closely connected with the problems of phonological analysis already discussed, because any system of writing is not a simple record of speech utterances, it is always a generalization about them. Be it ideographic writing (with a different symbol for each word, as in Chinese writing}, or syllabic writing (with a symbol for each syllable, as in Japanese writing), or alphabetic writing (with a symbol for each phoneme or combination of phonemes, as in English), writing systematizes and provides a distinctive symbol for each class of sounds it represents.

A transcription, which is a visual system of notation of the sound structure of speech, is also a generalization of a great variety of sounds that are uttered by speakers of a given language.

The extent of the generalization may vary. One can classify the sounds into phonemes disregarding the different degrees of aspiration, labialization, length, palatalization and other phonologically irrelevant features of the sounds. On the other hand, one can differentiatebetween all those features and classify them as well. Consequently, there may be different types of transcriptions depending upon the degree of exactness required.

If it is accuracy only in the representation of the phonemes of the language that is required, the transcription should provide each phoneme with a distinctive symbol to avoid ambiguity. Such a transcription is generally called phonemic, or broad, transcription. It contains as many symbols as there are phonemes in the language. The phonemic data is usually enclosed between virgules (also called diagonals, slant brackets): / /.

If it is exactness in the differentiation of the allophones of each phoneme that is required, the transcription should provide either different symbols for each allophone, or introduce special marks to represent the different features of the allophones. The former would increase the number of symbols considerably, and that would course great difficulties for those who use it. The latter is more economical, although it makes the notation rather complicated. Scholars usually make use of both ways: they provide some of the typical allophones with distinctive symbols and introduce special marks (called "diacritic marks") to denote the different features the allophones are characterized by. Such a transcription is called a phonetic, or narrow transcription. The phonetic data is customarily enclosed in square brackets: [ ].

It has always been one of the main concerns of the phonetic science to work out a transcription. A phonetic transcription is essential for scientific and practical use. One can hardly do without it in foreign language teaching, in studying spoken languages, dialects, accents. The first attempts to represent speech sounds visually by means of special symbols were made as far back as the 16 th century.

The modern phonetic transcription that is most widely used now is the International Phonetic Transcription devised by the International Phonetic Association in 1904. This transcription is a phonetic alphabet which may be applied to most of the languages. That is why it contains symbols that stand for phonemes in different languages. E.g. / / (as in "bag"), /y/ (close lip rounded /i/ in German "u"), /o/ (close lip rounded/e/in French "peu"), etc. For this reason the transcription is often referred to as the "u n I v e r s a I transcription" of the IPA (International Phonetic Association).

One of the principles of this transcription is to use the fewest possible symbols of the simplest possible shape. Most of the symbols it uses are letters of the Latin alphabet. Besides, it contains a series of diacritic marks.

The broad type of the International Phonetic Transcript ion was first used by D. Jones in his "English Pronouncing Dictionary", published in 1917.

The "linguistic alphabet" is widely used by those who study American English pronunciation.

Phonology has developed rapidly and made a profound study of the functions of sounds in most of the living languages. But so far it has not as yet fully examined the functions of most of the prosodic features, such as speech melody, tempo of speech, rhythm and others. Scholars are beginning to tackle these and similar problems of intonology.