Соколова - теоретическая фонетика англ

20 Chapter I. The Functional Aspect of Speech Sounds

allophones are generally paid equal attention to. In teaching the pronuncia­ tion of [d], for instance, it is hardly necessary to concentrate on an allo­ phone such as [d] before a front vowel as in Russian similar consonants in this position are also palatalized. Neither is it necessary to practise specially the labialized [d] after the labial [w] because in this position [d] cannot be pronounced in any other way. Carefully made up exercises will exclude the danger of a foreign accent.

Allophones are arranged into functionally similar groups, i. e. groups of sounds in which the members of each group are not opposed to one an­ other, but are opposable to members of any other group to distinguish meanings in otherwise similar sequences. Consequently allophones of the same phoneme never occur in similar phonetic context, they are entirely predictable according to the phonetic environment and cannot differenti­ ate meanings.

But the speech sounds (phones) which are realized in speech do not correspond exactly to the allophone predicted by this or that phonetic envi­ ronment. They are modified by phonostylistic, dialectal and individual fac­ tors. In fact, no speech sounds are absolutely alike.

Phonemes are important for distinguishing meanings, for knowing whether, for instance, the message was take it or tape it. But there is more to speaker-listener exchange than just the "message" itself. The listener may get a variety of information about the speaker: about the locality he lives in, regional origin, his social status, age and even emotional state (angry, tired, excited), and a lot of other facts. Most ofthis social information comes not from phonemic distinctions, but from phonetic ones. Thus, while phone­ mic evidence is important for lexical and grammatical meaning, most other aspects of communication are conveyed by more subtle differences of speech sounds, requiring more detailed description at the phonetic level. There is more to a speech act than just the meaning ofthe words.

The relationships between the phoneme and the phone (speech sound) may be illustrated by the following scheme:

Figure 4

phonostylistic variation

l dialectal variation )--1 speech sound (phone) I

individual variation

1.1. The Phoneme	21

Thirdly, allophones of the same phoneme, no matter how different their articulation may be, function as the same linguistic unit. The ques­ tion arises why phonetically naive native speakers seldom observe differ­ ences in the actual articulatory qualities between the allophones of the same phonemes.

The native speaker is quite readily aware of the phonemes of his lan­ guage but much less aware of the allophones: it is possible, in fact, that he will not hear the difference between two allophones like the alveolar and dental consonants [d] in the words bread and breadth even when a distinc­ tion is pointed out; a certain amount of ear-training may be needed. The reason is that the phonemes have an important function in the language: they differentiate words like tie and die from each other, and to be able to hear and produce phonemic differences is part of what it means to be a competent speaker of the language. Allophones, on the other hand, have no such function: they usually occur in different positions in the word, i. e. in different environments, and hence cannot be opposed to each oth­ er to make meaningful distinctions.

For example the dark [1] occurs following a vowel as inpi/l, cold, but it is not found before a vowel, whereas the clear [1] only occurs before a vowel, as in lip, like. These two consonants cannot therefore contrast with each other in the way that [1] contrasts with [r] in lip - rip or lake - rake.

So the answer appears to be in the functioning of such sounds in a par­ ticular language. Sounds which have similar functions in the language tend to be considered the "same" by the community using that language while those which have different functions tend to be classed as "differ­ ent". In linguistics, as it has been mentioned above, function is generally understood as the role of the various elements of the language in distin­ guishing the meaning. The function of phonemes is to distinguish the meaning ofmorphemes and words. The native speaker does not notice the difference between the allophones of the same phoneme because this dif­ ference does not distinguish meanings.

In other words, native speakers abstract themselves from the differ­ ence between the allophones of the same phoneme because it has no functional value. The actual difference between the allophones of the same phoneme [d], for instance, does not affect the meaning. That's why members of the English speech community do not realize that in the word dog [d] is alveolar, in dry it is post-alveolar, in breadth it is den­ tal. Another example. In the Russian word nocaaum the stressed vowel [a] is more front than it is in the word nocaaKa. It is even more front in

22 Chapter 1. The Functional Aspect of Speech Sounds

the word CROem. But Russian-speaking people do not observe this differ­ ence because the three vowel sounds belong to the same phoneme and thus the changes in their quality do not distinguish the meaning. So we have good grounds to state that the phoneme is an abstract linguistic unit, it is an abstraction from actual speech sounds, i. e. allophonic modifications.

As it has been said before, native speakers do not observe the differ­ ence between the allophones of the same phoneme. At the same time they realize, quite subconsciously of course, that allophones of each phoneme possess a bundle ofdistinctive features, that make this phoneme function­ ally different from all other phonemes of the language concerned. This functionally relevant bundle of articulatory features is called the invariant of the phoneme. Neither of the articulatory features that form the invari­ ant ofthe phoneme can be changed without affecting the meaning. All the allophones of the phoneme [d], for instance, are occlusive, fore lingual,

If occlusive articulation is changed for constrictive one [d] will be replaced by [z], cf. breed - breeze, dealzeal; [d] will be replaced by [g] if the forelingual articulation is replaced by the backlingual one, cf. dear­ gear, day - gay. The lenis articulation of [d] cannot be substituted by the fortis one because it will also bring about changes in meaning, cf. dry ­ try, ladder - latter, bid - bit. That is why it is possible to state that occlu­ sive, forelingual and lenis characteristics of the phoneme [d] are general­ ized in the mind of the speaker into what is called the invariant of this phoneme.

On the one hand, the phoneme is real, because it is realized in speech in the material form of speech sounds, its allophones. On the other hand, it is an abstract language unit. That is why we can look upon the phoneme as a dialectical unity of the material and abstract aspects. Thus we may state that it is the material form of speech sounds, its allophones. Speech sounds are necessarily allophones of one of the phonemes of the language concerned. All the allophones of the same phoneme have some articula­ tory features in common, i. e. all of them possess the same invariant. Si­ multaneously each allophone possesses quite particular phonetic features which may not be traced in the articulation of other allophones of the same phoneme. That is why while teaching pronunciation we cannot ask our students to pronounce this or that phoneme. We can only teach them to pronounce one of its allophones.

The articulatory features which form the invariant of the phoneme are called distinctive or relevant. To extract the relevant feature of the pho­

1.1. The Phoneme

23

neme we have to oppose it to some other phoneme in the same phonetic context. If the opposed sounds differ in one articulatory feature and this difference brings about changes in the meaning of the words the contrast­ ing features are called relevant. For example, the words port and court dif­ fer in one consonant only: the word port has the initial consonant [p], and the word court begins with [k]. Both sounds are occlusive and fortis, the only difference being that [p] is labial and [k] is backlingual. Therefore it is possible to say that labial and backlingual articulations are relevant in the system of English consonants.

The articulatory features which do not serve to distinguish meaning are called non-distinctive, irrelevant or redundant; for instance, it is im­ possible in English to oppose an aspirated [p] to a non-aspirated one in the same phonetic context to distinguish meanings. That is why aspiration is a non-distinctive feature of English consonants.

1.1.3. Phonological and phonetic mistakes in pronunciation

As it has been mentioned above any change in the invariant ofthe pho­ neme affects the meaning. Naturally, anyone who studies a foreign language makes mistakes in the articulation ofparticular sounds. L. V. Shcherba clas­ sifies the pronunciation errors as phonological and phonetic.

If an allophone of some phoneme is replaced by an allophone of a dif­ ferent phoneme the mistake is called phonological, because the meaning of the word is inevitably affected. It happens when one or more relevant features of the phoneme are not realized:

When the vowel [i:] in the word beat becomes slightly more open, more advanced or is no longer diphthongized the word beat may be perceived as quite a different word bit. It is perfectly clear that this type of mistakes is not admitted in teaching pronunciation to any type of language learner.

If an allophone of the phoneme is replaced by another allophone of the phoneme the mistake is called phonetic. It happens when the invari­ ant ofthe phoneme is not modified and consequently the meaning of the word is not affected, e. g. :

When the vowel [i:] is fully long in such a word as sheep, for instance, the quality of it remaining the same, the meaning of the word does not change. Nevertheless language learners are not to let phonetic mistakes into their pronunciation. Ifthey do make them the degree of their foreign accent will certainly be an obstacle to the listener'sperception and under­ standing.

24 Chapter I. The Functional Aspect of Speech Sounds

1.2. Transcription

It is interesting at this stage to consider the system ofphonetic notations which is generally termed "transcription". Transcription is a set of symbols representing speech sounds. The symbolization of sounds naturally differs according to whether the aim is to indicate the phoneme, i. e. a functional unit as a whole, or to reflect the modifications of its allophones as well.

The International Phonetic Association (IPA) has given an accepted inventory of symbols, used in different types of transcription.

The first type ofnotation, the broad or phonemic transcription, provides special symbols for all the phonemes of a language. The second type, the narrow or allophonic transcription, suggests special symbols for speech sounds, representing particular allophonic features. The broad transcrip­ tion is mainly used for practical purposes (in EFL teaching and learning, for example), the narrow type serves the purposes of research work.

The striking difference among present-day broad transcriptions of Brit­ ish English is mainly due to the varying significance which is attached to vowel quality and quantity. Now we shall discuss two kinds of broad tran­ scription which are used for practical purposes in our country. The first type was introduced by D. Jones. He realized the difference in quality as well as in quantity between the vowel sounds in the words sit and seat, pot and port, pull and pool, the neutral vowel and the vowel in the word earn. However, he aimed at reducing the number of symbols to a minimum and strongly in­ sisted that certain conventions should be stated once for all. One of these conventions is, for instance, that the above-mentioned long and short vow­ els differ in quality as well as in quantity. D. Jones supposed that this con­ vention would relieve us from the necessity of introducing special symbols to differentiate the quality of these vowels. That is why he used the same symbols for them. According to D. Jones' notation English vowels are de­ noted like this: [I] - [i:], [e] - [ee], [A] - [a:], [J] - [J:], [u] - [u:], [a] - [a:]. This way of notation disguises the qualitative difference between the vowels [I] and [i:], [J] and [J:], [u] and [u:], [a] and [a:] though nowadays most pho­ neticians agree that vowel length is not a distinctive feature ofthe vowel, but is rather dependent upon the phonetic context, i. e. it is definitely redun­ dant. For example, in such word pairs as hit - heat, cock - cork, pullpool the opposed vowels are approximately of the same length, the only differ­ ence between them lies in their quality which is therefore relevant.

More than that. Phonetic transcription is a good basis for teaching the pronunciation ofa foreign language, being a powerful visual aid. To achieve

1.3. Main Trends in the Phoneme Theory

25

good results it is necessary that the learners of English should associate each relevant difference between the phonemes with special symbols, i. e. each phoneme should have a special symbol. If not, the difference between the pairs of sounds above may be wrongly associated with vowel length which is non-distinctive (redundant) in modern English.

The other type ofbroad transcription, first used by V. A. Vasilyev, causes no phonological misunderstanding providing special symbols for all vowel phonemes: [I], [i:], [e], [ee], [a:], [A], [n], [J:], [u], [u:], [3:], [a]. Being a good visual aid this way of notation can be strongly recommended for teaching the pronunciation of English to any audience.

But phonemic representation is rather imprecise as it gives too little information about the actual speech sounds. It incorporates only as much phonetic information as it is necessary to distinguish the functioning of sounds in a language. The narrow or phonetic transcription incorporates as much phonetic information as the phonetician desires, or as he can distinguish. It provides special symbols to denote not only the phoneme as a language unit but also its allophonic modifications. The symbol [h] for instance indicates aspirated articulation, cf. [k(h)eIt] - [skeIt]. This type of transcription is mainly used in research work. Sometimes, however, it may be helpful, at least in the early stages, to include symbols representing allophones in order to emphasize a particular feature of an allophonic modification, e. g. in the pronunciation of the consonant [1] it is often necessary to insist upon the soft and hard varieties of it ("clear" and "dark" variants) by using not only [1] but also [1] (the indication of the "dark" variant).

1.3. Main Trends in the Phoneme Theory

Now that we have established what the phoneme is, le.t us view the main trends ofthe phoneme theory. Most linguists agree that the phoneme serves to distinguish morphemes and words thus being a functional unit. However, some of them define it in purely "psychological" terms, others prefer phys­ ically grounded defmitions. Some scholars take into consideration only the abstract aspect of the phoneme, others stick only to its materiality. This has divided various "schools" of phonology some of which will be discussed below. Views of the phoneme seem to fall into four main classes.

As you see from the definition of the phoneme suggested above the au­ thors ofthe book share L. V. Shcherba'sview, because it is obviously impor­

26	Chapter 1. The Functional Aspect of Speech Sounds

tant to look upon the phoneme as a unity of its three aspects: material, ab­

stract and functional.

The "mentalistic" or "psychological" view regards the phoneme as an ideal "mental image" or a target at which the speaker aims. Actually pro­ nounced speech sounds are imperfect realizations of the phoneme existing in the mind but not in the reality. Allophones of the same phoneme cannot be alike because of the influence of the phonetic context.

According to this conception allophones of the phoneme are varying materializations of it. This view was originated by the founder of the pho­ neme theory, the Russian linguist I. A. Baudauin de Courtenay. Similar ideas were expressed by E. D. Sapir. This point of view was shared by other linguists, A. Sommerfelt (Sommerfelt 1936) for one, who described pho­ nemes as "models which speakers seek to reproduce".

The "psychological", or "mentalistic" view ofthe phoneme was brought back into favour by generative phonology, and the idea of the phoneme as a "target" was revived, albeit under different terminology by N. Chomsky Chomsky, M. Halle, 1968), M. Tatham (Tatham 1980) and others. Now the basic concepts ofgenerative phonology attract much attention because

of the rapid development of applied linguistics.

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. Meaning differentiation is taken to be a deftning characteristic of phonemes. Thus the absence of palatalization in [I] and palatalization of [1] in English do not differentiate meanings, and therefore [I] and [1] cannot be assigned to different phonemes but both form allophones of the phoneme [1]. The same articulatory features of the Rus­ sian [n] and [n'] do differentiate meanings, and hence [JI] and [JI'] must be assigned to different phonemes in Russian, cf. MOA MOAb, A02 - /lif2. Ac­ cording to this conception the phoneme is not a family of sounds, since in every sound only.a certain number of the articulatory features, i. e. those which form the invariant of the phoneme, are involved in the differentiation of meanings. It is the so-called distinctive features of the sound which make up the phoneme corresponding to it. For example, every sound of the Eng­ lish word ladder includes the phonetic feature oflenisness but this feature is distinctive only in the third sound [d], its absence here would give rise to a different word latter, whereas if any other sound becomes fortis the result is merely a peculiar version of ladder. The distinctiveness of such a feature thus depends on the contrast between it and other possible features belong­ ing to the same set, i. e. the state of the vocal cords. Thus when the above­

.3. Main Trends in the Phoneme Theory

27

mentioned features are distinctive, lenisness contrasts with fortisness. Some approaches have taken these oppositions as the basic elements of phono­ logical structure rather than the phonemes in the way the phoneme was deftned above. The functional approach extracts non-distinctive features from the phonemes thus divorcing the phoneme from actually pronounced speech sounds. This view is shared by many foreign linguists. See in particu­ lar the works ofN. Trubetskoy (1960), L. BloomfIeld (1933), R. Jakobson, M. Halle (1956), who deftne the phoneme as a bundle of distinctive fea­ tures.

The functional view of the phoneme gave rise to a branch oflinguistics called "phonology" or "phonemics" which is concerned with relationships between contrasting sounds in a language. Its special interest lies in estab­ lishing the system of distinctive features of the language concerned. Pho­ netics is limited in this case to the precise description of acoustic and psy­ chological aspects ofphysical sounds without any concern to their linguistic function. The supporters of this conception even recommend to extract phonetics from linguistic disciplines which certainly cannot be accepted by Russian phoneticians.

A stronger form of the "functional" approach is advocated in the so­ called "abstract" view of the phoneme, which regards phonemes as essen­ tially independent of the acoustic and physiological properties associated with them, i. e. of speech sounds. This view ofthe phoneme was pioneered by L. Hjelmslev (1963) and his associates in the Copenhagen Linguistic Circle, H. 1. Uldall and K. Togby.

The views of the phoneme discussed above regard the phoneme as an abstract concept existing in the mind but not in the reality, i. e. in human speech, speech sounds being only phonetic manifestations of these con­ cepts.

The "physical" view regards the phoneme as a "family" of related sounds satisfYing certain conditions:

1.The various members of the "family" must show phonetic similarity to one another, in other words be related in character.

2.No member of the "family" may occur in the same phonetic context as any other.

The extreme form ofthe "physical" conception as suggested by D. Jones (1967) excludes all reference to non-articulatory criteria in the grouping of sounds into phonemes. And yet it is not easy to see how sounds could be as­ signed to the same phoneme on any other grounds than that substitution of one sound for the other does not give rise to different words and different

28	Chapter L The Functional Aspect of Speech Sounds

meaning. The representatives ofthis approach view the phoneme as a group of similar sounds without any regard to its functional and abstract aspects.

Summarizing we may state that the conception ofthe phoneme first put forward by L. V. Shcherba may be regarded as the most suitable for the pur­

pose of teaching.

1.4.Methods of Phonological Analysis

1.4.1.The aim of phonological analysis

Now that you have a good idea of what a phoneme is, we shall try to establish the aim of phonological analysis ofspeech sounds, to give an over­ view of the methods applied in this sort of analysis and show what charac­ teristics ofthe quality ofsounds are ofprimary importance in grouping them into functionally similar classes, i. e. phonemes.

To study the sounds of a 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 pronunciation system, how sounds are grouped into functionally similar units. The final aim of phonological analysis of a language is the identification of the phonemes and finding out the patterns of relationships into which they fall as parts of the sound system ofthat lan­

guage.

There are two ways of analyzing speech sounds: if we define /s/ from the phonological point of view it would be constrictive foreliIlb'1lal fortis, this would be quite enough to remind us of the general class of realization ofthis segment; for articulatory description we would need much more informa­ tion, that is: what sort of narrowing is formed by the tip of the tongue and the alveolar ridge, what is the shape of the tongue when the obstruction is made (a groove in the centre of the tongue while the sides form a closure with the alveolar ridge), and so on. So if the speech sounds are studied from the articulatory point of view it is the differences and similarities of their production that are in the focus of attention, whereas the phonological ap­ proach suggests studying the sound system which is actually a set of rela­ tionships and oppositions which have functional

Each language has its own system of phonemes. Each member of the system is determined by all the other members and does not exist without them. The linguistic value of articulatory and acoustic qualities of sounds is not identical in different languages. In one language community two physi­

104. Methods of Phonological Analysis

29

cally different units are identified as "the same" sound, because they have similar functions in the language system. In another language community they may be classified as different because they perrorm a distinctive func­ tion. Consider the following comparison: the two English [1] and·[l] sounds (clear and dark) are identified by English people as one phoneme because the articulatory difference does not affect the meaning. English speakers are not aware of the difference because it is of no importance in the communi­ cation process.

In the Russian language a similar, though not identical difference be­ tween [JI] and [JI'] affects the meaning, like inAYK andAlOK. So these sounds are identified by Russian speakers as two different phonemes. Analogically, the speakers of Syrian notice the difference between the [th] of English ten and the [t] of letter, because it is phonemic in Syrian but only allophonic in English.

Thus a very important conclusion follows: statements concerning pho­ nological categories and allophonic variants can usually be made of a par­ ticular language.

So the aim of the phonological analysis is, firstly, to determine which dif­ ferences of sounds are phonemic and which are non-phonemic and, sec­ ondly, to find the inventory of the phonemes of a language.

1.4.2. Distributional method of phonological analysis

There are two most widely used methods of finding out what sounds are contrastive. They are the formally distributional method and the semanti­ cally distributional method.

The formally distributional method consists in grouping all the sounds pronounced by native speakers into phonemes according to the two laws of phonemic and allophonic distribution. The laws were discovered long ago and are as follows:

1.Allophones of different phonemes occur in the same phonetic con­

text.

2.Allophones of the same phoneme never occur in the same phonetic context.

The sounds of a laIlb'1lage combine according to a certain pattern charac­ teristic of this language. Phonemic opposability depends on the way the pho­ nemes are distributed in their occurrence. That means that in any language certain sounds do not occur in certain positions, like [h] never occurs word finally while [D] never occurs word initially. Such characteristics permit iden­

30	L The Functional Aspect of Speech Sounds

tification of phonemes on the grounds of their distribution. Ifa sound occurs in a certain phonetic context and another one occurs in a different phonetic context no two words of a language can be distinguished solely by means of the opposition between those two. The two sets ofphonetic contexts are com­ plementing each other and the two sounds are classed as allophones of the same phoneme. They are said to be in complementary distribution. Consider the following: ifwe fully palatalize [I] in the word "let" it may sound peculiar to native speakers but the word is still recognized as "let" but not "bet" or "pet". The allophones lack distinctive power because they never occur in the same phonetic context and the difference in their articulation depends on dif­ ferent phonetic environment. To be able to distinguish the meaning the same sounds must be capable ofoccuqing in exactly the same environment like [p] and [b] in "pit" and "bit". Thus two conclusions follow:

I. If more or less diflerent sounds occur in the same phonetic context they should be allophones of different phonemes. In this case their distribu­ tion is contrastive.

2. If more or less similar sounds occur in different positions and never occur in the same phonetic context they are allophones ofone and the same phoneme. In this case their distribution is complementary.

There are cases when allophones are in complementary distribution are not referred to the same phoneme. This is the case with the English

and [lJ]: [h) occurs only initially or before a	me­
dially or finally after a voweL In this case	distribution is mod­
ified by addition ofthe criterion	similarity/dissimilarity. Articu­

latory features are taken into account.

So far we have considered cases when the distribution of sounds was or complementary. There is a third possibility, namely, sounds occur in the language but the speakers are inconsistent in

the way they use them, like in the case of the Russian KGflOlUU - ZGflOlUU. In such cases we must take them as free variants ofa single phoneme. The rea­ son for the variation in the realization of the same phoneme could be ac­ counted for by dialect or other social factors..

1.4.3. Semantically distributional method of phonological analysis

There is another method of phonological analysis widely used in Rus­ sian linguistics. It is called the semantically distributional method or seman­ tic method. It is applied for phonological analysis of both unknown lan­ guages and languages already described. The method is based on a phonemic

1.4. Methods of Phonological Analysis

31

rule that phonemes can distinguish words and morphemes when opposed to one another. The semantic method of identifying the phonemes of a lan­ guage attaches great significance to meaning. It consists in systemic substi­ tution of the sound for another in order to ascertain in which cases where the phonetic context remains the same such substitution leads to a change of meaning. It is with the help ofthe informant that the change of meaning is stated. This procedure is called the commutation test. It consists in find­ ing minimal pairs of words and their grammatical forms. By a minimal pair we mean a pair ofwords or morphemes which are differentiated by only one phoneme in the same phonetic context.

Let's consider the following example: suppose the scholar arrives at the sequence [pin]; he substitutes the sound [p] for the sound [b]. The substitu­ tion leads to the change of meaning. This proves that [p] and rbl can be re­ garded as allophones of different phonemes.

Minimal pairs are useful for establishing the phonemes If we continue to substitute [p] for [8], [d], [w] we get minimal pairs of words with different meaning sin, din, win. So [8], [d], [w] are allophones of different phonemes. But suppose we substitute [ph] for [p], the pronuncia­ word would be wrong from the point ofview of English pronun­ ciation norm, but the word would be still recognized as pin but not anything

else. So we may conclude that the unaspirated [p] is an allophone of the same

The phonemes ofa language form a system ofoppositions in which any phoneme is usually opposed to other phonemes of the language in at least one position, in at least one minimal pair. So to establish the phonemic structure of a language it is necessary to establish the whole system of op­ positions. AU the sounds should be opposed in word-initial, word-medial and word-final positions. There are three kinds of oppositions. If members ofthe opposition differ in one feature the opposition is said to be single, like in pen - ben. Common features: occlusive, labiaL Differentiating feature: fortis -lenis. Iftwo distinctive features are marked the opposition is said to be double, like in pen den. Common feature: occlusive. Differentiating features: labial - lingual, fortis voiceless - lenis voiced. If three distinctive features are marked the opposition is said to be triple (multiple), like in pen - then. Ditlerentiating features: occlusive constrictive, labial - den­ tal, fortis voiceless lenis voiced.

The features ofa phoneme that are capable of differentiating the mean­ ing are termed as relevant or distinctive. The ones that do not take part in differentiating the meaning are termed as irrelevant or non-distinctive. The

32 Chapter 1. The Functional A~pect of Speech Sounds

latter can be oftwo kinds: a) incidental or redundant features like aspiration ofvoiceless plosives, presence ofvoice in voiced consonants, length ofvow­ els; b) indispensable or concomitant features like tenseness of English long monophthongs, the checked character of stressed short vowels, lip round­ ing of back vowels.

So the phonological analysis of the sounds of a language is based on such notions as contrastive distribution, minimal pairs, free variation. To this we must add one more concept, native speaker's knowledge. All the rules referred to above should account for the intuition of the native speaker and that is the real reason why we adopt them. It is the native speaker's feel­ ing that makes us treat the allophones of [lJ] and [h] as different phonemes.

Summing up we might say that the phonemic system of a language is patterned. It is the aim ofphonological analysis to systematize the sounds of the language, i. e. to group them into functionally similar classes.

1.4.4.Methods of establishing the phonemic status of speech sounds in weak positions. Morphonology

Continuing the overview of the approaches to establishing the phone­ mic status of speech sounds we should consider the cases when the sounds are in the weak position, or the position of neutralization. In this position some ofthe distinctive features are neutralized. For vowels it is the position in the unstressed syllables. Consonants are in their strong position before vowels and in the intervocalic position, they are in the weak position when they are word final or precede other consonants.

This problem is tackled by morphonology or morphophonemics, which studies the relationship between phonemes and morphemes. Morphonolo­ gy is concerned with the way in which sounds can alternate as different re­ alization of one and the same morpheme. A morpheme is a minimal unit of meaning. Consider the words "windy", "dusty", "sunny". Evidently they have two morphemes. The meaning of "wind", "dust", "sun" is obvious. But what function does the morpheme "-y" perform? It appears that the function of"-y" is to convert a noun into an adjective. This morpheme has a grammatical meaning. Now then what is meant by the identification of alternated sounds?

The following pairs of words exemplifY a sound alternation in one and the same morpheme of two different parts of speech.

malice [,mcehs] - malicious [ma'hjas] active [,cektIv] - activity [ak'tIVltI]

104. Methods of Phonological Analysis	33

abstract ['cebstrakt] - abstract [ab'strcekt] conduct ['knndakt] - conduct [kan'dAkt] contrast ['kontra:st] - contrast [kan'tra:st]

There may be different solutions to the problem ofphoneme identifica­ tion in weak positions of alternated sounds. The problem is by far more significant for the Russian language because of the widely spread voiced! voiceless assimilation and vowel reduction in the language:

a) MOP03 [MAp6c] MopmbI [MAp63bI] 6) Koca [KAca] KOChl [K6cbI]

Scholars of different trends are not unanimous in treating the problem. The so-called morphological school represented by P. S. Kuznetsov, A. A. Re­ formatsky, R. 1. Avanesov, v: P. Sidorov, M. v: Panov supported the theory of neutralization of phonemes, which is said to occur when two or more close­ ly related sounds which are in contrast with each other in most positions like ",lJ,OM" - "TOM", are found to be non-contrastive in certain other posi­ tions, like in "cy,lJ," [CYT] - CY,lJ,HTb [CY,lJ,'HT']. In such cases the opposition between the two sounds is said to be neutralized. The loss of one or more

distinctive features of a phoneme in the weak position is called phonemic neutralization.

Moscow philologists claim that the interchange ofsounds manifests close connection between phonetics as the science of the sound system and mor­ phology of the language which studies grammatical meanings. Alternations are observed in one and the same morphological units, in a morpheme, and actualize the phonemic structure of the morpheme. Thus, the phonemic content of the morpheme is constant. The supporters of the morphological trend defme the phoneme as follows: «3TO .pYHKUI10HaJIhHaH .poHem'fe­

CKaH e,lJ,I1HMua, rrpe,lJ,CTaBJIeHHaH PMOM rr03HUHOHHO 'fepe,11,YIOlIJ,l1XCH 3BYKOB)} (I1aHoB, 1979: 107).

The notion of «.poHemqeCKHH PM», suggested by R. f. Avanesov, dem­ onstrates positionally determined realizations of the phoneme. Positionally alternating sounds are grouped into one phoneme even if they are similar or have common features (that is common allophones) with other phonemes.

The Russian preposition «c» + noun may have the following realizations:

c KOJIeH	[c]	c illypoH	[rn]
c TMMornen:	[c']	c )KeHen:	[)K]
c faJIen:	[3]	c qYKOM	[rn:]
c,lJ;HMOH	[3']

34	Chapter T. The Functional Aspect of Speech Sounds

In the morphological conception the alternations of the phonemes are not analyzed apart from the morphemes, as form and content make a dia­ lectical unity. The phonetic system is not isolated from the grammatical and lexical structure of the language, and the unity between the form and the content cannot be destroyed. Yet as an answer to the problem it is not en­ tirely satisfactory since ordinary speakers are in no doubt that the sound that occurs in the above-mentioned combinations is the preposition «c».

St. Petersburg phonological school (L. R. Zinder, M. I. Matysevitch) as­ sert that the phoneme is independent of the morpheme. SO [A] in «Bo,Ua» belongs to the [a] phoneme while [0] in «BO,UhI» to the [0] phoneme; [c] in the word «MOP03» belongs to the [c] morpheme and [3] in «MOP03bI» - to the [3] phoneme respectively. The supporters of this conception claim that the phoneme cannot lose any of its distinctive features.

As far as the English language is concerned, the neutral sound [a] in the word "activity" and the sound [;:e] in the words "act", "active" is the [;:e] phoneme. It seems that according to this point of view the unity between the form and the content is destroyed, thus phonology is isolated from mor­ phology.

In conclusion we have to admit that the described conceptions are arbi­ trary, none is ideal. The morphological conception seems complicated, but appears to be effective for theory and practice.

1.5. The System of English Phonemes

In this section we are going to give a brief overview of the problems which scholars face when trying to describe the English sounds from the functional point of view. We shall try to explain what is understood by the quality of a sound, what articulatory characteristics may be considered the constituents of quality and to determine which of them are phonologically relevant.

There are two major classes of sounds traditionally distinguished by phoneticians in any language. They are termed consonants and vowels. The distinction is based mainly on auditory effect. Consonants are known to have voice and noise combined, while vowels are sounds consisting ofvoice only. From the articulatory point ofview the difference is due to the work of speech organs. In the production of vowels no obstruction is made. In the production ofconsonants various obstructions are made. So consonants are characterized by the so-called close articulation, i. e. by a complete, partial

1.5. The System of English Phonemes	35

or intermittent blockage of the air passage by a speech organ. As a result

consonants are sounds which have noise as their indispensable and most defining characteristic.

Now we shall consider each class of sounds independently.

1.5.1. The system of consonants

On the articulatory level each consonant may be identified by stating two general facts about it:

1)what sort of articulatory posture it is formed by;

2)whereabout in the vocal tract it is produced.

Besides these major characteristics the particular quality ofa consonant may depend on a lot of factors, i. e. by what articulatory organ (or organs) an obstruction is made, how the vocal cords work at the moment of produc­ tion, what cavity is used as a resonator, what is the force of articulatory fort and many others. So in our view the particular quality of a consonant would be best thought of as a complex bundle of features. Each sound is known to have three aspects: articulatory; acoustic and auditory; and there­ fore can be studied on three levels. For the sake of analysis each aspect can be considered and described independently, though it is obvious that there is no sharp dividing line between them.

Trying to work out a classification ofsuch complex units as speech sounds one should specifY those properties ofsounds which are relevant to the subject under discussion, so the attempts to classifY sounds should have a theoretical foundation. Besides, each classification should not only aim at linguistic de­ scription but should be applicable in teaching a language. Therefore the clas­ sification should include if possible both the principal relevant features and the ones that are redundant from the phonological point of view; but are im­ portant for the articulation ofthe sound. Here we should say that the phono­ logical description ofsounds will be made in terms ofarticulatory leveL

It is suggested that the first and basic principle of classification is the

degree of noise. It leads to dividing English consonants into two big groups:

A - noise consonants; B - sonorants.

It is easy to see that the term "degree of noise" belongs to auditory level analysis. But it is generally acknowledged that there is an intrinsic con­ nection between articulatory and auditory aspects of describing speech sounds, so that sometimes it is impossible to account for the former except

36	Chapter 1. The Functional Aspect of Speech Sounds

in terms of the latter. In the above mentioned case it is the terms ofauditory level that defme the characteristic more adequately.

Sonorants are consonants that phoneticians traditionally have a lot ofar­ guments about. Sonorants are sounds that differ greatly from all other conso­ nants of the language. This is due to the fact that in their production the air passage is fairly wide, much wider than in the production of noise conso­ nants. As a result the auditory effect is tone, not noise. This peculiarity ofar­ ticulation makes sonorants sound more like vowels than consonants. Acous­ tically sonorants are opposed to an other consonants because they are characterized by a sharply defined formant structure and the total energy of most of them is very high. However, on functional grounds according to their position in the syllable sonorants are included in the consonantal category.

The great articulatory and acoustic difference of noise consonants and sonorants could be very well relied upon as having classificatory value. The phonological relevance of this factor (the degree of noise) could be proved by the following oppositions:

[berk - merk]	bake	make	(noise consonant -	sonorant)
[vi:l- wi:l]	veal -	wheel	(noise consonant	sonorant)

The manner of the production of noise and the type of obstruction is another characteristic of English consonants. On this ground three classes ofconsonants are distinguished:

a)occlusive, in the production of which a complete obstruction is formed;

b)constrictive, in the production ofwhich an incomplete obstruction is formed;

c)occlusive-constrictive consonants (affricates), in the production of which the obstruction is complete at the beginning of production, then it becomes incomplete.

The phonological relevance of this feature could be exemplified in the following oppositions:

[ti:]	[si: ]	tea sea		(occlusive	constrictive)
[si:d]	[si:z]	seed ­	seas	(occlusive -	constrictive)
[ti:z] ­	[tJi:z]	tease ­	cheese	(occlusive -	afIricate)
[si:z] -	[si:d3]	cease	siege	(constrictive -		atIricate)
[pefS] - [perd3]		pace -	page	(constrictive -		affricate)

The following scheme might be helpful to understand the system built in accordance with the above-mentioned order ofarticulatory characteristics:

1.5. The System of English Phonemes		37

Figure 5

consonants

sonorants

occlusive­ constrictive

The place ofarticulation is another characteristic ofEnglish consonants which we should consider from the phonological point ofview. The place of articulation is determined by the active organ ofspeech against the point of articulation. According to this principle the English consonants are classed into:

1)labial;

2)lingual;

3)glottal.

The class of labial consonants is subdivided into: a) bilabial; b) labio­ dental, and among the class of lingual consonants three subclasses are dis­ tinguished. They are: a) forelingual; b) mediolingual and c) backlingual. The classification of consonants according to this principle is illustrated

Ihe following scheme:

Figure 6

glottal

labio-dental

mediolingual

backlingual

The importance of this characteristic as phonologically relevant could he proved by means of a sjmple example. In the system of English conso­

38	Chapter 1. The Functional Aspect of Speech Sounds

nants there could be found oppositions based on the active organ of speech and the place of obstruction:

[p~nJ - [t~nJ		pan-tan		(bilabial ­	forelingual)
[walJ ­	[lalJ	why	lie	(bilabial	forelingual)
[plk]	[klk]	pickkick		(bilabialbacklingual)
[lesJ -	[jes]	less	yes	(forelingual		mediolingual)
[del] ­	[gel]	day-gay		(forelingualbacklingual)
[salJ -	[hal]	sigh -	high	(forelingual		glottal)
[fi:t] -	[si:t]	feet -	seat	(labio-dental- fore lingual)
Another sound property is voiced -				voiceless characteristic which de­

pends on the work ofthe vocal cords. It has long been believed that from the articulatory point of view the distinction between such pairs of consonants as [p, b], [t, d], [k, g], [s, z], [f, v], [I, 3], [tf, d3J is based on the absence or presence of the vibrations of the vocal cords or on the absence or presence of voice or tone component. However, a considerable body of experimental work on physiological and acoustic aspects ofthese sounds showed that this is not the only difference between them. It is obvious now that there is also energy difference. All voiced consonants are weak (lenis) and all voiceless consonants are strong (fortis). Now there is a considerable controversy con­ cerning the phonetic feature involved in the above-mentioned oppositions. In the intervocalic position, like in "latter - ladder" the voicing difference is important, since it is the distinctive feature of the consonants. In word initial and word final positions the pronunciation of consonants tradition­ ally considered to be voiced may well be voiceless. In these positions it is the energy difference that serves as a differenciating feature, like in "cap - cab", "not nod", "pick - pig". In initial positions aspiration would be a more important feature for stops, like in "tick - dick", "cap - gap", "pit - bit". In a word-final position it is the length of the preceding vowel that would constitute the chief difference (the vowel of "bead" is longer than that of "beet").

It is perfectly obvious that the presence or absence ofvoice in the above­ mentioned oppositions is not a constant distinctive feature. Thus it may be said that these oppositions are primarily based on energy difference, i. e. on fortis lenis articulation, which are phonologically relevant features. It is for this reason that such characteristics as voiceless - voiced have given place to "fortis lenis" distinction.

There is one more articulary characteristic which is important from classificatory point ofview, that is the position of the soft palate. According

1.5. The System of English Phonemes		39

LO this principle consonants can be oral and nasal. There are relatively few consonantal types in English which require a lowered position of the soft palate. They are the nasal occlusive sonorants [m], [n], and [uJ. No differ­ ence of meaning in English can be attributed to the presence or absence of nasalisation. It is for this reason that it cannot be a phonologically relevant Ii~ature of English consonants. So it is an indispensable concomitant feature of English nasal consonants.

Summarizing we could state that the following articulatory features are considered to be relevant from phonological point ofview:

I) type of obstruction;

2)place of articulation and active organ of speech;

3)force of articulation.

The above mentioned articulatory characteristics are the primary ones as they specify the essential quality of a consonant which is enough to de­ scribe it as an item of a system. On this level of analysis it is the point where the distinction becomes phonemic that matters.

However, from the point of view of pronunciation teaching we should gain some additional information about the articulation ofa consonant like apicaldorsal; dental, alveolar, post-alveolar, palato-alveolar; oralnasal; flat narrowing - round narrowing characteristics. They provide necessary information for comparison between the English and Russian consonants. It is for this reason that these characteristics are normally included into de­ scriptions.

1.5.2. The system ofvowels

As was mentioned earlier, vowels unlike consonants are produced with no obstruction to the stream of air, so on the perception level their integral characteristic is tone not noise.

A minimal vowel system of a language is likely to take the form of:

The most important characteristic ofthese vowels is that they are acous­ tically stable. They are known to be entirely different from one another both articulatory and acoustically. Consequently they may well be said to form boundaries ofthe"phonetic field ofvowels" in modern man'slanguage. The