| Головна » Статті » Англійська | [ Додати статтю ] |
English vowels
|
Introduction Talking about vowels requires first to specify their articulatory and acoustic characteristics. Vowels unlike consonants are produced with no obstruction to the stream of air, so on the perception level their integral characteristic is naturally tone, not noise. It would be interesting to know that a minimum vowel system of a language is likely to take the form of The most important characteristic of the quality of these vowels is that they are acoustically stable. They are known to be entirely different from one another both articulatorily and acoustically. Consequently they may well be said to form boundaries of "phonetic field of vowels" in a modem man's life. Thus they display the highest degree of unlikeness and so maximum of abilities of people as regards to vowels. We could add that the commonest vowel system adds two other vowels to this minimum triangle to give a five vowels system of the type: In the matter of the English language it would be fair to mention that due to various reasons it has developed a vocalic system of a much larger number of phonemes. The articulatory classification of vowels The quality of a vowel is known to be deterined by the size, volume, and shape of the mouth resonator, which are modified by the movement of active speech organs, that is the tongue and the lips. Besides, the particular quality of a vowel can depend on a lot of other articulatory cracteristics: the relative stability of the tongue the posItion of the lIps physical duration of the segment the force of articulation the degree of tenseness of speech organs. So vowel quality could be thought of as a bundle of definite articulatory characteristics which are sometimes intricately interconnected and interdependent. For example, the back position of the tongue causes the lip rounding, the front position of the tongue makes it rise higher in the mouth cavity, the lengthening of a vowel makes the organs of speech tenser at the moment of production and so on. From what we have said it follows that isolation and distinctions of the above-mentioned articulatory features are done only for the sake of analysis with the purpose of describing the vocalic system of the English language. The analysis of the articulatory constituents of the quality of vowels allowed phoneticians to suggest the criteria which are conceived to be of great importance in classificatory description. First to be concerned here are the following criteria termed: a) stability of articulation; b) tongue position; c) lip position; d) character of the vowel end; e) length; f) tenseness. In the part that follows, each of the above-mentioned principles will be considered from phonological point of view. Stability of articulation specifies the actual position of the articulating organ in the process of the articulation of a vowel. There are two possible varieties: a) the tongue position is stable; b) the tongue position changes, that is the tongue moves from one position to another. In the first case the articulated vowel is relatively pure, in the second case a vowel consists of two clearly perceptible elements. There exists in addition a third variety, an intermediate case, when the change in the tongue position is fairly weak. So according to this principle the English vowels are subdivided into: a) monophthongs, b) diphthongs, c) diphthongoids. Though the interpretation we have just given is an obvious matter for phoneticians it does not mean that this way of seeing the situation is shared by British phoneticians. A.C.Gimson, for example, distinguishes twenty vocalic phonemes which are made of vowels and vowel glides. Seven of them are treated as short phonemes: [e] [ ?] [?] [o] [?] [?] [ ] and thirteen as long ones [a: ] [ o: ] [u:] [ з: ] [і:] [ei] [e?] [ai] [au] [ou] [iэ] [??] [u?], five of which are considered relatively pure: [a: ] [3: ], [i:], [u:] [ o: ]. The rest are referred to long phonemes with different glides: [ei] [ai] [oi] with a glide to [ i:] [3u] [au] with a glide to [u]; and [?i] [??] [u?] with a glide to [ ?]. It is easy to see that this way of presenting the system does not reveal the actual difference between long monophthongs and long diphthongoids and consequently we could say that it fails to account adequately for more delicate distinctions. Here we have to admit that though it is not a decisive difference this is the case when explicit information about distinguishing between different degrees of instability is practically useful for teaching purpose. For the learner of English it is important to know that the vowels [i:] and [u:] are diphthongized in modern English and the tendency for diphthongization is becoming gradually stronger. At this point we are ready to consider the question of the phonemic status of English diphthongs. Diphthongs are complex entities , so essentially similar complications are known to exist with them. The question is whether they are monophonemic or biphonemic units. It is not the lack of evidence that does not enable to answer it. We might say that now there is much available data obtained with the help of the computer equipment. Though the problem has been given a lot of attention up to now it has been neither completely discounted nor satisfactorily explained. The reason that accounts for the present situation could be formu-lated in the following way: it is impossible to find a simple and logic criterion which might serve as a basis for a decision. Soviet scholars grant the English diphthongs monophonemic status on the basis of arliculatory , morphonological and syllabic indivisibility as well as the criteria of duration and commutability. As to articulatory indivisibility of the diphthongs it could be proved by the fact that neither morpheme nor syllable boundary that separate the nucleus and the glide can pass within it. The present study of the duration of diphthongs shows that the length of diphthongs is the same as that that characterizes the English long monophthongs in the same phonetic context. Finally the application of commutation test proves the monophonemic status of diphthongs because any diphthong could be commutated with practically any vowel. It could be exemplified in the following oppositions: [bait – bit] bite - bit [bait – bAt] bite - but [bait - [bo:t) bite – bought and so on. Monophonemic character of English diphthongs is proved by native speakers' intuition, who perceive these sound complexes as a single segment. The above-mentioned considerations make linguists V.A.Vassilyev, L.R.Zinder treat English diphthongs as monophonemic entities. The suggestion that English diphthongs are monophonemic is necessary not only for linguistic purpose; accepting that finding is also of practical importance in teaching English as a foreign language, since in Russian there are no diphthongs or diphthongoids as phonemic entities. Special attention should be given to the pronunciation of English diphthongs which consist of two elements, the first of which, the nucleus, being strong and distinct and the second, the glide, being very weak and indistinct. Another principle we should consider from phonological point of view is the position of the tongue. For the sake of convenience the position of the tongue in the mouth cavity is characterized from two aspects, that is the horizontal and vertical movement. According to the horizontal movement phoneticians distinguish five classes of English vowels. They are: 1) front: [i:], [e], [ei], [?], [?]; 2) front-retracted: [ i ], [ i? ]; 3) central: [A] (3:] (]. (3(U)], (e(u)); 4) back (0], (:>:), (lI:], (a:); 5) back-advanced: (u], (u()). A slightly different approach seems to have been taken by British phoneticians. They do not single out the classes of front retracted and back-advanced vowels. So both [i:] and [i] vowels are classed as front and both [u:] and [u] vowels are classed as back. The latter point of view does not seem to be consistent enough. The point is that the vowels in these two pairs differ in quality which is partially due to the raised part of the tongue. So in this case a more detailed classification seems to be a more precise one since it adequately reflects the articulatory distinction actually present in the language. The other articulatory characteristic of vowels as to the tongue position is its vertical movement. The way phoneticians approach this aspect is also slightly different. British scholars distinguish three classes of vowels: high (or close), mid (or half-open), and low (or open) vowels. Soviet phoneticians made the classification more detailed distinguishing two subclasses in each class, i.e. broad and narrow variations of the three vertical positions of the tongue. Thus the following six groups of vowels are distinguished: 1) close a) narrow: (i:] (u:]; . b) broad: (I], (u), (I()), (u(;))]; 2) mid a) narrow: (e], [3:], (;)], [e(I)], (3(U)); b) broad: (;)], (A]; 3) open a) narrow: (e(;))), (:>:], (:>(1)); b) broad: (re], [a (I, u)], [D], (a:) The phonological relevance of the criterion under discussion can be easily discovered in the following oppositions: [pen - p?n] pen - pan [k?p - ka:p] cap - carp [pen - pin] pen - pin [k?p - kAp] cap - cup [bin - bi:n) bin - been [bAn - ba:n] bun - barn Another feature of English vowels which is sometimes included into the principles of classification is lip rounding. Traditionally three lip positions are distinguished, that is spread, neutral and rounded. For the purpose of classification it is sufficient to distinguish between two lip positions: rounded and unrounded, or neutral. In English lip rounding is not relevant phonologically since no two words can be differentiated on its basis. Lip rounding takes place rather due to physiological reasons than to any other. The fact is that any back vowel in English is produced with rounded lips, the degree of rounding is different and depends on the height of the raised part of the tongue; the higher it is raised the more rounded the lips are. So lip rounding is a phoneme constitutive indispensable feature, because no back vowel can exist without it. Our next point should be made about another property of English vowel sounds that is traditionally termed checkness. This quality depends on the character of the articulatory transition from a vowel to a consonant. This kind of transition (VC) is very close in English unlike Russian. As a result all English short vowels are checked when stressed. The degree of checkness may vary and depends on the following consonant. Before fortis voiceless consonant it is more perceptible than before a lenis voiced consonant or sonorant. All long vowels are free. It may be well to mention that though this characteristic has no phonological value it is of primary importance for Russian learners of English. It should be remembered that since all Russian vowels are free special attention should be drawn to making English short vowels checked. It is not the length of vowels that should be the point of attention but the character of the transition of a vowel into a consonant. Such words as body, seven, better, matter should be divided into syllables in such a way that the vowels should remain checked. At this point we are ready to consider another articulatory characteristic of English vowels, that is their length or quantity. The English monophthongs are traditionally divided into two varieties according to their length: a) short vowels: (I], (e], (re], (D], (u], (A], (]; b) long vowels: (i:], (0:], (:>:] , (3:], (u:]. We should point out that vowel length or quantity has for a long time been the point of disagreement among phoneticians. It is common knowledge that a vowel like any sound has physical duration - time which is required for its production (articulation). When sounds are used in connected speech they cannot help being influenced by one another. Duration is one of the characteristics of a vowel which is modified by and depends on the following factors: 1) its own length, 2) the accent of the syllable in which it occurs, 3) phonetic context, 4) the position of the sound in a syllable, 5) the position in a rhythmic structure, 6) the position in a tone group, 1) the position in a phrase, 8) the position in an utterance, 9) the tempo of the whole utterance, 10) the type of pronunciation, 11) the style of pronunciation. The problem the analysts are concerned with is whether variations in quantity or length are meaningful (relevant), that is whether vowel length can be treated as a relevant feature of English vowel system. Different scholars attach varying significance to vowel quantity. The approach of D.Jones, an outstanding British phonetician, extends the principle, underlying phonological relevance of vowel quantity. That means that words in such pairs as [bid] – [bi:d], [sit] – [si:t], [ful] – [fu:l] are distinguished from one another by the oppositon of different length, which D.Jones calls chronemes. The difference in quantity is considered to be decisive and the difference in quality (the position of the active organ of speech) is considered to be subordinate to the difference in quantity. According to the point of view of the outstanding Soviet phonetician V.A.Vassilyev, English is not a language in which chronemes as separate prosodic phonological units can exist. If a phonetician wants to approach this aspect from phonological point of view he should base his theoretical conclusion on the two laws characterizing any system: 1. A relevant feature must characterize a number of units. Any correlation should have a number of oppositions. A sign of correlation (palatalization in the above-mentioned example) is a distinctive feature of a number of phonemes. The analysis of English vowels shows that they can hardly form quantitative correlation. For the sake of economy the following correlation is often brought about. 2. A feature can be systemic if it does not depend on the context. As to the absolute length of English historically long and historically short vowels it varies and depends on a lot of factors, the first being phonetic context. The conclusion that follows is that vowel quantity cannot be considered a minimal distinctive feature since it varies under the influence of different phonetic context. So it is an incidental feature that characterizes sounds of a certain quality. It is worth noting here that an element accompanying another element cannot be a sign itself and therefore cannot be classed of English vowels from phonological point of view. It is shared by all Soviet specialists in English phonetics as well as by modern British phoneticians. There is one more articulatory characteristic that needs our attention. That is tenseness. It characterizes the state of the organs of speech at the moment of production of a vowel. Special instrumental analysis shows that historically long vowels are tense while historically short vowels are lax. This characteristics is of extra phonological type so tenseness may be considered indispensable concomitant feature of English long vowels. On this ground it may be included into classificatory description of vowels because it might be helpful in teaching the students of English. Conclusions Summarizing we could say that phonological analysis of articulatory features of English vowels allows to consider functionally relevant the following two characteristics: a) stability of articulation, b) tongue position. The rest of the features mentioned above, that is lip position, character of vowel end, length, and tenseness are indispensable constituents of vowel quality. Though they have no phonological value they are considerably important in teaching English phonetics. It is worth saying that phonologically relevant articulatory features should attract direct attention of a would-be teacher of English because they form the basis of the pronunciation system of the language. Non-relevant but indispensable features should also be acquired being both phonetically correct and necessary for teaching purposes. If we want to speak a foreign language in an objectively correct way it is natural we should pay attention to the quality of our sounds which is constituted by articulatory features of both kinds. References 2. Соколова М.А. Теоретическая фонетика английского языка: Учеб. для студ. высш. учеб. заведений / М.А.Соколова [и др]. – 3-е изд., стереотип. – М.: Гуманитар. изд. центр ВЛАДОС, 2004. –286 с. 4. Леонтьева С.Ф. Теоретическая фонетика английского языка: Учеб. для студентов вечер. и заоч. отд-ний педвузов. – 2-е изд., испр. и доп. / С.Ф. Леонтьева. – М.: Высш. шк., 1988. – 271с. Vassilyev V.A. English Phonetics. A Theoretical Course M, 1970 | |
| Переглядів: 1180 | Коментарі: 1 | |
| Всього коментарів: 0 | |