The investigation of the phoneme as a language unit

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru

CONTENT

INTRODUCTION

• CHAPTER I THE INVESTIGATION OF THE PHONEME AS A LANGUAGE UNIT

1.1 Phoneme as a unity of three aspects

• 1.2 Conceptions of the phoneme
• 1.3 The system of English phoneme
• 1.3.1 General characteristics of English vowel phonemes
• 1.3.2 General characteristics of English consonant phonemes
• CHAPTER II THE METHODS OF EQUIVALENTS TRANSLATION INTO RUSSIAN
• 2.1 Differences in the articulation basis of English and Russian
• 2.2 Differences in the articulation bases of english and russian vowels
• 2.3 Differences in the articulation bases of the english and russian consonants
• CONCLUSION
• BIBLIOGRAPHY
• 
• INTRODUCTION
• Phonetics deals with speech sounds. In Greek language «phonetikos» means pertaining to voice and sound. Phonetics studies the sound system of a language that is segmental phonemes, word stress, syllabic structure and intonation. Phonetics is the scientific study of sounds used in language: how the sounds are produced, how they are transferred from the speaker to the hearer and how they are heard and perceived. Sounds of the language provide an accessible and general introduction to phonetics with a special emphasis on English.
• However, phonetics is obliged to take the content level into consideration too, because at any stage of the analysis, a considerate part of the phonetician's concern is with the effect which the expression unit he is examining and its different characteristics have on meaning. Only meaningful sound sequences are regarded as speech and the science of phonetics, in principle at least, is concerned with such sounds produced by a human vocal apparatus as are, or may be carries of organized information of a language.
• Human speech is the result of highly complicated series of events. The formation of the concept takes place at the linguistic level that is in the brain of the speaker: this stage may be called psychological. The message formed within the brain is transmitted along the nervous system to the speech organs. Therefore we may say the human brain controls the behavior of the articulating organs which effect in producing a particular pattern of speech sounds.
• The speech sounds of a language, which constitute all its morphemes and words, are instances, manifestations or realizations of its segmental phonemes.
• The phoneme is the unity of three aspects: functional, material and abstract. The phoneme performs a distinctive function. The opposition of phonemes in the same phonetic environment differentiates the meaning of morphemes, words and even utterances. Phoneme is realized in speech in the form of speech sounds and its allophones. Allophones of the same phoneme possess similar articulatory features. The difference between the allophones is predictable and is the result of the influence of the neighboring sounds. The actually pronounced speech sounds are modified by phonostylistic, dialectical and individual factors.
• Native speakers abstract themselves from the difference between the allophones of the same phoneme because it has no functional value but they have a generalized idea of a complex of distinctive features which cannot be changed without the change of meaning. This functionally relevant bundle of articulatory features is called the invariant of the phoneme.
• The founder of the phoneme theory was the Russian-polish scientist I.A. Baudoin de Courtenay. He did a lot in the study of phonemic alternations and was the first linguist who demanded accurate distinction between synchronic and diachronic approach to the investigation of the phoneme.
• As we probably know from the course of general linguistics there exist different opinions on the point of the definition of the phoneme.
• The truly materialistic view of the phoneme was originated by famous linguist L.V. Shcherba. According to L.V. Shcherba the phoneme may be viewed as a functional, material and abstract unit. These three aspects of the phoneme are concentrated in the definition of the phoneme suggested by V. A. Vassilyev who looks upon the phoneme as a dialectical unity of these three aspects because they determine one another and are thus independent.
• Quite different is the opinion of another linguist Bloch who defined the phoneme as a class of phonemically similar sounds contrasting and mutually exclusive with all similar classes in the language. According to Jacobson phoneme is a minimal sound by which meaning may be discriminated.
• As we have seen, the definition of the phoneme varies greatly. This phonetic phenomenon is still the object of linguistic interest and thus causes a great number of phonetic investigation and analysis.
• So, the topicality of the phoneme investigation and different opinions of its definition and phonemic status serves as the main reason for the choice of the theme of our work: «Phoneme as a language unit».
• The aim of our investigation is to analyze a complex nature of the phoneme as a phonetic phenomenon of English language
• According to the aim of our investigation we have formulated the following objectives:

- to study a complex nature of the phoneme from the point of three aspects;

- to investigate characteristic features of the phoneme and its allophones;

- to analyze functions of the phoneme;

- to reveal differences in the articulation basis of English, Russian and Kazakh

Object: Phoneme as a language unit

Subject: Characteristic features of English phonemes

Hypothesis: we suppose that a detailed study of the phoneme and its different allophones, its features and functions in speech will provide learners with some ways and knowledge of the phonetic analysis and thus make the process of learning English pronunciation more effective.

Methods of investigation: in the course of our research we have used methods of description and comparative analysis.

Theoretical value of our investigation: significant points of our work can be developed and serve as a subject matter for further project and scientific works on the point of theoretical phonetics.

Practical value of the work: the results of the phonetic analysis of phonemes in the system of vowels and consonants may be used at the practical lessons of studying the phonetic structure of English language.

Basis of scientific investigation: our investigation has been carried out on the material of scientific works of such famous linguists as L.A. Shcherba, V.A. Vassilyev, Bloch and others whose contribution to the study oh phoneme is of special scientific importance.

The diploma paper consists of the following parts: introduction, main chapters, conclusion, bibliography and appendix.

Scientific apparatus is presented in introduction which includes the topicality of the research, its aim, object and subject.

The theoretical part contains the study and descriptive analysis of the phoneme, its nature and use in speech, its functions in the phonetic system from the point of different phoneticians and linguists. Practical part of the work is represented by the comparative analysis of differences of the articulation basis of English, Kazakh and Russian. It also includes practical tasks on teaching pronunciation and learning a system of English vowel and consonant phonemes.

In conclusion we outline and sum up the results of our investigation.

Bibliography includes a list of literary sources used in the process of the research which is followed by appendix.



CHAPTER I. THE INVESTIGATION OF THE PHONEME AS A LANGUAGE UNIT

1.1 Phoneme as a unity of three aspects

As it has already been mentioned the truly materialistic view of the phoneme was originated by the Russian linguist L.V. Shcherba. He viewed the phoneme as a functional, material and abstract unit. V.A. Vassilyev defined the phoneme as a dialectical unity of these aspects because they determine one another and are thus independent. He considered phoneme as a minimal abstract linguistic unit, realized in speech in the form of speech sounds opposable to other phonemes of the same language to distinguish the meaning of morphemes and words.

Let us consider the phoneme from the point of view of its three aspects.

Firstly, phoneme is a functional unit. Function is usually understood to mean discriminatory function, that is, the role of the various components of the phonetic system of the language in distinguishing one morpheme from another, one word from another or also one utterance from another.

The opposition of phonemes in the same phonetic environment differentiates the meaning of morphemes and words, e.g. said-- says, sleeper -- sleepy, bath -- path, light -- like. phoneme articulation english russian kazakh

Also phoneme can fulfill a distinctive function. Sometimes the opposition of phonemes serves to distinguish the meaning of the whole phrases, e.g. He was heard badly -- He was hurt badly. Thus we may say that the phoneme can fulfil the distinctive function.

Secondly, phoneme is material, real and objective. That means that it is realized in speech of all English speaking people in the form of speech sounds, its allophones. The sets of speech sounds that is the allophones belonging to the same phoneme are not identical in their articulatory content though there remains some phonetic similarity between them.

As a first example, let us consider the English phoneme [d], at least those of its allophones which are known to everybody who study English pronunciation.

English phoneme [d] when not affected by the articulation of the preceding or following sounds is a plosive, fore-lingual apical, alveolar, lenis stop. This is how it sounds in isolation or in such words as door, darn, down, etc., when it retains its typical articulatory characteristics. In this case the consonant [d] is called the principal allophone. The allophones which do not undergo any distinguishable changes in the chain of speech are called principal. At the same time there are quite predictable changes in the articulation of allophones that occur under the influence of the neighboring sounds in different phonetic situations. Such allophones are called subsidiary. The following examples illustrate the articulatory modifications of the phoneme [d] in various phonetic contexts:

[d] is slightly palatalized before front vowels and the sonorant [j], e.g. deal, day, did, did you;

[d] is pronounced without any plosion before another stop,. e.g. bedtime, bad pain, good dog;

It is pronounced with the nasal plosion before the nasal sonorants [n] and [m], e.g. sudden, admit, could not, could meet;

The plosion is lateral before the lateral sonorant [l], e.g. middle, badly, bad light. The alveolar position is particularly sensitive to the influence of the place of articulation of a following consonant. Thus followed by [r] the consonant [d] becomes post-alveolar, e.g. dry, dream; followed by the interdental [и], [р] it becomes dental, e.g. breadth, lead the way, good thing.

When [d] is followed by the labial [w] it becomes labialized, e.g. dweller. In the initial position [d] is partially devoiced, e.g. dog, dean; in the intervocalic position or when followed by a sonorant it is fully voiced, e.g. order, leader, driver; in the word-final position it is voiceless, e.g. road, raised, old.

These modifications of the phoneme [d] are quite sufficient to demonstrate the articulatory difference between its allophones, though the list of them could be easily extended. If you consider the production of the allophones of the phoneme above you will find that they possess three articulatory features in common, all of them are forelingual lenis stops.

Consequently, though allophones of the same phoneme possess similar articulatory features they may frequently show considerable phonetic differences.

It is perfectly obvious that in teaching English pronunciation the difference between the allophones of the same phoneme should be necessarily considered. The starting point is of course the articulation of the principal allophone, e.g. [d-d-d]: door, double, daughter, dark etc. Special training of the subsidiary allophones should be provided too. Not all the subsidiary allophones are generally paid equal attention to. In teaching pronunciation of [d], for instance, it is hardly necessary to concentrate on an allophone such as [d] before a front vowel as in Russian similar consonants in this position are also palatalized. Neither is it necessary to practice 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 foreign accent.

Allophones are arranged into functionally similar groups that are groups of sounds in which the members of each group are opposed to one another, 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 contexts, they are entirely predictable according to the phonetic environment, and thus carry no useful information, that is they cannot differentiate meanings.

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

Phonemes are important foe 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 pick up 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 much other information. Most of this other social information comes not from phonemic distinctions, but from phonetic ones. Thus, while phonemic evidence is important for lexical and grammatical meaning, most other aspects of a 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 of the words.

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

The native speaker is quite readily aware of the phonemes of his language 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 the distinction 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 other to make meaningful distinctions. For example the dark [l] occurs following a vowel as in pill, cold, but it is not found before a vowel, whereas the clear [l] only occurs before a vowel, as in lip, like. These two vowels cannot therefore contrast with each other in the way that [1] contrasts with [r] in lip - rip or lake - rake, there are no pairs of words which differ only in that one has [l] and the other - [1].

Thirdly, the phoneme is abstract or generalized and that is reflected in its definition as a language unit. It is an abstraction because we make it abstract from concrete realizations for classificatory purposes.

So the answer appears to be in the functioning of such sounds in the language concerned. 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 “different”. In linguistics, as it has been mentioned above, function is generally understood as the role of the various elements of the language in distinguishing the meaning.

The function of phonemes is to distinguish the meaning of morphemes and words. The native speaker does not notice the difference between the allophones of the same phoneme because this difference does not distinguish meanings. In other words, native speakers abstract themselves from the difference between the allophones of the same phoneme because it has no functional value. The actual difference between the allophones of the 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 dental. Another example: in the Russian word посадит the stressed vowel [a] is more front than it is in the word посадка. It is even more front in the word сядет. But Russian-speaking people do not observe this difference 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 that is allophonic modifications.

As it has been said before, native speakers do not observe the difference 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 of distinctive features that makes this phoneme functionally different from all other phonemes of the language concerned. This functionally relevant bundle of articulatory features is called the invariant of the phoneme. Neilher of the articulatory features that form the invariant of the phoneme can be changed without affecting the meaning. All the allophones of the phoneme [d], for instance, are occlusive, forelingual, lenis. If occlusive articulation is changed for constrictive one [d] will be replaced by [z], cf. breed-- breeze, deal - zeal; [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 occlusive, forelingual and lenis characteristics of the phoneme [d] are generalized in the mind of the speaker into what is called the invariant of this phoneme.

On the one hand, the phoneme is objective 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 exists in 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 articulatory features in common, that is all of them possess the same invariant.

Simultaneously 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 pupils 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. If opposed sounds differ in one articulatory feature and this difference brings about changes in the meaning of the words the contrasting features are called relevant.

For example, the words port and court differ in one consonant only, that is 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 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 impossible 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.

As it has been mentioned above any change in the invariant of the phoneme affects the meaning. Naturally, anyone who studies a foreign language makes mistakes in the articulation of particular sounds. L.V. Shcherba classifies the pronunciation errors as phonological and phonetic.

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

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 same phoneme the mistake is called phonetic. It happens when the invariant of the 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 advised not to let phonetic mistakes into their pronunciation. If they do make them the degree of their foreign accent will certainly be an obstacle to the listener's perception.



1.2 Conceptions of the phoneme

Views of the phoneme seem to fall into four main classes. The "mentalistic" or "psychological" view regards the phoneme as an ideal "mental image" or a target at which the speaker aims. He deviates from this ideal sound partly because an identical repetition of a sound is next to impossible and partly because of the influence exerted by neighboring sounds.

According to this conception allophones of the phoneme are varying materializations of it. This view was originated by the founder of the phoneme theory, the Russian linguist I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay and something like it appears to have been adopted by E.D. Sapir, Alf. Sommerfelt, M. Tatham .

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 defining characteristic of phonemes.

Thus the absence of palatalization in [l] and palatalization of the dark [і] in English do not differentiate meanings, and therefore [l] and [і] cannot be assigned to different phonemes but both form allophones of the phoneme [l]. This view is shared by many foreign linguists such as N. Trubetskoy, L. Bloomfield, R. Jakobson, M. Halle.

The functional view of the phoneme gave rise to a branch of linguistics called "phonology" or "phonemics" which is concerned with relationships between contrasting sounds in a language.

Its special interest lies in establishing the system of distinctive features of the language concerned. Phonetics is limited in this case with the precise description of acoustic and physiological aspects of physical sounds without any concern to their linguistic function. A stronger form of the "functional" approach is advocated in the so-called "abstract" view of the phoneme, which regards phonemes as essentially independent of the acoustic and physiological properties associated with them that is of speech sounds. This view of the phoneme was pioneered by L. Hjelmslev and his associates in the Copenhagen Linguistic Circle, H.J. Uldall and K. Togby.

The views of the phoneme discussed above can be qualified as idealistic since all of them regard the phoneme as an abstract conception existing in the mind but not in the reality that is in human speech, speech sounds being only phonetic manifestations of these conceptions.

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

1) 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 of the "physical" conception, as propounded by D. Jones and shared by B. Bloch and G. Trager, excludes all reference to non-articulatory criteria in the grouping of sounds into phonemes.

The concept of the phoneme was central to the development of phonological theory. In the early twentieth century, phonological theory was all about the phoneme: how to define it, how to recognize it, how to discover it. The American structuralist term for phonology, phonemics, indicates to what extent the field was considered to be about the phoneme.

Things have now changed. The phoneme, to all appearances, no longer holds a central place in phonological theory. Two recent and voluminous handbooks devoted to phonology, edited by Goldsmith and by de Lacy, have no chapter on the phoneme. It is barely mentioned in the indexes. This does not mean that the phoneme plays no role in modern phonology; closer inspection reveals that the phoneme is far from dead. However, it is not much talked about, and when it is, it is more often to dispute its existence than to affirm it.

Such a dramatic change in fortunes for a concept bears some looking into, and this chapter will be devoted to trying to understand what has happened to the phoneme in its journey into the twenty-first century, and what its prospects are for the future. S. R. Anderson cites Godel and Jakobson as locating the origin of the term phoneme in the French word phoneme, coined in the early 1870s by the French linguist Dufriche-Desgenettes. He proposed the term to substitute for the German Sprachlaut (“speech sound”), so it did not have the modern sense of phoneme, but rather corresponded to what we would now call “speech sound” or “phone.” The term was taken up by Saussure, who used it in yet a different sense, and from Saussure it was taken up by the Polish Kazan school linguists Jan Baudouin de Courtenay.

S. R. Anderson traces how the meaning of the term evolved from Saussure's use to the one that ultimately emerged from the Kazan school. Saussure used it in his historical work on Indo-European to refer to a hypothesized sound in a proto-language together with its reflexes in the daughter languages, what we might call a “correspondence set”. For example, if a sound that is reconstructed as g in the proto-language has reflexes g, h, and k in three daughter languages, then the set [g, h, k] would constitute a “phoneme” for Saussure.

Kruszewski recast the notion in synchronic terms to refer to a set of alternating elements; for example, if the same morpheme has a final [g] before suffixes beginning with a back vowel, a palatalized [gj] before suffixes beginning with a front vowel, and a [k] when it is word-final, the alternation “[g] before a back vowel, [gj] before a front vowel, and [k] when final” would constitute a “phoneme”.

Subsequently, Baudouin reinterpreted the term “phonemes” as referring to the abstract, invariant psychophonetic elements that alternate; in the above example, one could posit a phoneme [g] that participates in the alternations that cause it to be realized as [g], [gj], or [k], depending on the context. In a final step, the term was extended also to sounds that do not alternate, thereby arriving at a conception of the phoneme as “the psychological equivalent of a speech sound”. It is in this sense that the phoneme entered phonological theory in Europe and North America.

The general concept of the phoneme preceded the term or its exact definition, which is a more difficult enterprise. The basic concept is that of the unity of sounds that are objectively different but in some sense functionally the same.

As Twaddell observes, this concept is not new: if a special term was not needed before the late nineteenth century, it is because in the absence of close phonetic observation, it is not necessary to distinguish between “phoneme” and “speech sound” [12]. Alphabetic writing systems tend to have separate letters only for sounds that have a distinctive function, though deviations from this principle occur. In ordinary parlance one talks of the sound “d” or “k” as if each of these represents a single sound, rather than, as is the case, a range of sounds.

Parallel to the development of the phonemic concept as part of phonological theory mentioned above, British and French phoneticians who laid the foundations for what became the International Phonetic Association (IPA) arrived at a similar notion motivated by more practical concerns. According to Jones, Henry Sweet was the first to draw a distinction between “narrow” and “broad” transcription: narrow transcription aims (in principle) to record sounds in as much detail as possible, whereas broad transcription records only distinctive differences in sound. It was recognized early on that the goal of assigning a unique symbol to every sound in every language, even if it could be realized, would lead to transcriptions for particular languages that would be impractical and virtually illegible.

Therefore, Paul Passy insisted in 1888 that only distinctive differences should be recorded, and called this principle une regle d'or (“a golden rule”) from which one should never depart.

Thus, while the IPA is popularly known for developing a universal phonetic alphabet that is associated with phonetic (“narrow”) transcription, its founders insisted on “broad” (i.e. phonemic) transcription for purely practical reasons. The practical strain remained influential in phonological theory, as attested by the subtitle of Pike's “Phonemics: a technique for reducing languages to writing”.

It is hard to imagine what linguistic description would be like without a phoneme concept of some sort. To take one entirely typical example, the Australian language Pitta-Pitta (Pama-Nyungan) is said to have three vowels, i, a, and u.

In describing their pronunciation, Blake writes that they “are similar to the vowels of `been', `balm', and `boot' respectively” (presumably [i], [a], and [u]). Further reading reveals that this is only true in open syllables, and when stressed, and when near certain consonants. In a closed syllable, “they are similar to the vowels of `bin', `bun', and `put' ” ([i], [a], and [u]). Further, the vowel /a/ is pronounced in the vicinity of a palatal consonant, and unstressed a has a schwa-like pronunciation [o]. Objectively, then, Pitta-Pitta has at least eight different vowel sounds, and probably many more if we were to attend to further distinctions in different segmental and prosodic contexts, and in different situations and for different speakers.

This variation does not detract from the fact that there is an important sense in which this language has three vowels. In the distribution given above, we recognize that the variation is a consequence of the influence of context, and has no contrastive function.

Put differently, in every slot where a vowel belongs we have only three choices in this language. If we are told that a word begins with the sequence m-vowel-rr-, we know that the vowel must be one of the variants of /a/ (e.g. marra `open'), /i/ (e.g. mirri `little girl'), or /u/ (e.g. murra `stick').

In the 1930s many linguists came to share the intuition that a concept like the phoneme is needed in phonological description. Pinning down the definition of this concept proved to be difficult. Like other linguistic notions, such as “sentence,”“syllable,” and “topic,” what starts out as a relatively unproblematic intuitive concept inevitably gets caught up in theory-internal considerations. In the case of the phoneme, three issues have been particularly contentious: (1) what sort of entity the phoneme is (physical, psychological, other); (2) what the content of the phoneme is; and (3) how one identifies phonemes.

Twaddell surveyed the various definitions of the phoneme that were then in circulation, and classified them as being of two main types One type assumes that the phoneme is a physical reality, and the other assumes that it is a psychological notion.

One class of definitions assumes that the phoneme is a physical reality of some sort. Thus, Jones considers the phoneme to be a “family” of sounds in a particular language that “count for practical purposes as if they were one and the same.” While such a definition (“explanation” is Jones's preferred term) is fine for practical purposes, it leaves unaddressed the essential nature of the phoneme: what it is about certain sounds that cause them to count as part of the same family.

A more ambitious proposal was made by Bloomfield. He characterized the phoneme as “a minimum unit of distinctive sound-feature…”. The speaker has been trained to make sound-producing movements in such a way that the phoneme features will be present in the sound waves, and he has been trained to respond only to these features. Such a definition fits well with the behaviorist psychology assumed by Bloomfield, which sees behavior (including language, which is defined as verbal behavior; as being shaped by the association of stimuli with responses; if phonemes are crucial to behavior, according to this view, one might expect them to be overtly present in the signal.

Nevertheless, Twaddell observes that the acoustic constants required by such a theory had not been observed by experimental phoneticians, and he doubts that advances in laboratory technology would reveal them in the future. Twaddell's judgment has turned out to be prescient. In the 1970s and 1980s Blumstein and Stevens tried to identify invariant acoustic correlates for the phonetic features that make up phonemes. Despite some early successes, a considerable amount of variability was found when different contexts were considered.

The emphasis of this line of research ultimately shifted to consider the role of “enhancing” gestures in helping listeners identify features when the primary acoustic cue has been weakened or obliterated. Thus it has not been demonstrated that there is some acoustic constant that characterizes every instance of a phoneme or distinctive feature.

If the phoneme cannot be identified with a physical constant, a natural alternative is that it is a mental or psychological reality. Many early writers on the phoneme thought of it in psychological terms, and Twaddell assembles some characteristic definitions: the phoneme is a constant acoustic and auditory image; a thought sound; a sound idea; a psychological equivalent of an empirical sound [12].

In modern terms all these definitions amount to the claim that the phoneme is some sort of mental representation. Twaddell criticizes these psychological accounts on two grounds. First, he points out, correctly, that such definitions are not particularly helpful in characterizing what phonemes are. His second critique is more sweeping, and arises from his empiricist view of philosophy and psychology: following Bloomfield, Twaddell argues that mentalistic notions have no place in science, because they cannot be empirically tested. While it is no doubt correct that appealing to a vague and unknown “mind” cannot serve as an adequate explanation (explanans) of any phenomenon, the cognitive revolution that began in the 1950s has shown the fruitfulness of studying mental representations and processes as things to be explained (explananda).

The consequence of rejecting both physical and psychological reality for the phoneme is that Twaddell is forced to conclude that the phoneme, though an“eminently useful” term, is a fictitious unit. There exist philosophies of science in which useful, indeed indispensible, units can be fictions, but most linguists have taken a “realist” view of linguistics. From this perspective, a unit that is required to give an adequate account of some phenomenon must be real at some level. Once we abandon empiricist assumptions about science and psychology, there is no obstacle to considering the phoneme to be a psychological entity.

1.3 The system of English phonemes

1.3.1 General characteristics of vowel phonemes

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 of voice only. From the articulatory point of view the difference is due to the work of speech organs. In case of vowels no obstruction is made. In case of consonants various obstructions are made. So consonants are characterized by so-called close articulation that is by a complete, partial or intermittent blockage of the air-passage by an organ or organs. The closure is formed in such a way that the air-stream is blocked or hindered or otherwise gives rise to audible friction. As a result consonants are sounds which have noise as their indispensable and most defining characteristic.

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. 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. In English vowel system there are 12 vowel monophthongs and 8 or 9 diphthongs.

The quality of a vowel is known to be determined 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 characteristics, such as 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.

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:

1. stability of articulation;

2. tongue position;

3. lip position;

4. character of the vowel end;

5. length;

6. tenseness

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) it 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:

1. monophthongs,

2. diphthongs,

3. diphthongoids

This interpretation is not 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: [i], [e], [.], [?], [u], [?], [?] and thirteen as long ones: [a:], [?:], [з:], [i:], [u:], [ei], [зu], [ai], [au], [? u], [i?], [е?], [u?] five of which are considered relatively pure: [a:], [?:] [з:], [i:], [u:]; the rest are referred to long phonemes with different glides: [ei], [ai], [? I] with a glide to [i]; [зu], [au] with a glide to [u]; and [i?], [е?], [u?] with a glide to [?] [16].

Diphthongs are complex entities just like affricates, so essentially similar complications are known to exist with them. The question is whether they are monophonemic or biphonemic units. Scholars like V.A. Vasilyev and L.R. Zinder grant the English diphthongs monophonemic status on the basis of articulatory, morphonological and syllabic indivisibility as well as the criteria of duration and commutability [17].

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, for example: [?sei-i?] saying, [?krai-i?] crying, [?slзu-?] slower, [?plзu-i?] ploughing, [?kli?-r?] clearer, [?е?-ri?] airing, [?рu?-r?] poorer. 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, cf. [sait - si:t], [кзut - k?:t]. 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--b?t] bite - but

[bait -- b?:t] bite - bought and so on.

Monophonemic character of English diphthongs is proved by native speakers' intuitions who perceive these sound complexes as a single segment.

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 Russian phoneticians distinguish five classes of English vowels. They are:

1.front: [i:], [e], [ei], [е(?)];

2.front-retracted: [I], [I(?)];

3.central: [?] [з:] [?], [з(u)], [е(?)];

4.back [?], [?:], [u:], [a:];

5.back-advanced: [u], [u(?)] [18]

British phoneticians 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.

As to the tongue position in its vertical movement British scholars distinguish three classes of vowels: high (or close), mid (or half-open), and low (or open) vowels. Russian 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], [з:], [?], [e(i)], [з(u)];

b)broad: [?], [?];

3.open a) narrow: [е(?)], [?:], [? (i)];

b)broad: [.], [a(i, u)], [?], [a:] [15]

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. 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.

Another property of English vowel sounds checkness depends on the character of the articulatory transition from a vowel to a consonant. This kind of transition (VC) is very close in English. 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. The English monophthongs are traditionally divided into two varieties according to their length:

a) short vowels: [i], [e], [.], [?], [u], [?], [?];

b) long vowels: [i:], [a:], [?:], [з:], [u:];

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;

7. 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:d], [?f?:w?:d] (foreword) - [?f?:w?d] (forward) are distinguished from one another by the opposition of different length, which D. Jones calls chronemes [15]. 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 V.A. Vassilyev, English is not a language in which chronemes as separate prosodic phonological units can exist [17].

One more articulatory characteristic 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.

Summarizing we could say that phonological analysis of the articulatory features of English vowels allows considering 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 well-known that a vowel in an unstressed syllable is perceived as very short, weak, and indistinct. The unstressed syllables are usually associated with vowels of central or centralized quality [?], [i], sometimes [u] and the diphthongs [зu], [ai] (or a syllabic consonant), e.g. among [?'m??], before [bi'f?:], useful [`ju:sful], tomato [t?'ma:tзu], exercise [`eks?saiz], sudden [`s?dn].

Also vowels of full quality sometimes occur in unstressed positions, often in borrowed words of Latin and Greek origin, e.g. architect [`a:kitekt], paragraph [`p.r?gra:f], canteen [kaen'ti:n]. These non-reduced vowels in unstressed syllables are typical of all styles of pronunciation. Then again partially reduced sounds are found in unstressed positions. They appear in more formal and careful style of pronunciation instead of the neutral sound used in informal casual speech. Cf.: phonetics [fзu'netiks - fз'netiks - f?'netiks] [18].

Our next point should be made in connection with the phonemic status of the neutral sound [?]. The phonological analysis marks the opposition of the neutral sound to other unstressed vowels, the most common among them being [I]. In the minimal pairs: officers [?? fIs?z] - offices [?? fisiz]; accept [?k?sept] - except [ik?sept], armour [?a:m?] - army [?a:mi] the neutral sound is phonologically opposed to the phoneme [i] with its own distinctive features capable of differentiating the meaning of lexical units.

So the neutral sound [?] in officers, accept, armour is an independent phoneme opposed to the [i] phoneme of the minimal pairs given above.

On the other hand, the problem of the phonemic status of the neutral sound has a morphological aspect. In English there are numerous alternations of vowels in stressed and unstressed syllables between the derivatives of the same root or different grammatical forms of the same word. Cf.:

...