Phonetic features of the English language

The phoneme /а/ and /о/ belong to archiphoneme which is realized in the sound [A], as in [вАлы] meaning both валы and волы.

5. The system of the English phonemes

The system of consonant phonemes. Problem of affricates

The phonological analysis of English consonant sounds helps to distinguish 24 phonemes: [p, b, t, d, k, g, f, v, и, р, s, z, ?, ж(не нашла ничего лучше ), h, t?, dж, m, n, ?, w, r, 1, j]. Principles of classification suggested by Russian phoneticians provide the basis for establishing of the following distinctive oppositions in the system of English consonants:

1. Degree of noise

bake - make, veal - wheel

2. Place of articulation

a. labial vs. lingual

pain -- cane

b. lingual vs. glottal

foam -- home, care -- hair, Tim - him

3. Manner of articulation

3.1 occlusive vs. constrictive pine -fine, bat - that, bee - thee

3.2 constrictive vs. affricates fare -- chair, fail -jail

3.3 constrictive unicentral vs. constrictive bicentral

same - shame

4. Work of the vocal cords and the force of articulation

4.1 voiceless fortis vs. voiced lenis

pen -- Ben, ten - den, coat - goal

5. Position of the soft palate

5.1 oral vs. nasal

pit -- pin, seek -- seen

There are some problems of phonological character in the English consonantal system; it is the problem of affricates - their phonological status and their number. The question is: what kind of facts a phonological theory has to explain.

1) Are the English [t?, dж] sounds monophonemic entities or biphonemic combinations (sequences, clusters)?

2) If they are monophonemic, how many phonemes of the same kind exist in English, or, in other words, can such clusters as [tr, dr] and [tи, dр] be considered affricates?

To define it is not an easy matter. One thing is clear: these sounds are complexes because articulatory we can distinguish two elements. Considering phonemic duality of affricates, it is necessary to analyze the relation of affricates to other consonant phonemes to be able to define their status in the system.

The problem of affricates is a point of considerable controversy among phoneticians. According to Russian specialists in English phonetics, there are two affricates in English: [t?, dж]. D. Jones points out there are six of them: [t?, dж], [ts, dz], and [tr, dr]. A.C. Gimson increases their number adding two more affricates: [tи, tр]. Russian phoneticians look at English affricates through the eyes of a phoneme theory, according to which a phoneme has three aspects: articulatory, acoustic and functional, the latter being the most significant one. As to British phoneticians, their primary concern is the articulatory-acoustic unity of these complexes.

Before looking at these complexes from a functional point of view it is necessary to define their articulatory indivisibility.

According to N.S. Trubetzkoy's point of view a sound complex may be considered monophonemic if: a) its elements belong to the same syllable; b) it is produced by one articulatory effort; c) its duration should not exceed normal duration of elements. Let us apply these criteria to the sound complexes.

1. Syllabic indivisibility

butcher [but? -?] lightship [lait-?ip]

mattress [mжtr-is] footrest [fut-rest]

curtsey [kз:-tsi] out-set [aut-set]

eighth [eitи] whitethorn [wait-иo:n]

In the words in the left column the sounds [t?], [tr], [ts], [tи] belong to one syllable and cannot be divided into two elements by a syllable dividing line.

2. Articulatory indivisibility. Special instrumental analysis shows that all the sound complexes are homogeneous and produced by one articulatory effort.

3. Duration. With G.P. Torsuyev we could state that length of sounds depends on the position in the phonetic context, therefore it cannot serve a reliable basis in phonological analysis. He writes that the length of English [t?] in the words chair and match is different; [t?] in match is considerably longer than |t| in mat and may be even longer than [?] in mash. This does not prove, however, that [t?] is biphonemic.

According to morphological criterion a sound complex is considered to be monophonemic if a morpheme boundary cannot pass within it because it is generally assumed that a phoneme is morphologically indivisible. If we consider [t?], [dж] from this point of view we could be secure to grant them a monophonemic status, since they are indispensable. As to [ts], [dz] and [tи], [dр] complexes their last elements are separate morphemes [s], [z], [и], [р] so these elements are easily singled out by the native speaker in any kind of phonetic context. These complexes do not correspond to the phonological models of the English language and cannot exist in the system of phonemes. The case with [tr], [dr] complexes is still more difficult.

By way of conclusion we could say that the two approaches have been adopted towards this phenomenon are as follows: the finding that there are eight affricates in English [t?], [dж], [tr], [dr], [ts], [dz], [tр], [dи] is consistent with articulatory and acoustic point of view, because in this respect the entities are indivisible. This is the way the British phoneticians see the situation. On the other hand, Russian phoneticians are consistent in looking at the phenomenon from the morphological and the phonological point of view which allows them to define [t?], [dж] as monophonemic units and [tr], [dr], [ts], [dz], [tр], [dи] as biphonemic complexes. However, this point of view reveals the possibility of ignoring the articulatory and acoustic indivisibility.

The system of vowel phonemes. Problems of diphthongs and vowel length.

The following 20 vowel phonemes are distinguished in BBC English (RP): [i:, a:, o:, u:, з:, i, e, ж, у, х, л(типа крышка домика), ?; ei, ai, oi, ах, eх, х?, i?].

Principles of classification provide the basis for the establishment of the following distinctive oppositions:

1. Stability of articulation

1.1. monophthongs vs. diphthongs

bit - bait, kit - kite, John - join, debt -- doubt

1.2. diphthongs vs. diphthongoids

bile - bee, boat -- boot, raid - rude

2. Position of the tongue

2.1. horizontal movement of the tongue

a) front vs. central

cab -- curb, bed -- bird

b) back vs. central

pull - pearl, cart - curl, call - curl

2.2. vertical movement of the tongue

close (high) vs. mid-open (mid) bid -- bird, week - work

open (low) vs. mid-open (mid) lark - lurk, call -- curl, bard-bird

3. Position of the lips rounded vs. unrounded don -- darn, pot - part

The English diphthongs are, like the affricates, the object of a sharp phonological controversy, whose essence is the same as in the case of affricates are the English diphthongs biphonemic sound complexes or composite monophonemic entities?

Diphthongs are defined differently by different authors. One definition is based on the ability of a vowel to form a syllable. Since in a diphthong only one element serves as a syllabic nucleus, a diphthong is a single sound. Another definition of a diphthong as a single sound is based on the instability of the second element. The 3d group of scientists defines a diphthong from the accentual point of view: since only one element is accented and the other is unaccented, a diphthong is a single sound.

D. Jones defines diphthongs as unisyllabic gliding sounds in the articulation of which the organs of speech start from one position and then glide to another position.

N.S. Trubetzkoy states that a diphthong should be (a) unisyllabic, that is the parts of a diphthong cannot belong to two syllables; (b) monophonemic with gliding articulation; (c) its length should not exceed the length of a single phoneme.

In accordance with the principle of structural simplicity and economy American descriptivists liquidated the diphthongs in English as unit phonemes.

The same phonological criteria may be used for justifying the monophonemic treatment of the English diphthongs as those applicable to the English affricates. They are the criteria of articulatory, morphophonological (and, in the case of diphthongs, also syllabic) indivisibility, commutability and duration. Applied to the English diphthongs, all these criteria support the view of their monophonemic status.

Problem of length. There are long vowel phonemes in English and short. However, the length of the vowels is not the only distinctive feature of minimal pairs like Pete -pit, beet - bit, etc. In other words the difference between i: i. u: - х is not only quantitative but also qualitative, which is conditioned by different positions of the bulk of the tongue. For example, in words bead- bid not only the length of the vowels is different but in the [i:] articulation the bulk of the tongue occupies more front and high position then in the articulation of [i].

Qualitative difference is the main relevant feature that serves to differentiate long and short vowel phonemes because quantitative characteristics of long vowels depend on the position they occupy in a word:

(a) they are the longest in the terminal position: bee, bar, her;

(b) they are shorter before voiced consonants: bead, hard, cord;

(c) they are the shortest before voiceless consonants: beet, cart.

6. Alternations and modifications of speech sounds in English

The notion of alternation and its types.

The sound variations in words, their derivatives and grammatical form words, are known as sound alternations. For example: the dark [l] in spell alternate with the clear [l] in spelling; combine (n) [`kуmbain], combine [k?m'bain] where [n] in the stressed syllable of the noun alternates with the neutral sound. It is perfectly obvious that sound alternations of this type are caused by assimilation, accommodation and reduction in speech. To approach the matter from the phonological viewpoint, it is important to differentiate phonemic and allophone alternations. Some sound alternations are traced to the phonemic changes in earlier periods of the language development and are known as historical. Historical alternations mark both vowels and consonants, though the alternating sounds are not affected by the phonemic position or context. The sounds changes, which occurred in the process of historical development of the language, are reflected in present-day English as alternations of phonemes differentiating words, their derivatives and grammatical forms. The following list of examples presents the types of alternations:

1. Vowel alternations.

1.1 Distinction of irregular verbal forms [i:-e-e] mean - meant - meant; [i-ж-A] sing - sang - sung; [i-ei-i] give - gave - given;

1.2 Distinction of causal verbal forms: [i-e] sit - set; [ai-ei] rise - raise; [o - e] fall-fell.

1.3 Distinction of parts of speech in etymologically correlated words [a: - ж] class - classify, [o: - e] long - length; [ei - ж] nation - national.

2. Consonants alternations.

2.1 Distinction of irregular verbal forms [d - t] send - sent.

2.2 distinction of parts of speech [s - z] advice - advise; [k - t?] speak - speech;

3. Vowel and consonant alternations [i - ai] + [v - f] live - life; [a: - ae] + [и - р] bath - bathe.

Contextual alternations in English.

Alternations are also widely spread on the synchronic level in the present-day English and are known as contextual. In connection with contextual sound alternations there arises a problem of phonemic identification of alternated sounds. The study of the relationship between phonemes and morphemes is called morphophonemics. The interrelation of phonology and morphology is also known as morphophonology оr mоrрhоnоlogy which is actually the phonology of morphemes. Morphonology studies the way in which sounds can alternate in different realizations of one and the same morpheme.

We are interested in the sound in its weak position. Scholars of different trends are not unanimous in solving the problem.

The so-called morphological (Moscow phonological) school supports the theory of neutralization of phonemes. The concept of neutralization derives originally from the Prague School of phonology. Neutralization occurs when two or more closely related sounds, which are in contrast with each other in most positions, are found to be non-contrastive in certain other positions. That means that there are environment where the two sounds do not contrast with each other, even though they normally do. When this happens, the opposition between the two sounds is said to be neutralized. The loss of one or more distinctive feature(s) of a phoneme in the weak position is called phonemic neutralization.

The Moscow philologists claim that interchange of sounds manifests close connection between phonetics and morphology. Alternations are observed in one and the same morpheme and actualize the phonemic structure of the morpheme. Thus, phonemic content of the morpheme/is constant. It should be noted here that alternations of morphemes cannot be mistaken for the oppositions of minimal pairs in different stems of words. Lets us compare some examples: postman [?] < [ж], sixpence [?] < [e]. Thus, one and the same sound may belong to different phonemes.

The supporters of the morphological trend define the phoneme as follows «Это функциональная единица, представленная рядом позиционно чередующихся звуков» (М.В. Панов). The notion of «фонетический ряд», suggested by R.I. Avanesov, demonstrates positionally determined realizations of the phoneme. Positionally alternating sounds are grouped into one phoneme whether they are similar or have common features (that is common allophones) with other phonemes.

The Russian preposition с + noun may have the following realizations: с Колей -- [c], с Тимошей -- [c'], с Галей -- [з], с Димой -- [з'], с Шypoй -- [ш]. с Женей -- [ж], с Щукарём -- [ш'].

In the morphological conception the alternations of the phonemes are not analyzed apart from the morpheme, as form and content make dialectical 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 is not entirely satisfactory since ordinary speakers are in no doubt that the sound which occurs in a word like гриб is [п] not [б], and in English word speak [ph] is nothing but [p]. The perception of the listeners makes us find the morphological conception too discrepant and confiding.

The so-called Leningrad (Petersburg) school asserts that the phoneme is independent of the morpheme. The supporters of this conception claim that the phoneme cannot lose any of its distinctive features. In the line of words of the same root morpheme (гриб - грибы) the sound [п] is an allophone of the phoneme /п/ and the sound [б] manifests the phoneme /б/. Consequently, the consonants [6] and [п] do not lose any their distinctive features and represent different phonemes. It seems that according to this point of view the unity between the form and the content is destroyed, thus phonology is isolated from morphology.

According to N.S. Trubetzkoy, an archiphoneme is defined as a combination of distinctive features common to two phonemes. It consists of the shared features of two or more closely related phonemes but excludes the feature which distinguishes them. For example: archiphoneme [П] consists of the features: bilabial, plosive, but excludes voicing which separates them.

One of the disadvantages in extending the notion of an archiphoneme is that the Prague School phonologists limited neutralization to closely related phonemes. A neutralization can be said to occur only if there is uncertainty about the identity of the sound in the position of neutralization. Before two phonemes can be neutralized, they must have common qualities which do not occur in other phonemes. Thus [p], [b] can neutralize because they are the only labial plosives in the language, they share these two features, but no other sounds share them. However, [n] and [?] cannot neutralize, so any neutralization of nasals must involve all the three of them - [n], [?], [m].

Modifications of sounds in English.

Sounds in actual speech are seldom pronounced by themselves. To pronounce a word consisting of more than one sound, it is necessary to join the sounds together in the proper way. There exist several types of junction, some of which are common to all or many languages, while others are characteristic of individual languages. In order to master these specific types of junction it is necessary to understand the mechanism of joining sounds together. This mechanism can only be understood after analyzing the stages in the articulation of a speech-sound pronounced in isolation.

Every speech-sound pronounced in isolation has three stages of articulation. They are (1) the on-glide, or the initial stage, (2) the retention-stage, or the medial stage, and (3) the off-glide (release), or the final stage.

The on-glide, or the beginning of a sound, is the stage during which the organs of speech move away from a neutral position to lake up the position necessary for the pronunciation of a consonant or a vowel. The on-glide produces no audible sound. The retention-stage or the middle of a sound is the stage during which the organs of speech are kept for some time either in the same position necessary to pronounce the sound (in the case of non-complex sounds) or move from one position to another (within complex sounds, such as diphthongoids, diphthongs and affricates). For the retention-stage of a stop consonant the term stop-stage may also be used. The off-glide, or the end of a sound, is the stage during which the organs of speech move away to a neutral position. The off-glide of most sounds is not audible, the exception being plosives whose off-glide produces the sound of plosion before a vowel and in a word-final position before a pause.

In English there are two principal ways of linking two adjacent speech sounds: I. Merging of stages. II. Interpenetration of stages. The type of junction depends on the nature of the sounds that are joined together. As all English sounds come under the classification of consonants and vowels we may speak of joining:

(a) a consonant to a following vowel (C + V), as in the word [mi:] me;

(b) a vowel to a following consonant (V + C), as in the word [уn] on;

(c) two consonants (C + C), as in the word [bl?х] blow:

(d) two vowels (V + V), as in the word [riжl?ti] reality.

Merging of stages, as compared with interpenetration of stages, is a simpler and looser way of joining sounds together. It usually takes place if two adjacent sounds of a different nature are joined together. In this case the end of the preceding sound penetrates into the beginning of the following sound. In other words, the end of the first sound and the beginning of the second are articulated almost simultaneously. Interpenetration of stages usually takes place when consonants of a similar or identical nature are joined. In this case the end of the first sound penetrates not only into the beginning but also into the middle part of the second sound, as in [жkt] act, [begd] begged.

The modifications are observed both within words and word boundaries. There are the following types of modification: assimilation, accommodation, reduction, elision, and inserting. The adaptive modification of a consonant by a neighbouring consonant in a speech chain is assimilation. Accommodation is used to denote the interchanges of VC or CV types. Reduction is actually qualitative or quantitative weakening of vowels in unstressed positions. Elision is a complete loss of sounds, both vowels and consonants. Inserting is a process of sound addition.

MODIFICATIONS OF CONSONANTS.

1. Assimilation.

1.1. Place of articulation.

* t, d > dental before [р, и]: eighth, at the, said that.

* t, d > post-alveolar before [r]: tree, true, dream, the third room.

* s, z > post-alveolar before [?]: this shop, does she.

* t, d > affricates before [j]: graduate, could you.

* m > labio-dental before [f]: symphony.

* n > dental before [и]: seventh.

* n > velar before [k]: thank.

1.2. Manner of articulation.

* loss of plosion: glad to see you, great trouble.

* nasal plosion: sudden, at night, let me see.

* lateral plosion: settle, at last.

1.3. Work of the vocal cords.

* voiced > voiceless: newspaper, gooseberry (and in grammatical …).

has, is, does > [s]; of, have > [f].

Notice: In English typical assimilation is voiced > voiceless; voiceless > voiced is not typical.

1.4. Degree of noise.

* sonorants > are partially devoiced after [p, t, k, s].

2. Accommodation.

2.1. Lip position.

* consonant + back vowel: pool, rude, who (rounded).

* consonant + front vowel: tea, sit, keep (spread).

3. Elision.

3.1. Loss of [h] in personal and possessive pronouns and the forms of the auxiliary verb have.

3.2. [l] lends to be lost when preceded by [o:]: always, already, all right.

3.3. In cluster of consonants: next day, just one. mashed potatoes.

4. Inserting of sounds.

4.1. Linking [r] (potential pronunciation of [r]): car owner.

4.2. Intrusive [r]: [r] is pronounced where no r is seen in the spelling china and glass: it is not recommended to foreign learners.

MODIFICATION OF VOWELS.

1. Reduction.

1.1. Quantitative.

1.2. Qualitative.

2. Accommodation.

2.2 Positional length of vowels: knee - need - neat.

2.3. Nasalization of vowels: preceded or followed by [n, m]: never, then, men.

7. The syllabic structure in English

Theories on syllable formation and division.

Speech can be broken into minimal pronounceable units into which sounds show a tendency to cluster or group. These smallest phonetic groups arc generally given the name of syllables. Being the smallest pronounceable units, syllables form morphemes, words and phrases. Each of these units is characterized by a certain syllabic structure. Thus a meaningful language unit phonetically may be considered from the point of view of syllable formation and syllable division.

The syllable is a complicated phenomenon and like a phoneme it can be studied on four levels - articulatory, acoustic, auditory and functional. The complexity of the phenomenon gave rise to many theories.

We could start with the so-called expiratory (chest pulse or pressure) theory by R.H. Stetson. This theory is based on the assumption that expiration in speech is a pulsating process and each syllable should correspond to a single expiration. So the number of syllables in an utterance is determined by the number of expirations made in the production of the utterance. This theory was strongly criticized by Russian and foreign linguists. G.P. Torsuyev, for example, wrote that in a phrase a number of words and consequently a number of syllables can be pronounced with a single expiration. This fact makes the validity of the theory doubtful.

Another theory of syllable put forward by O. Jespersen is generally called the sonority theory. According to O. Jespersen, each sound is characterized by a certain degree of sonority which is understood us acoustic property of a sound that determines its perceptibility. According to this sound property a ranking of speech sounds could be established: <the least sonorous> voiceless plosives voiced fricatives voiced plosives voiced fricatives sonorants close vowels open vowels <the most sonorous>. In the word plant for example we may use the following wave of sonority: [pla:nt]. According to V.A. Vasssilyev the most serious drawback of this theory is that it fails to explain the actual mechanism of syllable formation and syllable division. Besides, the concept of sonority is not very clearly defined.

Further experimental work aimed to description of the syllable resulted in lot of other theories. However the question of articulatory mechanism of syllable in a still an open question in phonetics. We might suppose that this mechanism is similar in all languages and could be regarded as phonetic universal.

In Russian linguistics there has been adopted the theory of syllable by LV Shcherba. It is called the theory of muscular tension. In most languages there is the syllabic phoneme in the centre of the syllable which is usually a vowel phoneme or, in some languages, a sonorant. The phonemes preceding or following the syllabic peak are called marginal. The tense of articulation increases within the range of prevocalic consonants and then decreases within the range of postvocalic consonants.

Russian linguist and psychologist N.I. Zhinkin has suggested the so-called loudness theory which seems to combine both production and perception levels. The experiments carried out by N.I. Zhinkin showed that the arc of loudness of perception level is formed due to variations of the volume pharyngeal passage which is modified by contractions of its walls. The narrowing of the passage and the increase in muscular tension which results from it reinforce the actual loudness of a vowel thus forming the peak of the syllabic. So the syllable is the arc оf loudness which correlates with the arc of articulatory effort on the speed production level since variations in loudness are due to the work of all speech mechanisms.

It is perfectly obvious that no phonetician has succeeded so far in giving an adequate explanation of what the syllable is. The difficulties seem to arise from the various possibilities of approach to the unit. There exist two points of view:

1. Sоme linguists consider the syllable to be a purely articulatory unit which lacks any functional value. This point of view is defended on the ground that the boundaries of syllables do not always coincide with those of morphemes.

2. However the majority of linguists treat the syllable as the smallest pronounceable unit which can reveal some linguistic function.

Trying to define the syllable from articulatory point of view we may talk about universals. When we mean the functional aspect of the syllable it should be defined with the reference to the structure of one particular language.

The definition of the syllable from the functional point of view tends to single out the following features of the syllable:

a) a syllable is a chain of phonemes of varying length;

b) a syllable is constructed on the basis of contrast of its constituents (which is usually of vowel - consonant type);

c) the nucleus of a syllable is a vowel, the presence of consonants is optional; there are no languages in which vowels are not used as syllable nuclei, however, there are languages in which this function is performed by consonants;

d) the distribution of phonemes in the syllabic structure follows by the rules which are specific enough for a particular language.

2. The structure and functions of syllables in English

Syllable formation in English is based on the phonological opposition vowel - consonant. Vowels are usually syllabic while consonants are not with the exceptions of [l], [m], [n], which become syllabic in a final position preceded by a

noise consonant: bottle [bуtl], bottom [bуtm], button [b/\tn] and [r] (in those accents which pronounce [r]) perhaps [prжps].

The structure of English syllables can be summarized as follows:

* Many syllables have one or more consonants preceding the nucleus. These make up the syllable onset: me, so, plow.

* Many syllables have one or more consonants, following the nucleus. They make up the syllable coda. They are traditionally known as closed syllables: cat, jump.

* The combination of nucleus and coda has a special significance, making up the rhyming property of a syllable.

Fig. 5

The English language has developed the closed type of syllable as the fundamental one while in Russian it is the open type that forms the basis of syllable formation.

The other aspect of this component is syllable division. The problem of syllable division in case of intervocalic consonants and their clusters, like in such words as city, extra, standing and others.

Let us consider the first word ['sit.i]. There exist two possibilities:

a) the point of syllable division is after the intervocalic consonant:

b) the point of syllable division is inside the consonant.

In both cases the first syllable remains closed because the shot vowel should remains check The result of instrumentally analyses show, that the point of syllable division in such words is inside the intervocalic consonant. EPD indicates the point of division after the consonant.

The second case. There are two syllables in the word extra but where should the boundary between them fall?

1) [e - kstr?]. It is unlike that people would opt for a division between [e] and [kstr?] because there are no syllables in English which begin with consonant sequence [kstr].

2) Similarly, a division between [ekstr] and [?] would be unnatural.

3) [ek - str?], [eks - tr?], [ekst - r?] are possible. People usually prefer either of the first two options here, but there no obvious way of deciding between them.

In some cases we may take into account the morphemic structure of words. For example, standing consists of two syllables; on phonetic grounds [stжn - di?). on grammatical grounds [stжnd - i?].

Now we shall consider two functions of the syllable.

The first is constitutive function. It lies in its ability to be a part of a word itself. The syllables form language units of greater magnitude that is words, morphemes, and utterances. It this respect two things should be emphasized. First, the syllable is the unit within which the relations between distinctive features of phonemes and their acoustic correlates are revealed. Second, within a syllable (or syllables) prosodic characteristics of speech are realized, which form the stress pattern of a word and the intonation structure of an utterance. In sum, the syllable is a specific minimal structure of both segmental and suprasegmental features.

The other function is distinctive one. In this respect the syllable is characterized by its ability to differentiate words and word-forms. One minimal pare has been found in English to illustrate the word distinctive function in the syllabic: nitrate -- night-rate. There analogical distinction between word combinations can be illustrated by many more examples: an aim - a name; an ice house - a nice house, etc. Sometimes the difference in syllable division may be the basic ground for differentiation in such pairs as I saw her rise.- I saw her eyes; I saw the meat -- I saw them eat.

8. Word stress in English

Nature of word stress.

The sequence of syllables in the word is not pronounced identically. The syllable or syllables which are uttered with more prominence than the other syllables of the word are said to be stressed or accented. Stress in the isolated word is termed word stress; stress in connected speech is termed sentence stress.

Stress is defined differently by different authors. B.A. Bogoroditsky, for instance, defined stress as an increase of energy, accompanied by an increase of expiratory and articulatory activity. D. Jones defined stress as the degree of force, which is accompanied by a strong force of exhalation and gives an impression of loudness. H. Sweet also stated that stress, is connected with the force of breath. According to A.C. Gimson, the effect of prominence is achieved by any or all of four factors: force, tone, length and vowel colour.

If we compare stressed and unstressed syllables in the words contract ['kуntrжkt], to contract [k?n'trжkt], we may note that in the stressed syllable:

(a) the force is greater, which is connected with more energetic articulation;

(b) the pitch of voice is higher, which is connected with stronger tenseness of the vocal cords and the walls of the resonance chamber;

(c) the quantity of the vowel [ж] in [k?n'trжkt] is greater, the vowel becomes longer;

(d) the quality of the vowel [ж] in the stressed syllable is different from the quality of this vowel in the unstressed position, in which it is more narrow than ['ж].

On the auditory level a stressed syllable is the part of the word which has a special prominence. It is produced by a greater loudness and length, modifications in the pitch and quality. The physical correlates are: intensity, duration, frequency and the formant structure. All these features can be analyzed on the acoustic level. Word stress can be defined as the singling out of one or more syllables in a word, which is accompanied by the change of the force of utterance, pitch of the voice, qualitative and quantitative characteristics of the sound, which is usually a vowel. In different languages one of the factors constituting word stress is usually more significant than the others. According to the most important feature different types, of word stress are distinguished in different languages.

1) If special prominence in a stressed syllable or syllables is achieved mainly through the intensity of articulation, such type of stress is called dynamic, or force stress.

2) If special prominence in a stressed syllable is achieved mainly through the change of pitch, or musical tone, such accent is called musical, or tonic. It is characteristic of the Japanese, Korean and other oriental languages.

3) If special prominence in a stressed syllable is achieved through the changes in the quantity of the vowels, which are longer in the stressed syllables than in the unstressed ones, such type of stress is called quantitative.

4) Qualitative type of stress is achieved through the changes in the quality of the vowel under stress.

English word stress is traditionally defined as dynamic, but in fact, the special prominence of the stressed syllables is manifested in the English language not only through the increase of intensity, but also through the changes in the vowel quantity, consonant and vowel quality and pitch of the voice.

Russian word stress is not only dynamic but mostly quantitative and qualitative. The length of Russian vowels always depends on the position in a word.

Now we should like to distinguish the notions of word stress and sentence stress. They are first of all different in their sphere of application as they are applied to different language units: word stress is naturally applied to a word, as a linguistic unit, sentence stress is applied to a phrase. Secondly, the distinction of the rhythmic structure of a word and a phrase is clearly observed in the cases when the word stress in notional words is omitted in a phrase, e.g. I 'don't think he is 'right or when the rhythmic structure of the isolated word does not coincide with that of a phrase, e.g. 'Fifteen. 'Room Fifteen. 'Fifteen 'pages.

So in a speech chain the phonetic structure of a word obtains additional characteristics connected with rhythm, melody, and tempo. Though the sentence stress falls on the syllable marked by the word stress it is not realized in the stressed syllable of an isolated word but in a word within speech continuum. Since the spheres of word stress and sentence stress fall apart their functions are actually different. Sentence stress organizes a sentence into a linguistic unit, helps to form its rhythmic and intonation pattern, and performs its distinctive function on the level of a phrase.

Stress difficulties peculiar to the accentual structure of the English language are connected with the vowel special and inherent prominence. In identical positions the intensity of English vowels is different. The highest in intensity is /a:/, then go /о:, з:, i:, u:, ж, у, e, х, i/.

All English vowels may occur in accented syllables, the only exception is /?/, which is never stressed. English vowels /i, и, ? х/ tend to occur in unstressed syllables. Syllables with the syllabic /1, m, n/ are never stressed. Unstressed diphthongs may partially lose their glide quality. In stressed syllables English stops have complete closure, fricatives have full friction, and features of fortis/lenis distinction are clearly defined.

Place of word stress in English. Degrees of stress.

Languages are also differentiated according to the place of word stress. The traditional classification of languages concerning place of stress in a word is into those with a fixed stress and those with a free stress. In languages with a fixed stress the occurrence of the word stress is limited to a particular syllable in a polysyllabic word. For instance, in French the stress falls on the last syllable of the word (if pronounced in isolation), in Finnish and Czech it is fixed on the first syllable, in Polish on the one but last syllable. In languages with a free stress its place is not confined to a specific position in the word. In one word it may fall on the first syllable, in another on the second syllable, in the third word -- on the last syllable, etc. The free placement of stress is exemplified in the English and Russian languages, e.g. English: 'appetite - be'ginning - ba'lloon; Russian: озеро - погода - молоко.

The word stress in English as well as in Russian is not only free but it may also be shifting, performing the semantic function of differentiating lexical units, parts of speech, grammatical forms. In English word stress is used as a means of word-building; in Russian it marks both word-building and word formation, e.g. 'contrast -- con'trast; 'habit -- habitual 'music -- mu'sician; дома -- дома; чудная -- чудная, воды -- воды.

There are actually as many degrees of stress in a word as there are syllables. The opinions of phoneticians differ as to how many degrees of stress are linguistically relevant in a word. The British linguists usually distinguish three degrees of stress in the word. A.C. Gimson, for example, shows the distribution of the degrees of stress in the word examination. The primary stress is the strongest, it is marked by number 1, the secondary stress is the second strongest marked by 2. All the other degrees are termed weak stress. Unstressed syllables are supposed to have weak stress. The American scholars B. Bloch and G. Trager find four contrastive degrees of word stress, namely: loud, reduced loud, medial and weak stresses. Other American linguists also distinguish four degrees of word stress but term them: primary stress, secondary stress, tertiary stress and weak stress. The difference between the secondary and tertiary stresses is very subtle and seems subjective. The criteria of their difference are very vague. The second pretonic syllables of such words as libe'ration, recog'nition are marked by secondary stress in BrE, in AmE they are said to have tertiary stress. In AmE tertiary stress also affects the suffixes -ory, -ary, -ony of nouns and the suffixes -ate, -ize, -y of verbs, which are considered unstressed in BrE, e.g. 'territory, 'ceremony, 'dictionary; 'demonstrate, 'organize, 'simplify.

British linguists do not always deny the existence of tertiary stress as a tendency to use a tertiary stress on a post-tonic syllable in RP is also traced.

Functions and tendencies of the English stress.

Word stress in a language performs three functions.

1. Word stress constitutes a word, it organizes the syllables of a word into a language unit having a definite accentual structure, that is a pattern of relationship among the syllables; a word does not exist without the word stress Thus the word stress performs the constitutive function. Sound continuum becomes a phrase when it is divided into units organized by word stress into words.

2. Word stress enables a person to identify a succession of syllables as a definite accentual pattern of a word. This function of word stress is known as identificatoiy(у него так в лекции) (or recognitive). Correct accentuation helps the listener to make the process of communication easier, whereas the distorted accentual pattern of words, misplaced word stresses prevent normal understanding.

3. Word stress alone is capable of differentiating the meaning of words or their forms, thus performing its distinctive function. The accentual patterns of words or the degrees of word stress and their positions form oppositions, e.g. 'import -- im'port, 'billow -- below.

The accentual structure of English words is liable to instability due to the different origin of several layers in the Modern English word-stock. In Germanic languages the word stress originally fell on the initial syllable or the second syllable, the root syllable in the English words with prefixes. This tendency was called recessive. Most English words of Anglo-Saxon origin as well as the French borrowings (dated back to the 15th century) are subjected to this recessive tendency. Unrestricted recessive tendency is observed in the native English words having no prefix, e.g. mother, daughter, brother, swallow, ,in assimilated French borrowings, e.g. reason, colour, restaurant. Restricted recessive tendency marks English words with prefixes, e.g. foresee, begin, withdraw, apart. A great number of words of Anglo-Saxon origin are monosyllabic or disyllabic, both notional words and form words. They tend to alternate in the flow of speech, e.g. 'don't be'lieve he's 'right.

The rhythm of alternating stressed and unstressed syllables gave birth to the rhythmical tendency in the present-day English which caused the appearance of the secondary stress in the multisyllabic French borrowings, e.g. revolution, organi'sation, assimilation, etc. It also explains the placement of primary stress on the third syllable from the end in three- and four-syllable words, e.g. 'cinema, 'situate, ar'ticulate. The interrelation of both the recessive and the rhythmical tendencies is traced in the process of accentual assimilation of the French-borrowed word personal on the diachronic level, e.g. perso'nal -- 'perso'nal -- 'personal.

The appearance of the stress on the first syllable is the result of the recessive tendency and at the same time adaptation to the rhythmical tendency. The recessive tendency being stronger, the trisyllabic words like personal gained the only stress on the third syllable from the end, e.g. 'family, 'library, faculty, 'possible.

The accentual patterns of the words territory, dictionary, necessary in AmE with the primary stress on the first syllable and the tertiary stress on the third are other examples illustrating the correlation of the recessive and rhythmical tendencies. Nowadays we witness a great number of variations in the accentual structure of English multisyllabic words as a result of the interrelation of the tendencies. The stress on the initial syllable is caused by the diachronical recessive tendency or the stress on the second syllable under the influence of the strong rhythmical tendency of the present day, e.g. 'hospitable -- ho'spitable, 'distribute -- dis'tribute, 'aristocrat -- a'ristocrat, 'laryngoscope -- la'ryngoscope.

A third tendency was traced in the instability of the accentual structure of English word stress, the retentive tendency: a derivative often retains the stress of the original or parent word, e.g. 'similar -- as'simitate, recom'mend -- recommen 'dation.

Typology of accentual structures

The numerous variations of English word stress are systematized in the typology of accentual structure of English words worked out by G.P. Torsuyev. He classifies them according to the number of stressed syllables, their degree or character (the main and the secondary stress). The distribution of stressed syllables within the word accentual types forms accentual structures of words. Accentual types and accentual structures are closely connected with the morphological type of words, with the number of syllables, the semantic value of the root and the prefix of the word.

The accentual types are:

1. ['___]. This accentual type marks both simple and compound words. The accentual structures of this type may include two and more syllables, e.g. 'fafher, 'possibly, 'mother-in-law, 'gas-pipe.

2. [ '_ '_ ]. The accentual type is commonly realized in compound words, most of them are with separable prefixes, e.g. 'radio-'active, 're'write, 'diso'bey.

3. [ '_' _ '_ ] and 4. ['_' _ '_ '_]. The accentual types are met in initial compound abbreviations like 'U'S'A, 'U'S'S'R.

5. ['_ ,___]. The type is realized both in simple and compound words, very

common among compound words, e.g. 'hair-,dresser, 'substructure.

6. [, _'___]. The accentual type marks a great number of simple words and some compound words as well. In simple words the stresses fall onto:

1. the prefix and the root: maga'zine;

2. the root and the suffix: ,hospi'tality;

3. the prefix and the suffix: disorganization.

The other five types are rare and found in small number of words.

The data given above suggest an idea of the great variability in the accentual structure of English words. The most widely spread among the enumerated accentual types are supposed to be Type 1, Type 2, Type 5 and Type 6. Each type includes varieties of definite accentual structures with different numbers of syllables and marks thousands of words. So the four of them cover the main bulk of most common English words and are therefore most typical for the English vocabulary.

The variability of the word accentual structure is multiplied in connected speech. The accentual structure of words may be altered under the influence of rhythm, e.g. An 'unpolished 'stone but: The 'stone was un'polished.

The tempo of speech may influence the accentual pattern of words. With the quickening of the speed the carefulness of articulation is diminished, the vowels are reduced or elided, the secondary stress may be dropped, e.g. The 'whole organi'zation of the 'meeting was 'faulty.

9. Intonation in English

Intonation: approaches, definitions, functions.

Intonation is a language universal. There are no languages which are spoken without any change of prosodic parameters but intonation functions in various languages in a different way.

There are two main approaches to the problem of intonation in Great Britain. One is known as a contour analysis and the other may be called grammatical.

The first is represented by a large group of phoneticians: H. Sweet, D. Jones, G. Palmer, L. Armstrong, I. Ward, R. Kingdon, J. O'Connor, A. Gimson and others. It is traditional and widely used. According to this approach the smallest unit to which linguistic meaning can be attached is a tone-group (sense-group). Their theory is based on the assumption that intonation consists of basic functional "blocks". They pay much attention to these "blocks" but not to the way they are connected. Intonation is treated by them as a layer that is superimposed on the lexico-grammatical structure. In fact the aim of communication determines the intonation structure, not vice versa.

The grammatical approach to the study of intonation was worked out by M. Halliday. The main unit of intonation is a clause. Intonation is a complex of three systemic variables: tonality, tonicity and tone, which are connected with grammatical categories. Tonality marks the beginning and the end of a tone-group. Tonicity marks the focal point of each tone-group. Tone is the third unit in Halliday's system. Tones can be primary and secondary. They convey the attitude of the speaker. Hallyday's theory is based on the syntactical function of intonation.

The founder of the American school of intonation K. Pike in his book «The Intonation of American English» considers «pitch phonemes» and «contours» to be the main units of intonation. He describes different contours and their meanings, but the word «meaning» stands apart from communicative function of intonation.

There is wide agreement among Russian linguists that on perception level intonation is a complex, a whole, formed by significant variations of pitch, loudness and tempo closely related. Some Russian linguists regard speech timbre as the fourth component of intonation. Neither its material form nor its linguistic function has been thoroughly described. Though speech timbre definitely conveys certain shades of attitudinal or emotional meaning there is no good reason to consider it alongside with the three prosodic components of intonation, i.e. pitch, loudness and tempo.

M. Sokolova and others write that the term prosody embraces the three prosodic components and substitutes the term intonation. It is widely used in linguistic literature, it causes no misunderstanding and, consequently, it is more adequate. They feel strongly that this term would be more suitable for their book too, but, unfortunately, it has not been accepted in the teaching process yet.

Many foreign scholars (A. Gimson, R. Kingdon) restrict the formal definition of intonation to pitch movement alone, though occasionally allowing in variations of loudness as well. According to D. Crystal, the most important prosodic effects are those conveyed by the linguistic use of pitch movement, or melody. It is clearly not possible to restrict the term intonation by the pitch parameters only because generally all the three prosodic parameters function as a whole though in many cases the priority of the pitch parameter is quite evident.

There is no general agreement about either the number or the headings of the functions of intonation which can be illustrated by the difference in the approach to the subject by some prominent Russian phoneticians. T.M. Nikolayeva names three functions of intonation: delimitating, integrating and semantic. L.K. Tseplitis suggests the semantic, syntactic and stylistic functions the former being the primary and the two latter being the secondary functions. N.V. Cheremisina singles out the following main functions of intonation: communicative, distinctive (or phonological), delimitating, expressive, appellative, aesthetic, integrating. Other Russian and foreign phoneticians also display some difference in heading the linguistic functions of intonation.

D. Crystal distinguishes the following functions of intonation.

* Emotional function's most obvious role is to express attitudinal meaning -sarcasm, surprise, reserve, impatience, delight, shock, anger, interest, and thousands of other semantic nuances.

* Grammatical function helps to identify grammatical structure in speech, performing a role similar to punctuation. Units such as clause and sentence often depend on intonation for their spoken identity, and several specific contrasts, such as question/statement, make systematic use of it.

...