Styles of speech: suprasegmental parameters of classification

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Styles of speech: suprasegmental parameters of classification

Inna Krasovska,

Candidate of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor of English at the Faculty of Mathematics Kyiv National Shevchenko University (Kyiv, Ukraine)

Styles of speech: suprasegmental parameters of classification

The article focuses on the concept known in phonetic studies as speaking styles which remains challenging and disputable at present. The work attempts at defining this concept with the perspective to utilize it as a background of auditory research into different speech styles. Approaching this concept via analyzing and systemizing different approaches to the concept at hand that have been worked out by different researchers. The paper defines and puts forward arguments to build up the nomenclature of speech styles that can be applicable for further auditory experiment aimed at singling out an array of style-forming suprasegmental units. The classification of the speech styles is viewed in the framework of such parameters as careful/formal and spontaneous/casual with their further stratification into scripted, directed, read aloud, unprepared. The proposed set of peaking styles has been worked out considering the assays of contemporary phonetic studies into the synergy of stylistics, cognition, speech production and speech perception.

The paper highlights the methodology of auditory research undertaken to attain the targets set. The auditory analysis is conducted at three stages involving different groups of interviewees summoned to solve a particular task. The experiment embraces an array of the auditory material that illustrates each substyle under consideration. The validity of the selected audio pieces is proven by perceptual analysis done by the group of native speakers. Besides, each stage of the experiment is grounded and described being illustrated by the examples of different sound segments that represent a particular speech style. The methodology and program of the experiment enable to single out and systemize suprasegmental units characteristic for a particular speech style. The paper gives a detailed interpretation of suprasegmental parameters involved in style forming and responsible for an adequate perception of various speaking styles under consideration.

The article relays the data obtained in the course of the auditory analysis, proving that each speech style is correctly perceived by the listeners due to the set of invariant prosodic features. The intonation peculiarities of the speech styles under survey are analyzed and illustrated.

Key words: phonetic experiment, auditory analysis, suprasegmental parameters, scripted speech style, read aloud speech style, directed speech style, unprepared speech style.

Інна КРАСОВСЬКА,

У статті розглядається поняття "стиль мовлення, що є новим та дискусійнм у сучасних фонетичних дослідженнях та робиться спроба визначити його зміст для проведення подальшого аудитивного аналізу. Розглянуто різні підходи до визначення поняття стиль мовлення у фонетичних дослідженнях. Систематизовані різні дефініції цього поняття з огляду різних ракурсів дослідження. Обґрунтовано підґрунтя для встановлення номенклатури стилів мовлення в англомовному дискурсі, які розглянуто у площині таких параметрів як підготовле- ний/непідготовлений, керований/спонтанний. Робота наводить класифікацію стилів мовлення, спираючись на функціональні, соціальні та комунікативні параметри. Описано доцільність класифікації стилів мовлення на підготовлений, читання з аркушу, спрямований та непідготовлений, а також наведені приклади текстів, у яких реалізуються означені стилі мовлення. Запропонована класифікація відображає надбання сучасних фонетичних досліджень, які здійснюються з урахуванням синергії стилістики, когнітології, теорії породження та сприйняття мовлення.

У статті описано методологія проведення трьох-ступеневого аудитивного аналізу, що спирається на викладену у роботі методологію аудитивного експерименту із залученням декількох груп інформантів, які виконують різні завдання. Описано завдання та результати кожного етапу експериментально-фонетичного дослідження, що уможливлює систематизацію найяскравіших інтонаційних параметрів, що впливають на коректну ідентифікацію звукового повідомлення, яке втілює окремий стиль мовлення. speech style phonetic

Визначені та описані основні інваріантні просодичні ознаки визначених стилів мовлення у межах започаткованого дослідження. Проаналізовано які інтонаційні одиниці сприймаються слухачами як стильові характеристики певного стилю мовлення. Описано та проілюстровано роль кожного з виокремлених просодичних одиниць у формування звукового повідомлення, що відноситься до певного стилю мовлення та сприймається слухачем як звуковий код цього стилю.

Ключові слова: фонетичний експеримент, аудитивний аналіз, просодичні ознаки, підготовлений стиль мовлення, читання з аркушу, спрямований стиль мовлення, непідготовлений стиль мовлення.

Introduction

Over the last years scientists have devoted much attention to the analysis of speaking styles as a vital object of research in the framework of phonetic studies. The point of departure into this problem is found in the work of Trubetskoy "Principles of phonology" (Trubetskoy, 1971) where he viewed the human speech as a process of contentbound interaction between a speaker and a listener. This approach has laid foundation to investigation into various linguistic peculiarities of speaking styles that is interconnected with the usage or application of language to attain different communicative goals. We often adopt different uses of language as we go through our day: we may use a different style speaking with our children in the family, reporting to our boss at work or practicing sports. We change our speaking or writing styles to make a particular effect: imitating somebody's accent when telling a story, giving a humorous account of events in our choice of content of our message and the appropriate range of language to deliver the message effectively.

The notion of using language, for instance, involves much more than using our knowledge of its linguistic structure (Sirotina, 1995). It also involves awareness of the numerous situations in which language can be used as a special medium of communication with its own set of distinctive and recognizable features that involve an array of segmental and suprasegmental units (Vekshin, 2006). Taking into consideration that the notion of speaking style remains controversial in phonetic research and there is no unanimously recognized definition of this concept, the article sets a goal to work out a comprehensive definition of speaking style that can be applicable in different phonetic experiments. We believe that this objective can be achieved through analyzing and synthesizing current approaches to the concept at hand, singling out essential suprasegmental parameters to classify speaking styles in the course of an auditory experiment.

Background of the research. The term speaking styles has received numerous interpretations under various phonetic surveys. However, working out our understanding of this concept, we will rely on numerous theoretical and experimental data obtained in general linguistics. Thus, adhering to the idea that there is a direct correspondence between the functions of an utterance and its "orientation to constitutive factors of any speech event" (Yakobson, 1987), we shall view "speaking styles" in relation to such factors as: the addresser, the addressee, the contact, the message, the code and the context.

Expanding this idea, it is worthwhile mentioning that a product of a certain concrete task/function set by the sender of the message is style. In this respect William Labov (Labov, 1994) puts forward an idea that style is variable in relation to the attention a speaker pays to a particular topic during a discourse that conditions his choice of linguistic units, segmental and suprasegmental ones in particular. Further on, he believed that the variable parameters of a style change are tempo, intensity, pitch modulations, presence or absence of laughter that show speaker's attitude and social stratification of the surrounding world (Vorobyova, 1993; Shockley, 2003). It is believed that much of our everyday experience is shaped and defined by actions and events thoughts and perceptions, and it is an important function of the system of language that it is able to account for these various "goings on" in the world (Simpson, 2014). This means encoding into the language a mechanism for capturing what we say, think or do. When language is used to represent patterns of experience in spoken or written texts, it fulfils the experiential function. The experiential function is an important marker of style, especially so of the style of narrative discourse, because it emphasizes the concept of style as choice. There are many ways of accounting in language for the various events that constitute our "mental picture of reality" (Kholod, 2020). Indeed, there are often several ways of using the resources of the language system to capture the same event either in a textual representation or in a speech act. What is of interest for phoneticians is why some segmental and supraseg- mental units should be preferred to another, or why, from possibly several ways of representing the same "happening" in a sound form one particular type of sound or intonation structure should be privileged over another (Bider, 2009). So, the way we use segmental and suprasegmental units under specific circumstances for a specific purpose refers to the notion of speaking style in the framework of phonetic research.

Scientists (Joos, 1968; Zmicky, 1972; Eskenazy, 1992) believe that choices in style are motivated, even if unconsciously, and these choices have a pro-found impact on the way utterances are generated by a speaker and comprehended by a listener. Thus, M. Joos (Joos, 1968) and M. Zmicky (Zmicky, 1972) postulated an idea that style may be defined along the axis of casualness, which they have subdivided into 4 degrees (intimate, casual, consultative, formal and frozen. It was the first attempt to structure the hierarchy of speaking styles applying certain parameters. It goes without saying that a speaker adopts a certain style depending partly on his own personality but largely on what he has to say and what his purposes are. It follows that style and subject matter should match each other appropriately. For example, a scientific report will obviously be much more formal and objective in style than a poem, which is trying to convey an intensely personal and moving experience.

Methodology. Taking into consideration that the nomenclature of speaking styles is still disputable as the parameters to classify them are rather variable, we have attempted to define a number of distinctive styleforming features. In this view an auditory experiment has been conducted involving the material that, for the purpose of this survey, was divided into two groups:

1) speech produced in rather unprepared situations embracing professional/scientific interviews and scientific debates; 2) speech produced on the basis of a previously prepared text: lectures, public statement. Following the logics applied to select the experimental material, we shall further on label the first group of material "unprepared" and the second - "prepared" speech. The main goal of our auditory experiment was to single out the essential suprasegmental units that are interpreted by the listeners as certain "perceptible clues" of a particular speaking style. The experiment has undergone three stages: perceptual analysis of the selected fragments by a group of native speakers; auditory analysis of the material by professional phoneticians; auditory analysis by native speakers and students of foreign language department.

Results and Discussions. At the first stage of auditory experiment the group of native speakers (15 listeners) were instructed to analyze the suggested stretches (150 fragments) taking into consideration such parameters as:

1) social roles of the speaker and the listener (stu- dents/lecturers, presenter/audience; public speaker/ audience);

2) the influence of the personal factor (emotional/ unemotional);

3) social situation (professional formal/profes- sional informal; official/casual; public formal/public informal);

4) pragmatic aims (teach, appeal, interrogate, debate, share information, give opinion);

5) manner of speech (scripted/unscripted; cli- ched/conversational; directed/spontaneous).

The analysis of the experimental material has proven that speakers tend to change their speaking styles depending on the role played in a particular situation and chasing certain pragmatic aims. Thus, speaking in public with the view to exert a constant and deep influence on public opinion, by means of persuasion to cause the reader or listener to accept the expressed point of view, the speaker arranges the utterances with precision, logics and expressive power. The speech under such conditions is characterized by brevity, careful logically predetermined subdivision into intonation groups and intentionally accentuated key information. Generally, speaking in public the personal factor of the speaker is revealed through the speech being perceived as emotional or unemotional. Notwithstanding the fact that each speaker has a particular idiolect, viewed as a common number of speaking peculiarities that mirror social status, education and background, it can be modified provided the purpose of communication requires such modifications. Thus, a lecturer speaks in a more reserved and unemotional manner with a higher-status audience, while addressing to students or children the manner may be more emotional and intimate.

According to the data obtained at the first stage of auditory analysis (Table 1), listeners clearly perceive the speech being prepared in advance, read aloud (for example news coverages or quotations in lectures) and directed by a number of questions set in the course of a professional interview. Listeners also distinctly identify spontaneous speech typical for professional debates or street interviews. It is rather common for all speakers to converse in a relaxed, unconstrained manner provided they speak on a familiar topic and, on the contrary, speak slowly and sluggishly, stumbling through answers, if they are asked improper or ticklish questions.

Table 1