Principles of classification of English consonants and vowels Principles of classification of English consonants

Monophthongsare vowels the articulation of which is almost unchanging. The quality of such vowels is relatively pure. Most Russian vowels are monophthongs. The English monophthongs are: [i, e, ae, a, o, o:, u, , a].

In the pronunciation of diphthongs the organs of speech glide from one vowel position to another within one syl­lable. The starting point, the nucleus, is strong and distinct. The glide which shows the direction of the quality change is very weak. In fact diphthongs consist of two clearly perceptible vowel elements. There are no diphthongs in Russian. The English diph­thongs are: [ei, ai, oi, au,, ie].

In the pronunciation of diphthongoids the articula­tion is slightly changing but the difference between the starting point and the end is not so distinct as it is in the case of diph­thongs. There are two diphthongoids in English: [i:, u:]. The ini­tial "o" may serve as an example of a Russian diphthongoid, egочень.

in general terms, sociophonetics involves the integration of the principles, tech­niques, and theoretical frameworks of phonetics with those of sociolinguistics. However, there has been considerable variation both in the usage of the term and the definition of the field, so that sociophonetic research may orient more towards the concerns of sociolinguists on the one hand or phoneticians on the other.

The first recorded use of the term "socio-phonetic" (sic) is by Deshaies-Lafontaine (1974), a dissertation on variation in Canadian French carried out squarely within the emergent field of Labovian or variationist sociolinguistics. The term was coined as a parallel to "sociolinguistic" in order to capture the project's emphasis on phonetic rather than syntactic or lexical variables (Deshaies, p.c.).¹ Among phoneticians, sociophonetics has been used as a thematic label at the quadrennial International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS) since 1979. The nine papers presented under this heading at the 1979 conference followed the pattern set by Deshaies-Lafontaine in addressing central questions in sociolinguistics with reference to phonetic variables. Contributions included papers by eminent sociolinguists such as Labov (on vowel normalization) and Romaine (on variation and change in Scottish / r/). Probably the first example of explicitly sociophonetic work published in a prominent journal is the variationist study of Viennese German by Dressler and Wodak (1982, although they prefer the epithet "sociophonological," with synonymous intent).

Since these early studies the quantity of research which can be described as sociophonetic has increased rapidly, particularly since the mid 1990s, and the scope of that research has become ever broader.

1.1 Sources of variation

The majority of work carried out under the rubric of sociophonetics has focused on identifying the indexical roles of features of speech production. It has been established that speech varies in systematic ways as a function of a very wide range of social factors. This has been one of the fundamental contributions of Labovian sociolinguistics more generally, and is reflected in the early sociophonetic works referred to in the introduction. One of Labov's principal motivations at the inception of his highly influential studies of English in New York City was to show, contra earlier works on American urban varieties such as Hubbell (1950), that linguistic variation is not random, inexplicable, or theoretically irrelevant. This manifesto, laid out explicitly in Labov (1966a), informs all subsequent work carried out under the variationist sociolinguistics banner.

Early sociolinguistic work focused on sources of variation identified as correlating with broad demographic categories such as social class, age, speaker sex, and ethnicity, and with speaking style

1.1.1 Regional variation

In addition to the social dimensions of variation we should also comment on studies of regional variation, since speech also indexes a person's geographical identity. Regional studies have a particularly long history, and in fact, from the perspective of our definition of sociophonetics, it is possible to regard the pioneers of nineteenth-century dialectology as the first socio­phoneticians (e.g., Wenker, 1895). Their work not only yielded descriptive documenta­tion of geographical variation, it also showed awareness of the social variation within communities through the predominant focus on older rural males as the harbingers of maximally archaic forms, as well as a recognition that traditional dialects were undergoing change through processes such as standardization (Chambers & Trudgill, 1998). Contemporary analyses of regional variation operate with more complex notions of space which acknowledge "distance" between locations as having social and psychological dimensions rather than being defined solely in terms of geographical proximity (Britain, 2002). Such factors may include

political boundaries and differing orientations towards larger economic centers (e.g., Boberg, 2000; Woolhiser, 2005; Llamas, 2007).

The wider mobility of some groups, implicit and explicit processes of national and supralocal standardization, and people's exposure to and awareness of other regional varieties have been prime areas of interest for sociophoneticians. Advances in telecommunications, recording, and analysis technologies have facilitated the exploration of interaction and interference between a wide range of subtly differ­ent phonetic systems. For an overview of recent studies carried out within this framework and the development of increasingly sophisticated theoretical models to which they contribute see Auer et al. (2005).

2.2.1 Geographical Variation

Speech and language can give us an indication of a person’s geographical identity. In fact, “geographical diversity was ... the first observation made in linguistics” (Saussure, 1974:191). A speaker’s geographical identity determines the particular regional accent used. The specific variety of accent depends on where a speaker was bom, or where he or she grew up. The phonetic/phonological system is primarily responsible for differentiating regional types so the term accent is used to describe regional based variation. Speakers can be said to have “an Australian accent”, “a South African accent”, “a New York accent” or “a London accent”, for example.

The accuracy with which a person’s region of origin can be pinpointed depends on a listener’s familiarity with the region and the degree to which the speech in that area varies as a consequence of regionality (Wells, 1982a). For instance, an Australian may be able to recognise that an accent is English but perhaps not the particular region in England where that ^accent is characteristic. However, the English would more accurately be able to identify the place of origin, possibly even the city of origin, of the speaker from the particular realisations of sounds that are used. There are many distinct regional accents in England but in countries such as Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, where English has only been spoken for a relatively short time, the language is much more homogeneous and regional variation within these territories is negligible (Wells, 1982a).

4) THE THEORY OF PHONEME

The theory of phoneme was first expounded by Baudouin de Courtenay, professor of the Kazan University in the 1880s. In his treatise “On the Comparative Study of the Grammar of Slavonic Languages” he clearly defined the difference between a phoneme and a speech sound. He treated a phoneme as a semantically differentiating unit, and a speech sound as an anthropophonic unit of speech, not connected with any meaning. This differentiation proved to be highly fruitful and made it possible to establish mutual relations between the sound and the phoneme. Baudouin de Courtenay went on developing the theory of phoneme in his “Versuch einer Theorie der Phonetischen Alternationen” (1917) and other works.

One should not underestimate the importance of Baudouin de Courtenay’s theory. He was the first in the history of the development of linguistics to elaborate the theory of the phoneme, to consider human speech sounds from the viewpoint of their functions and thus, created the teaching of the grammatical part of phonetics.

The theory of the phoneme was further developed by L.V. Shcherba. He studied the theory in his «PyccKHe raacHtie b KanecTBeHHOM u mmHecTBeHHOM 0TH0meHHH» published in 1912. In this book he defined the phoneme as the smallest general phonetic unit of a given language which can be associated with sense notions and can differentiate words.

In 1955 in his book devoted to phonetics of the French language, L.V. Shcherba wrote that in the spoken language a much greater number of various sounds are pronounced than we usually think and these sounds in every given language unite to form a system of a comparatively small number of sound types capable of differentiating words and their forms, that is, capable of serving the purposes of human intercourse. Such sounds he called phonemes.

Developing the theory of the phoneme L.V. Shcherba comes to the conclusion of the social nature of the phoneme as a speech sound used by people in their intercourse.

The teaching about the sense differentiating function of the phoneme is one of the most important parts of the theory of the phoneme.

The main importance of this definition lies in the fact that L.V. Shcherba speaks of the sense-differentiating function of the phoneme, which proved to be a turning point in the understanding of the phoneme.

For a number of years there were two main trends in linguistics concerning the concept of the phoneme. One of them was headed by Leningrad linguists, the followers of L.V. Shcherba (MaTyceBHH M.C., 1951; 3nHgep .H.P., 1960). The second trend comprised the representatives of the so-called Moscow phonological school (^KOB^eB P.O., Ky3He^B n.C., Pe^opMa^HH A.A., CugopoB B.H., ABaHecoB P.H. and others).

The main difference between the schools was in their conception of the phoneme. The followers of L.V. Shcherba proceeded from the word, while Moscow linguists proceeded from the morpheme. These different points of view determined their treatment of the phoneme, their understanding of the phonetic system as a whole.

R.I. Avanesov (1956) pointed out that the two theories were correct and compatible, as they reflect different language facts. Accordingly, he suggested distinguishing two notions - “phoneme” and “phonematic family”.

L.R. Zinder in his General Phonetics (1960) further developed the teaching of the variants of the phoneme, the problem of phonematic structure and other problems, and supported R.I. Avanesov’s notion of the “phonematic family”.

In the 1950s a new theory of the phoneme was suggested by S.K. Shaumyan «^ByxcTyneHnaTaa Teopna $OHeM», 1952.

All these theories developed many complicated questions of the phoneme but the problem has not been solved yet. Many points need strict proof and completion.

The theory of the phoneme was also being treated by many linguists abroad. It was investigated by the scientists of “The Prague Linguistic Circle” (Trubetskoy N.S., 1929; ^koScoh P., Xarae M., 1962). Some foreign linguists (Sapier E., Twaddell W.F.) treated the phoneme apart from its real sound value. As a result the real human speech sounds were replaced by abstract properties of sounds. The phoneme figured as a symbol of a certain quality of the sound.

The English linguist D. Jones fell in another extreme, treating the phoneme as a sound fully disconnected from its sense-differentiating function. D. Jones treated the phoneme as a group of sounds united by similar articulation features. “A phoneme is a group of sounds consisting of an important sound together with other related sounds” wrote D. Jones in his “Phoneme, its Nature and Use” (Jones D. Outline of English Phonetics, 8^th ed.).