Comparing English and Russian

When comparing intonation systems of different languages or dialects of the same language we could apply the method of finding systemic differences by comparing the inventories of pitch patterns (tones or tunes) in one language with a similar list of items in another. However, intonation systems could be arranged according to different principles.

In the system often tone-groups elaborated by J.D. O'Connor and G. Arnold (1973) for teaching intonation of conversational English to foreigners pitch patterns are structured according to the following principles:

• nuclear tone termination: a) ending in a fall (tone-groups I—V), b) ending in a rise (tone-groups VI—X);

• pitch level of the head (pre-nuclear part of pitch contour): a) low head, which is optional (tone-groups I, III, V, VI), b) high head, which is obligatory in tone-groups II, IV, VII;

• pitch level and pitch interval of nuclear tones: a) low fall or low rise (tone-groups I, II, VI, VII), high fall or high rise (tone-groups III, IV, VIII);

• nuclear tone configuration: simple tones, i.e. falls and rises (tone-groups I, II, III, IV, VI, VIII), complex tones, i.e. rise-falls and fall-rise (tone-groups V, IX) and a compound tone, fall+rise (tone-group X).

Although the main function of intonation in this description is attitudinal, connected with the meaning of tones, the attitudes are specified, where necessary, for different syntactical types of sentences (see Table 10).

In the system of seven pitch patterns (интонационные структуры, ИК) worked out by E.A. Bryzgunova for the Russian intonation taught to foreigners the relevant principles of classification are:

• relative pitch levels of the three structural elements in the pitch pattern: pre-centre, centre and post-centre;

• pitch configuration: rising, falling, falling-rising, rising-falling (distributed);

• intensified word accent: in ИК-2 only;

• voice quality (glottal stop) presence: in ИК-7 only (see table 11).

The main function of intonation is defined as semantic, i.e. changing the meaning of the utterance.

Comparing the two systems of intonation patterns, in English and in Russian, we can see that there are both similarities and dissimilarities in pitch configurations, the structure of basic patterns, the shape of post-central unstressed syllables in particular. Apart from the melodic inventories there are, of course, differences in use. Nevertheless, we can sum up the common features of pitch and other prosodic features employed in English and in Russian (see Table 12).

Not only different languages but also dialects of the same language can be compared for their use of intonation patterns. Comparing the inventories of terminal tones in RP and regional standards, such as Standard Scottish or Southern Standard (Estuary) English, for example, we have found a number of systemic differences. The basic findings were concerned with

a) intonation repertoire: RP has the richest inventory of terminal tones and preterminal pitch patterns (heads) compared to regional standards; in the Scottish, Irish and other Celtic areas, for instance, there are cases of complete absence of falling-rising tones or gradually descending stepping heads;

b) frequency of occurrence of similar pitch patterns: more regular occurrence of level and rise-falling tones, level and wavy heads in regional varieties;

c) overall pitch range: RP speech compared to regional varieties has a much wider pitch range;

d) regional level pitch patterns function as RP rises, and fall-rises, rise-falls in regional speech may be compared to RP high falls, while level and wavy (sliding) heads replace the RP gradually descending series.

The latter observation brings us to the problem of realizational differences. Taken as functional equivalents the two pitch patterns maybe treated as having form distinction only.

In intonation realizational differences are differences in pitch config­urations which do not affect the functioning of the pitch pattern. However, when used with the words of other languages they may be misinterpreted, as may be the case with foreign speakers who are reported to produce the wrong effect in English unintentionally.

There is much detail in the description of pitch variation detected acoustically across languages and varieties of the same language. To take but a few:

Scottish rise-fall which practically functions as RP high fall is pronounced rather slowly and may be spread over a number of syllables, thus forming a plateau between the rise and the fall. It is completely devoid of the challenging, sarcastic connotations of the steep RP rise-fall.

RP: I'm 'staying at the "Ritz ho,tel.	Scott: I'm 'staying at the "Ritz hotel.

When comparing English and Russian intonation patterns we pay attention to the following characteristics:

English falling tone is steeper and reaches the bottom of the voice range. It sounds like an angry Russian tone of voice. Cf.: English ^Do. Russian *Да.

English rising tone is slow and starts as a level tone before it rises to the middle of the pitch range. In case of polysyllabic realization the stressed syllable remains on the bottom line while the unstressed syllables go up and reach the medium level. It sounds implicatory, even menacing to a Russian ear. Russian rise is more abrupt, and starts on a higher level. In a polysyllabic word the stressed syllable goes up while the unstressed syllables go down. Cf.:

Is her'name,Natali?	Ее зо'вут На! таша?

RP gradually descending stepping head is composed of each stressed syllable going down a little with the unstressed syllables, ideally, keeping up or, actually, going slightly down. It is more natural for a Russian speaker to drop the unstressed syllables down to the bottom of the range right after the first stressed syllable or, in case of scandent series, let them drift up. All these pitch movements of the Russian unstressed syllables create the flavor of Russian speech unattainable by foreign learners. Cf.:

We saw a \ery 'interesting film yesterday.	Вчера мы смот'рели 'очень инте'ресный.фильм.

There are structural constraints on how many syllables are necessary for the realization of a single tone. The specific feature of English, as compared with other European languages, is the ability of English complex tones to be realized on a single syllable. Thus English is characterized by compression of pitch change within one vowel, for instance, which can be seen in the rise-fall-rise on a word ~ No. It can sound playful and full of other connotations thanks to pitch modulation in one vowel only. This phenomenon is unparalleled in Italian, for instance. Italian needs at least two syllables to realize that tone.

As far as intonation typology is concerned, i.e. seeking for features which are shared by certain groups or types of languages, we can report on the following international project.

It has taken over ten years to compile a volume of papers "Intonation Systems. A survey of 20 languages" in which intonation is viewed cross-culturally {Hirst andDiCristo 1998). However, Hirst and DiCristo's survey of intonation across languages could add little to what had been previously discribed in the works by D. Bolinger {Bolinger 1978) and A. Cruttenden {Cruttenden 1986).

One of the issues was to find how much in common the 20 languages have in the ways they utilize pitch and other prosodic parameters. As D.R. Ladd puts it, "for all pitch contours in all languages, the input to phonetic realisation is a string of tones" {Ladd 1996: 159). There is no acoustic distinction between tone languages and stress languages. The difference occurs only at the more abstract (cognitive, linguistic) level, which is the domain of intonation.

Дата добавления: 2014-01-11