The phoneme

THE FUNCTIONAL ASPECT OF SPEECH SOUNDS

Chapter II

This chapter is concerned with the linguistic function of individual sounds that is "segments of speech".

We are going to discuss here the definitions of the phoneme, methods used in establishing the phonemic structure of a language, the system of English phonemes, modifications of sounds in connected speech and stylistic differentiation of vowels and consonants in English.

To know how sounds are produced by speech organs is not enough to describe and classify them as language units. When we talk about the sounds of a language, the term "sound" can be interpreted in two rather different ways. In the first place, we can say that [t] and [d] are two different sounds in English, [t] being fortis and [d] being lenis1 and we can illustrate this by showing how they contrast with each other to make a difference of meaning in a large number of pairs, such as tie — die, seat — seed, etc. But on the other hand if we listen carefully to the [t] in let us and compare it with the [t] in let them we can hear that the two sounds are also not the same, the [t] of let us is alveolar, while the [t] of let them is dental. In both examples the sounds differ in one articulatory feature only; in the second case the difference between the sounds has functionally no significance. It is perfectly clear that the sense of "sound" in these two cases is different. To avoid this ambiguity, the linguist uses two separate terms: "phoneme" is used to mean "sound" in its contrastive sense, and "allophone" is used for sounds which are variants of a phoneme:

they usually occur in different positions in the word (i.e. in different environments) and hence cannot contrast with each other, nor be used to make meaningful distinctions.

As you probably know from the course of general linguistics, the definitions of the phoneme vary greatly.

The truly materialistic view of the phoneme was originated by the Soviet linguist L.V.Shcherba1. 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 aspects because they determine one another and are thus interdependent" (79, p. 141).

V.A.Vassilyev defined the phoneme like this:

"The segmental phoneme is the smallest (i.e. further indivisible into smaller consecutive segments) language unit (sound type) that exists in the speech of all the members of a given language community as such speech sounds which are capable of distinguishing one word of the same language or one grammatical form of a word from another grammatical form of the same word" (79, p. 136).

The only drawback of this definition is that it is too long and complicated for practical use. The concise form of it could be:

The phoneme is 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, the phoneme is a functional unit. As you know from the above in phonetics function is usually understood to mean discriminatory funclion, 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.

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, the 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 arе not identical in their articulatory¹ 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 studies English pronunciation. As you know from the practical course of English phonetics, [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 neighbouring sounds in different phonetic situations. Such allophones are called subsidiary.

The examples below illustrate the articulatory modifications of the phoneme [d] in various phonetic contexts:

[d] is slightly palatalized before front vowels and the sono-rant [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 [1], 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 [9], [9] 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 the 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 practise 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 is groups of sounds in which the members of each group are not opposed to one another, but are opposable to members of any other group to distinguish meanings in otherwise similar se-qucences. 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 environmenit. They are modified by phonostylistic, dialectal and individual factors. In fact, no speech sounds are absolutely alike.

Phonemes are important for 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.

The relationship's between the phoneme and the phone (speech sound) may be illustrated by the following scheme:

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 naive 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 a 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 [I] occurs following a vowel as in pill, cold, but it is not found before a vowel, whereas the clear [1] 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 [t] and the other — []].

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 the¹ "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 qualily do not distinguish the meaning. So we have good grounds to slate that the phoneme is an abstract linguistic unit, it is an abstraction from aclual speech sounds, that is allophonic modifications.

As 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 occlu-sive, 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 [dj cannot be substituted by the for-tis one because it will also bring about changes in meaning, cf. dry — rry, 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. To extract relevant feature of the phoneme we have to oppose it to some other phoneme in the same phonetic context. If the 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 oc-clusive and fortis, the only difference being that [p] is labial and [k] is backlingual. Therefore it is possible to say that labial and backlingual articulations 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 inevitably 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 pboneme 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 areadvised 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.

Дата добавления: 2015-05-31