C) diphthongoids

Monophthongs don’t change their articulation during the pronunciation (with the exception of [i:] – [u:]). They are divided into short and long.

2) the position of the tongue may be of the horizontal and vertical movement.

According to the horizontal movement vowels can be:

a) front [i:], [e], [ei], [æ],[εə]

b) front-retracted [i], [iə]

c) central [Λ], [3:], [ə ], [3u], [εu]

d) back [o], [o:], [u:], [a:]

e) back-advanced [u], [uə].

The tongue position in its vertical movement gives us: close, mid, open vowels, they have also narrow and broad variations:

1. close a) narrow [i:], [u:]

b) broad [i], [u], [iə], [uə]

2. mid a) narrow [ e, 3:, ə, ei, 3u]

b) broad [ə, Λ ]

3. open a) narrow [εə, o:, oi]

b) broad [æ, ai, au, o, a:]

The British linguists consider the vowels to be: mid, low, high.

3) Lip rounding – according to this characteristic feature vowels can be divided into rounded and unrounded. The higher the tongue raises the more rounded the lips are.

4) Checkness – this quality depends on the character of the articulatory transition from a vowel to a consonant. All short vowels are checked when stressed, other vowels are free.

5) Tenseness characterizes the state of the organ of speech at the moment of production of a vowel. Historically all long vowels are tense, and all short vowels are lax.

-3-

The problem the analysts are faced with is whether vowel length can be treated as a relevant feature of English vowel system. The approach of D. Jones extends the principle underlying phonological relevance of vowel quantity. That means that words in such pairs as [bid] – [bi:d], [sit] – [si:t] are distinguished from one another by the opposition of different length, which are called chronemes. The difference in quantity is considered to be decisive and the difference in quality (the position of the active organs of speech) is considered to be subordinate to the difference in quantity.

To approach this aspect from the phonological point of view we should base on the 2 laws characterizing any system:

1) A relevant feature must characterize a number of units. English vowels can hardly form quantitative correlation. Sounds [i:] and [u:] are normally realized in RP as diphthongized vowels. So [i] – [u] are opposed to diphthongoids but not to long monophthongs.

The opposition [3:] – [ə] is a fairly specific one because the [ə ] phoneme never occurs in a stressed syllable and forms the core of the unstressed vocalism in English.

The opposition [a:] – [Λ] is arbitrary. So there is only one pair of opposed phonemes, remaining [o:] – [o]. That means that quantitative correlation exists only in one opposition, so it cannot be treated as a phonologically relevant feature.

2) A feature can be systematic if it doesn’t depend on the context (e.g. [i:] in “beat” is only half about as long as the [i:] of “bee” and may approximately have the same duration as [i] of “bid”, because it is generally known that a voiced consonant following a vowel increases its length. But still the words “bid” and “beat” are perceived as different words, because the vowels are different in quality: [i] being front-retracted, a pure monophthong, and [i:] being front, close and a diphthongized vowel. Hence, vowel quantity cannot be considered a minimal distinctive feature since it varies under the influence of different phonetic contexts.

-4-

The sound variations in words, their derivatives and grammatical forms of words are called “sound alternations ”, they are caused by assimilation, accommodation and reduction in speech. Some of them are historical, and others are contextual. The study of the relationship between phonemes and morphemes is called “ morphophonemics ” and the interrelation of phonology and morphology is known as morphonology. It studies the way in which sounds can alternate as different realizations of one and the same morpheme. Morpheme is a minimal unit of meaning. The main problem is connected with neutralization, whether the sound [ə ] is an allophone of some phoneme which lost some of its distinctive features or a neutral phoneme.

The so-called morphological school represented by Soviet philologists R.I. Avanesov, V.P. Sidorov, A.A. Reformatsky supported the theory of neutralization of phonemes. A neutralization is said to occur when 2 or more closely related sounds, which are in contrast with each other in most positions like дом – том are found to be non-contrastive in certain other positions (e.g. суд [сут] – судить [суд’ит’]). That means that there are environments where the 2 sounds do not contrast with each other, even though they normally do. So, the opposition between the 2 sounds is said to be neutralised. Alternations are observed in one and the same morphological unit (prefix, suffix, root or ending). The phonemic content of the morpheme is constant. Only then we can distinguish whether the phonemes are different or the same. Morphemes may have strong and weak positions. A strong position for a vowel is in a stressed syllable, for a consonant – before a vowel (e.g. object – ob/ject). This point of view is supported by the linguists of the Moscow School. As to the St.-P. School they consider the phoneme to be independent of the morpheme. The phonemic content of the morpheme is not constant and they think the difference between allophones of the same phoneme limited and similar sounds cannot be treated as allophones of different phonemes. The words / object and ob/ject [o] – [ə ] are allophones of the same phoneme.

The Moscow School is of a polymorphological structure: 1) phonemic changes cannot be analysed without the morpheme taken into account because the form and the content make a unity; 2) it is quite natural for the allophones of the same phoneme to sound differently (e.g. [dæd] – [dres]).

Some scholars are against this point of view and there are the reasons:

1) Sometimes it is impossible to find a strong position for a sound (e.g. decorate – [o] or [e]).

2) The difference between the allophones of the same phoneme may be strong.

The second concept of the scholars is for:

1. The only reason for this conception is its seeming simplicity.

Against this conception:

1. The objections seem to be far more serious because they isolate phonology from morphology. As a result of it the unity between a form and a content is destroyed.

2. The limits within which the allophones of the same phoneme may vary are too vague.

Questions:

1. On which bases do we distinguish vowels?

2. Analyze the function of quality and quantity in the system of English vowels.

3. Characterize the phonemes [o], [u], [i].

4. What are the basic modifications of vowels in connected speech? Give your examples (with the analysis).