1 Federal State Budgetary educational institution higher vocational education"North Ossetian State University named after K.L. Khetagurov "
The article analyzes the concept of one of the founders of phonology I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay on the phoneme, provides a description of the general development of linguistic thought in the second half of the 19th century, i.e. years of formation of his linguistic worldview. The doctrine of the phoneme is proposed to be considered in connection with the theory constructed by I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay general theory alternations (alternations) and the theory of morphological articulation of speech. The analysis of the main terms of the phonological concept of the scientist is carried out: anthropophonics, which studies the acoustic and physiological properties of speech sounds; psychophonetics, that is, etymological phonetics, which studies phonetic-acoustic and historical phonetics. It is concluded that the main principles of the Kazan linguistic school were the differentiation of phonetic and morphological articulation of the word; strict distinction between sound and letter; preventing the mixing of processes occurring in the language at this stage of its existence, and processes that take place over a long time, etc.
kinakema
phonological schools
phonology
1. Baudouin de Courtenay I.A. Selected Works. - T. 1. - P. 121.
2. Baudouin de Courtenay I.A. Some Departments of the "Comparative Grammar" of Slavic Languages // Selected Works. - T. 1. - S. 118-119.
3. Baudouin de Courtenay I.A. About the Old Polish language before the 14th century. - Leipzig, 1870.S. 38.
4. Gatsalova L.B., Parsieva L.K. Some geminated consonants in Ossetian language// International Journal of Applied and Fundamental Research. - No. 9 (part 2). - 2014.
5. Kirov E.F. Paradigmatic-syntagmatic phonology of language and communicative phonology of speech. Diss. ... Doctor of Philology. - Kazan, 1993 .-- S. 27.
6. Panov. M.V. Russian phonetics. - M., 1967 .-- S. 370.
7. Parsieva L.K., Gatsalova L.B. Distributive analysis of phonemes / къ / - / кI / in the Ossetian and Chechen languages // Contemporary problems science and education. - 2014. - No. 2.
8. Parsieva L.K., Gatsalova L.B., Martazanov A.M. Features of the sound system of the Russian, Ossetian and Nakh languages // International Journal of Applied and Fundamental Research. - No. 9 (part 2). - 2014.
9. Protogenov S.V. Phoneme in the aspect of phonological schools and issues of modeling vocal systems. Diss. ... Cand. philol. sciences. - Tashkent, 1970 .-- S. 21.
10. Saussure F. de. Notes on general linguistics. - M., 1990 .-- S. 244.
11. Toporov V.N. I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay and the development of phonology // I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay. On the 30th anniversary of his death. - M., 1960 .-- S. 28-36.
12. Shcherba L.V. The next problems of linguistics // Selected works on linguistics and phonetics. L., 1958, note on p. 14.
The emergence of phonology as a branch of the science of language is associated with the name of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay - one of the largest linguists of the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries, the founder of the Kazan linguistic school. In order to better understand and evaluate the contribution of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay into linguistics, one should at least very briefly characterize the general development of linguistic thought in the second half of the 19th century, i.e. years of formation of his linguistic worldview.
Mid 19th century - these are the years of the emergence of a new direction in comparative historical linguistics, called young grammatism (Jung grammatism). During this period I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay listened to the lectures of A. Schleicher - the head of the direction preceding young grammatism, wrote to his magazine and was a contemporary of Karl Brugman, Berthold Delbrück, Hermann Osthoff, August Leskin. With many he met many times and was personally acquainted. By the nature of the linguistic methods of describing I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay is considered one of the founders of Young Grammatism. However, already in his early works, he outgrew this trend and became one of the founders of modern structuralism.
The historical approach of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay opposed the thesis about the need to study living languages in their current state, without denying, however, the importance of the historical approach, and opposed the practice of studying disparate phenomena with the requirement of the need to highlight the facts of language in their relationship. In addition, it touches on many problems: the problem of the social nature of language, the problem of differentiating the concepts of language and speech ("Some remarks on linguistics and language", 1871), the problem of interaction of languages ("The experience of the phonetics of the Rezyan dialects", 1875, "On the mixed character of all languages ", 1901), the doctrine of the sign nature of language, the concept of linguistic values (" Introduction to Linguistics ", 1917).
I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay was interested in children's speech, issues of pathology, wrote about the need to distinguish between statics and dynamics in language, for the first time used the term “ applied linguistics", Widely used mathematical formulas to clarify their provisions.
L.V. Shcherba noted that everything new that was in the book by Ferdinand de Saussure "A Course in General Linguistics" had long been known to Russian linguists from the writings of IA Baudouin de Courtenay. There may be some exaggeration here, but in essence the idea is correct. Two great linguists - I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay and F. de Saussure - met in person in December 1881, when I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay visited Paris in connection with his election as a member of the Parisian Linguistic Society. Later, when F. de Saussure worked intensively on the Lithuanian materials, they corresponded. In one of his letters, Saussure wrote: “I am infinitely happy that you do not think that I acted too immodestly when I turned to you, and that I gained great benefit from this; I am delighted to have the opportunity to re-enter into contact with an outstanding scientist whom we still remember well in Paris. Let me once again express my deep gratitude to you and, at the same time, feelings of the most sincere respect. "
Taking advantage of the advice of N.V. Krushevsky's term "phoneme" by F. de Saussure, I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay put more than the only content into it. At the heart of the stratification of the phonological theory of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, according to E.F. Kirov, are primarily epistemological factors, which he is inclined to see in the implicit orientation of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay on various linguistic objects.
The teachings of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay on the phoneme should be considered in connection with the general theory of alternations (alternations) built by him and the theory of morphological articulation of speech (although the term phoneme has been used only since the 80s, the first phonological constructions of I.A. x years).
In the language, morphemes are distinguished as the minimum units. The sound composition of morphemes of common origin (homogeneous) may not coincide. The reasons for this are varied. Homogeneous morphemes break down into sounds or combinations of sounds that make up a given morpheme, i.e. to homogenes. Homogenes are of two types: divergences- modifications of the same sound due to current laws, and correlates- historically related sounds, but anthropophonically different. Homogeneous sounds in related languages are already correspondents.
The need for a double approach to the analysis of speech sounds (acoustic-physiological and morphological) - and the discrepancy between these aspects is proven already in the earliest works of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay ("On the Old Polish language before the 14th century", 1870 and "Some general remarks on linguistics and language", 1871).
In his studies on the Old Polish language, he writes: “Only a physiological necessity, acting in all epochs of the development of the language, explains the law of the Polish language (and of Slavonic in general) that at the end of a word, sonorous consonants pass into the corresponding silent ones, although psychologically, for the scent of the people, they remain sonorous in the mechanism of the language ”.
The approach to phonetics from the standpoint of the "language mechanism" should be considered as the beginning of phonological research. In addition, according to S.V. Protogenov, this is already "structuralism".
The phoneme is determined by I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay as “the sum of the generalized anthropophonic properties of the known phonetic part of the word, indivisible in the establishment of correlations in the field of one language and correspondence relations in the field of several languages. Otherwise: the phoneme is phonetically indivisible from the point of view of the comparability of the phonetic parts of the word. " And further: "I understood the phoneme as that sum of phonetic properties, which is an indivisible unity in comparisons, whether within the same language or several related languages." At the same time, in the field of several languages, correspondence links are established between the sounds of the same phoneme. I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay did not create a phonological concept based on "correspondents" when comparing several languages; nevertheless, the prolegomena for its creation in the phonological views of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay are, for example, in the work "Experience of the theory of phonetic alternations." The term "correspondent" or "correspondence alternate" actually conveys the concept of a genetic phoneme, that is, a genetic phoneme. In the same work, there is a definition from which I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay does not retreat until the end of his life: "The phoneme is the only representation belonging to the world of phonetics, which arises in the soul through the fusion of impressions received from the pronunciation of the same sound - the psychic equivalent of the sounds of the language."
Physically, a phoneme is not just a single sound of speech. Baudouin points out that from an anthropophonic point of view, a phoneme can equal:
a) a whole indivisible sound;
b) incomplete sound (for example, softness in the case of alternating hard and soft);
c) an integral sound plus the properties of another;
d) two or more sounds. For example, the combination "oro" in Russian words is considered as one phoneme.
I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay develops a provision on smaller elements than the phoneme. He introduced the concept of kinema, akusma and kinakema. “Kinema is, from the point of view of linguistic thinking, a further indecomposable pronouncing or phonation element, for example, the representation of the work of the lips, the representation of the work of the soft palate, the representation of the work of the middle part of the tongue, etc.
Akusma - from the point of view of linguistic thinking, further indecomposable, acoustic or auditory (auditory) element, for example, the presentation of instant noise obtained from an explosion between compressed pronunciation organs, the presentation of the acoustic result of the lips in general, the presentation of nasal resonance, etc.
Kinakema is a combined representation of kinema and akusma in those cases when, thanks to the kinema, akusma is also obtained. " Kinema and akusma can coexist and can be mutually exclusive.
From these positions, the phoneme is already defined as "the combination of several further indecomposable pronunciation and auditory elements (kinem, akusm, kinakem) into one single whole due to the simultaneity of all relevant works and their particular results" in the individual psyche of the phoneme. " The idea of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay is about comparing not separate sounds, but separate elements of sounds, i.e. We will throw, as it seems to us, in methodological terms, it was far ahead of its time.
As you can see, in the works of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay can be found in various definitions of the phoneme. He also understood this unit as "the sum of generalized anthropophonic properties", distinguished by morphological analysis when establishing correlations in the field of one language and correspondent connections in the field of several languages, i.e. by comparative historical analysis. He defines the phoneme as a representation of the sound of speech, "the psychic equivalent of the sound of speech", "sound representation", and as "the unification of several further indecomposable pronunciation and auditory elements into one single whole." It is most logical to assume that the presence of several definitions of the phoneme indicates a change in the views of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, however, it is quite possible that for him all these three things are phonemes.
In addition to the undifferentiated concept of a phoneme, I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay uses the terms: optional phonemes, dependent and independent, equivalent and nonequivalent, commensurate and incommensurable, etc.
It is very important that I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay to the fact that phonemes and all pronunciation-auditory elements by themselves do not have any meaning from the point of view of linguistic thinking. "They become linguistic values and can be considered linguistically only when they are part of comprehensively living linguistic elements, which are morphemes associated with both semasiological and morphological representations."
Thus, I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay developed in general the doctrine of the phoneme in four planes:
- Establishment of a purely abstracted functional unit common to phonetic structure related languages (genetofoneme).
- Establishment of a functional unit within one language, in which there is a variation of morphs within one morpheme (paradigmophoneme or morphophoneme).
- The establishment of a figurative unit within the phonetic version of the spoken word in the language of the individual, in which there are unambiguous mapping relations between the phoneme (image) and the sound (prototype), which implements the phoneme in speech.
- Establishment of a severable complex unit within the phonetic version of a word in the language of an individual, in which there is an identification relationship between the pattern in the mind (typically, sound representation, psychophoneme) and the symbol that entered the hearing phase on the auditory analyzer, which, for the purpose of recognition, is divided into typical features, and in the speaking phase it is saturated with typical features, which have received the name of distinctive features in phonology. In this case, the phoneme is understood as a complex of distinctive features (a bundle of RP, in the terminology of R.O. Jacobson).
In general, the science of the sound structure of the language of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay subdivides into anthropophonics, which studies the acoustic and physiological properties of speech sounds; psychophonetics, otherwise etymological phonetics, which studies “functional representations, ie phonetic-acoustic representations both in themselves and in connection with other representations not only in the exact sense of the language, i.e. morphological, but also extra-linguistic, i.e. "Semasiological", and historical phonetics. Apparently, Baudouin used the terms "phonetics" and "phonology" as synonyms. The second aspect of phonetics is "psychophonetics", identified by I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, was the prototype of modern phonology.
I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay introduced the concept of a linguistic unit into scientific use. The work "Some general remarks on linguistics and language" says: "It is necessary to distinguish the categories of linguistics from the categories of language: the former are pure abstractions; the second - that which lives in the language as sound, syllable, root, stem (theme), ending, word, sentence, different categories of words, etc. " ...
Understanding the phoneme as a unit of the linguistic plan, that is, as an abstract linguistic unit, Baudouin notes that one should not chase "with phonemes for great anthropophonic accuracy." The same work contains many fundamental maxims for phonology, which in modern terminology can be expressed as the problems of marked and unmarked members of the alternation, methods of determining the basic position of phonemes, questions of expressing a phoneme with a sound zero, problems of an archiphoneme. M.V. Panov notes that with this work of 1881 "the true theory of the phoneme begins, the theoretical full-fledged phonology begins."
The theoretical thoughts of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay had a noticeable influence on all subsequent development of the science of language both in our country and in the West. In his general phonological theory, one can find the origins of all three major European schools created by Russian scientists: the Moscow school of N.F. Yakovlev, the Petersburg school of L.V. Shcherba (perhaps it should be separated from the Leningrad one, since in the Leningrad period L.V. Shcherba formed another - not psychophonetic school) and the Prague school of N.S. Trubetskoy and R.O. Jacobson.
The fourth school, associated with the comparison of related languages and modeling on this basis of common phonemes for a number of genoisomorphic languages within the framework of a hypothetical model representation, has not been created. And this is obviously due to the fact that comparative linguistics of the synchronous type was oriented more towards contrasts than towards common features in related languages, although this type of problem was touched upon already in F. de Saussure's Memoir on the Initial Vowel System in Indo-European Languages. Nevertheless, if a serious motive is found for modeling, for example, a modern common Eastern Slavic language, phonology of this type can be created, and for this there is a theoretical basis within the framework of the general phonological theory of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay.
To a certain extent, the fourth direction of phonological views of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay corresponds to the development by R.O. Jacobson, G.M. Phantom and M. Halle of a universal set of binary distinctive features.
I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay was the founder and long-term leader of the Kazan linguistic school, which included N.V. Krushevsky, V.A. Bogoroditsky, A.I. Anastasiev, A.I. Alexandrov, P.V. Vladimirov, V.V. Radlov, S.K. Bulich, K. Yu. Appel, etc.
The basic principles of the Kazan linguistic school include: strict distinction between sound and letter; differentiation of phonetic and morphological articulation of a word; preventing the mixing of processes occurring in the language at this stage of its existence, and processes that take place over a long time; priority attention to the living language and its dialects, and not to the ancient monuments of writing; upholding the complete equality of all languages as objects scientific research; striving for generalizations; psychologism with individual elements of sociologism.
In the works of representatives of the Kazan linguistic school, many ideas of structural linguistics, phonology, morphonology, typology of languages, articulatory and acoustic phonetics are anticipated. They clearly understood the idea of a systematic language. The teacher himself and his followers seriously influenced the formation of linguistics in the 20th century.
Ideas and concept of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay are continued in modern phonological research, and structuralism, which until recently was subjected to harsh criticism, was developed in interdisciplinary studies of the sound structure of language.
Reviewers:
Khugaev I.S., Doctor of Philosophy, Leading Researcher of the Federal State Budgetary Institution of Science of the Vladikavkaz Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Government of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, Vladikavkaz;
Kalabekova L.T., Doctor of Philosophy, Head of the Department foreign languages for the humanities faculties of the North Ossetian State University named after K.L. Khetagurov ", Vladikavkaz.
Bibliographic reference
Parsieva L.K., Gatsalova L.B. PHONOLOGICAL THEORY I.A. BODUENA DE CURTENAI AND THE KAZAN LINGUISTIC SCHOOL // Modern problems of science and education. - 2014. - No. 5 .;URL: http://science-education.ru/ru/article/view?id=15113 (date of access: 02/01/2020). We bring to your attention the journals published by the "Academy of Natural Sciences"
Much attention is paid to the development of phoneme theory both in our country and abroad. There are several phonological schools in modern phonetic science.
Earlier approaches boiled down to the fact that every real sound was equated with a phoneme. This statement was refuted by I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay - one of the greatest linguists in the world, equally belongs to Polish and Russian science, taught at the universities of Kazan, Krakow, Dorpat (St. George's), St. Petersburg and Warsaw. He founded the doctrine of the phoneme - the theory of the phoneme, proclaiming that the phoneme is an abstract linguistic unit. For a native speaker, only phonemes are important, not sounds, the differences of which he does not pay attention to. The composition of phonemes and their differences are fixed in the mind of the native speaker. There are more speech sounds than phonemes. He believed that the phoneme does not exist in reality, but exists in our consciousness in the form of mental representations. Baudouin de Courtenay proceeds from the awareness of an unstable nature, and therefore the imperfection of speech sounds as physical phenomena, putting them in correspondence with a stable mental representation - a phoneme. In his understanding, a phoneme is the psychic equivalent of sound.
The views of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay were further developed within the framework of numerous phonological schools. The difference between phonological schools is determined by a different understanding of what function the phoneme performs in the process of communication. Let us turn to the phonological theory of the Prague Linguistic Circle.
Prague Phonological School (Prague Linguistic Circle / PLC) arose in the 20s. 20th century in Prague. It is associated with the names of N.S. Trubetskoy and R.O. Yakobson, who brought the ideas of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay and L.M. Scherba. It was this school that developed phonology as a special section of linguistics. N.S. Trubetskoy wrote the book "Fundamentals of Phonology", which sets out the basic ideas about the structural structure of language and suggests methods for the structural analysis of linguistic phenomena. The members of the PLC focused on the study of the differential function of the phoneme. They considered the phoneme as the unit of opposition, distinguishing morphemes and words. From the point of view of PLC representatives, a phoneme is a bunch of differential features. Differential signs are revealed through the opposition of phonemes in various kinds of oppositions. Further, the representatives of the PLC drew attention to the fact that in some positions the differential signs manifest themselves completely, in others they are neutralized. So in the word dad the initial and final consonant [d] are functionally different. In the initial position [d] is in the position of maximum discrimination, [d] in the final position is partially stunned, ie. the sign of deafness-voicedness is neutralized. The members of the PLC suggested calling phonemes in a weak position archiphonemes. "Dad" can be transcribed as, where (D) - archiphoneme combining traits [d] and [t]. Thus, according to the PLC, there are two types of units in the phonological sequence: phonemes and archiphonemes, which differ significantly in their pronunciation properties. The people of Prague believed that only phonology can be considered a part of linguistics, phonetics is a branch of biology.
American Phonological School (American Structuralism)
The phoneme theory "came" to the American continent in the interpretation of F. de Saussure, which emphasized not the importance of sound in the word as such, but the sound differences that make it possible to distinguish words from each other. In this regard, American linguists, as well as members of the PLC, exaggerated the functional aspect of the phoneme, giving priority to the distinctive function of the phoneme. The founder of this school is L. Bloomfield. Sounds interest him insofar as they distinguish meanings. L. Bloomfield defined a phoneme as a set of distinctive characteristics. It was within the framework of this school that the problem of segmentation (decomposition) of the text into elementary units was found, which led to the allocation of phonemes and morphemes. Distributive analysis was invented by American descriptivists as effective method establishing the phonemes of the language.
London Phonological School
Phoneme theory was firmly established in England in 1920 thanks to the activities of D. Jones, author of the English Pronouncing Dictionary, and then of his followers, primarily J. R. Foers. D. Jones was engaged in the description of the sound composition of European, as well as a number of African and Indian languages. Like many of his predecessors, D. Jones was attracted by the practical problems of reforming English spelling and the creation of phonetic transcription. The creation of a phonetic transcription would not have been possible without recourse to phoneme theory. D. Jones considers the phoneme to be the mechanical sum of its allophones and defines it as a family of related sounds, thereby exaggerating the material aspect of the phoneme. He believes that "a phoneme is a combination of sounds of a given language, which are interconnected in character and are used in such a way that no sound is ever in a word in the same phonetic environment as another."
As the main function of the phoneme, the differential function is considered, since in the process of identifying the phonemic belonging of sounds, D. Jones selects the minimum pairs of words, the meaning of which is differentiated due to the difference between the two sounds.
Moscow Phonological School (MFS) originated in Moscow at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries and was further developed in the 20th century. Representatives of this school are F.F. Fortunatov, R.I. Avanesov, A.A. Reformed and others. They differ in a different view of the functional purpose of the phoneme, considering that the phoneme is designed to 1) distinguish between morphemes and words (distinctive function) and 2) identify morphemes and words (perceptual / recognitive function). Representatives of the Moscow phonological school consider the perceptual function to be the leading function of the phoneme. They consider the phoneme only as part of the morpheme and do not recognize the phonological level as the autonomous level of the language. By examining the phoneme in strong and weak positions, linguists strive to get rid of the concept of an archiphoneme and to reduce cases of phoneme neutralization to a minimum. To this end, it is proposed to make a weak position strong by placing a consonant in front of a vowel, and a vowel under stress, for example dad - daddy. In cases where the phoneme cannot be placed in a strong position, a special unit arises - hyperphoneme , for example, in an unchangeable word here<во >- hyperphoneme.
St. Petersburg (Leningrad) Phonological School (SPFS)
Representatives of the SPFSh (L.V.Shcherba, L.R. Zinder, M.I. Matusevich, A.N. Gvozdev, L.V.Bondarko, M.V. Gordin, etc.) put forward its ability constitute words and call this function constitutive or word-cognitive. However, they do not deny its distinctive role. The main task of the phoneme, from their point of view, is to participate in the process of recognizing the sound shell of a word. Linguists point to the independence of the phoneme from the morpheme, due to the fact that a native speaker is able to write words that are not known to him in letters. This testifies, in their opinion, in favor of the independence of the phonological level as one of the levels of the language. Representatives of this phonological trend do not differentiate between strong and weak positions in a word. From an identifying point of view, they are the same, they differ from each other only in the degree of distinctive phoneme capabilities. In the pre-stressed part of the word, the phoneme is uniquely determined; in the pre-stressed part of the word, the phoneme is not completely recognized and clearly. The phoneme is not subject to neutralization, in this position only restrictions are imposed on the use of a certain class of phonemes, for example, voiced noisy consonants are not used at the end of a word, etc. As a result, in this position there is an alternation of phonemes gardens / gardens / - garden / sat /. The linguists of this school do not recognize either archiphonemes or hyperphonemes. Phonemes are determined on the basis of differential and integral features.
The fact of the existence of several phonological schools indicates that the phoneme is a complex and multifaceted unit.
Morphonology
In phonology, there is a section called morphonology. Morphonology studies the distribution of speech sounds in various morphemes, their phonological relationships, cases of neutralizing the distinctive characteristics of a phoneme and explains all this from a phonological point of view.
Consider the following example from the Russian language. There are words scythe and goat... In both words, [s] [h] are in a strong position before the vowel and belong to different phonemes. But in the case of neutralizing such an articulatory characteristic as deafness-voicedness in the sentence [n lugˈu kˈos nˈet], an additional context is required to understand what is meant. The question arises, what sounds are represented by the sound [c] in the given sentence. There are three possible answers to this question.
1. If [kos] is the grammatical form of the word [kʌzˈa], then the consonant [c] represents the phoneme [z]. If [kos] is the grammatical form of the word [kʌsˈa], then the consonant [c] represents the phoneme [s].
2. The consonant [s] in the word [kos] belongs to the phoneme [s], regardless of whether [kos] is the grammatical form of the words [kʌsˈa] or [kʌzˈа].
3. The consonant does not belong either to the phoneme [c] or to the phoneme [z].
Linguists, supporters of the first point of view, represent the so-called morphological school in phonology. This school is also known as the Moscow Phonological School. They believe that two different allomorphs of the same morpheme can be represented by the same sound - their common variant. Therefore, the same sound can belong to one phoneme in one word or its form and to another phoneme in another word and its form.
The consonant [c] in [braid] belongs to the phoneme [c], since it stands in a strong position in such allomorphs of the same morpheme as scythe, braids. The consonant [c] in [braid] belongs to the phoneme [z], since it stands in a strong position in such allomorphs of the same morpheme as goat, goats.
Researchers adhering to the second point of view belong to the Leningrad phonological school. According to their point of view, the sounds in the neutralization position belong to the phoneme with the main allophone of which they coincide. So, the sound [c] in [braid] belongs to the phoneme [c], since it coincides with the main allophone of the latter.
The third variant of the answer was put forward by phonologists of the Prague phonological school. They believe that the sounds [s], [z] belong to the archiphoneme (C). These sounds differ only in the degree of noise, both sounds are slit, front-lingual. It is the last two integrative features that form the archiphoneme (C).
The arguments in favor of the first theory lie in its simplicity and in the fact that it stands for the unity of the form and content of the morpheme. The disadvantages are that sometimes the differences between allophones are so significant that they can hardly be attributed to one phoneme, for example [n] - [ŋ] - [ˈkɒŋgres], as well as the fact that sometimes it is almost impossible to find a strong position for individual sounds as with neutral sound [ə].
On the positive side the second point of view is the grouping of sounds according to the phonemic principle, i.e. the sounds of speech in a phonologically weak (reduced) position belong to the phoneme with the main allophone of which they completely or almost completely coincide. Violation of the unity of the form and content of the phoneme is a disadvantage of this theory.
The third point of view represents a new approach to the study of phonemes, and, although quite complex for educational purposes, is optimal for the theory and practice of scientific research.
8. Controversial issues in the system of English phonemes
One of the controversial issues in the phoneme system in English is the problem of phonological status and the number of affricates. Controversial issues are such as: 1) are English [ʧ, ʤ] monophonemic or biphonemic formations and 2) if they represent one phoneme, how many similar phonemes exist in the English consonant system, and can they be considered affricates?
According to the points of view of Russian phoneticians, there are only two affricates in English [ʧ, ʤ]. Foreign phonologists believe that the number of affricates in the English language is much higher. They include not only [ʧ, ʤ], but also.
Domestic phoneticians consider the problem of affricates from the morphological and phonological points of view, which allow them to attribute [ʧ, ʤ] to monophonemic formations, and to biphonemic ones. This, in turn, leads to ignoring the articulatory and acoustic indivisibility of affricates.
British phonology assigns a primary role to the articulatory-acoustic unity of affricates, ignoring the functional aspect. From this point of view, the above affricates are indivisible, i.e. represent monophonemic formations because 1) they belong to the same syllable and it is impossible to draw a syllable separation between them, for example: butcher [ˈbʊʧ-ə], mattress [ˈmætr-ɪs], curtsey [ˈkɜ: -tsɪ], eighth, and 2) they are pronounced with one articulatory breath (effort).
Another controversial issue in the system of English phonemes is the issue of the phonemic status of diphthongs. Like affricates, they are complex sounds consisting of two elements. Just as in the case of affricates, the question arises: are diphthongs monophonemic or biphonemic?
Fatherland phonology endows English diphthongs with the status of monophonemic units, i.e. consider them as monophonemal formations. Arguments in favor of this can be such factors as: 1) syllabic indivisibility, that is, the transition from the nucleus to the glide occurs within one syllable, the syllable division cannot be drawn between the elements of the diphthong, as well as the border of morphemic division [ˈseɪ-ɪŋ] saying, [ɪn-ˈʤɔɪ-ɪŋ] enjoying; 2) in the same phonetic contexts, the longitude of diphthongs corresponds to the duration of pronouncing long monophthongs; 3) the substitution test proves that diphthongs form phonological oppositions with almost all vowels bite - bit, - but, etc.
The problem of the phonetic status of English diphthongs, however, remains open for discussion to this day.
Another unsolved problem in English phonology is the phonemic status of neutral sound [ə]. When considering its phonological status, the question arises whether a neutral sound is an independent phoneme or a reduced allophone of any other phoneme in an unstressed position.
On the one hand, a neutral sound, when opposed to other unstressed vowels, forms minimal pairs and contributes to the differentiation of meanings: armor [ˈa: mə] - army [ˈa: mɪ], sleeper [ˈsli: pə] - sleepy [ˈsli: pɪ]. Consequently, this sound can be recognized as an independent phoneme. But, on the other hand, the problem of the phonemic status of a neutral sound affects the morphological aspect, i.e. neutral sound can be the result of sound alternations: [æ] man - [ə] sportsman. The neutral sound in this example is the phoneme allophone [æ] in the weak position.
Appendix
Table 1. English consonants
| By the degree of noise | Noisy consonants | Sonorous consonants | ||||||||
| By way of articulation | Stringy explosive | Slotted fricatives | Fissured-fissured (affricates) | Smychny | Slotted | |||||
| On the work of the vocal cords and on the strength of articulation | Deaf Fortis | Voiced lazy | Deaf Fortis | Voiced lazy | Deaf Fortis | Voiced lazy | ||||
| By the place of articulation and the active organ of articulation | Labial | Labial | p | b | m | w | ||||
| Labiodental | f | v | ||||||||
| Lingual | Front-lingual | Interdental apical | θ | ð | ||||||
| Alveolar apical | t | d | s | z | n | l | ||||
| Transalveolar cacuminal | r | |||||||||
| Palatine alveolar apical | ʃ | ʒ | ʧ | ʤ | ||||||
| Middle lingual palatal | j | |||||||||
| Back-lingual velar | k | g | ŋ | |||||||
| Pharyngeal | h |
Table 2. English vowels
By articulation stability
- monophthongs: [ɪ, e, æ, a :, ɒ, ɔ :, ʊ, ʌ, ɜ:, ə];
- diphthongs:;
- diphthongoids:.
Index of names
Avanesov Ruben Ivanovich (1902 - 1982)
Armstrong Lilias (1882 –1937)
Bernard Block (1907 - 1965)
Bloomfield Leonard (1887 - 1949)
Baudouin de Courtenay Ivan Alexandrovich (1845 - 1929)
Bondarko Lia Vasilievna (1932 - 2007)
Vyacheslav A. Vasiliev
Gardiner Alan (1870 - 1963)
Gvozdev Alexander Nikolaevich (1892 - 1959)
Gleason Henry Allan (1917 - 2007)
Gordina Mirra Veniaminovna (born 1925)
Delatre Pierre (1903 - 1969)
Jones Daniel (1881 - 1967)
Jespersen Otto (1860 - 1943)
Zhinkin Nikolay Ivanovich (1893 -1979)
Zinder Lev Rafailovich (1903 - 1995)
Crystal David (born 1941)
Matusevich Margarita Ivanovna (1885 - 1979)
Trubetskoy Nikolai Sergeevich (1890 - 1938)
O'Connor Joseph Desmond (1919 - 1998)
Reformatsky Alexander Alexandrovich (1900 - 1978)
Sokolova Marina Alekseevna (1924 - 2011)
Saussure Ferdinand de (1857 - 1913)
Stetson Raymond Herbert (1872 - 1950)
Sweet Henry (1845 - 1912)
Torsuev Georgy Petrovich (1908 - 1984)
Trager (Trager, Trager) George Leonard (born 1906)
Ward Ida (1880 –1950)
Furse John Rupert (1890 - 1960)
Halliday Michael Alexander Kirkwood (born 1925)
Harris Zellig (1909 - 1992)
Shcherba Lev Vladimirovich (1880 - 1944)
Yakobson Roman Osipovich (1896 - 1982)
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
- Introduction 2
- 1 Phoneme functions 4
- 1.1 Phonemic segmentation 5
- 1.2 Phonological oppositions and differential signs 6
- 1.3 Phonemes and allophones. Distributive Analysis 10
- Conclusions for chapter 1 12
- 2. The founders of phonology and their contribution to the study of phonemes 14
- 2.1 Traditional Phonological Schools 20
- 2.1.1 Kazan Phonetic School 21
- 2.1.2 Leningrad Phonetic School 22
- 2.1.3 Moscow Phonetic School 23
- 2.2.4 Functional Phonology 24
- 2.1.5 System Phonology 25
- Chapter 2 Conclusions 28
- Conclusion 30
- List of used literature 31
Introduction
That our speech can be divided into separate sounds that we distinguish from each other is taken for granted. It seems quite obvious that everyone hears the difference between vowels in words. at home - duma, or consonants in words weight - whole, cancer - varnish and distinguish plaque from pour just by the sound.
However, in reality, the selection of individual sounds in the stream of speech is not at all determined only by sound. The same sound is evaluated differently by native speakers of different languages in terms of sound composition: Koreans will not notice the difference. R from l, Arabs O from y, for the French in words weight and the whole how different sounds will be judged vowels rather than final consonants; and speakers of very many languages will not be able to hear the difference between plaque and will pour.
Consequently, the selection of individual sounds and their assessment as the same or different depends on the peculiarities of the linguistic structure.
We believe that every foreign language teacher is also a practicing phonetician. After all, it is impossible to teach a language without affecting the pronunciation side of speech, and everything related to pronunciation refers to phonetics.
The purpose of our work is to consider various approaches to the theory of phonemes, and more specifically, to consider the definitions of phonemes by different linguistic schools that developed at the end of the twentieth century.
In the first chapter of our work, we solve the following tasks:
1) reveal the functions of the phoneme
2) divide the flow of speech into separate sounds, i.e. phoneme segmentation
3) reveal the differential features of a phoneme through oppositional analysis
4) reveal the definitions of phoneme and allophone
In the second chapter, we briefly review the work of the greatest linguists and phoneticists in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries, on which modern scientists relied when creating their theory of phonemes. We also consider approaches to the theory of phonemes of linguistic schools that exist in our time on the territory of our country and neighboring countries.
1 Phoneme functions
Sound matter is formed and used by each language in a special way, in accordance with the rules of its phonological system, which includes a subsystem of segmental means and a subsystem of super-segmental (prosodic) means.
Phonemes are the smallest (shortest in the linear plan) structural and functional sound units in most languages. They themselves do not have meaning, but are potentially associated with meaning as elements of a single sign system... In combination with each other and often separately, they form the exponents of words and morphemes and provide recognition (identification) and discrimination (differentiation) of linguistic signs as significant units.
So, due to the different composition of phonemes, namely the use of different phonemes in the same position, in the exponents of Russian words genus/ rot / and glad/ rat / it turns out to be possible to recognize each of these words and distinguish them among themselves. In the same way, different phonemes appear in identical positions, distinguishing between exponents, and thus in general:
· English words but / bVt / `but" and boot / bu: t / `boot, shoe",
· German words liegen / li: g & n / `lie down" and legen / le: g & n / `put, lay",
· French words mais / mE / `but" and mes / me / `my".
In most cases, word exponents turn out to be multi-phonemic. Single-phoneme exhibitors are, for example, Russian words a/ a /, and/ i /, at/ u /, v/ v /, To/ k /, morphemes - l/ l / in spa l, -be/ t "/ in sleep, -s/ s / v table-s, -at/ u / in go, v- / v / in to climb, -a- / a /, - j- and - at/ u / in step-a-j-y(spelling: walking). One phoneme at a time
Exhibitors English words o / @ U / `zero", A / eI / `excellent grade (in American school)", e / i: / `number e (in mathematics)", I / aI / `i",
· Exponents of German words A / a: / `la (music)", E / e: / `mi (music)", o! / o: / `oh !, ah!",
· Exponents of French words a / a / `has", eau / o / `water", ou / u / `or".
The exponents of many morphemes in these languages are single-phonemic.
The exponent of a linguistic sign cannot consist of less than one phoneme.
1.1 Phonemic segmentation
Sounding speech is from the point of view of the acoustic and from the point of view of the articulatory continuum, i.e. inseparable whole. Linguistic units in general and phonemes in particular have a discrete nature, i.e. they are quite clearly delimited from each other in syntagmatic and paradigmatic terms. The distinguishability of phonemes in speech is based not on acoustic or articulatory features, but on structural and functional features, i.e. actually linguistic. Phonemic segmentation is defined by the language system itself. As a result of phonemic segmentation, a number of sounds (backgrounds) are associated with a chain of discrete phonemes.
The background acts as an individual, single representative (representative) of a certain phoneme in speech. Each phoneme has an infinite number of backgrounds.
In accordance with the morphological (semiotic in nature) principle, which was formulated in the school of L.V. Shcherby, boundaries between phonemes are where the boundaries between morphemes are.
For example, the syllable Yes in a word (word form) water divided into two phonemes: / d / and / a /, reflecting the presence of a morphemic seam: water. In the same way, a syntagmatic border is established between the phonemes / v / and / a / in the word form grass, between / u / and / p / in word form u-pad-u.
Repeated many times separately, phonemes acquire autonomy in the phonological system of the language, so that in the exponent the words Yes, where there is no morphemic division, there is a border between the phonemes / d / and / a /.
Using the morphological criterion, it is possible to determine whether we are dealing with long consonants, long vowels, diphthongs as single phonemes or as combinations of phonemes (monophonematic and biphonemic interpretation).
So, in a word enter, starting phonetically with a long [in:], two phonemes / in / are distinguished, one of which is the exponent of the morpheme v and the other is initial in the exponent of the root morpheme - waters-. The morphological criterion makes it possible to prove that in Russian there are no diphthongs as single phonemes, and in German and English, diphthongs are monophonematic.
Boundaries between phonemes can also be signaled by meaningful alternations (for example, alternations by ablaut in English word forms find ~ found (~), in German word forms find-en ~ fand-en ([I] ~ [a]).
Thus, boundaries between phonemes are possible both at the junctions of words and morphemes, and within morphemes. They do not have to coincide with the boundaries of the syllables.
The situation is different in syllabic languages. In them, the syllable is usually the indivisible exponent of the morpheme and / or word. In terms of its functions, such a syllable is similar to a phoneme. Therefore, in such cases, the syllable is spoken of as the shortest phonological unit - the syllabem.
1.2 Phonological oppositions and differential signs
Each language of the phonemic (non-syllable) structure has a small, closed set of phonemes. They can carry out their identifying and differentiating function due to the fact that they differ from each other, being opposed paradigmatically.
Paradigmatic features of phonemes are revealed on the basis of phonological oppositions, i.e. such oppositions between phonemes, which distinguish not only different sets of phonemes, but also different words (and morphemes) using these sets as their exponents.
For the first time, the typology of phonological oppositions was developed by N.S. Trubetskoy.
In this work, the following characteristics of oppositions will be used:
By the number of opposed members:
o two-term oppositions (binary), for example: eng. / p /: / b / - pen:Ben;
o three-term (ternary), for example: English. / p /: / t /: / k / - peg:teg:keg, etc.;
By the number of differential features that serve to distinguish opposed phonemes:
o single-sign oppositions (for example: English / g /: / k /, opposed on the basis of voicedness: deafness (non-voicedness) - gum:come), and
o multi-character, for example: rus. / t /: / z /, opposed on the basis of voicedness: deafness and bowedness: alkalinity (non-synergy) - tol:angry;
· In relation to the phoneme system:
isolated oppositions (for example, German / l /: / r / - lassen: Rassen, and
o proportional, for example: rus. / l /: / r / = / l "/: / r" / - fishing:moat = A lion (< Lyova):roar.
Tests for the participation of a given phoneme in phonological oppositions make it possible to establish a set of its simultaneous differential features.
So, for the Russian phoneme / d / by means of oppositional analysis, i.e. comparisons / d / with other phonemes (/ d /: / t /, / d /: / n /, / d /: / d "/, / d /: b /, / d /: / r /, / d /: / s /, phonological content / d / appears as a set of features
Voicedness ( House:volume),
Mouth ( give:US),
Non-palatalization ( pillbox:goes),
Paganism ( gave:ball),
Front-lingual ( dol:Goal),
Bowing ( gave:Hall).
Trubetskoy classified the differential features into three groups:
1. Privative = when the presence of a sign is opposed to the absence of a sign, for example, voicedness (the work of the vocal cords during articulation) = this is the presence of a sign, and deafness (the vocal cords do not work) = this is the absence of a sign.
2. Gradual, or graduated, in Russian phonetics there are almost none. In English phonetics, the mouth solution is considered a gradual sign. Distinguish between a wide ex. / a: /, middle ex. / e / and narrow eg. / i / mouth solution for vowel differentiation.
3. Equipolent, or equivalent, signs, when one sign in one member of opposition is replaced by another in another member. So, for English phonemes. / k / and / d / privative is the opposition according to voiced / deafness, and equipolent = according to the place of education.
To this can be added the opposition of the entire class of consonants to the class of vowels (group opposition) and supplement the above list with a differential sign of consistency.
In general, many oppositions are of a group nature: for example, the class of slit and the class of tremors is opposed to the class of closings, the class of middle and back-lingual opposites, the class of non-palatalized, the class of palatalized, to the class of uncorrupted vowels, the class of roughened (labialized), etc. Such phonological oppositions (following NS Trubetskoy) are classified as phonological correlations.
Most often, minimal pairs are selected for opposition, i.e. different words that differ minimally in sound, only in one position, for example: cap:cup;
bake:make.
But if the minimum pair is not found, opposition of two different sounds that are in an identical phonetic environment is allowed, for example, opposition of words cat: weaves quite enough as evidence of the presence in the Russian language of two different stop voiceless phonemes: / k / and / k "/.
Sound differences that are not detected when opposing different phonemes are classified as non-phonemic (redundant). They are taken into account when describing the phonemes of a given language not at the level of the system (a set of oppositions), but at the level of the norm and at the level of the usus, and sometimes at the level of an individual speech act.
The number of phonological oppositions (due to the fact that many of them are proportional) and, accordingly, the number of differential features of phonemes is less than the number of phonemes themselves. Phonological oppositions act as those relations that order the inventory of phonemes, making it a system. In other words, the totality of phonological oppositions is the structure of the phonemic system.
N.S. Trubetskoy and R.O. Jacobson considered it possible to refer to the number of definitions of a phoneme as its qualification as a "bundle", a "bundle" of differential features. R.O. In general, Jacobson was inclined to consider the phonological differential feature (DP), according to E. Benveniste, merism, an elementary unit of the phonological system. He proposed a universal list of phonological features (in acoustic terms) from which one or another phoneme of any language is built.
The Shcherbovskaya school proceeds from the fact that phonological DPs stand out during the "splitting" of phonemes and, therefore, are secondary in relation to phonemes, are not special elements, but only features of phonemes. In addition, experimental-phonetic research in this school showed that DP are abstract, invariant features that are articulatively and acoustically implemented in different ways in phonemes of different classes.
Oppositional analysis makes it possible to:
· Not only identify phonologically significant features of phonemes,
But also to establish the composition (inventory) of phonemes,
· Distribute these phonemes by correlative classes,
Build on this basis a model of the phonemic system of a given language
· And determine the place in it of each given phoneme. This place is characterized by the set of DP of the given phoneme. Such a set remains unchanged, invariant for any implementations of a particular phoneme in speech.
1. 3 Phoneme and allophones. Distributive Analysis
Each phoneme in the stream of speech undergoes various modifications (modifications) as a result of:
Coarticulation (superposition of articulations of adjacent sounds),
· Combinatorial sound changes of the type of accommodation ** Accommodation (from Lat. Accommodatio - adaptation) - one of the types of combinatorial changes in sounds; partial adaptation of articulations of adjacent consonants and vowels. It consists in the fact that the excursion (beginning of articulation) of the subsequent sound adapts to the recursion (end of articulation) of the previous one (progressive accommodation) or the recursion of the previous sound is adapted to the excursion of the next one (regressive accommodation). and assimilation ** Assimilation - assimilation, the appearance of similarity with another, neighboring sound, for example. pronunciation instead of sonorous b in the word grandmother of a dull sound P[bapa] as a result of assimilation by deafness to the following To. ,
· Positional sound changes of the type of reduction ** Reduction - weakening, contraction of vowels. due to its implementation in a stressed or unstressed syllable.
Phonetically conditioned (specific) combinatorial and positional variants of a given phoneme (allophones) appear. Depending on the position in the word or the presence of a number of other sounds that affect the phoneme, we can observe various allophonic correlations, for example, English. / d / is pronounced with a nasal burst before the nasal sonants sudden, admit, could not and is slightly palatalized before the front vowels deal, did, day.
Representatives of descriptive linguistics (the Yale School in the USA, created by L. Bloomfield), who developed the so-called distributive method as an arsenal of techniques for "detecting" the language system in speech, break down the entire analysis procedure into three stages: utterance segmentation (setting backgrounds), phonemic background identification ( identification of the phonemic belonging of a given background) and the classification of phonemes.
Distributive analysis is especially effective at the second stage. Its rules are:
If two different backgrounds do not meet in an identical phonetic environment, then they are in the relation of additional distribution and are allophones of the same phoneme.
Such are, for example, the relationship between non-aspirated and aspirated stop signs [p] and, [t] and, [k] in both English and German, between non-aspirated and labialized consonants [p] and in Russian. With this approach, another definition of a phoneme is possible: a phoneme is a class (family, set) of sounds that are in relation to additional distribution. One of the allophones, which turns out to be the least dependent on the phonetic environment, is recognized as the main one. Others are considered specific: their features are determined either by combinatorial or positional factors.
· If two different backgrounds meet in an identical phonetic relation and at the same time can serve to distinguish different words, then they are in a contrasting distribution * and are representatives of two different phonemes.
· If two different backgrounds meet in an identical environment and do not distinguish between two different words, then there is a relation of free variation between them and they are optional variants of the same phoneme. This is the relationship between different (multi-stressed and single-stressed, front-lingual and reed) variants of the German phoneme / r /, between the stop and slit realizations of the Russian phoneme / g /.
Distributive analysis makes it possible to:
- to establish an inventory of phonemes (specifying the result of the oppositional analysis);
- to identify the phonetic conditions for the distribution of phonemes in speech;
- to present each phoneme in the form of a class of its obligatory and optional variants (which, by the way, connects phonemic analysis with the establishment of sets of perceptual units).
Conclusions for chapter 1
So, the full characteristic of a phoneme is multidimensional, since a phoneme can be characterized by:
· In relation to linguistic signs (morphemes and words), in the construction of the exponents of which phonemes are involved (constitutive function), ensuring the discrimination and recognition of these signs (differentiating and identifying functions);
· In relation to the linguistic system as a whole and to the phonological system, where each phoneme takes its definite place, participating in various phonological oppositions and differing from any other phoneme as an invariant unit with its own stereotyped set of phonological differential features;
· In relation to speech, where each phoneme appears in an infinite variety of different sounds (backgrounds), reduced into one phoneme as its phonetically conditioned variants (allophones) and optional variants based on distributive criteria.
Phonemic analysis usually aims at establishing an inventory of phonemes and discovering the set of correlative oppositions that underlie the phoneme system. The inventory of phonemes is finite; it contains from 20 to 80 or 100 elements. The set of phonological correlations is also finite (about ten). The result of this analysis is the presentation of the system of phonemes in the form of their classification. The system of phonemes can only be spoken about in relation to a certain specific language. The phonemic system of a language is unique.
Classifications of vowel and consonant phonemes of a particular language are based on general phonetic features and repeat to a certain extent universal classifications.
2. The founders of phonology and their contribution to the study of phonemes
Each of the scientists described the phoneme in his own way, taking one or more grounds as the main feature. All views on phoneme theory can be divided into 4 main groups: psychological approach, functional approach, physical approach and abstract approach. It should be noted that the division of phonetic schools, based on the approach, took place much later than the time the school was founded and is the subjective opinion of the author of this work.
Adherents psychological approaches considered the phoneme as a kind of ideal image, the achievement of which each speaker strives to achieve. This “perfect sound” is different from what the speaker says, in part because it is almost impossible to pronounce the perfect sound, and in part because of the influence of neighboring sounds on the sound. Allophones were seen as various materializations of sound in speech.
The adherents of the psychological approach include: Wilhelm Fietora, E. Sapir, I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, Alfred Sommerfeld.
The greatest resonance among works on general phonetics had the book Wilhelm Fietora"Elements of phonetics and orthoepy of German, English and French, taking into account the needs of education" 1884
Describing the vowels of three languages, Fietor had in mind phonemes (more precisely, the main allophones of phonemes), each time he indicated how many vowels of a given type differ in the language and by what characteristics (however, in a number of cases, the notes also indicate the variation of vowels), which clearly indicates the author's commitment to the psychological approach. This approach to describing the sounds of the three languages was especially obvious when the author contrasted "independent" sounds - nasal vowels - with a nasalized vowel in front of nasal consonants. It is with a psychological approach that it can be argued, as Fietor did, that in German and English there are two (u) that differ quantitatively (in duration) and qualitatively, while in French there is only one (u) closed, that in German there are two different (o), the same in French, while in English there are three different vowels of this type, etc.
Ivan Alexandrovich Baudouin de Courtenay (Jan Ignaci Necisl „av Baudouin de Courtenay, 1845 - 1929
In the field of phonetics, already in 1871 Baudouin de Courtenay distinguished between "consideration of sounds from a purely physiological point of view" and "the role of sounds in the mechanism of language, for the instinct of the people ..., analysis of sounds from a morphological, derivational point of view." This is how Baudouin's unconventional approach to the analysis of the sound side of language is outlined, which later led to the isolation of a peculiar unit within the morpheme, and then to the creation of the foundations of the phonological theory. In accordance with the distinction between synchronicity and diachrony, it was proposed to distinguish between "statics of sounds", which includes the above two aspects of describing the sound system of a language, and "dynamics of sounds" - "laws and conditions for the development of sounds in time."
According to Baudouin, the division of the flow of speech into separate sounds is an anthropophonic division; "From the point of view of phonetic-morphological ... whole coherent speech is divided into sentences or significant phrases, sentences into significant words, words into morphological syllables, or morphemes, morphemes into phonemes."
Subsequently, Baudouin abandoned the second interpretation of the term, i.e. from the phoneme as an etymological-morphological unit. In his "Experience in the theory of phonetic alternations," he drew the reader's attention to this from the very beginning, and offers the following definition: "A phoneme is an integral representation of the world of phonetics that arises in the soul through the psychological fusion of impressions received from the pronunciation of the same sound , - the psychic equivalent of the sound of the language (des Sprachlautes). A well-known sum of separate anthropophonic representations was associated with the integral representation of the phoneme, which are, on the one hand, articulatory representations, i.e. representations of physiological articulation works that are perfect or being performed (in Vollziehung begriffener), and on the other hand, acoustic representations, i.e. representations heard or heard (im Gehortwerden begriffener) the results of these physiological works. "
Apologists functional approach considered the phoneme as the shortest sound with which the meaning of the word can be differentiated. These include N. Trubetsky, L. Bloomfield, R. Jacobson, M. Hale.
There were also scholars who adhered to abstract approach to the phoneme. They believed that the phoneme is essentially separate from acoustic and physiological properties, i.e. from the sound of speech. This point of view was shared by Paul Passy, Moritz Trautmann, K. Togby, L. Helmslev.
Very significant role Fields Passy in the development of phonetics. Paul Passy's work on general phonetics is his doctoral dissertation "On phonetic changes and their general characteristics" (Etude sur les changements phonetiques et leurs caracteres generaux, Paris 1891). The very selection of these minimal units was not explained by Passy either by acoustic-articulatory or proper linguistic relations (which L.V.Shcherba later did), but in essence relied, also traditionally, on the intuition of a native speaker.
Like many before him, Passy drew attention to the fact that it is impossible to give an exhaustive list of speech sounds, since each change in articulation gives a new sound; it is enough to indicate only a few frames within which a variation of the sound is permissible (i.e., obviously, some sound types). Passy did not elaborate on what determines the choice of these factions; according to the classification tables of vowels and consonants cited by him, it is clear that he was largely guided by intuitive-phonological criteria.
The next major research scientist is Moritz Trautmann.
M. Trautmann in one of his books "The Sounds of Speech", published in 1884 (Moritz Trautmann. Die Sprachlaute im Allgemeinen und die Laute des Englischen, Franzosischen und Deutschen im Besondern) took into account information about the sounds of speech of several European languages; in this work, the author proposed his own classification of vowels and consonants and collected their articulatory and acoustic characteristics.
Speech sounds, according to Trautmann, stand out due to differences in sound; at the same time, a separate sound of speech is a sound created by the organs of speech, which is perceived as a whole, even if it does not end as it begins, for example, a, p, s. In essence, the author is guided by the unconsciously phonological approach of a native speaker, as has been done since antiquity, and by many linguists at the present time. Physical or material approach developed by N. Tehmer, J. Storm, D. Jones, B. Blokhh. These scientists considered a phoneme to be a group of similar sounds, suitable for two conditions: 1. Different members of the group must be phonetically similar to each other in character and 2) no sound from the group can meet in the same phonetic context as another sound.
Nikolay Sergeevich Tekhmer, prince (04.16.1890, Moscow, - 06.25.1938, Vienna), Russian linguist. Son of S.N. Trubetskoy. One of the theorists of the Prague Linguistic Circle.
In his work "Fundamentals of Phonology" Nikolai Sergeevich Tekhmer proposed his own definition of a simple speech sound, in which he considered it necessary to use only articulatory signs: this is any such element of the language (jeder Theil der Sprache), which is produced with the simultaneous combination of several articulations, be it tone or noise. Thus, Techmer rejected the characterization of the sound of speech as the minimal further not a subdivided unit of language (which is assumed by the linguistic criterion), but gave a purely physiological characterization. In practice, such an approach in its pure form is impracticable, and Techmer still had to operate with the implementations of the phonemes of a particular language.
J. Storm (Johan Storm, 1836 - 1920) is the author of works on the phonetics and dialectology of the Norwegian language, which also covers issues of general phonetics.
For the history of phonetic research, the most significant was his book "English Philology" (Englishe Philologie), which was published twice, in 1881 and in 1892.
Storm voiced the idea of consistency as applied to the sound structure of a language: “The totality of sounds of each language forms a system in which a certain distance is maintained between neighboring sounds. If at the same time one sound changes, very often there is a shift of the whole group. " But at the same time, Storm paid attention to the phonetic characteristics of sound units, and not to their functional relationships. He noted that certain sounds "affect the ear" of a Frenchman or an Englishman differently, that the Germans misunderstand French nasal vowels, and the British make mistakes in determining the place of the French stress - all these "mishearing", as is clear in our time, depend on differences between phonological systems of languages.
Evaluating phonetic research, Storm attached importance, first of all, to the fidelity of the articulatory and (to a lesser extent) acoustic characteristics of sounds and thereby helped to clarify the ideas about the physiological mechanism of the formation of speech sounds; in his reviews, he simultaneously expounded his own views on a number of problems and controversial issues of general phonetics.
The names of scientists Otto Jespersen and Lev Shcherba stand apart.
Otto Jespersen(Otto Jespersen 1860 - 1943), one of the largest linguists of the late XIX - early XX century. Quite a lot of space in his works is devoted to a question that has been discussed many times in the literature, which is of great importance for the study of the sound structure of language - the question of the relationship between the acoustic and articulatory characteristics of speech sounds. Jespersen considered two competing approaches. According to one, priority was given to articulation, for sound is the result of articulation, and phonetic changes in the language are easily explained as a consequence of articulatory shifts. The second approach gave preference to the acoustic side of speech sounds on the basis that speech is perceived by ear and it is in the sound form that the language is transmitted from generation to generation. The author himself did not express a clear position on this issue.
Lev Vladimirovich Shcherba (1880-1944) was the closest student of Baudouin de Courtenay at St. Petersburg University. Before Shcherba, throughout the history of phonetic research, the division of the flow of speech into sounds was taken for granted, and it was believed that dissimilar sounds were combined into one unit simply by phonetic similarity. Shcherba created his own approach called materialistic.
Shcherba called phonemes "representations-types", while in fact, in speech, each phoneme corresponds to several sound shades (allophones in modern terms); he explained the unification of shades of one phoneme and the distinction of different phonemes by semantic relations: in those cases when different sounds cannot be used to distinguish words, they represent the same phoneme; Shcherba gives many examples showing that the point is not in sound differences in themselves, but in the possibility of correlating these differences with different meanings, and those sounds that in one language represent shades of one phoneme, in another language may turn out to be different phonemes.
Completing his reasoning about the phoneme, Shcherba gives the following final definition: "A phoneme is the shortest general phonetic representation of a given language, which can be associated with semantic representations and differentiate words and can be distinguished in speech without distorting the phonetic composition of the word." In this definition, almost all (there is no only identification function) characteristics of a phoneme, which are noted today, are already indicated: its linear minimality, constitutive and differentiating functions.
Shcherba found proper linguistic criteria for substantiating the theory of the phoneme, in contrast to its psychological interpretation by Baudouin.
Thanks to the works of Baudouin de Courtenay and mainly L.V. Shcherba ended the pre-phonological period in the study of the sound side of the language and from the first decades of the XX century. a new stage of phonetic research began.
2.1 Ttraditional phonologicalschools
Currently, there are several phonological schools that have their own definitions of phonemes and, therefore, approach differently to the problem of establishing the composition of phonemes. individual words... The ultimate goal of applying in practice the methods of analysis of these schools is to accurately and definitely establish the phonological status of the sounds of a given segment of speech. However, it is known that existing theories do not always allow one to unconditionally achieve this goal.
Two phonological schools have emerged in Russia. One of them, created in Leningrad (Leningrad, or Shcherbovskaya school), where L.V. Shcherba and his closest students L.R. Zinder and M.I. Matusevich (and now the next generations of linguists - L.V.Bondarko, V.B. Kasevich, L.A. Verbitskaya, M.V. Gordin, N.D.Svetozarova, etc.), develops the ideas of its founder, considers the phoneme as an autonomous sound unit, defined by its opposition to other similar units, regardless of belonging to a particular morpheme.
Another, the Moscow phonological school, to which R.I. Avanesov, P.S. Kuznetsov, M.V. Panov, A.A. Reformed, whose work is continued by their students, relies on those statements of Baudouin, according to which a phoneme is defined as an element of a morpheme, and all sounds alternating positionally in a morpheme are representatives of the same sound unit.
Also I. Baudouin de Courtenay was the founder and long-term leader of the Kazan linguistic school (1875-1883), this school included N.V. Krushevsky, Vasily Alekseevich Bogoroditsky, A.I. Anastasiev, Alexander Ivanovich Alexandrov, N.S. Kukuranov, P.V. Vladimirov, as well as Vasily Vasilievich Radlov, Sergei Konstantinovich Bulich, Karol Y. Appel.
Also, in this work, the points of view of representatives of the schools of Functional Phonology and Systemic Phonology will be presented.
2.1 .1 Kazan Phonetic School
The basic principles of the Kazan school include the following: strict distinction between sound and letter; differentiation of phonetic and morphological articulation of the word and others.
The basic principles of the Kazan school of linguistics strictly distinguished sounds and letters. For example, in some cases - spruce, fighter, departure, tree, reception, blizzard, clear, monkey- the letters e, e, yu, i denote a combination of two sounds ([y] + vowel). And in words like measure, village, beak, sit down- one vowel sound [e], [o], [y], [a] and the softness of the preceding consonant.
Baudouin's definitions of the phoneme changed, but he always understood the phoneme as a psychic entity, "some stable representation of a group of sounds in the human psyche." The scientist proceeds from the awareness of the unstable nature of speech sounds as physical phenomena, putting them in correspondence with a stable mental representation (called the term phoneme taken from F. de Saussure, but interpreted in a completely different way). The phoneme is understood as “linguistic value”, conditioned by the system of language, in which only that which “is semasiologized and morphologized” has a function.
The theory of phonetic alternations (alternations) is closely related to the theory of phonemes.
2.1 .2 Leningrad Phonetic School
The LFS phoneme is a relatively independent autonomous material unit that has no direct connection with the morphemes it belongs to. Professor L.R. Zinder, follower of L.V. Shcherba, pointed out that "a phoneme possessing certain positive features, can always be identified by these features. "Naturally, representatives of LFS always consider sound as a representative of a phoneme, for example, the sound [t] (in the word sad) as a representative of the phoneme" t ", and the sound [d] (in the word sady) as a representative of the phoneme "d".
This approach makes it easy to determine the composition of phonemes in word forms. However, and how L.R. Zinder, "... if a given word form is characterized by a well-defined composition of phonemes, then the same cannot be said about the lexeme and morpheme." It turns out that a morpheme can have a different composition of phonemes in different word forms; in this case, there is an alternation of phonemes. For example, in the words garden - gardens alternate "t" and "d". In other cases, for example, in the words cat and code, it turns out that root morphemes of different meanings and spelling of words in different positions can include either "t" or "d" as the last phoneme (cf. tot b hedgehog, tod s, toT hik tod t ore etc.). Thus, it can be noted that, although in such cases morphemes are endowed with an independent meaning and are not homonymous, the phonemic composition does not allow differentiating them from each other.
Let us give examples of the phonemic composition of words in the designation LFS.
|
dog |
||||
As we can see, in the concept of LFS in determining the phonological status of speech sounds, their material properties play a decisive role.
2.1 .3 Moscow phonetic school
However, in modern linguistics there is also another view of the nature of sound units - first of all, their functional load in the language is taken into account. A.A. Reformed pointed out that "... the difference between phonemes and the identity of one phoneme to itself is determined by the functional, and not concrete-sound (articulatory and acoustic) difference or identity of the sounds expressing them." Therefore, unlike LFS, representatives of the Moscow phonological school consider the phoneme a functional unit, the main purpose of which is to identify morphemes and words (constitutive function). The analysis of the IDF involves the determination of the composition of phonemes at the morpheme level and is based on the proposition that the phonemic composition of the morpheme remains unchanged. According to M.V. Panova phoneme - "... is a functional phonetic unit, represented by a number of positionally alternating sounds." Therefore, the IDF phoneme unites sounds that occur in different positions within the same morpheme, even in the absence of an organic connection between them. For example, in the word cat, the phonemic composition can be represented as follows:< к (о,а) (т,т"д)>... However, in some cases, such an analysis does not allow us to determine all the phonemes that make up the word. For example, in the word dog the first vowel sound is always unstressed and does not belong to a series of alternations. It cannot be said with certainty what it is: a representative of the phonemes [o] or [a]. In such cases, IDF supporters talk about hyperphoneme... For example, M. V. Panov writes that a hyperphoneme is "a phoneme at the level of incomplete linguistic identification" and defines it as a common part of two or more neutralized phonemes. Thus, according to the IDF, the word dog includes several phonemes and one hyperphoneme.
Let's include in our table examples of the phonemic composition of words according to the IDF:
|
<к (о, а) (т, т", д, д")> |
<к (о, а) (д, д", т, т")> |
<со/аб?ка> |
It can be concluded that the method of analyzing the Moscow school does not give the researcher the opportunity to determine, in any case, the full composition of the phonemes of a given word.
2.2.4 Functional phonology
In functional phonology, the creator of which is N.S. Trubetskoy, the phoneme is also considered as a functional unit, but its main function is to distinguish between morphemes and words. A phoneme is defined as a collection of distinctive features. "A phoneme is a set of phonologically essential features inherent in a given sound formation ..."
Based on the definitions of FF, we can conclude that a word / morpheme consists of combinations of complexes of nondiscriminatory (irrelevant) features and complexes of distinctive (relevant) features (i.e. phonemes). However, there are many words where certain distinctive features cannot fulfill their function. Let's take an example from the Russian language with stunning consonants at the end of words: in words cat and the code signs of voicedness and deafness are not opposed, since voiced vowels at the end of words are replaced by voiceless ones. In FF, such situations are associated with the concepts neutralization and archiphoneme.
According to Trubetskoy, in such positions there is a defonologization and replacement of two phonemes (in our example / t / and / d /) with one archiphoneme (/ T /), a unit that includes only common signs of two phonemes; in this case, the opposition of voiced-deafness signs is neutralized. Therefore, according to FF, the words cat and the code each consists of two phonemes and one archiphoneme.
Analysis of examples of the table by the FF method gives the following picture:
|
<к (о, а) (т, т", д, д")> |
<к (о, а) (д, д",т", т)> |
<со/аб?ка> |
||
|
/ sab? ka / |
As you can see, none of the traditional phonological schools has an impeccable solution to the problem of establishing the composition of the phonemes of a word. Supporters of LFS reject a functional approach to defining a phoneme, which violates the integrity of the morpheme; adherents of MFS and FF admit the impossibility of determining the phonological status of some sounds and use the broader concepts of hyperphoneme or archiphoneme.
It follows from this that it is necessary to continue the search for new ways to completely solve the problem under discussion.
An attempt to solve it in a different way was made in the concept of systemic phonology. Its main provisions were formulated and substantiated by L.N. Cherkasov in the work "The theory of linguistic systems and system phonology".
2.1 .5 System phonology
In SF, the phoneme is considered as a functional system differentiate(distinctive features). Phonemes are represented in the sounds of speech. The relevance of features is determined by establishing the presence of a functional relationship between them and the meaning of the morpheme. For example, if in the word cat in the first sound, change the sign of velarization to the sign of palatalization ([k]> [k "]), the word / cat / will turn into / k" from /. The resulting combination of sounds does not correspond to any word in the Russian language. Therefore, we can conclude that the feature of velarization has a functional semantic connection with the meaning of a morpheme and is a distinctive feature - a differentiation. When carrying out a complete analysis of the word and highlighting all its constituent phonemes, it is necessary to establish which features of each sound in the exponent of the word support the functional semantic connection of the phoneme (expressed by this sound) with the meaning of the morpheme it belongs to, that is, to determine all the representatives by differentiating. The definition of a differential leads to the identification of each phoneme. This method of analysis enables the researcher to determine specific phonemes in those cases that are considered by other phonologists as hyperphonemic or archiphonemic situations. For example, if in the morpheme - the code- replace deafness in the final [t] with voicedness, as in the word code, the meaning of the morpheme will not change, it will not turn into another and will not cease to exist. This means that the sign of voicedness here retains a functional connection with the meaning of the morpheme. However, if we are in the word codes replace y [d] voiced with deafness, we get a completely different word - cats... This means that in this morpheme deafness has no functional connection with meaning and is not a differentiation. According to SF, in such cases the sounds [t] and [d] are representative of the phoneme / d /. However, its implementation is influenced by language norm... The norm is defined as "a mechanism for the implementation of language units in speech". As L.N. Cherkasov, the norm occupies "an intermediate position between the abstract language system and concrete speech" and "includes not only the rules for the implementation of inventory units, but also its own units, which occupy an intermediate position between the abstract language units and the concrete forms of their implementation."
The ratio of language, norm and speech in the implementation of linguistic units can be represented as follows:
|
Differentials |
|||
|
Speech sounds |
Phonetic signs |
Units of the norm - passages consisting of let's throw(phonetic signs). The norm is a kind of mediator between language and speech. Depending on the position of the phoneme in the word, the norm can regulate its implementation in speech in different ways.
In some cases, all differentials are realized in speech without hindrance. Such phoneme positions are defined in SF as strong systemic and differ in that in them "the differentials of a given phoneme are fully manifested (through all kinds of oppositions), so that the phonemes are, as it were, given directly in observation."
In other cases, the norm blocks certain differentials, replacing them with related kinemes, which, however, do not support a functional semantic relationship with the meaning of the morpheme. For example, in the Russian language, the norm does not allow the presence of voiced vowel sounds at the end of words. Therefore, according to SF, in such positions of the differentiation, the voicing is blocked and replaced by a kinema of deafness. It is this kinema that is expressed in speech as a component of deaf sounds. However, when performing a differential analysis (as in our example with cat - the code) it is possible to set a blocked voiced difference and define a "voiced" phoneme, represented by a "dull" sound. In a word the code this is the phoneme / d /, but it stands in asystemic positions, that is, in a position where certain differentials are not represented in speech at all and are replaced by related kinemes.
On the contrary, in the word cat we can establish the phoneme / t /, since the voicelessness here is a differential (when it is replaced with voicedness, the exponent of the word is destroyed). According to SF, phonemes in such cases stand in weak systemic positions, because "phonemes are manifested through oppositions, through active relations by difference, but there are no such relations here ... due to the absence of those phonemes that could enter into relations with available phonemes.
The definition of a weak systemic position helps us to consider in a different way the hyperphonemic situations that the representatives of the IDF speak about. In words dog,ram etc., phonemes following the first consonant cannot come into opposition with other phonemes due to the lack of corresponding morphemes and words in the language. However, this does not make it impossible to carry out the procedure for determining by differentiation of these phonemes and establishing their phonological status (in this case, we are dealing with an unstressed phoneme / a /). Thus, in such situations, it is possible to determine all the phonemes of a word.
Let's finish our table with examples using the SF analysis method
|
dog |
||||
|
<к (о,а) (т,т",д,д")> |
<к (о,а) (д,д",т,т")> |
<со/аб?ка> |
||
As you can see, the approach proposed in systemic phonology makes it possible to conduct a deeper analysis of the phonemic composition of a morpheme / word and to determine specific phonemes even in cases where this is impossible from the point of view of traditional phonological schools. In addition, the analysis is based on the determination of the presence of a functional semantic connection between the features of a phoneme and the meaning of the word, the exponent of which it is included. Thus, the functional rather than material properties of the phoneme are brought to the fore.
Conclusions from Chapter 2
At present, there are two views of the phoneme: one is a kind of “outside” view, when the phoneme is viewed through its realizations, the other is “from the inside” view, when it is viewed through the bases of its oppositions in the system.
In both cases, the phoneme is interpreted as a set, but in the first case - “as a set of manifestations, in the second - as a set of signs”. (Vinogradov) However, the point of view of Jacobson and Halle turns out to be no less legitimate: "Distinctive features are combined into bundles called phonemes", "A phoneme is a bundle of differential elements."
It is well known that there are many remarks and objections regarding the second definition: “Reducing a phoneme to a set of differential features does not see a qualitative difference between phoneme features and the phoneme itself. In reality, a phoneme is not a sum of individual features, but a qualitatively new phenomenon. This is an image, and like any image, the phoneme is indivisible into separate signs as basic elements. It is composed on the basis of individual characteristics and taking into account a number of other internal and external factors, including more high levels language ". (Dukelsky)
The opinion of this author overlaps with the opinion of M.I. Matuyavich and Kasevich, who rightly believe that "in reality, each phoneme of a language is a complex unity of features, which, when combined, give a new quality of the language" and that "a thing differs from the mechanical set of features present in its definition." Jacobson agrees with the stated point of view: “The phoneme also cannot be regarded as the result of a simple mechanical addition of the differential elements included in it. A phoneme is also a structure with some combinatorial properties. "
Conclusion
Phonological science does not stand still. Every year, the baggage of world knowledge about the phoneme is replenished with new research. In Russia, international conferences are held annually, posing new questions regarding phonological problems.
The phoneme is the basic unit of the sound structure of the language, the limiting element distinguished by the linear articulation of speech. The phoneme is not the simplest element, since consists of meris (signs) existing simultaneously (simultaneously). The phoneme is not a physical sound (the views of many scientists of the 19th century), not an idea of sound, not its psychic equivalent (the early works of I.A.Baudouin de Courtenay, the works of L.V. Shcherba, T. Benny, N.S. ), not a group of related sounds (D. Jones), not a sound type (Shcherba), not a "bundle" of signs (L. Bloomfield, R. Jacobson, M. Halle) and not a fiction (W. Twoddell), but above all an element morphemes, outside of which the phoneme is inconceivable.
Phoneme is an object of study of phonology and morphonology. This concept plays important role in addressing such practical tasks, like the development of alphabets, spelling principles, etc.
List of used literature
1. Avanesov R.I., Phonetics of the modern Russian literary language, M., 1979
2. Alpatov V.M. History of linguistic teachings. - M., 1998.
3. Berezin F.M. History of Russian linguistics. - M., 1979.
4. Berezin F.M. Russian linguistics of the late 19th - early 20th centuries // Reader. - M., 1981.
5. Large encyclopedic Dictionary: Linguistics / Ch. ed. V.N. Yartseva. - M, 1998.
6. Vinogradov V.V. History of Russian linguistic teachings. - M., 1978.
7. Dikulina OI Phonetics of the English language. - M, 1997
8. Zvegintsev V.A. The history of linguistics of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in sketches and extracts. - M., 1964. - Part 1; - M., 1965 .-- Part 2.
9. Zinder L.R., General Phonetics, L., 1960
10. Klimov G.A., Phoneme and morpheme, M., 1967
11. Kodukhov V.I. General linguistics. - M., 1974.
12. Kondrashov N.A. History of linguistic teachings. - M., 1979.
13. Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary / Ch. ed. V.N. Yartseva. - M., 1990.
Similar documents
The concept of a phoneme, the composition of vowel and consonant phonemes, their differential and integral features. The concept and types of phonological positions, archiphoneme and hyperphoneme, phonemic transcription. Characteristics of the phoneme theory of the Moscow phonological school.
test, added 05/23/2010
The composition of the vowel phonemes of the German and Belarusian languages. Classification, main characteristics of vowel phonemes in the German and Belarusian languages. General definition of vowels and phonemes. The composition of the vowel phonemes of the Belarusian language. Alternating German vowel phonemes.
term paper, added 08/31/2008
Language and speech as one of the fundamental problems in stylistics. The concept of phoneme and phonological level. The concept of language as a system and levels of a language system. The concept of morphemes and their types. A sentence as a syntactic unit of text. Signs of the language system.
abstract, added 02/18/2009
Characteristics of schools. Moscow phonological school: Fortunatov F.F., Sidorov V.N., Reformatsky A.A. Kazan linguistic school: I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, Bogoroditsky V.A., Krushevsky N.V. Petersburg linguistic school: Shcherba L.V., Zinder L.R.
abstract added on 10.24.2006
Phonology as a branch of linguistics that studies the sound side of language. Phoneme as a unit of language, its functions. The concept of the differential features of a phoneme, opposition of phonemes, the conditions for its implementation in speech. Distribution of phonemes. Additional distribution concept.
lecture added on 02/21/2012
The principles of the classification of speech sounds. Characteristics of the basic phonetic units. The concept of a phoneme as a unit of language. Orthoepic and accentological norms. Errors in pronunciation of some grammatical forms. Pronunciation rules for borrowed words.
abstract, added 11/17/2010
Phonetics as a branch of linguistics. Characteristics of sounds, phonetic processes, phonetic division of speech. Phonology as scientific discipline... Phoneme concept. Morphology as a section of grammar. Genealogical classification of languages.
cheat sheet, added 01/15/2007
Consideration of elementary, structural and systemic approaches to the study of an object. Examples of syntagmatic relations between language units when used sequentially in real speech. The concept of phonemes, morphemes, lexemes (words) and sentences.
presentation added on 02/15/2013
Comparison of acoustic and articulatory features of the French phoneme / r / and the variant of Russian pronunciation / p / (rotacism - incorrect pronunciation of the sound "r") depending on the phonetic position and the speaker using the Speech Analyzer program.
term paper added 01/18/2016
Common Speech as a Specific Phenomenon of the Russian Language from the Point of View of the Structural and Functional Approach. Objective characteristics of vernacular, its role in Russian speech. The field of implementation of common speech is oral speech. Phonemes and lexical features of vernacular.
The emergence of phonology as a branch of the science of language is associated with the name of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay - one of the largest linguists of the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries, the founder of the Kazan linguistic school. In order to better understand and evaluate the contribution of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay into linguistics, one should at least very briefly characterize the general development of linguistic thought in the second half of the 19th century, i.e. years of formation of his linguistic worldview.
The historical approach of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay opposed the thesis about the need to study living languages in their current state, without denying, however, the importance of the historical approach, and opposed the practice of studying disparate phenomena with the requirement of the need to highlight the facts of language in their relationship. In addition, it touches on many problems: the problem of the social nature of language, the problem of differentiating the concepts of language and speech ("Some remarks on linguistics and language", 1871), the problem of interaction of languages ("The experience of the phonetics of the Rezyan dialects", 1875, "On the mixed character of all languages ", 1901), the doctrine of the sign nature of language, the concept of linguistic values (" Introduction to Linguistics ", 1917).
I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay was interested in children's speech, issues of pathology, wrote about the need to distinguish between statics and dynamics in language, for the first time used the term "applied linguistics", widely used mathematical formulas to explain his positions.
In the language, morphemes are distinguished as the minimum units. The sound composition of morphemes of common origin (homogeneous) may not coincide. The reasons for this are varied. Homogeneous morphemes break down into sounds or combinations of sounds that make up a given morpheme, i.e. to homogenes. Homogenes are of two types: divergences- modifications of the same sound due to current laws, and correlates- historically related sounds, but anthropophonically different. Homogeneous sounds in related languages are already correspondents.
The need for a double approach to the analysis of speech sounds (acoustic-physiological and morphological) - and the discrepancy between these aspects is proven already in the earliest works of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay ("On the Old Polish language before the 14th century", 1870 and "Some general remarks on linguistics and language", 1871).
In his studies on the Old Polish language, he writes: “Only a physiological necessity, acting in all epochs of the development of the language, explains the law of the Polish language (and Slavonic in general) that at the end of a word, sonorous consonants pass into the corresponding silent ones, although psychologically, for the instinct of the people, they remain sonorous in the mechanism of the language "
The approach to phonetics from the standpoint of the "language mechanism" should be considered as the beginning of phonological research. In addition, according to S.V. Protogenov, this is already "structuralism"
The phoneme is determined by I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay as “the sum of the generalized anthropophonic properties of the known phonetic part of the word, indivisible in the establishment of correlations in the field of one language and correspondence relations in the field of several languages. Otherwise: the phoneme is phonetically indivisible from the point of view of the comparability of the phonetic parts of the word " this, in the field of several languages between the sounds of the same phoneme, correspondence links are established. I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay did not create a phonological concept based on "correspondents" when comparing several languages. Nevertheless, the prolegomena for its creation in the phonological views of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay are, for example, in the work "Experience of the theory of phonetic alternations." The term "correspondent" or "correspondence alternate" actually conveys the concept of a genetic phoneme, that is, a genetic phoneme. In the same work, there is a definition from which I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay does not retreat until the end of his life: "The phoneme is the only representation belonging to the world of phonetics, which arises in the soul through the fusion of impressions received from the pronunciation of the same sound - the psychic equivalent of the sounds of the language."
Physically, a phoneme is not just a single sound of speech. Baudouin points out that from an anthropophonic point of view, a phoneme can equal:
a) a whole indivisible sound;
b) incomplete sound (for example, softness in the case of alternating hard and soft);
c) an integral sound plus the properties of another;
d) two or more sounds. For example, the combination "oro" in Russian words is considered as one phoneme
I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay develops a provision on smaller elements than the phoneme. He introduced the concept of kinema, akusma and kinakema. “Kinema is, from the point of view of linguistic thinking, a further indecomposable pronouncing or phonation element, for example, the representation of the work of the lips, the representation of the work of the soft palate, the representation of the work of the middle part of the tongue, etc.
Akusma - from the point of view of linguistic thinking, further indecomposable, acoustic or auditory (auditory) element, for example, the presentation of instant noise obtained from an explosion between compressed pronunciation organs, the presentation of the acoustic result of the lips in general, the presentation of nasal resonance, etc.
Kinakema is a combined representation of kinema and akusma in those cases when, thanks to the kinema, akusma is also obtained. " Kinema and akusma can coexist and can be mutually exclusive.
From these positions, the phoneme is already defined as "the combination of several further indecomposable pronunciation and auditory elements (kinem, akusm, kinakem) into one single whole due to the simultaneity of all relevant works and their particular results" in the individual psyche of the phoneme "Idea of I.А. Baudouin de Courtenay is about comparing not separate sounds, but separate elements of sounds, i.e. We will throw, as it seems to us, in methodological terms, it was far ahead of its time.
As you can see, in the works of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay can be found in various definitions of the phoneme. He also understood this unit as "the sum of generalized anthropophonic properties", distinguished by morphological analysis when establishing correlations in the field of one language and correspondent connections in the field of several languages, i.e. by comparative historical analysis. He defines the phoneme as a representation of the sound of speech, "the psychic equivalent of the sound of speech", "sound representation", and as "the unification of several further indecomposable pronunciation and auditory elements into one single whole." It is most logical to assume that the presence of several definitions of the phoneme indicates a change in the views of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, however, it is quite possible that for him all these three things are phonemes.
It is very important that I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay to the fact that phonemes and all pronunciation-auditory elements by themselves do not have any meaning from the point of view of linguistic thinking. "They become linguistic values and can be considered linguistically only when they are part of comprehensively living linguistic elements, which are morphemes associated with both semasiological and morphological representations."
Thus, I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay developed in general the doctrine of the phoneme in four planes:
Establishment of a purely abstracted functional unit common to the phonetic structure of related languages (genetophoneme).
Establishment of a functional unit within one language, in which there is a variation of morphs within one morpheme (paradigmophoneme or morphophoneme).
The establishment of a figurative unit within the phonetic version of the spoken word in the language of the individual, in which there are unambiguous mapping relations between the phoneme (image) and the sound (prototype), which implements the phoneme in speech.
Establishment of a severable complex unit within the phonetic version of a word in the language of an individual, in which there is an identification relationship between the pattern in the mind (typically, sound representation, psychophoneme) and the symbol that entered the hearing phase on the auditory analyzer, which, for the purpose of recognition, is divided into typical features, and in the speaking phase it is saturated with typical features, which have received the name of distinctive features in phonology. In this case, the phoneme is understood as a complex of distinctive features (a bundle of RP, in the terminology of R.O. Jacobson).
In general, the science of the sound structure of the language of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay subdivides into anthropophonics, which studies the acoustic and physiological properties of speech sounds; psychophonetics, otherwise etymological phonetics, which studies “functional representations, ie phonetic-acoustic representations both in themselves and in connection with other representations not only in the exact sense of the language, i.e. morphological, but also extra-linguistic, i.e. "Semasiological", and historical phonetics. Apparently, Baudouin used the terms "phonetics" and "phonology" as synonyms. The second aspect of phonetics is "psychophonetics", identified by I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, was the prototype of modern phonology.
I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay introduced the concept of a linguistic unit into scientific use. The work "Some general remarks on linguistics and language" says: "It is necessary to distinguish the categories of linguistics from the categories of language: the former are pure abstractions; the second - that which lives in the language as sound, syllable, root, stem (theme), ending, word, sentence, different categories of words, etc. "
Understanding the phoneme as a unit of the linguistic plan, that is, as an abstract linguistic unit, Baudouin notes that one should not chase "with phonemes for great anthropophonic accuracy." The same work contains many fundamental maxims for phonology, which in modern terminology can be expressed as the problems of marked and unmarked members of the alternation, methods of determining the basic position of phonemes, questions of expressing a phoneme with a sound zero, problems of an archiphoneme. M.V. Panov notes that with this work of 1881 "the true theory of the phoneme begins, the theoretical full-fledged phonology begins"
The theoretical thoughts of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay had a noticeable influence on all subsequent development of the science of language both in our country and in the West. In his general phonological theory, one can find the origins of all three major European schools created by Russian scientists: the Moscow school of N.F. Yakovlev, the Petersburg school of L.V. Shcherba (perhaps it should be separated from the Leningrad one, since in the Leningrad period L.V. Shcherba formed another - not psychophonetic school) and the Prague school of N.S. Trubetskoy and R.O. Jacobson.
The fourth school, associated with the comparison of related languages and modeling on this basis of common phonemes for a number of genoisomorphic languages within the framework of a hypothetical model representation, has not been created. And this is obviously due to the fact that comparative linguistics of the synchronous type was oriented more towards contrasts than towards common features in related languages, although this type of problem was touched upon already in F. de Saussure's Memoir on the Initial Vowel System in Indo-European Languages. Nevertheless, if a serious motive is found for modeling, for example, a modern common Eastern Slavic language, phonology of this type can be created, and for this there is a theoretical basis within the framework of the general phonological theory of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay.
To a certain extent, the fourth direction of phonological views of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay corresponds to the development of R.O. Jacobson, G.M. Phantom and M.Halle of a universal set of binary distinctive features
I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay was the founder and long-term leader of the Kazan linguistic school, which included N.V. Krushevsky, V.A. Bogoroditsky, A.I. Anastasiev, A.I. Alexandrov, P.V. Vladimirov, V.V. Radlov, S.K. Bulich, K. Yu. Appel, etc.
The basic principles of the Kazan linguistic school include: strict distinction between sound and letter; differentiation of phonetic and morphological articulation of a word; preventing the mixing of processes occurring in the language at this stage of its existence, and processes that take place over a long time; priority attention to the living language and its dialects, and not to the ancient monuments of writing; upholding the complete equality of all languages as objects of scientific research; striving for generalizations; psychologism with individual elements of sociologism.
In the works of representatives of the Kazan linguistic school, many ideas of structural linguistics, phonology, morphonology, typology of languages, articulatory and acoustic phonetics are anticipated. They clearly understood the idea of a systematic language. The teacher himself and his followers seriously influenced the formation of linguistics in the 20th century.
Ideas and concept of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay are continued in modern phonological research, and structuralism, which until recently was subjected to harsh criticism, was developed in interdisciplinary studies of the sound structure of language.
the concept of phonemes in mfsh and lfsh
1. Phonemesin the teachings of the IDF, independent sound differences are called, which serve as signs of distinguishing the words of the language , in other words, the minimum components of the sound envelopes of the minimumiconicunits - morpheme. Since the morpheme is understood as a set of alternatingmorphs, the phoneme is represented by a variety of sounds, alternating in the composition of morphs according to phonetic rules. If the alternation is due not phonetically, but morphologically (as inRussianind it - inf y) orlexically, alternating elements are not included in the phoneme, but in the compositionmorphonemes(morphophonemes) ... It should be noted that the status of independent linguistic units is not recognized for morphonemes, butmorphonologyconsidered not separatelanguage level, but a special sphere, included in both phonology and morphology; it is distinguished from the phenomena of the first by being conditioned by morphological conditions instead of phonetic positions; from the phenomena of the second, by the absence ofsignificanceinherent in morphemes
Each phoneme is realized in certain varieties, each of which appears in certain phonetic conditions; in the same position, the same variety always appears, in different positions - different ]
As follows from the definition of a phoneme as a series of positionally alternating sounds (possibly including the zero sound), in order to assign different sounds to one phoneme, it is necessary and sufficient that the sounds are in an additional distribution (distribution) depending exclusively on phonetic positions and occupied the same place in the same morpheme. Phonetic proximity of sounds does not play a role in their assignment to a particular phoneme. This criterion is called morphological.
Phoneme functions
According to the teachings of the IDF, the phoneme performs two main functions
perceptual - to promote the identification of significant language units - words and morphemes;
significative - to help distinguish significant units.
The application of the morphological criterion is based on both the perceptual (according to the supporters of the IDF, recognition and identification by speaking words and noticeably changing depending oncontextmorphemes are based not only on the unity of meaning, but also on the identity of the phonemic composition), and on the significative function of phonemes (positionally alternating sounds do not participate in meaningful discrimination)
2. Supporters of LFS believe that the task of phoneme theory is to explain the fact that some sound differences are noticed by speakers and evaluated by them as significant, while others, no less from a phonetic point of view, are usually not noticed.native speakers
Phonemein LFS is defined as the shortest (indivisible in time) sound unit of a given language, capable of being the only means of discrimination in itsignifying morphemeand words ... The definition of a phoneme as capable of meaningful differentiation makes it possible to recognize units as different phonemes that do not formminimum pair, however, acting in identical phonetic positions. An indication of a meaningful function allows one to oppose a phoneme to a shade (variant) of a phoneme as not possessing this function. and to provide the very possibility of allocating a phoneme instream of speech, wherethe soundsin the articulatory-acoustic relation are not delimited from each other and only the assignment of adjacent sounds to different morphemes or words allows the listener to distinguish between them
Representatives of the LFS understand the phoneme as a "holistic articulatory-auditory image" , That's whydifferential signsphonemes are not thought of as components of phonemes (which is inherent inthe phonological concept of N. S. Trubetskoy), but as a classification tool for describing the phoneme system. Leningrad phonologists are not inclined to identify differential features (DP) with the phonetic properties of phonemes, considering DP to be an abstraction that manifests itself phonetically differently in the case of different phonemes, and point out the importance of hearing words and nondifferential (integral) features of the phonemes that make it up for recognizing words: for example, according to L R. Zinder, utteranceRussianOn and withback-lingual [ŋ] would make it difficult to recognize the given word, althoughfront-lingual articulationis not DP for what is spoken here in the normal case[n].
Identifying sounds
According to the teachings of LFSH, different sounds representing one phoneme should occur in different phonetic conditions, that is, be inadditional distribution... In the case when different sounds occur in the same phonetic position, they should be recognized as representatives (allophones) of different phonemes. At the same time, in order to establish the possibility for different sounds to meet in one position, it is not necessary to resort to considering the minimum pairs: it is enough to make sure, one way or another, that the difference in sounds is not due to the position; so, to determine that in Russian [p] and [b] belong to different phonemes, a pair ofP mail -b points
An unambiguous identification of a sound unit with one or another phoneme is recognized in LFS as possible in any position. Specific units of weak positions, where unambiguous identification would be impossible due to neutralization, likearchiphonemN. S. Trubetskoy orhyperphonemesIDFs are not recognized, and “the composition of the phonemes of each given word is determined without regard to the composition of the phonemes of other words, including other forms of the same word”; meaning for determining the phonemic composition of a word is only its sound appearance. The identification of a sound unit with one or another phoneme is carried out by correlating the differential features of the observed unit with the differential features of the phonemes of the language; so, the final [k] inRussianthe horn refers to the phoneme / k /, despite the alternation with [g] (horns), since it has the same differential features as the phoneme / k /. Another example of a decision dictated by this approach is the interpretationreducedvowels in Russian. In LFS they "are raised to the phonemic standards closest in phonetic quality" : [ъ] and [ʌ] are consideredallophonesphonemes / a /
Phoneme functions
Supporters of LFS distinguish the following functions of the phoneme [ :
constitutive - the creation of the sound image of the significant units of the language (from the side of the speaker);
identifying - the other side of the constitutive, which manifests itself when viewed from the side of the listener;
distinctive - the use of the originality of the phonemic composition of significant units to distinguish them; is a consequence of the constitutive-recognition function.
The phoneme can also perform a delimiting function, which is observed in languages in which some phonemes are used exclusively on the boundaries of meaningful units.
Phonemes - these are indivisible sound units of the language, which serve to construct word forms and to distinguish between their sound form. So, each of the word forms ox, led (past tense of the verb lead), gol, evil (short form of the adjective evil, gender of the noun plural noun evil), count, they say, mel (past tense of the verb of revenge) , gender, village (gender, plural, noun village), walk (past tense of the verb to go) differs from any other word form of this series in only one phoneme - respectively, by the first consonants | в | - | in '| - | g | - | s | - | to | - | m | - | m '| - | n | - | s' | - | w |; the second and third phonemes of these word forms are the same: | o | and | l |. Word forms ox, shaft and howl (last tense of the verb howl) also differ in only one phoneme - a vowel: | o | - | a | - | and | (the latter in this case is conveyed in the letter by the letter y). The difference in the composition of phonemes in word forms can be partial (as in the above examples) and complete, as, for example, in pairs of word forms chair - house, year - hour, etc.
A phoneme is a generalized sound unit of a language, abstracted from all possible sounds that appear in its place in the stream of speech. For example, the vowel phoneme | a | it is modified in different ways depending on which consonants it is adjacent to: so, in the word form [s'at '] (spelling sit down, commanding the inclination of the verb sit down), in contrast to [sat] (spelling garden) the phoneme | and | stands between two soft consonants and therefore is represented by a sound, in its formation advanced forward and upward.
In the Russian literary language there are 5 vowels and 37 consonant phonemes.
Vowels differ in the degree of elevation of the tongue and the presence or absence of labialization (rounding) (Table 1).
Consonants are divided into sonorous and noisy. Sonorant includes | m |, | m ’|, | n |, | n’ |, | l |, | l ’|, | p |, | r’ |, | j |, the rest are noisy. Sonorous are pronounced with the participation of a voice with the addition of minor noise. Noisy ones are pronounced with the participation of noise and voices (voiced) or only noise (deaf).
Both sonoric and noisy consonants differ in the place of formation (depending on which organs are involved in articulation) and in the mode of formation (Table 2).
|
Table 2 System of consonant phonemes |
|||||||||
|
Method of education |
Place of education |
||||||||
|
Labial |
Front-lingual |
Middle-lingual |
Back-lingual |
||||||
|
Labial |
Labiodental |
Dental |
Anterior palatine |
Average palatine |
Rear palatine |
||||
|
Smychny |
| n | | b | | n '| | n '| |
| t | | d | | t '| | d '| |
| to '| | g '| |
| to | | r | |
|||||
|
Fissured-fissured (affricates) | |||||||||
|
Slotted |
| f | | in | | f '| | in '| |
| with | | h | | s' | | z '| |
| w | | f | | w '' | | w ’’ | | j | | ||||||
|
Nasal |
| m | | m '| |
| n | | n '| | |||||||
|
Side |
| l | | l '| | ||||||||
|
Trembling |
| p | | r '| | ||||||||
Consonants are also divided into hard and soft, voiceless and voiced.
The consonants are paired in terms of hardness - softness (that is, differing only by this feature): | n | - | p ’|, | b | - | b ’|, | t | - | t ’|, | d | - | d ’|, | f | - | f ’|, | in | - | in '|, | s | - | s' |, | s | - | z ’|, | m | - | m ’|, | n | - | n '|, | l | - | l '|, | p | - | p ’|, | k | - | to ’|, | g | - | g ’|, | x | - | x ’|. Unpaired consonants on this basis: | f |, | w |, | c | (solid), | w ’’ |, | w ’’ |, | h ’|, | j | (soft).
The consonants are paired for deafness - voicedness :, | п | - | b |, | n '| - | b ’|, | t | - | d |, | t '| - | d ’|, | f | - | in |, | f '| - | in '|, | with | - | s |, | s' | - | z ’|, | w | - | w |, | w ’’ | - | f '' |, | to | - | g |, | k '| - | g '|. Unpaired consonants on this basis: all sonorous (voiced), | c |, | h |, | x |, | x '| (deaf).
Consonants | w |, | w |, | w ’’ |, | w ’’ | and | h | are combined into a group of hissing phonemes, and the consonants | s |, | z |, | s ’|, | z’ | and | c | - to the group of whistlers.
Consonants | w '' | ("W is long soft") and | f '' | ("F is long soft"), unlike all other consonants, are long (the consonant | f '| is conveyed in writing by a combination of lzh or zzh: reins, go, squeal; in the forms of the word rain - a combination of zh: rain, rain).
The position of maximum differentiation (strong position) for vowel phonemes is the stressed position, and for consonant phonemes, the position before the vowels. In other positions (weak), some phonemes do not differ. So, in unstressed syllables, as a rule, the phonemes | о | and | a |, and in the position after soft consonants - also | e | (cm.§ 20, paragraph 1); at the end of word forms and before voiceless consonants, paired voiced ones coincide with voiceless ones, and before voiced consonants, paired voiceless ones - with voiced ones (see.§ 20, paragraph 3), and therefore do not differ in both cases; in a number of positions before the consonants, consonants do not differ, paired in hardness - softness (see.§ 20, paragraph 4). The composition of phonemes that appear within a particular morph is revealed in those word forms where they appear in a strong position, cf. [v ^ dá] and [vody], where the vowel phoneme of the root is in a strong position; [l'es] and [l'esu] (dp. singular of the noun forest), [l'ezu] (1 l. singular of the verb to climb), where the final consonant of the root is in a strong position.
Note. If in all possible word forms containing any morph, this or that phoneme in the composition of this morph remains in a weak position, then such a sound unit (vowel or consonant) ishyperphoneme ... For example, in the word dog, the first vowel phoneme, represented phonetically only by the sound [л], is a hyperphoneme acting in the position of nondiscrimination of vowel phonemes | о | and | a |; in the second word, the first consonant phoneme, phonetically | ф |, is a hyperphoneme located in the position of nondiscrimination of consonant phonemes | ф |, | Ф ’|, | в | and | in '|.
The most important positional (phonetically conditioned) realizations of phonemes.
In unstressed syllables the vowels | e |, | o | and | a | are modified (weakened) and in a number of positions do not differ (Table 3).
Here [ye] is a non-front vowel, middle between [s] and [e]; [^] - vowel of the middle-lower rise, non-front row, non-labialized; [ue] is a front vowel, middle between [and] and [e]; [b] and [b] - reduced vowels of the middle-lower rise, non-labialized: [b] - non-front vowel, [b] - front row. Examples:
(1) [e] tika - [se] túnichesky, [oe] export - [se] export, [ó] canopy - [^] senny, [ó] lovo - [^] lovable, [á] lt - [^ ] let, [á] zbuka - [^] zbukovnik; (2) synth [e] tika - synth [se] túnichesky, c [e] ny - c [se] ná, v [ó] dy - v [^] dá, d [a] r - d [^] rút , letters [á] pb - letters [^] ry; (3) sh [e] st - sh [ye] stu, sh [o] lk - sh [ye] lká, zh [ó] ny - zh [ye] ná, zh [á] rko - zh [^] pá , w [a] p - w [^] ry; (4) [l'e] s (forest) - [l'ye] sa, [v'ó] dra (bucket) - [v'ie] other, [p'a] th (five) - [n ' ye] tak; (5) t [e] mp - t [b] mpovuy (special), baby [e] y - vkladysh [b] d, g [ó] genus - g [b] clan, cucumber [ó] m - bunny [b] m, fear [á] тъ - fear [b] n; (6) [b'e] reg (shore) - [b'b] regovóy, [t'ó] mniy (dark) - [t'i] mnováto, [p'a] t - [n'y] tachok (piglet), [n'o] s (carried) - you [n'n] si (carry), for [n'á] t (borrow) - zá [n'h] you (are busy), watchtower [e ] (kalanche) - dách [b] (dacha), tsa [r'ó] m (king) - gosudá [r'ъ] m, kalanche [á] - dách [b] (dacha), tsa [r'á ] (king) - gosudá [r'ъ] (sovereign) ([b] is pronounced in place of | a | only at the endings of words).
|
Table 3 Positional realizations of vowel phonemes |
|||||||
|
Vowel |
At the beginning of a word |
In the first pre-stressed syllable |
In the rest of the unstressed syllables |
||||
|
after paired solid acc. and c |
after | w |, | w | |
after soft consonants |
after hard consonants |
after soft consonants |
|||
|
| e | | about | | a | |
| se | | ^ | | ^ | |
| se | | ^ | | ^ | |
| se | | se | | ^ | |
| no | | no | | no | |
| b | | b | | b | |
| b | | b | | b | or | b | |
|
Thus, in all unstressed positions (except for the position of the first pre-stressed syllable after | w |, | w |) the vowels | o | and | a | do not differ. This phenomenon is called akanye.
After solid consonants, the vowels | and | changes into the sound of the middle row [s]: play - under [s] gryvat, in [s] gré; idéya - without [s] effective.
Voiced paired consonants in positions at the end of the word form and in front of voiceless consonants are stunned: du [b] s - du [n], but [f] ú - but [w], lá [v] ok (genus pln. ) - lá [f] ka, by [d] to throw - by [t] to write.
Note. In the word god, the consonant | r | stunned in [x]: bo [x].
Voiceless paired consonants in positions before voiced (except for [v], [v '] and sonorous) become voiced: ko [s'] út - ko [z'] bá, o [t] lie - o [d] brósit, [s ] bridge - [z] house.
Hard dental consonants | s |, | z | and | n | in the position in front of soft teeth (except | l '|) soften: boro [z] dá - boro [z'd'] út, phra [n] t - phra [n't '] úha, [s] katút - [ s'n '] yat, romá [n] s - about romá [n's'] e.
Solid consonant | n | before | w ’’ |, | h | softened: taboo [n] - taboo [n'sh ’’] ik, stack [n] - stack [n'ch] ik.
Soft labials in front of all consonants, except for soft labial and | j |, harden: pitó [m ’] ets - pitó [m] tsy, ru [b’] út - rulu.
Consonants | s |, | s ’|, | z |, | z’ | before the hissing | w |, | w ’’ |, | f |, | h | are replaced by hissing: [s] krepút - [w] to sew (sew), ra [z] to break - ra [w ''] epút (to split), miscellaneous [s'] út - miscellaneous [w ''] ik (peddler ), [with whom; [w ’] than; [with] love; [w] pity.
In combinations of stn, zdn, the consonants t and d are not pronounced: joy - happy [sn] th (joyful), stars - star [zn] th (star), late - po [z'n ’] iy (late).
The consonant is also not pronounced | j | in the position after the vowel before | and | and at the beginning of the word: glue, to [l'éju] (glue) - to [l'éi] t (glue), p [ujá] (stream) - p [uú], fight - b [^ u] (fights ); (to her - dat. n. unit. of the pronoun she) - [and] m (d. n. pl. pl. n.).
One of the representatives of the classical phonological theory was N.S. Trubetskoy. He is an outstanding specialist in the field of morphology and phonology of Slavic languages, one of the founders of the Prague Linguistic Circle. He devoted the last 12 years of his life to work on the major work "Fundamentals of Phonology". This book was first published in 1939 in Prague in German (Russian translation - M., 1960).
The initial theoretical premises for N.S. Trubetskoy were the provisions developed by I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay and L.V. Shcherboy. These are: a) the phoneme is the shortest unit of the language, which is realized in the sounds of speech, and b) the phoneme serves to distinguish the meaning of words. The sound systems of more than one hundred studied languages served as practical material for his concept. However, the merit of the scientist is not only that he combined theory with practice. It is much more important that N.S. Trubetskoy was in science an active supporter of a consistent system-structural approach, and it was this approach that gave the entire phonological theory the harmony and completeness that it lacked.
With this approach, the object of research is considered as a single system, all elements of which are interconnected and interdependent. At the same time, the degree of complexity of the system, the nature of its organization and the material nature of the phenomena that form it do not play a fundamental role. A variety of objects can be interpreted as such systems, for example, a natural language, a type of human culture, fashion in clothes, a living organism, a chess game, etc. For the system-structural approach, one thing is important: each element of an object can be described (i.e. .characterized, determined) by its place in the system or, which is generally the same, by its relationship with other elements.
In the teachings of N.S. Trubetskoy, these theoretical principles find themselves practical use... Linguistic units - phonemes - form, according to NS Trubetskoy, a system, and the entire tool necessary and sufficient for their description is the concept of opposition, or opposition, and a differential feature.
First of all, all sound oppositions are divided into two types: phonological (meaningful) and non-phonological. Phonological opposition is formed by any sound units, provided that their opposition is associated in our consciousness with a different meaning. For example, Russian. castle and stump, gardener and stump, chorus "and ferret or German. Mann" man "and Weib" woman ", Mahne" mane "and Biihne" scene ", etc. are in a relationship of meaningful opposition and, therefore, according to Trubetskoy, are phonological units. Finding similarities and differences in the sound shell of these units, we thereby decompose them into a sequential series of smaller elements, such as, for example, [here] and [chickpeas "] in the gardener and sadanut. This analysis can be continued until then (compare: here is a note, tok is a knock, a knock is a bale ...), until we reach oppositions, the terms of which are no longer split for a native speaker: [in ] - [n], [o] - [y], [t] - [t "], etc.
The minimum sound units that perform a semantic-distinctive function, N.S. Trubetskoy and calls phonemes and “Any word represents integrity, structure; it is perceived by listeners as a structure, just as we recognize, for example, on the street acquaintances by their general appearance. The recognition of structures presupposes, however, their difference, and this is possible only if the individual structures differ from each other by known features. Phonemes are precisely the distinctive features of verbal structures. Each word must contain as many phonemes and in such a sequence that it can be distinguished from other words ”(Trubetskoy 1960: 43). So, in relation to words, phonemes play the role of distinctive features. And what is the difference between the phonemes themselves? This is where the special place that is assigned in the concept of N. S. Trubetskoy to the concept of a differential feature becomes obvious.
L.V. Shcherba, being the closest student of Baudouin de Courtenay at the University of St. Petersburg, creatively developed many of his teacher's linguistic ideas, often substantially reworking them. It was thanks to Shcherba that Western European linguists became familiar with the concept of phonemes and mastered phonological theory. Although the roots of this theory lie in the works of Baudouin, it was only Shcherba who was the first to give its consistent presentation and answer to the cardinal question: for what reasons are the various sounds in the stream of speech correlated by the native speakers with the same phoneme and how is the allocation of phonemes in the language? Before Shcherba, throughout the history of phonetic research, the division of the flow of speech into sounds was taken for granted, and it was believed that dissimilar sounds were combined into one unit simply by phonetic similarity.
Shcherba's scientific interests were wide and varied. He considered the problems of general linguistics: the ratio of language and speech, material and ideal, issues of the interaction of languages, bilingualism and mixing of languages, the principles of identifying parts of speech, the ratio of vocabulary and grammar, problems of lexicology and lexicography, analyzed the concept of linguistic norms; he found it important to use a variety of linguistic experiments (not only phonetic) to solve theoretical problems (which has become widespread in recent decades); he was interested in applying the theoretical provisions of science to practice and therefore was engaged in graphics and spelling, methods of teaching foreign languages. Many of Shcherba's ideas, sometimes expressed in passing, were developed in the works of researchers already in the second half of the 20th century. Below we will consider only the phonetic views of Shcherba and mainly what is presented in works up to the 20s of the XX century.
In the section devoted to the acoustic description of vowels, Shcherba critically analyzes in detail the data obtained by various researchers on the material of European languages; the characteristic vowel tones he himself found (generally correlating with the formants) are in a number of cases close to those known from modern works. Considering vowel allophones, the author dwells in particular on the peculiarities of their implementation in the vicinity of soft consonants. He notes the special sounding of a part of a vowel adjacent to a soft consonant, and draws attention to its phonological significance.
Shcherba noticed significant changes in sound and articulation in the case of contraction of vowels between soft consonants, when "the language does not have time to take the completely necessary position", and instead of a, o, u in the words of son-in-law, aunt, people may appear sounds like [*, П, з ]. This observation also later received objective confirmation in acoustic studies.
For unstressed vowels, there was a lack of tension and weakness of articulation in comparison with stressed vowels, their indistinctness and similarity in sound. Shcherba believed that the main reason for the qualitative reduction of unstressed ones was the reduction in their duration in comparison with the shock ones.
Shcherba notes in passing that in unstressed syllables there is neither o nor a after soft and j, and “not only in pronunciation, but also psychologically, that is, in intention ", and instead of them a, e is pronounced: head = galava, dance = pl" esat ".
The quantitative characteristics of vowels are considered in great detail, taking into account different phonetic positions. Stressed vowels, according to instrumental recordings, are generally one and a half times longer than unstressed vowels; more subtle differences are found: stressed vowels are longer before slotted consonants than before stopping ones, longer before voiced ones than before voiceless ones, the same relationship is observed for unstressed vowels. These data are similar to those obtained for other languages and reflect universal patterns.
Thanks to L.V. Scherbe, the concept of a phoneme became known to Western European linguists.
- In contact with 0
- Google+ 0
- OK 0
- Facebook 0
