Articulatory classification of English consonant phonemes

РОССИЙСКИЙ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННЫЙ ПЕДАГОГИЧЕСКИЙ

УНИВЕРСИТЕТ ИМ. А.И. ГЕРЦЕНА

РЕФЕРАТ

Articulatory classification of English consonant phonemes

Работу выполнила:

студентка 3 курса

факультета иностранных языков

Ткаченко Алина Александровна

Санкт-Петербург

Articulatory classification of English consonant phonemes

There are two major classes of sounds traditionally distinguished in any language – consonants and vowels. The opposition "vowels vs. consonants" is a linguistic universal. The distinction is based mainly on auditory effect. Consonants are known to have voice and noise combined, while vowels are sounds consisting of voice only. From the articulatory point of view the difference is due to the work of speech organs. In case of vowels no obstruction is made, so on the perception level their integral characteristic is tone, not noise. In case of consonants various obstructions are made. So consonants are characterized by a complete, partial or intermittent blockage of the air passage. The closure is formed in such a way that the air stream is blocked or hindered or otherwise gives rise to audible friction. As a result consonants are sounds which have noise as their indispensable characteristic.

The phonological analysis of English consonant sounds helps to distinguish 24 phonemes: [p, b, t, d, k, g, f, v, θ, ð, s, z, ∫, ʒ, h, t∫, ʤ, m, n, ŋ, w, r, l, j].

Russian phoneticians classify consonants according to the following principles:

1. degree of noise (bake - make, veal - wheel )

2. place of articulation

2.1 labial vs. lingual pain — cane

2.2 lingual vs. glottal foam — home, care — hair, Tim – him

3. manner of articulation

1.1 occlusive vs. constrictive pine -fine, bat - that, bee - thee

2.2 constrictive vs. affricates fare — chair, fail -jail

3.3 constrictive unicentral vs. constrictive bicentral same – shame

4. position of the soft palate

4.1 oral vs. nasal pit — pin, seek — seen

5. force of articulation

5.1 voiceless fortis vs. voiced lenis pen — Ben, ten - den, coat - goal

According to V.A. Vassilyev primary importance should be given to the type of obstruction and the manner of production noise. On this ground he distinguishes two large classes:

1. occlusive, in the production of which a complete obstruction is formed

2. constrictive, in the production of which an incomplete obstruction is
formed.

Each of two classless is subdivided into noise consonants and sonorants.

Another point of view is shared by a group of Russian phoneticians. They suggest that the first and basic principle of classification should be the degree of noise. Such consideration leads to dividing English consonants into two general kinds: noise consonants and sonorants.

Sonorants are sounds that differ greatly from other consonants. This is due to the fact that in their production the air passage between the two organs of speech is fairly wide, that is much wider than in the production of noise consonants. As a result, the auditory effect is tone, not noise. This peculiarity of articulation makes sonorants sound more like vowels than consonants. Acoustically sonorants are opposed to all other consonants because they are characterized by sharply defined formant structure and the total energy of most of them is very high.

There are no sonorants in the classifications suggested by British and American scholars. Daniel Jones and Henry A. Gleason, for example, give separate groups of nasals [m, n, η], the lateral and semi-vowels, or glides [w, r, j (y)]. Bernard Bloch and George Trager besides nasals and lateral give trilled [r]. According to Russian phoneticians sonorants are considered to be consonants from articulatory, acoustic and phonological point of view.

The place of articulation.

This principle of consonant classification is rather universal. The only difference is that V.A. Vassilyev, G.P. Torsuev, O.I. Dikushina, A.C. Gimson give more detailed and precise enumerations of active organs of speech than H.A. Gleason, B. Bloch, G. Trager and others. There is, however, controversy about terming the active organs of speech. Thus, Russian phoneticians divide the tongue into the following parts:

1. front with the tip

2. middle

3. back.

Following L.V. Shcherba's terminology the front part of the tongue is subdivided into:

a) apical

b) dorsal

c) cacuminal

d) retroflexed according to the position of the tip and the blade of the tongue in relation to the teeth ridge.

A.L. Trakhterov, G.P. Torsyev, V.A. Vassilyev and other Russian
scholars consider the principle of classification according to the manner of articulation to be one of the most important. They suggest a classification from the point
of view of the closure. It may be:

1. complete closure, then occlusive (stop or
plosive) consonants are produced

2. incomplete closure, then constrictive
consonants are produced

3. the combination of the two closures, then occlusive-
constrictive consonants, or affricates, are produced intermittent closure, then
rolled, or trilled consonants are produced.

Russian phoneticians subdivide consonants into unicentral (pronounced with one focus) and bicentral (pronounced with two foci), according to the number of noise producing centers, or foci. According to the shape of narrowing constrictive consonants and affricates are subdivided into sounds with flat narrowing and round narrowing.

According to the position of the soft palate all consonants are
subdivided into oral and nasal. When the soft palate is raised oral consonants are produced; when the soft palate is lowered nasal consonants are produced.

According to the force of articulation consonants may be fortis and lenis. This characteristic is connected with the work of the vocal cords: voiceless consonants are strong and voiced are weak.

There are some problems of phonological character in the English consonantal system; it is the problem of affricates – their phonological status and their number.

1) Are the English [t∫, ʤ]sounds monophonemic entities or biphonemic combinations (sequences, clusters)?

2) If they are monophonemic, how many phonemes of the same kind exist in English, or, in other words, can such clusters as [tr, dr] and [tθ, dð] be considered affricates?

To define it is not an easy matter. One thing is clear: these sounds are complexes because articulatory we can distinguish two elements. It is necessary to analyze the relation of affricates to other consonant phonemes to be able to define their status in the system. The problem of affricates is a point of considerable controversy among phoneticians. According to Russian specialists in English phonetics, there are two affricates in English: [t∫, ʤ]. D. Jones points out there are six of them: [t∫, ʤ], [ts, dz], and [tr, dr]. A.C. Gimson increases their number adding two more affricates: [tθ, tð].

Russian phoneticians look at English affricates through the eyes of a phoneme theory, according to which a phoneme has three aspects: articulatory, acoustic and functional, the latter being the most significant one. As to British phoneticians, their primary concern is the articulatory-acoustic unity of these complexes. Before looking at these complexes from a functional point of view it is necessary to define their articulatory indivisibility.

According to N.S. Trubetzkoy's point of view a sound complex may be considered monophonemic if: a) its elements belong to the same syllable; b) it is produced by one articulatory effort; c) its duration should not exceed normal duration of elements. Let us apply these criteria to the sound complexes.

Поиск по сайту: