Functions of segmental and suprasegmental phonetic units

Segmental units consist of phonemes, they form phonemic strings of various status (syllables, morphemes, words, etc.). Supra-segmental units do not exist by themselves, but are realised together with segmental units and express different modificational meanings (functions) which are reflected on the strings of segmental units. To the supra-segmental units belong intonations (intonation contours), accents, pauses, pat-terns of word-order.
The segmental units of language form a hierarchy of levels. This hierarchy is of a kind that units of any higher level are formed of units of the immediately lower level. Thus, morphemes are decomposed into phonemes, words are decomposed into morphemes, phrases are decomposed into words, etc.
1) Phonemic level
It is formed by phonemes as the material elements of the higher-level segments. The phoneme has no meaning, its function is differential: it differentiates morphemes and words as material bodies. Since the phoneme has no meaning, it is not a sign. Phonemes are represented by letters in writing. Since the letter has a representative status, it is a sign, though different in principle from the level-forming signs of language.
2) Morphemic level. The morpheme is the elementary meaningful part of the word. It is built up by phonemes, so that the shortest morphemes include only one phoneme. The morpheme expresses abstract, "significative" meanings.
3) Level of words, or lexemic level.
The word, as different from the morpheme, is a directly naming (nominative) unit of language: it names things and their relations. Since words are built up by morphemes, the shortest words consist of one explicit morpheme only. Cf.: man; will; but; I; etc.
4) Level of phrases (word-groups), or phrasemic level.
To level-forming phrase types belong combinations of two or more notional words. These combinations, like separate words, have a nominative function, but they represent the referent of nomination as a complicated phenomenon, be it a concrete thing, an action, a quality, or a whole situation. Cf., respectively: a picturesque village; to start with a jerk; extremely difficult; the unexpected arrival of the chief.
5) Level of sentences, or "proposemic" level.
Naming a certain situation, or situational event, it expresses predication, i.e. shows the relation of the denoted event to reality. Namely, it shows whether this event is real or unreal, desirable or obligatory, stated as a truth or asked about, etc. In this sense, as different from the word and the phrase, the sentence is a predicative unit. Cf.: to receive — to receive a letter — Early in June I received a letter from Peter Mel«rose.
6) "Supraproposemic" level. The supra-sentential construction is a combination of separate sentences, forming a textual unity. The syntactic process by which sentences are connected into textual unities is analysed under the heading of "cumulation". Cumulation, the same as formation of composite sentences, can be both syndetic and asyndetic

. 17. the problem of English diphthongs

Diphthongs are defined differently by different authors. One definition is based on the ability of a vowel to form a syllable. Since in a diphthong only one element serves as a syllabic nucleus, a diphthong is a single sound. Another definition of a diphthong as a single sound is based on the instability of the second element. The 3d group of scientists defines a diphthong from the accentual point of view: since only one element is accented and the other is unaccented, a diphthong is a single sound.

D. Jones defines diphthongs as unisyllabic gliding sounds in the articulation of which the organs of speech start from one position and then glide to another position.

N.S. Trubetzkoy states that a diphthong should be (a) unisyllabic, that is the parts of a diphthong cannot belong to two syllables; (b) monophonemic with gliding articulation; (c) its length should not exceed the length of a single phoneme.Scientists suggest applying 3 criteria:

1. Articulatory indivisibility (неделимость),

2. morphemic indivisibility,

3. syllabic indivisibility.

Most phoneticians (British) believe that diphthongs exist. But Am. phoneticians believe they are clusters (combinations) (Block, Tradger).

1. Artic. ind. - diphthongs are indivisible in their articulation.

2. morphemic ind. – neither a morpheme boundary nor the point of syllabic boundary.

3. Syll. ind. – division can separate nucleus from the glide of a diphthong. The syll. and morphemic ind-ty of a diphthong is also proved by the fact that in such languages where diphthongs are not found (eg. Russian) the elements of free sound combinations are easily separated from each other by the point of syllabic division and morpheme boundary eg. чай-чаю-чайный; стой-стоять-стою. The combinability of the elements of a diphthong like complex is very high. And it`s another proof that in Russian there are no diphthongs. But in E. the number of diphthong is limited to8.

We can classify them:
1.cetring d. - центростремительные eı aı oı ∂u au.

2. fronting diphthong n.

A diphthong in which the second element is farther front than the first, such as [oj]or [wi]. Ant. backing diphthong.

2. backing diphthong n.

3. A diphthong in which the second element is further back than the first, such as [ju]or [ew]. Ant. fronting diphthong

18. The problem of English africates
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∫, dж]. D. Jones points out there are six of them: [t∫, dж], [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.

1. Syllabic indivisibility

butcher [but∫ -ə] lightship [lait-∫ip]

mattress [mætr-is] footrest [fut-rest]

curtsey [kз:-tsi] out-set [aut-set]

In the words in the left column the sounds [t∫], [tr], [ts], [tθ] belong to one syllable and cannot be divided into two elements by a syllable dividing line.

2. Articulatory indivisibility. Special instrumental analysis shows that all the sound complexes are homogeneous and produced by one articulatory effort.

3. Duration. With G.P. Torsuyev we could state that length of sounds depends on the position in the phonetic context, therefore it cannot serve a reliable basis in phonological analysis. He writes that the length of English [t∫] in the words chair and match is different; [t∫] in match is considerably longer than |t| in mat and may be even longer than [∫] in mash. This does not prove, however, that [t∫] is biphonemic.

19. The aim of the phonological analysis is, firstly, 1) to determine which differences of sounds are phonemic and which are non-phonemic 2) to find the inventory of phonemes of the language 3) to find out the sounds as parts of language pronunciation system 4) to establish the patterns of their relationship specific to each language.

Phonology has its own methods of investigation. Semantic method is applied for phonological analysis of both unknown languages and is based on a phonemic rule that phonemes can distinguish words and morphemes when opposed to one another. It consists in systematic substitution of one sound for another in order to find out in which cases where the phonetic context remains the same such replacing leads to a change of meaning. This procedure is called the commutation test. It consists in finding minimal pairs of words and their grammatical forms. For example: pen Ben gain cane

The phonemic system of a language is patterened. It’s the aim of phonological analysis to attempt to systemize the sounds of a language. Phonology has always aimed at revealing the nature of phonemes.

Дата добавления: 2015-08-17