Навигация
GA front vowels are somewhat different from RP. Vowels [i], [i] are distributed differently in GA and RP
61805
знаков
7
таблиц
0
изображений
5. GA front vowels are somewhat different from RP. Vowels [i], [i] are distributed differently in GA and RP.
In words like very, pity GA has [i] rather than fij. In word final position it is often even diphthongized.
Vowel [e] is more open in GA. It also may be diphthongized before [p], [t], [k]: let [leat].
6. There are four mixed or central vowels in GA: [3], [ə], [¬], [a]. They differ markedly from RP vowels in articulation and distribution.
7. The three RP vowels [α], [a] correspond to only two vowels in GA – [a]. This combined with the articulatory differences between RP [α] and GA [a] and a difference in vowel distribution in many sets or words makes it very complicated. The following chart vividly shows it.
| RP | GA | |
| Dad | [] | [] |
| dog | [α] | [a] |
| path | [α:] | [] |
| dance | [α:] | [] |
| half | [α:] | [] |
Besides, word distribution of [α] in RP and GA is completely different. GA is intermediate in quality between the RP and [α]. In its production the lips are considerably less rounded.
8. Now to the qualities of GA diphthongs.
a) the diphthong [ei] is closer in GA as opposed to RP;
b) very front realization of [ª] such as in RP is not found in GA;
c) the nucleus of [aª] tends to be more advanced in GA;
d) since GA is a rhotic accent with non-preyocalic [r], it has the consequence that the following RP vowels (derived historically from vowel + [r]) do not occur in GA: [iə] in dear – GA [dir], [ə] in dare – GA [deir], [ªə] in tour – GA [tur].
1. The RP allophonic differentiation of [1] does not exist in GA. In all positions [IJ is fairly dark.
2. Intervocalic [t] as in pity is most normally voiced. The result is neutralization of the distribution between [t] and [d] in this position, i.e. latter, ladder. The original distinction is preserved through vowel length with the vowel before [t] being shorter.
In words like twenty, little [t] may even drop out. Thus winner and winter, for example, may sound identical.
3. GA [r] is articulated differently from RP one. The impression is one of greater retroflexion (the tip of the tongue is curled back further than in RP).
4. The «wh» spelling is represented in GA by [M] sound (or some-times transcribed as [hw]. So most American speakers make a clear distinction between «wh» and «w» words: where – ware, which – witch.
5. The sonorant [j] is usually weakened or omitted altogether in GA between a consonant (especially a forelingual one) and [a-] as in the words: news [nu:z], Tuesday [tuzdi], student [studant], suit [sat], tube [tab], stupid [stu:pid], during (du:ri).
A. 1. Many differences involve the pronunciation of individual words or groups of words.
2. Words apparatus, data, status can be pronounced with either [ei] in GA, but only with [ei] in RP.
3. Words like hostile, missile, reptile have final [ail] in RP. In GA they may have [əl].
1. In words of French origin GA tends to have stress on the final syllable, while RP has it on the initial one:
| GA | RP | |
| ballet | [bas'lei] | [baelei] |
| beret | [ba'rei] | [ben] |
3. Some compound words have stress on the first element in GA and in RP they retain it on the second element: weekend, ice-cream, hotdog, New Year.
4. Polysyllabic words ending in – ory, – ary, – many have secondary stress in GA, often called «tertiary»: laboratory flaebrs.ton], dictionary fdikfa.nen], secretary [sekrə.teri], testimony [testimouni].
GA intonation on the whole is similar to that of RP. But there are, of course, some differences that should be mentioned here.
1. In sentences where the most common pre-nuclear contour in RP is a gradually descending sequence, the counterpart GA contour is a medium Level Head:
I don't want to go to the theatre.
4. The Fall-Rise nuclear tone is different in RP and GA: Really?
These comparisons show that the main differences in intonation concern the direction of the voice pitch and the realization of the terminal tones. In GA the voice doesn't fall to the bottom mostly. This explains the fact that the English speech for Americans sounds «affected» and «pretentious» or «sophisticated». And for the English, Americans sound «dull», «monotonous», «indifferent».
It should also be mentioned that the distribution of terminal tones in sentence types is also different in both variants of English.
1. GA «Yes, No» questions commonly have a falling terminal tone; the counterpart RP tone would be a rising one:
Shall we stay here?
2. Requests in RP are usually pronounced with a Rise, whereas in GA they may take a Fall-Rise: Open the door.
Its emphatic variant in Mid-wavy-level Head:
2. The usual Medium or Low Fall in RP has its rising-falling counterpart in GA: Come and see me tomorrow.
3. Leave-takings are often pronounced with a high-pitched Fall-Rise in GA: Good night.
3. The rising terminal tone in RP in GA has a mid-rising contour: Do you like it?
Or it may have a level tone in GA:
In conclusion we would like to say that American phoneticians use a pitch contour system to mark intonation in the text: It's a Wery 'cold, day.
««Will you, come? Will you come?
It is certain that we have not covered here all the cases of different intonation structures used in RP and GA. Recently there have appeared in this country several papers and books on the subject, so for further information see those books.
Bibliography
1. Аванесов Р.И. Фонетика современного русского литературного языка. – М., 1979.
2. Антипова А.М. Ритмическая система английской речи. – М., 1984.
3. Ахманова О.С. Фонология, морфонология, морфология. – М., 1966.
4. Березин Ф.М., Головин Б.Н. Общее языкознание. – М., 1970.
5. Блохина Л.П. Просодические характеристики речи и методы их анализа.‑М., 1980.
6. Бодуэн де Куртене И.А. Избранные труды по общему языкознанию. – М., 1963.-Т, 1, 2.
7. Борисова Л.В., Метлюк А.А. Теоретическая фонетика. – Минск, 1980.
8. Брызгунова Е.А. Звуки и интонация русской речи. – М., 1969.
9. Буланин Л.Л. Фонетика современного русского языка. – М., 1970.
10. Виноградов В.В. Стилистика. Теория поэтической речи. Поэтика. – М., 1963.
11. Гайдучик С.М. Просодическая система современного немецкого языка. – Минск, 1972.
12. Глисон Г.А. Введение в дескриптивную лингвистику. – М., 1959,
13. Диалогическая речь: Основы и процесс / Материалы международного симпозиума по проблемам диалогической речи. – Тбилиси, 1980.
14. Дубовский Ю.А. Анализ интонации устного текста и его составляющих. – Минск, 1978.
15. Жинкин Н.И. Механизмы речи. – М., 1958.
16. Зиндер ЛЗ. Общая фонетика. – Л., 1979.
17. Златоустова Л.В. Фонетическая структура слова в потоке речи. – Казань, 1962.
18. Златоустова Л.В. О ритмических структурах в поэтических и прозаических текстах // 3 вуковой строй языка. – М., 1979.
19. Камышная И.Г. Слогоделение» современном английском языке // Исследования по теоретической и экспериментальной фонетике английского языка. – М., 1972.
20. Кантер Л.А, Основные проблемы фоностилистического анализа текста // Из фонетических особенностей речевых стилей. – М., 1978.
21. Курятникова Э.Г. К вопросу о позиционной длительности гласных // Тр. им. Н.А. Добролюбова. – Горький, 1975.
22. Курятникова Э.Г. Нормативный характер ассимиляции в русском и английском языках // Нормы реализации. Варьирование языковых средств. – Горький, 1983.
23. Леонтьев А.А. Психолингвистические указывания // Психологические очерки. – М., 1969.
24. Николаева Т.М. Фразовая интонация славянских языков. – М., 1977.
25. Панов М.В. Современный русский язык. Фонетика. – М., 1979.
26. Панаева Ж.Б. О современных тенденциях в употреблении английских тонов в некоторых синтагмах художественного и научного стилей речи // Сб. науч. тр. МГПИ им. В.И. Ленина. – М., 1978.
27. Скребнев Ю.М. Норма, нормативные реализации и субъязыковая структура языка // Норма реализации, варьирование языковых средств. – Горький, 1980.
28. Соколова М.А. и др. Практическая фонетика английского языка. – М., 1984.
29. Тарасов В.Ф., Сорокин Ю.А. и др. Теоретические и прикладные проблемы речевого общения. – М., 1979.
30. Тихонова Р.М. Некоторые особенности просодической организации чтения монологического текста и спонтанного монолога-рассказа // Проблемы фоностилистики. – М., 1980.
31. Торсуев Г.П. Вопросы акцентологии современного английского языка. – М.‑Л., 1960.
32. Торсуев Г.П. Проблемы теоретической фонетики и фонологии. – М., 1969.
[1] Learners of a foreign language often use the word "accent" to describe pronunciation features in a foreign language influenced by the mother tongue, in other words, a foreigner may be easily recognized by an accent
[2] Швейцер А.Д. Социальная дифференциация в английском языке в США-М., 1983
[3] Швейцер А.Д. Социальная дифференциация в английском языке в США-М., 1983.
[4] Crystal D. Prosodic Systems and Intonation in English. - Cambridge, 1969
Похожие работы
... . The pronunciation may seem rough and harsh, but is the same as that used by the forefathers; consequently it must not be considered barbarous. The other countries of England differ from the vernacular by a depraved pronunciation. Awareness of regional variation in England is evident from the fourteenth century, seen in the observation of such writers as Higden/Trevisa or William Caxton and in ...
... that will only create confusion and disappointment in the classroom. It is a cancer that must be sent into permanent remission by the clear and coherent voices of Americans. Chapter III. Linguistic Aspects of Black English. 1. Phonetic peculiarities AAVE and Standard English pronunciation are sometimes quite different. People frequently attach significance to such differences in ...
... known as American dialects is closer in nature to regional variants of the literary language. The problem of discriminating between literary and dialect speech patterns in the USA is much more complicated than in Britain. Many American linguists point out that American English differs from British English in having no one locality whose speech patterns have come to be recognized as the model for ...
... . 6. The Scandinavian element in the English vocabulary. 7. The Norman-French element in the English vocabulary. 8. Various other elements in the vocabulary of the English and Ukrainian languages. 9. False etymology. 10.Types of borrowings. 1. The Native Element and Borrowed Words The most characteristic feature of English is usually said to be its mixed character. Many linguists ...
0 комментариев