1.3.2 General characteristics of consonant phonemes

In the English consonant system the following 24 consonant phonemes are distinguished: [p, b, t, d, k, g, f, v, s, z, h, m, n, w, j, r, l, ʒ, tʃ, dʒ, ŋ, ʃ].The quality of the consonants depends on several aspects:

1) work of the vocal cords;

2) what cavity is used as a resonator;

3) the force of the articulation and some other factors.

There are few ways of classifying English consonants. According to V.A.Vassilyev primary importance should be given to the type of obstruction and the manner of production of noise [19].

On this ground he distinguishes two large classes of consonants:

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

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

The phonological relevance of this feature could be exemplified in the following oppositions:

[ti] – [si] tea – sea (occlusive – constrictive)

[si:d] – [si:z] seed – seas (occlusive – constrictive)

[pul] – [ful] pull – full (occlusive —constrictive)

[bəut] – [vəut] boat – vote (occlusive —constrictive)

Each of the two classes is subdivided into noise consonants and sonorants. The division is based on the factor of prevailing either noise or tone component in the auditory characteristic of a sound. In their turn noise consonants are divided into plosive consonants (or stops) and affricates.

Another point of view is shared by M.A. Sokolova, K.P. Gintovt,

G.S. Tikhonova, R.M. Tikhonova [19]. 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 all other consonants of the language.

This is largely 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. On this ground some of the British phoneticians refer some of these consonants to the class of semivowels, [r], [j], [w], for example. 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. However, on functional grounds, according to their position in the syllable, [r], [j], [w] are included in the consonantal category, but from the point of view of their phonetic description they are more perfectly treated as vowel glides.

The place of articulation is another characteristic of English consonants which should be considered from the phonological point of view. The place of articulation is determined by the active organ of speech against the point of articulation. According to this principle the English consonants are classed into: labial, lingual, glottal. The class of labial consonants is subdivided into:

a) bilabial;

b) labio-dental; and among the class of lingual consonants three subclasses are distinguished. They are:

a) forelingual;

b) mediolingual;

c) backlingual;

The importance of this characteristic as phonologically relevant could be proved by means of a simple example. In the system of English consonants there could be found oppositions based on the active organ of speech and the place of obstruction:

[pæn] — [tæn] pan – tan (bilabial – forelingual)

[wai] – [lai] why – lie (bilabial – forelingual)

[weil] – [jeil] weil – yale (bilabial – mediolingual)

[pik] – [kik] pick – kick (bilabial – backlingual)

[les] – [jes] less – yes (forelingual – mediolingual)

[dei] – [gei] day – gay (forelingual – backlingual)

[sai] – [hai] sigh – high (forelingual – glottal)

[fi:t] – [si:t] feet – seat (labio-dental – forelingual)

Our next point should be made in connection, with another sound property, that is voiced — voiceless characteristic which depends on the work of the vocal cords. It has long been believed that from the articulatory point of view the distinction between such pairs of consonants as [p, b], [t, d], [k, g], [s, z], [f, v], is based on the absence or presence of vibrations of the vocal cords, or on the absence or presence of voice or tone component. However, there is also energy difference. All voiced consonants are weak (lenis) and all voiceless consonants are strong (fortis).

According to the position of the soft palate consonants can be oral and nasal. There are relatively few consonantal types in English which require the lowered position of the soft palate. They are the nasal occlusive sonorants [m], [n] and [ŋ]. They differ from oral plosives in that the soft palate is lowered allowing the escape of air into the nasal cavity. It is a well-known fact that no differences of meaning in English can be attributed to the presence or absence of nasalization. It is for this reason that it cannot be a phonologically relevant feature of English consonants, so it is an indispensable concomitant feature of English nasal consonants.

Another problem of a phonological character in the English consonantal system is the problem of affricates that is their phonological status and their number.

Language in everyday use is not conducted in terms of isolated, separate units; it is performed in connected sequences of larger units, in words, phrases and longer utterances. Consonants are modified according to the place of articulation. Assimilation takes place when a sound changes its character in order to become more like a neighboring sound.

The characteristic which can vary in this way is nearly always the place of articulation, and the sounds concerned are commonly those which involve a complete closure at some point in the mouth that is plosives and nasals which may be illustrated as follows:

1. The dental [t], [d], followed by the interdental [θ], [ð] sounds (partial regressive assimilation when the influence goes backwards from a "latter" sound to an "earlier" one), e.g. "eigth","at the", "breadth", "said that";

2. The post-alveolar [t], [d] under the influence of the post-alveolar [r] (partial regressive assimilation), e.g. "free", "true", "that right word", "dry", "dream", "the third room".

3. The post-alveolar [s], [z] (complete regressive assimilation), e.g. horse-shoe, this shop , does she;

4. The affricative [t + j], [d + j] combinations (incomplete regressive assimilation), e.g. graduate, congratulate, did you, could you, what do you say.

The manner of articulation is also changed as a result of assimilation, which includes:

1. Loss of plosion: in the sequence of two plosive consonants the former loses its plosion: glad to see you, great trouble, and old clock (partial regressive assimilations).

2. Nasal plosion: in the sequence of a plosive followed by a nasal sonorant the manner of articulation of the plosive sound and the work of the soft palate are involved, which results in the nasal character of plosion release: sudden, nor now, at night, let me see (partial regressive assimilations).

3. Lateral plosion: in the sequence of a plosive followed by the lateral sonorant [l] the noise production of the plosive stop is changed into that of the lateral stop: settle, table, at last (partial regressive assimilations). It is obvious that in each of the occasions one characteristic feature of the phoneme is lost.

The voicing value of a consonant may also change through assimilation. This type of assimilation affects the work of the vocal cords and the force of articulation. In the particular voiced lenis sounds become voiceless fortis when followed by another voiceless sound, e.g.:

1. Fortis voiceless/lenis voiced type of assimilation is best manifested by the regressive assimilation in such words as newspaper (news [z] + paper); goosebeny (goose [s] + berry). In casual informal speech voicing assimilation is often met, e.g. have to do it, five past two. The sounds which assimilate their voicing are usually, as the examples show, voiced lenis fricatives assimilated to the initial voiceless fortis consonant of the following word. Grammatical items, in particular, are most affected: [z] of has, is, does changes to [s], and [v] of of, have becomes [f], e.g. She's five. Of course. She has fine eyes. You've spoiled it. Does Pete like it?

2. The weak forms of the verbs is and has are also assimilated to the final voiceless fortis consonants of the preceding word thus the assimilation is functioning in the progressive direction, e.g. Your aunt's coming. What’s your name? (partial progressive assimilation).

3. English sonorants [m, n, r, 1, j, w] preceded by the fortis voiceless consonants [p, t, k, s] are partially devoiced, e.g. smart, snake, tray, quick, twins, play, pride (partial progressive assimilation).

Lip position may be affected by the accommodation, the interchange of consonant + vowel type.

Labialisation of consonants is traced under the influence of the neighboring back vowels (accommodation), e.g. pool, moon, rude, soon, who, cool, etc. It is possible to speak about the spread lip position of consonants followed or preceded by front vowels [i:], [i], e.g. tea – beat; meet – team; feat – leaf, keep – leak; sit – miss (accommodation). The position of the soft palate is also involved in the accommodation.

Slight nasalization as the result of prolonged lowering of the soft palate is sometimes traced in vowels under the influence of the neighboring sonant [m] and [n], e.g. and, morning, men, come in (accommodation).

Elision or complete loss of sounds, both vowels and consonants, is observed in the structure of English words. It is typical of rapid colloquial speech and marks the following sounds:

1. Loss of [h] in personal and possessive pronouns he, his, her, him and the forms of the auxiliary verb have, has, had is widespread, e.g. What has he done?

2. [1] tends to be lost when preceded by [a:], e.g. always, already, all right.

3. Alveolar plosives are often elided in case the cluster is followed by another consonant, e.g. next day, just one, mashed potatoes. If a vowel follows, the consonant remains, e.g. first of all, passed in time. Whole syllables may be elided in rapid speech: library ['laibri], literary ['litri].

Examples of historical elision are also known. They are initial consonants in write, know, knight, the medial consonant [t] in fasten, listen, whistle, castle.

While the elision is a very common process in connected speech, we also occasionally find sounds being inserted. When a word which ends in a vowel is followed by another word beginning with a vowel, the so-called intrusive "r" is sometimes pronounced between the vowels, e.g. Asia and Africa, the idea of it [ði:ai'diər əvit] ma and pa ['mа:r ənd 'pa:]. The so-called linking "r," is a common example of insertion, e.g. clearer, a teacher of English. When the word-final vowel is a diphthong which glides to [i] such as [ai], [ei] the palatal sonorant [j] tends to be inserted, e.g. saying ['seijiŋ]; trying ['traiiŋ].

In case of the [U]-gliding diphthongs [əu], [au] the bilabial sonorant [w] is sometimes inserted, e.g. going ['gəuwiŋ], allowing [ə'lauwiŋ].

The process of inserting the sonorants [r], [j] or [w] may seem to contradict the tendency towards the economy of articulatory efforts. The explanation for it lies in the fact that it is apparently easier from the articulatory point of view to insert those sounds than to leave them out.

The insertion of a consonant-like sound, namely a sonorant, interrupts the sequence of two vowels (VV) to make it a more optional syllable type: consonant + vowel (CV). Thus, insertion occurs in connected speech in order to facilitate the process of articulation for the speaker, and not as a way of providing extra information for the listener.

The ability to produce English with an English-like pattern of stress and rhythm involves stress-timing (= the placement of stress only on selected syllables), which in turn requires speakers to take shortcuts in how they pronounce words.

Natural sounding pronunciation in conversational English is achieved through blends, overlapping, reduction and omissions of sounds to accommodate its stresstimed rhythmic pattern, i.e. to squeeze syllables between stressed elements and facilitate their articulation so that the regular timing can be maintained.

Such processes are called co-articulatory/adjustment phenomena and they comprise:

(1) change of consonant or vowel quality;

(2) loss of consonant or vowels, and even

(3) loss of entire syllables;

I must go = vowel change and consonant loss;

memory = vowel and syllable loss;

did you = consonant blending and vowel change;

actually = consonant blending, vowel and syllable loss.

Syllables or words which are articulated precisely are those high in information

content, while those which are weakened, shortened or dropped are predictable and can be guessed from the context.

English consonants have been remarkably stable over time, and have undergone few changes in the last 1500 years. On the other hand, English vowels have been quite unstable. Not surprisingly, then, the main differences between modern dialects almost always involve vowels.

Around the late 14th century, English began to undergo the Great Vowel Shift, in which the high long vowels [i] and [u] in words like price and mouth became diphthongized, first to [əɪ] and [əʊ] (where they remain today in some environments in some accents such as Canadian English) and later to their modern values [aɪ] and [aʊ]. This is not unique to English, as this also happened in Dutch (first shift only, but in dialects and other non-standard varieties frequently both) and German (both shifts) [20].

The other long vowels became higher:

[e] became [i] (for example meet).

[a] became [e] (later diphthongized to [eɪ] (for example name).

[o] became [u] (for example goose).

[ɔ] became [o] (later diphthongized to [əʊ] (RP) and [oʊ] (GA), for example bone).

Later developments complicate the picture: whereas in Geoffrey Chaucer's time food, good, and blood all had the vowel [o] and in William Shakespeare's time they all had the vowel [u], in modern pronunciation good has shortened its vowel to [ʊ] and blood has shortened and lowered its vowel to [ʌ] in most accents.

Speaking of English consonants it must be said that there are some problems of phonological character in the English consonantal system; it is the problem of affricates - their phonological status and their number. The question is: what kind of facts a phonological theory has to explain.

1) Are the English [t∫, dʒ] 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. Considering phonemic duality of affricates, 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∫, dʒ]. D. Jones points out there are six of them: [t∫, dʒ ], [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 [21]. 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’s apply these criteria to the sound complexes [22].

1.Syllabic indivisibility

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

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

curtsey [kз:-tsi] out-set [aut-set]

eighth [eitθ] whitethorn [wait-θo:n]

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 [23].

According to morphological criterion a sound complex is considered to be monophonemic if a morpheme boundary cannot pass within it because it is generally assumed that a phoneme is morphologically indivisible. If we consider [t∫], [dʒ] from this point of view we could be secure to grant them a monophonemic status, since they are indispensable. As to [ts], [dz] and [tθ], [dð] complexes their last elements are separate morphemes [s], [z], [θ], [ð] so these elements are easily singled out by the native speaker in any kind of phonetic context. These complexes do not correspond to the phonological models of the English language and cannot exist in the system of phonemes. The case with [tr], [dr] complexes is still more difficult.

By way of conclusion we could say that the two approaches have been adopted towards this phenomenon are as follows: the finding that there are eight affricates in English [t∫], [dʒ], [tr], [dr], [ts], [dz], [tð], [dθ] is consistent with articulatory and acoustic point of view, because in this respect the entities are indivisible. This is the way the British phoneticians see the situation.

On the other hand, Russian phoneticians are consistent in looking at the phenomenon from the morphological and the phonological point of view which allows them to define [t∫], [dʒ] as monophonemic units and [tr], [dr], [ts], [dz], [tð], [dθ] as biphonemic complexes. However, this point of view reveals the possibility of ignoring the articulatory and acoustic indivisibility.