5. Speak on phoneme theory, its variants and aspects

a phoneme – is a sound in its contrasting position (capable of distinguishing the meaning of a word) the phonemes of a language form a system of oppositions. (ban – tan)

an allophone – is a representation of a phoneme in a particular position/ context.

[let] – [led] phonemes

[let] - [let them] allophones

The phoneme is a minimal abstract language unit realized in speech in the form of speech sounds opposable to other phonemes of the same language to distinguish the meaning of morphemes and words (by Shcerba + Vasiliev). The founder of the phoneme theory was I.A. Baudouin de Courteney.

The phoneme can be studied in two ways:

• as independent sound [t] [d], e.g. bride [braid] – bright [brait]

• as a variant of a sound, e.g. Let us – Let them

Sound "t" pronounced differently as two variants of one sound [t]. It’s called "allophone". The phoneme is a minimal linguistic unit realized in speech in the form of sounds, which can be opposed to other phonemes.

The phoneme is a functional unit: it is used in speech to distinguish one word from another, e.g. said – sad; sleeper – sleepy; bath – both. So the phoneme can have a distinguishing function.

The material aspect.

Each phoneme is realized in speech as a set of predictable (=depended on the context) speech sounds which are called allophones. Allophones are realized n concrete words. For example, in speech we not pronounce the sound type [t], which is aspirated, alveolar, forelingual, apical, occlusive, plosive, voiceless – fortis – according to the classificatory definition, but – one of the its variation:

phoneme [t]

[to:k] apical alveolar [t] |

[tip] slightly palatalized [t] |

[not there] dental [t] | allophones

[not kwait] loss of plosion |

[trai] post-alveolar [t] |

[stei] not aspirated [t] |

The requirements to the allophones of the same phoneme:

1. they poses similar articulating feature, but at the same time they can show considerable phonetic differences.

2. they never occur in the same phonetic context

3. they are not capable of differentiating the meaning

2 Types of allophones: principal and subsidiary

Principal are the allophones which don’t undergo any changes in the flow of speech => they are the closest to the phoneme) Ex: [t] -> [to:k] Principle allophones don’t undergo any distinguishable changes in speech. They aren’t positionally determined. They are most representative of the phoneme as a whole.

Principle A. = stressed vowels + consonants before them. English phoneme [d] when not affected by the articulation of the preceding or following sounds is a plosive, fore-lingual apical, alveolar, lenis stop. This is how it sounds in isolation or in such words as door, darn, down, etc., when it retains its typical articulatory characteristics. In this case the consonant [d] is called the principal allophone.

In the articulation of a subsidiary allophone we observe predictable changes under the influence of the phonetic context. Subsidiary allophones presupposes quite predictable changes in the articulation of allophones that occur under the influence of the neighbouring sounds in different phonetic situations.

Ex: [d] – occlusive plosive stop, forelingual, apical-alveolar, voiced lenis (the phoneme)

[do:], [dog] – the principal allophones

• [d] is slightly palatalized before front vowels and [j]: [ded], [did ju:]

• without plosion before another stop: [gud dei], [bad pain]

• with nasal plosion before nasal sonorants [m], [n]: [‘s^nd]

• before [l] a literal plosion: [midl]

• followed by “r” – [pst alveolar [d]: [dr^m]

• before interdental sounds it becomes dental: [bredth]

• when followed by [w] it becomes labialized: [dwel]

• in word final position it’s partly devoiced: [ded]

They are all fore-lingual lenis stops, but they show some differences. The allophones of the same phoneme never occur in the same phonetic context.

Subsidiary allophones consist of 2 types:

a) combinatory – Combinatory allophones appear as the result of assimilation, adaptation, accommodation - that is when one phoneme influences another.

b) positional – used in a certain positions traditionally. For example, the English [1] phoneme is always "clear" in the initial position and "dark" in the terminal position.

The phoneme is smth material and real, e.g. the phoneme [d] is realized in speech in the form of its allophones: door – dawn. It is its standard allophone which has all characteristics of the phoneme [d]. It is called "principle allophone". In other cases the phoneme [d] can be pronounced differently. Such allophones are called "subsidiary allophones".

	 deal – day – did		[d] is slightly palatalized
	 bedtime – bad pain –good dog		[d] is pronounced without any plosion
	 sudden – admit – couldn’t		[d] is pronounced with nasal plosion

We can’t pronounce a phoneme, we pronounce allophones, which are accompanied by several social and personal characteristics. The actual pronounced sounds which we hear are formed with stylistic, situational, personal and etc. characteristics. They are called phones.

The Abstract aspect

The phoneme is a minimal language unit.

The phoneme belongs to the language, the allophone – to the speech.

Language is an abstract category, it’s an abstraction from speech. Speech is the reality of a language, thus the phoneme as a language unit is materialized in speech sound. The phoneme is a sort of generalization (abstraction).

The process of generalization.

The native speaker doesn’t pay attention to the allophones which don’t change the meaning. But every native speaker has a generalized idea of a complex of distinctive features that can’t be changed without changing the meaning.

The features which can’t be changed without a change of meaning are called relevant (or distinctive)

The invariant of a phoneme – a native speaker’s generalized variants. The invariant of a phoneme is a bundle of its distinctive features.

The functional aspect

.. to dinstinguish the meanings. Phonemes are capable of distinguishing the meaning of words and morphemes: seemed [d]  seems [z]

and changing the meanings of whole sentences:

Ex: He was heard badly. – He was hurt badly.

There is no room for you in my hut. – There is no room for you in my heart.

Ac. Shcherba’s definition of the phoneme. He described phoneme as a dialectical unity of its three aspects: 1.a phoneme is material, real and objective. 2. a phoneme is abstractional. 3. a  phoneme is functional. They can be separated only for analysis. 1. The phoneme is material as it exists in a number of articulatory and acoustically definite speech sounds. It is a linguistic reality because phonemes exist in actual speech. It is objective because they are independent of the will of an individual speaker. 2. The phoneme is an abstraction; it is an abstract linguistic unit (it refers to the language). Abstraction takes place unconsciously, and it is the most difficult object to grasp (понимание). Any native speaker pronounces speech sounds correctly but unconsciously, thanks to much practice. Every time he/she pronounces different allophones but for him it is one phoneme. 3. The phoneme is functional, since it is capable of differentiating words morphemes, sentences. Eg. Teach-teacher/ teach-beach. It is cold/ it is bold. He badly heard/ He was badly hurt. Not all speech sounds function to differentiate the words.

Main trends in the phoneme theory. The basis for their classification. Three aspects singled out by Shcherba (abstract, material, functional) provide us with the basis for classification of the phoneme theories. According to which aspect of the phoneme is particularly favored by the linguists, we distinguish three groups of conceptions. Conceptions based on abstract aspect. There are several varieties of them.Mentalistic psychological (originated by B. de C.). It defines the phoneme as an ideal psychical image of the sound (псих эквивалент звука). Actually pronounced speech sounds are in perfect realization of such images. There is a discrepancy of intended sound and the one actually pronounced. This view was sheared by Sapir, Zommerfield (phonemes as models which speakers seek to reproduce) and was elaborated by generative phonology and the idea of the phoneme as a target was recently been used again, although under different terminology by Tatham. In another variety of entirely conception called abstract theacoustic and physiological properties of the phoneme are completely ignored. It was originated byФердинанд де Соссюр.  «Фонема отнюдь не есть что-то звучащее, но нечто бестелесное, образуемое не своей материальной субстанцией, но исключительно теми различиями, которые отделяют её акустический образ от прочих». Others: Hjelsmlev, Shaumyan. In the second group, psychical, the material aspect is brought to an extreme, while its abstract character is denied. The psychical view regards the phoneme as a family of related speech sounds. A mechanical sum of such sounds: from a philosophical point of view, such definitions may be qualified as “vulgarly materialistic, metaphysical”.Criticize: The concept of the house is not a mechanical sum of all the houses existing in the world; a phoneme can’t be viewed as the sum of all the speech sounds (variants). Supporters: Daniel Johns, Block and Trager. It views the phoneme as a group of articulatory similar sounds without any regard to abstract and functional aspects of a phoneme. Functional aspect. This group of conceptions regards the phoneme as the min sound unit by which meaning may be differentiated. Meaning differentiation is important; it’s the basic characteristic of a phoneme. These conceptions disregard material & abstract character of the phoneme. It’s only the distinctive function of speech sounds, but it ignores constrictive & recognative. A phoneme is not a family of sounds, since in every sound there are only a certain number of articulatory features, involved in the differentiation of meaning. It’s the so-called distinctive features of the sound, which make up the phoneme corresponding to it. Trubetzkoy: «Фонема – это пучок дифференциальных признаков» (+Haley?). These distinctive features become distinctive in oppositional sets. Some approaches within these take oppositions as the basic elements of phonological structure (Plotkin, теория кинокемы, Broomfield).