Modern approaches to phoneme theory. Modern approaches to the theory of phonemes T traditional phonological schools

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

• Introduction 2
• 1 Phoneme functions 4
• 1.1 Phoneme segmentation 5
• 1.2 Phonological oppositions and differential features 6
• 1.3 Phoneme and allophones. Distributional analysis 10
• Conclusions for Chapter 1 12
• 2. The founders of phonology and their contribution to the study of phonemes 14
• 2.1 Traditional phonological schools 20
• 2.1.1 Kazan phonetic school 21
• 2.1.2 Leningrad phonetic school 22
• 2.1.3 Moscow phonetic school 23
• 2.2.4 Functional phonology 24
• 2.1.5 Systemic phonology 25
• Conclusions for Chapter 2 28
• Conclusion 30
• References 31

Introduction

That our speech can be divided into separate sounds that we distinguish from each other seems self-evident. It seems quite obvious that everyone hears the difference between vowels in words home - thought, or consonants in words weight - all, cancer - varnish and distinguish raid from will pour just by sound.

However, in fact, the selection of individual sounds in a stream of speech is not at all determined by sound alone. The same sound is assessed differently by speakers of different languages ​​from the point of view of sound composition: Koreans will not notice the difference R from l, Arabs O from y, for the French in words weight And all how different sounds will be judged by vowels rather than final consonants; and speakers of very many languages ​​will not be able to hear the difference between raid And will pour.

Consequently, the selection of individual sounds and their assessment as the same or different depends on the characteristics of the linguistic structure.

We believe that every foreign language teacher is also a practicing phonetician. After all, it is impossible to teach a language without touching on the pronunciation side of speech, and everything that relates to pronunciation relates to phonetics.

The purpose of our work is to consider various approaches to the theory of phonemes, and more specifically, to consider the definitions of phonemes by different linguistic schools that emerged at the end of the twentieth century.

In the first chapter of our work we solve the following problems:

1) reveal the functions of the phoneme

2) divide the flow of speech into individual sounds, i.e. phoneme segmentation

3) reveal the differential features of the phoneme through oppositional analysis

4) reveal the definitions of phoneme and allophone

In the second chapter, we briefly examine the work of the largest linguists and phoneticians in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries, on which modern scientists relied when creating their theory of the phoneme. We also consider approaches to the theory of phonemes of linguistic schools that exist in our time in our country and neighboring countries.

1 Phoneme functions

Sound matter is formed and used by each language in a special way, in accordance with the rules of its phonological system, which includes a subsystem of segmental means and a subsystem of supersegmental (prosodic) means.

The minimal (shortest in linear terms) structural and functional sound units in most languages ​​are phonemes. They themselves do not have meanings, but are potentially associated with meaning as elements of a single sign system. In combination with each other and often separately, they form exponents of words and morphemes and provide recognition (identification) and differentiation (differentiation) of linguistic signs as meaningful units.
Thus, due to the different composition of phonemes, namely the use of different phonemes in the same position, in the exponents of Russian words genus/rot/ and glad/rat/ it becomes possible to identify each of these words and differentiate them from each other. In the same way, different phonemes appear in identical positions, distinguishing exponents, and thereby the whole:

· English words but /bVt/ `but" and boot /bu:t/ `boot, shoe",

· German words liegen /li:g&n/ `lie down' and legen /le:g&n/ `put down, lay down'

· French words mais /mE/ `but" and mes /me/ `my".

In most cases, word exponents turn out to be multiphonemic. For example, Russian words have single-phoneme exponents A/a/, And/i/, at/u/, V/v/, To/k/, morphemes - l/l/ in spa, -t/t"/ in sleep, -s/s/ in tables, -at/u/ in go-y, V- /v/ in in-climb, -A- /a/, - j- And - at/u/ in step-a-j-y(spelling: I'm walking). Contains one phoneme each

· exponents of English words o /@U/ `zero", A /eI/ `excellent grade (in an American school)", e /i:/ `number e (in mathematics)", I /aI/ `i" ,

· exponents of German words A /a:/ `la (music)", E /e:/ `mi (music)", o! /o:/ `oh!, ah! ",

· exponents of French words a /a/ `has', eau /o/ `water', ou /u/ `or'.

The exponents of many morphemes in these languages ​​are monophonemic.

The exponent of a linguistic sign cannot consist of less than one phoneme.

1.1 Phoneme segmentation

Sounded speech represents a continuum from an acoustic and articulatory point of view, i.e. indivisible whole. Linguistic units in general and phonemes in particular have a discrete nature, i.e. they are quite clearly distinguished from each other in syntagmatic and paradigmatic terms. The distinctiveness of phonemes in speech is based not on acoustic or articulatory features, but on structural-functional features, i.e. actually linguistic. Phonemic segmentation is determined by the language system itself. As a result of phonemic segmentation, a chain of discrete phonemes is assigned a number of sounds (phones).
The background acts as an individual, single representative (representative) of a certain phoneme in speech. Each phoneme corresponds to an infinite number of backgrounds.

In accordance with the morphological (semiotic in nature) principle, which was formulated in the school of L.V. Shcherby, the boundaries between phonemes are where the boundaries between morphemes are.

For example, the syllable Yes in a word (word form) water is divided into two phonemes: /d/ and /a/, reflecting the presence of a morphemic seam: water. In the same way, a syntagmatic boundary is established between the phonemes /v/ and /a/ in the word form grass, between /u/ and /p/ in the word form oo-pad-oo.

Repeated individually many times, phonemes acquire autonomy in the phonological system of the language, so that in the exponent of the word Yes, where there is no morphemic division, there is a boundary between the phonemes /d/ and /a/.

Using a morphological criterion, we can determine whether we are dealing with long consonants, long vowels, diphthongs as single phonemes or as combinations of phonemes (monophonemic and biphonemic interpretation).

Yes, in a word enter, beginning with a phonetically long [in:], two phonemes / in / are distinguished, one of which is the exponent of the morpheme V, and the other is initial in the exponent of the root morpheme - water-. The morphological criterion makes it possible to prove that in the Russian language there are no diphthongs as single phonemes, and in the German and English languages ​​diphthongs are monophonemic.

Boundaries between phonemes can also be signaled by meaningful alternations (for example, alternations along the ablaut in the English word forms find ~ found ( ~ ), in the German word forms find-en ~ fand-en ([I] ~ [a]).

Thus, boundaries between phonemes are possible both at the junctions of words and morphemes, and within morphemes. They do not have to coincide with syllable boundaries.

The situation is different in syllabic languages. In them, the syllable, as a rule, is an indivisible exponent of the morpheme and/or word. In its functions, such a syllable is similar to a phoneme. Therefore, in such cases a syllable is spoken of as the shortest phonological unit - a syllabem.

1.2 Phonological oppositions and differential features

Each phonemic (non-syllabic) language has a small, closed set of phonemes. They can carry out their identifying and differentiating function due to the fact that they differ from each other, being paradigmatically opposed.

The paradigmatic features of phonemes are revealed on the basis of phonological oppositions, i.e. such oppositions between phonemes that distinguish not just different sets of phonemes, but also different words (and morphemes) using these sets as their exponents.

The typology of phonological oppositions was first developed by N.S. Trubetskoy.

In this work the following characteristics of oppositions will be used:

· by the number of opposing members:

o two-term (binary) oppositions, for example: English. /p/:/b/ - pen:Ben;

o three-term (ternary), for example: English. /p/:/t/:/k/ - peg:tag:keg, etc.;

· according to the number of differential features that serve to distinguish opposing phonemes:

o single-feature oppositions (for example: English /g/:/k/, opposed on the basis of sonority: deafness (unvoiced) - gum:come), And

o multi-feature, for example: Russian. /t/:/z/, contrasted according to the characteristics of voicedness: deafness and closure: gapiness (non-stopping) - tol:angry;

· in relation to the phoneme system:

o isolated oppositions (for example, German /l/:/r/ - lassen:Rassen, and

o proportional, for example: rus. /l/:/r/ = /l"/:/r"/ - fishing:ditch = A lion (< Leva):roar.

Tests for the participation of a given phoneme in phonological oppositions make it possible to establish a set of its simultaneous differential features.

So, for the Russian phoneme /d/ through oppositional analysis, i.e. comparisons of /d/ with other phonemes (/d/:/t/, /d/:/n/, /d/:/d"/, /d/:b/, /d/:/g/, /d /: /z/, the phonological content of /d/ appears as a set of features

· sonority ( house:volume),

mouthiness ( I'll give:us),

non-palatalization ( pillbox:coming),

· linguistics ( gave:ball),

· frontal tongue ( dol:Goal),

· closure ( gave:hall).

Trubetskoy classified differential features, identifying three groups:

1. Private = when the presence of a feature is contrasted with the absence of a feature, for example, voicedness (the work of the vocal cords during articulation) = the presence of the feature, and deafness (the vocal cords do not work) = the absence of the feature.

2. Gradual, or stepwise, there are almost none in Russian phonetics. In English phonetics, the gradual sign is considered to be the opening of the mouth. There are a wide range of e.g. /a:/ , average e.g. /e/ and narrow eg. /i/ mouth solution when differentiating vowels.

3. Equipolant, or equivalent, features, when one feature in one member of the opposition is replaced by another in another member. So, the phonemes of English. /k/ and /d/ are privative in terms of voicedness/voicelessness, and equivalent = in terms of place of formation.

To this we can add the opposition of the entire class of consonants to the class of vowels (group opposition) and supplement the above list with the differential feature of consonance.

In general, many oppositions are of a group nature: thus, the class of stops is opposed by the class of fricatives and the class of tremors, the class of front-linguals is opposed by the classes of mid-lingual and back-linguals, the class of non-palatalized vowels is opposed by the class of palatalized ones, the class of unrounded vowels is opposed by the class of rounded (labialized) ones, etc. Such phonological oppositions (following N.S. Trubetskoy) are qualified as phonological correlations.

Most often, minimal pairs are selected for contrast, i.e. different words that differ minimally in sound, only in one position, for example: cap:cup; bake:make.
But if there is no minimal pair, it is allowed to contrast two different sounds that are in an identical phonetic environment, for example, contrasting words cat: weaves quite sufficient as evidence of the presence in the Russian language of two different stop voiceless phonemes: /k/ and /k"/.

Sound differences that are not revealed when contrasting different phonemes are classified as non-phonemic (redundant). They are taken into account when describing the phonemes of a given language not at the level of the system (a set of oppositions), but at the level of the norm and at the level of usage, and sometimes at the level of the individual speech act.

The number of phonological oppositions (due to the fact that many of them are proportional) and, accordingly, the number of differential features of phonemes is less than the number of phonemes themselves. Phonological oppositions act as those relations that organize the inventory of phonemes, making it a system. In other words, the totality of phonological oppositions is the structure of the phonemic system.

N.S. Trubetskoy and R.O. Jacobson considered it possible to include among the definitions of a phoneme its qualification as a “bundle” or “bundle” of differential features. R.O. Jacobson was generally inclined to consider the phonological differential feature (DP), according to E. Benveniste merism, as an elementary unit of the phonological system. He proposed a universal list of phonological features (in acoustic terms) from which one or another phoneme of any language is built.

The Shcherbov school proceeds from the fact that phonological DPs are distinguished during the “splitting” of phonemes and, therefore, are secondary in relation to phonemes; they are not special elements, but only features of phonemes. In addition, experimental phonetic studies in this school have shown that DPs are abstract, invariant features that are realized articulatory and acoustically differently in phonemes of different classes.

Opposition analysis makes it possible to:

· not only identify phonologically significant features of phonemes,

· but also to establish the composition (inventory) of phonemes,

· distribute these phonemes into correlative classes,

· build on this basis a model of the phonemic system of a given language

· and determine the place in it of each given phoneme. This place is characterized by a set of DPs for a given phoneme. Such a set remains unchanged and invariant for any implementation of a particular phoneme in speech.

1. 3 Phoneme and allophones. Distributive analysis

Each phoneme in the stream of speech undergoes various modifications (modifications) as a result of:

coarticulation (overlapping articulations of adjacent sounds),

· combinatorial sound changes such as accommodation ** Accommodation (from the Latin accommodatio - adaptation) is one of the types of combinatorial changes in sounds; partial adaptation of articulations of adjacent consonants and vowels. It consists in the fact that the excursion (beginning of articulation) of the subsequent sound adapts to the recursion (end of articulation) of the previous one (progressive accommodation) or the recursion of the previous sound adapts to the excursion of the subsequent one (regressive accommodation). and assimilation ** Assimilation - assimilation, the appearance of similarity with another, neighboring sound, for example. pronunciation instead of voiced b in the word babka there is a dull sound P[bapka] as a result of similarity in deafness to the following To. ,

· positional sound changes such as reduction ** Reduction - weakening, shortening of vowels. , conditioned by its implementation in a stressed or unstressed syllable.

Phonetically determined (specific) combinatorial and positional variants of a given phoneme (allophones) arise. Depending on the position in the word or the presence of other sounds nearby that influence the phoneme, we can observe various allophone correlations, for example English. /d/ is pronounced with a nasal plosion before the nasal sonants sudden, admit, could not and is slightly palatalized before the front vowels deal, did, day.

Representatives of descriptive linguistics (Yale School in the USA, created by L. Bloomfield), who developed the so-called distributional method as an arsenal of techniques for “detection” of the language system in speech, divide the entire analysis procedure into three stages: segmentation of the utterance (establishing backgrounds), phonemic identification of backgrounds ( identification of phonemic affiliation of a given background) and classification of phonemes.

Distributional analysis is especially effective at the second stage. Its rules read:

If two different backgrounds do not occur in an identical phonetic environment, then they are in a relation of complementary distribution and are allophones of the same phoneme.

Such, for example, are the relationships between unaspirated and aspirated stops [p] and , [t] and , [k] both in English and German languages, between non-labialized and labialized consonants [p] and in Russian. With this approach, another definition of a phoneme is possible: a phoneme is a class (family, set) of sounds that are in relation to additional distribution. One of the allophones, which turns out to be least dependent on the phonetic environment, is recognized as the main one. Others are considered specific: their features are determined either by combinatorial or positional factors.

· If two different backgrounds occur in an identical phonetic relation and at the same time can serve to distinguish different words, then they are in a relation of contrastive distribution * and are representatives of two different phonemes.

· If two different backgrounds occur in an identical environment and do not distinguish between two different words, then there is a relation of free variation between them and they are optional variants of one phoneme. These are the relationships between different (multi-stress and single-stress, frontal and lingual) variants of the German phoneme /r/, between the stop and fricative implementations of the Russian phoneme /g/.

Distribution analysis makes it possible to:
- establish an inventory of phonemes (specifying the result of oppositional analysis);
- identify phonetic conditions for the distribution of phonemes in speech;
- present each phoneme as a class of its obligatory and optional variants (which, by the way, connects phonemic analysis with the establishment of sets of perceptual units).

Chapter 1 Conclusions

So, the complete characteristics of a phoneme are multidimensional, since a phoneme can be characterized:

· in relation to linguistic signs (morphemes and words), in the construction of the exponents of which phonemes participate (constitutive function), ensuring the distinction and recognition of these signs (differentiating and identifying functions);

· in relation to the language system as a whole and to the phonological system, where each phoneme occupies its specific place, participating in various phonological oppositions and differing from any other phoneme as an invariant unit with its own stereotypical set of phonological differential features;

· in relation to speech, where each phoneme appears in an infinite variety of different sounds (phones), reduced into one phoneme as its phonetically determined variants (allophones) and optional variants based on distributive criteria.

Phonemic analysis usually aims to establish the inventory of phonemes and discover the set of correlative oppositions that underlie the phoneme system. The inventory of phonemes is finite, ranging from 20 to 80 or 100 elements. The set of phonological correlations (about a dozen) is also finite. The result of such an analysis is the presentation of the system of phonemes in the form of their classification. We can talk about the system of phonemes only in relation to a certain specific language. The phonemic system of a particular language is unique.

Classifications of vowel and consonant phonemes of a particular language are based on general phonetic features and repeat, to a certain extent, universal classifications.

2. The founders of phonology and their contributions to the study of phonemes

Each of the scientists described the phoneme in his own way, took for main feature one or more bases. All views on phoneme theory can be divided into 4 main groups: psychological approach, functional approach, physical approach and abstract approach. It should be noted that the division of phonetic schools, based on the approach, occurred much later than the founding of the school and is the subjective opinion of the author of this work.

Followers psychological approaches considered the phoneme as a certain ideal image, which every speaker strives to achieve. This "ideal sound" is different from what the speaker produces, partly because it is almost impossible to produce an ideal sound and partly because of the influence of neighboring sounds on the sound. Allophones were considered as different materializations of sound in speech.

Adherents of the psychological approach include: Wilhelm Fietor, E. Sapir, I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, Alfred Sommerfeld.

The book that had the greatest resonance among works on general phonetics Wilhelm Fietor"Elements of phonetics and spelling of German, English and French, taking into account the needs of teaching" 1884

Describing the vowels of three languages, Fietor had in mind phonemes (more precisely, the main allophones of phonemes), each time indicating how many vowels of a given type differ in the language and by what characteristics (however, in a number of cases, the notes also indicate the variation of vowels), which clearly indicates about the author's commitment to the psychological approach. This approach to describing the sounds of three languages ​​was especially obvious when the author contrasted “independent” sounds - nasal vowels - with nasalized vowels before nasal consonants. It is with a psychological approach that one can assert, as Fietor did, that in German and English there are two (u), differing quantitatively (in duration) and qualitatively, while in French there is only one (u) closed, that in German there are two different (o), the same in French, while in English there are three different vowels of this type, etc.

Ivan Aleksandrovich Baudouin de Courtenay (Jan Ignaci Necisl„av Baudouin de Courtenay, 1845 - 1929

In the field of phonetics, already in 1871 Baudouin de Courtenay distinguished between “the consideration of sounds from a purely physiological point of view” and “the role of sounds in the mechanism of language, for the intuition of the people ..., the analysis of sounds from a morphological, word-formation point of view.” This is how Baudouin’s unconventional approach to the analysis of the sound side of language is outlined, which later led to the identification of a unique unit within the morpheme, and then to the creation of the foundations of phonological theory. In accordance with the distinction between synchrony and diachrony, it was proposed to distinguish between the “statics of sounds,” which includes these two aspects of the description of the sound system of a language, and the “dynamics of sounds”—“the laws and conditions for the development of sounds over time.”

According to Baudouin, the division of the flow of speech into individual sounds is an anthropophonic division; “from a phonetic-morphological point of view... whole coherent speech is divided into significant sentences or phrases, sentences into significant words, words into morphological syllables, or morphemes, morphemes into phonemes.”

Subsequently, Baudouin abandoned the second interpretation of the term, i.e. from the phoneme as an etymological-morphological unit. In “An Experience in the Theory of Phonetic Alternations,” he drew the reader’s attention to this from the very beginning, and offers the following definition: “A phoneme is an integral representation belonging to the world of phonetics that arises in the soul through the psychological fusion of impressions received from the pronunciation of the same sound , is the mental equivalent of the sound of language (des Sprachlautes). Associated with the integral representation of the phoneme was a certain sum of individual anthropophonic representations, which are, on the one hand, articulatory representations, i.e. representations of physiological articulatory works completed or being performed (in Vollziehung begriffener), and on the other hand, acoustic representations, i.e. representations of the heard or audible (im Gehortwerden begriffener) results of these physiological works.”

Apologists functional approach considered the phoneme as the shortest sound with the help of which the meaning of a word can be differentiated. These include N. Trubetsky, L. Bloomfield, R. Jacobson, M. Khale.

There were also scientists who adhered to abstract approach to the phoneme. They believed that the phoneme is essentially separated from acoustic and physiological properties, i.e. from the sound of speech. This point of view was shared by Paul Passy, ​​Moritz Trautmann, K. Togbi, L. Helmslev.

Very significant role Fields of Passy in the development of phonetics. Paul Passy's work on general phonetics is his doctoral dissertation “On phonetic changes and their general characteristics” (Etude sur les changements phonetiques et leurs caracteres generaux, Paris 1891). Passy did not explain the very identification of these minimal units either by acoustic-articulatory or by linguistic relations proper (which was later done by L.V. Shcherba), but in essence relied, also traditionally, on the intuition of a native speaker.

Like many before him, Passy drew attention to the fact that it is impossible to give an exhaustive list of speech sounds, since each change in articulation gives a new sound; it is enough to indicate only some frameworks within which variation in sound is permissible (i.e., obviously, certain sound types). Passy did not explain what determined the choice of these groups; from the classification tables of vowels and consonants he presented, it is clear that he was largely guided by intuitive-phonological criteria.

The next major research scientist is Moritz Trautmann.

M. Trautmann, in one of his books “Speech Sounds,” published in 1884 (Moritz Trautmann. Die Sprachlaute im Allgemeinen und die Laute des Englischen, Franzosischen und Deutschen im Besondern) took into account information about the speech sounds of several European languages; In this work, the author proposed his classification of vowels and consonants and collected their articulatory and acoustic characteristics.

Speech sounds, according to Trautmann, are distinguished due to differences in sound; in this case, a separate speech sound is a sound created by the speech organs that is perceived as a single whole, even if it ends differently from the way it begins, for example, a, p, s. In essence, the author focuses on the unconsciously phonological approach of the native speaker, as has been done since antiquity, and by many linguists even today. Physical or material approach developed by N. Tehmer, J. Storm, D. Jones, B. Bloch. These scientists considered a phoneme to be a group of similar sounds that meet two conditions: 1. The different members of the group must be phonetically similar to each other in character, and 2) no sound from the group can occur in the same phonetic context as another sound.

Nikolai Sergeevich Tehmer, prince (April 16, 1890, Moscow, -- June 25, 1938, Vienna), Russian linguist. Son of S. N. Trubetskoy. One of the theorists of the Prague Linguistic Circle.

In his work “Fundamentals of Phonology,” Nikolai Sergeevich Tekhmer proposed his definition of a simple speech sound, in which he considered it necessary to use only articulatory features: this is any element of language (jeder Theil der Sprache) that is produced by the simultaneous combination of several articulations, be it tone or noise. Thus, Tehmer refused to characterize the sound of speech as a minimal, further indivisible unit of language (which presupposes a linguistic criterion), but gave a purely physiological characteristic. In practice, this approach is pure form impracticable, and Tehmer was still forced to operate with implementations of phonemes of a particular language.

Johan Storm, 1836 - 1920) is the author of works on phonetics and dialectology of the Norwegian language, which also covers issues of general phonetics.

For the history of phonetic research highest value His book “English Philology” (English Philologie) was published twice, in 1881 and 1892.

Storm voiced the idea of ​​systematicity as applied to the sound structure of a language: “The totality of the sounds of each language forms a system in which a certain distance is maintained between neighboring sounds. If one sound changes, very often the whole group shifts.” But at the same time, Storm paid attention to the actual phonetic characteristics of sound units, and not to their functional relationships. He noted that individual sounds “affect the ear” of a Frenchman or an Englishman differently, that Germans incorrectly perceive French nasal vowels, and the English make mistakes when determining the place of French stress - all these “mishearings,” as is clear in our time, depend on differences between phonological systems of languages.

Evaluating phonetic research, Storm attached importance, first of all, to the accuracy of the articulatory and (to a lesser extent) acoustic characteristics of sounds and thereby contributed to clarifying ideas about the physiological mechanism of the formation of speech sounds; in his reviews, he simultaneously outlined his own views on a number of problems and controversial issues of general phonetics.

The names of scientists Otto Jespersen and Lev Shcherba stand out.

Otto Jespersen(Otto Jespersen 1860 - 1943), one of the largest linguists of the late 19th - early 20th centuries. Quite a lot of space in his works is devoted to an issue that has been discussed many times in the literature, having great importance to study the sound structure of language - the question of the relationship between the acoustic and articulatory characteristics of speech sounds. Jespersen considered two competing approaches. According to one, priority was given to articulation, because sound is the result of articulation, and phonetic changes in language are easily explained as a consequence of articulatory shifts. The second approach gave preference to the acoustic side of speech sounds on the basis that speech is perceived by ear and it is in sound form that language is transmitted from generation to generation. The author himself has not expressed a clear position on this issue.

Lev Vladimirovich Shcherba (1880-1944) was the closest student of Baudouin de Courtenay at St. Petersburg University. Before Shcherba, throughout the history of phonetic research, the division of the speech stream into sounds was taken for granted, and it was believed that unequal sounds were combined into one unit simply by phonetic similarity. Shcherba created his own approach called materialistic.

Shcherba called phonemes “representation-types,” whereas in fact, in speech, each phoneme corresponds to several sound shades (allophones in modern terms); He explained the unification of shades of one phoneme and the distinction between different phonemes by semantic relations: in cases where different sounds cannot be used to distinguish words, they represent the same phoneme; Shcherba gives many examples showing that the point is not in sound differences in themselves, but in the ability to correlate these differences with different meanings, and those sounds that in one language represent shades of one phoneme may turn out to be different phonemes in another language.

Concluding his discussion of the phoneme, Shcherba gives the following final definition: “A phoneme is the shortest general phonetic representation of a given language, capable of being associated with semantic concepts and differentiating words and which can be distinguished in speech without distorting the phonetic composition of the word.” This definition already indicates almost all (there is only no identification function) characteristics of the phoneme that are noted today: its linear minimality, constitutive and differentiating functions.

Shcherba found proper linguistic criteria to substantiate the theory of the phoneme, in contrast to its psychological interpretation by Baudouin.

Thanks to the works of Baudouin de Courtenay and mainly L.V. Shcherba completed the pre-phonological period in the study of the sound side of the language and from the first decades of the 20th century. a new stage of phonetic research began.

2.1 Ttraditional phonologicalski schools

Currently, there are several phonological schools that have their own definitions of phonemes and, therefore, have different approaches to the problem of establishing the composition of phonemes of individual words. The ultimate goal of applying the methods of analysis of these schools in practice is to accurately and definitely establish the phonological status of the sounds of a given segment of speech. However, it is known that existing theories do not always allow us to unconditionally achieve this goal.

Two phonological schools arose in Russia. One of them, created in Leningrad (Leningrad or Shcherbov school), where L.V. worked. Shcherba and his closest students L.R. Zinder and M.I. Matusevich (and now the next generations of linguists - L.V. Bondarko, V.B. Kasevich, L.A. Verbitskaya, M.V. Gordina, N.D. Svetozarova, etc.), develops the ideas of his founder, considers the phoneme as an autonomous sound unit, defined by its opposition to other similar units, regardless of belonging to a particular morpheme.

Another, the Moscow phonological school, to which R.I. belonged. Avanesov, P.S. Kuznetsov, M.V. Panov, A.A. Reformatsky, whose work is continued by their students, relies on Baudouin’s statements, according to which a phoneme is defined as an element of a morpheme, and all positionally alternating sounds in a morpheme are representatives of the same sound unit.

Also, I. Baudouin de Courtenay was the creator and long-term leader of the Kazan linguistic school (1875-1883), this school included N.V. Krushevsky, Vasily Alekseevich Bogoroditsky, A.I. Anastasiev, Alexander Ivanovich Alexandrov, N.S. Kukuranov, P.V. Vladimirov, as well as Vasily Vasilyevich Radlov, Sergei Konstantinovich Bulich, Karol Y. Appel.

This work will also present the points of view of representatives of the schools of Functional Phonology and Systemic Phonology.

2.1 .1 Kazan phonetic school

The basic principles of the Kazan school include the following: strict distinction between sounds and letters; differentiation between the phonetic and morphological divisions of a word and others.

The basic principles of the Kazan school of linguistics strictly distinguished between sounds and letters. For example, in some cases - spruce, fighter, departure, tree, reception, blizzard, clear, monkey- the letters e, e, yu, i denote a combination of two sounds ([th] + vowel). And in words like measure, village, beak, sit down- one vowel sound [e], [o], [u], [a] and the softness of the preceding consonant.

Baudouin's definitions of the phoneme changed, but he always understood the phoneme as a mental entity, “some stable representation of a group of sounds in the human psyche.” The scientist proceeds from the awareness of the unstable nature of speech sounds as physical phenomena, matching them with a stable mental representation (called the term phoneme, taken from F. de Saussure, but interpreted in a completely different way). A phoneme is understood as a “linguistic value” determined by a language system in which only that which is “semasiological and morphologized” has a function.

The theory of phonetic alternans (alternations) is closely related to the theory of phonemes.

2.1 .2 Leningrad phonetic school

The LFS phoneme is a relatively independent autonomous material unit that does not have a direct connection with the morphemes of which it is a part. Professor L.R. Zinder, follower of L.V. Shcherba, pointed out that “a phoneme that has certain positive features can always be identified by these features.” Naturally, LFS representatives always consider sound as a representative of a phoneme, for example, the sound [t] (in the word garden) as a representative of the phoneme “t”, and the sound [d] (in the word gardens) as a representative of the phoneme “d”.

This approach makes it easy to determine the composition of phonemes in word forms. However, and as L.R. writes about this. Zinder, “...if a given word form is characterized by a very specific composition of phonemes, then the same cannot be said about the lexeme and morpheme.” It turns out that a morpheme can have a different composition of phonemes in different word forms; in this case, alternation of phonemes occurs. For example, in the words garden - gardens, “t” and “d” alternate. In other cases, for example in the words cat and code, it turns out that root morphemes of words with different meanings and spellings in different positions can include either “t” or “d” as the last phoneme (cf.: cot b hedgehog, kod s, coT ik, cod t ore etc.). Thus, it can be noted that, although in such cases the morphemes are endowed with independent meaning and are not homonymous, the phonemic composition does not allow them to be differentiated from each other.

Let us give examples of the phonemic composition of words in the LFS notation.

			dog

As we see, in the LFS concept, when determining the phonological status of speech sounds, their material properties play a decisive role.

2.1 .3 Moscow phonetic school

However, in modern linguistics there is another view on the nature of sound units - their functional load in the language is taken into account first of all. A.A. Reformatsky pointed out that “... the difference between phonemes and the identity of one phoneme to itself is determined by the functional, and not the concrete sound (articulatory and acoustic) difference or identity of the sounds that express them.” Therefore, in contrast to the LPS, representatives of the Moscow phonological school consider the phoneme to be a functional unit, the main purpose of which is to identify morphemes and words (constitutive function). Analysis of the MPS involves determining the composition of phonemes at the morpheme level and is based on the assumption that the phonemic composition of the morpheme is invariable. According to the definition of M.V. Pan's phoneme - "...is a functional phonetic unit represented by a number of positionally alternating sounds." Therefore, the MFS phoneme combines sounds that occur in different positions within the same morpheme, even in the absence of an organic connection between them. For example, in the word cat the phonemic composition can be represented as follows:< к (о,а) (т,т"д)>. However, in some cases, such an analysis does not allow us to determine all the phonemes that make up a word. For example, in the word dog The first vowel sound is always unstressed and is not included in the sequence of alternations. It is impossible to say with certainty whether this is a representative of the phonemes [o] or [a]. In such cases, IDF supporters talk about hyperphoneme. For example, M.V. Panov writes that a hyperphoneme is “a phoneme at the stage of incomplete linguistic identification” and defines it as a common part of two or more neutralized phonemes. Thus, according to the IFS, the word dog includes several phonemes and one hyperphoneme.

Let’s include in our table examples of the phonemic composition of words according to the IFS:

	<к (о, а) (т, т", д, д")>	<к (о, а) (д, д", т, т")>	<со/аб?ка>

We can conclude that the method of analysis of the Moscow school does not give the researcher the opportunity in any case to determine the full composition of phonemes of a given word.

2.2.4 Functional phonology

In functional phonology, the creator of which is N.S. Trubetskoy, the phoneme is also considered as a functional unit, but its main function is to distinguish morphemes and words. A phoneme is defined as a set of distinctive features. "A phoneme is a set of phonologically significant features characteristic of a given sound formation..."

Based on the definitions of FF, we can conclude that a word/morpheme consists of combinations of complexes of non-distinctive (irrelevant) features and complexes of distinctive (relevant) features (i.e. phonemes). However, there are many words where certain distinctive features cannot fulfill their function. Let's take an example from the Russian language with deafening of consonants at the end of words: in words cat And code the signs of voicedness and deafness are not contrasted, since voiced vowels at the end of words are replaced by voiceless ones. In FF, such situations are associated with the concepts neutralization And archphoneme.

According to Trubetskoy, in such positions there is dephonologization and replacement of two phonemes (in our example /t/ and /d/) with one archiphoneme (/T/), a unit that includes only the common features of two phonemes; in this case, the opposition of the characteristics of voicedness and deafness is neutralized. Therefore, according to FF, the words cat And code each consists of two phonemes and one archiphoneme.

Analysis of table examples using the FF method gives the following picture:

	<к (о, а) (т, т", д, д")>	<к (о, а) (д, д",т", т)>	<со/аб?ка>
			/ sab?ka /

As we see, none of the traditional phonological schools has an ideal solution to the problem of establishing the composition of the phonemes of a word. LFS supporters reject the functional approach to defining a phoneme, which violates the integrity of the morpheme; adherents of the MFS and FF recognize the impossibility of determining the phonological status of some sounds and use more broad concepts hyperphonemes or archiphonemes.

It follows from this that it is necessary to continue to search for new ways to completely solve the problem under discussion.

An attempt to solve it differently was made in the concept of systemic phonology. Its main provisions were formulated and substantiated by L.N. Cherkasov in his work “Theory of linguistic systems and systemic phonology”.

2.1 .5 Systemic phonology

In SF the phoneme is considered as a functional system differem(distinctive features). Phonemes are represented in speech sounds. The relevance of features is determined by establishing the presence of a functional connection between them and the meaning of the morpheme. For example, if in the word cat at the first sound, change the sign of velarization to the sign of palatalization ([k] > [k"]), the word /cat/ will turn into /k"ot/. The resulting combination of sounds does not correspond to any word in the Russian language. Therefore, we can conclude that the velarization feature has a functional semantic connection with the meaning of the morpheme and is a distinctive feature - a differenteme. When carrying out a complete analysis of a word and identifying all its constituent phonemes, it is necessary to establish which features of each sound in the exponent of the word support the functional semantic connection of the phoneme (expressed by this sound) with the meaning of the morpheme in which it is included, i.e., to determine all the representatives of the differemes. The definition of differemes leads to the identification of each phoneme. This method of analysis gives the researcher the opportunity to determine specific phonemes in those cases that are considered by other phonologists as hyperphonemic or archiphonemic situations. For example, if in a morpheme - code- replacing the final [t] with voicedness, as in the word codes, the meaning of the morpheme will not change, it will not turn into another and will not cease to exist. This means that the sign of voicing here retains a functional connection with the meaning of the morpheme. However, if we are in the word codes Let's replace [d]'s voicedness with deafness, we get a completely different word - cats. This means that in this morpheme, deafness has no functional connection with the meaning and is not a differentiator. According to the SF, in such cases the sounds [t] and [d] are representatives of the phoneme /d/. However, its implementation is affected language norm. A norm is defined as “a mechanism for implementing language units in speech.” As L.N. points out. Cherkasov, the norm occupies an “intermediate position between the abstract system of language and concrete speech” and “includes not only the rules for the implementation of inventory units, but also its own units that occupy an intermediate position between the abstract units of language and the concrete forms of their implementation.”

The relationship between language, norms and speech in the implementation of linguistic units can be represented as follows:

		Differemes
	Speech sounds	Phonetic features

Standard units - perenems, consisting of let's throw(phonetic features). The norm is a kind of mediator between language and speech. Depending on the position of the phoneme in a word, the norm can differently regulate its implementation in speech.

In some cases, all differentials are realized in speech without hindrance. Such positions of phonemes are defined in the SF as strong systemic and differ in that in them “the differentials of a given phoneme are fully manifested (through all kinds of oppositions), so that the phonemes are, as it were, given directly in observation.”

In other cases, the norm blocks certain differemes, replacing them with related kinemes, which, however, do not support a functional semantic connection with the meaning of the morpheme. For example, in the Russian language the norm does not allow the presence of voiced vowels at the end of words. Therefore, according to the SF, in such positions the voicing differential is blocked and replaced by a voiceless kinema. It is this kinema that is expressed in speech as a component of voiceless sounds. However, when conducting differential analysis (as in our example with cat - code) you can set a blocked voicing differential and define a “voiced” phoneme represented by a “voiceless” sound. In a word code this is the phoneme /d/, but it is in asystemic position, i.e. in a position where certain differemes are not represented in speech at all and are replaced by related kinemes.

On the contrary, in the word cat we can establish the phoneme /t/, since deafness here is a differeme (when it is replaced by voicedness, the exponent of the word is destroyed). According to the SF, phonemes in such cases stand in weak system positions, because “phonemes manifest themselves through opposition, through active relations of difference, and such relations are not found here... due to the absence of those phonemes that could enter into relations with existing phonemes.

Defining a weak systemic position helps us consider in a different way the hyperphonemic situations that representatives of the IMF speak about. In words dog,ram etc. phonemes following the first consonant cannot enter into opposition with other phonemes due to the lack of corresponding morphemes and words in the language. However, this does not make it impossible to carry out the procedure for determining the differentials of these phonemes and establishing their phonological status (in this case we are dealing with the unstressed phoneme /a/). Thus, in similar situations it is possible to determine all phonemes of a word.

Let's finish our table with examples using the SF analysis method

			dog
	<к (о,а) (т,т",д,д")>	<к (о,а) (д,д",т,т")>	<со/аб?ка>

As we can see, the approach proposed in systemic phonology allows for a more in-depth analysis of the phonemic composition of a morpheme/word and identification of specific phonemes even in cases where this is impossible from the point of view of traditional phonological schools. In addition, the analysis is based on determining the presence of a functional semantic connection between the features of a phoneme and the meaning of the word in which it is included in the exponent. Thus, the functional rather than the material properties of the phoneme are brought to the fore.

Conclusions for Chapter 2

Currently, there are two views on the phoneme: one, as it were, a view “from the outside,” when the phoneme is viewed through its implementation, the other is a view “from the inside,” when it is viewed through the foundations of its oppositions in the system.

In both cases, the phoneme is interpreted as a set, but in the first case - “as a set of manifestations, in the second - as a set of signs.” (Vinogradov) However, the point of view of Jacobson and Halle turns out to be no less legitimate: “Distinctive features are combined into bundles called phonemes,” “A phoneme is a bundle of differential elements.”

It is well known that there are many comments and objections regarding the second definition: “Reducing a phoneme to a set of differential features does not discern a qualitative difference between phonemic features and the phoneme itself. In reality, a phoneme is not a sum of individual features, but a qualitatively new phenomenon. This is an image, and like any image, a phoneme is indecomposable into individual features as basic elements. It is composed on the basis of individual characteristics and taking into account a number of other internal and external factors, including higher levels of language.” (Dukelsky)

The opinion of this author overlaps with the opinion of M.I. Matujavich and Kasevich, who rightly believe that “in reality, each phoneme of a language is a complex unity of features that, when combined, give a new quality of language” and that “a thing differs from the mechanical set of features present in its definition.” Jakobson agrees with the stated point of view: “a phoneme also cannot be considered as the result of a simple mechanical addition of the differential elements included in it. The phoneme is also a structure with certain combinatorial properties."

Conclusion

Phonological science does not stand still. Every year the world's knowledge about the phoneme is replenished with new research. International conferences are held annually in Russia, posing new questions regarding phonological problems.

Phoneme is the basic unit of the sound structure of a language, the ultimate element distinguished by the linear division of speech. The phoneme is not the simplest element, because consists of merismas (characters) that exist simultaneously. A phoneme is not a physical sound (the views of many scientists of the 19th century), not an idea of ​​sound, not its mental equivalent (early works of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, works of L.V. Shcherba, T. Benny, N.S. Trubetskoy ), not a group of related sounds (D. Jones), not a sound type (Shcherba), not a “bundle” of features (L. Bloomfield, R. Jacobson, M. Halle) and not a fiction (W. Twaddell), but first of all an element morphemes, without which the phoneme is unthinkable.

The phoneme is the object of study of phonology and morphonology. This concept plays an important role in solving such practical problems as developing Alphabets, spelling principles, etc.

List of used literature

1. Avanesov R.I., Phonetics of modern Russian literary language, M., 1979

2. Alpatov V.M. History of linguistic teachings. - M., 1998.

3. Berezin F.M. History of Russian linguistics. - M., 1979.

4. Berezin F.M. Russian linguistics of the late XIX - early XX centuries. // Reader. - M., 1981.

5. Large encyclopedic dictionary: Linguistics / Ch. ed. V.N. Yartseva. - M, 1998.

6. Vinogradov V.V. History of Russian linguistic teachings. - M., 1978.

7. Dikulina O.I. Phonetics of the English language. - M, 1997

8. Zvegintsev V.A. History of linguistics of the 19th-20th centuries in essays and extracts. - M., 1964. - Part 1; - M., 1965. - Part 2.

9. Zinder L.R., General phonetics, Leningrad, 1960

10. Klimov G. A., Phoneme and morpheme, M., 1967

11. Kodukhov V.I. General linguistics. - M., 1974.

12. Kondrashov N.A. History of linguistic teachings. - M., 1979.

13. Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary / Ch. ed. V.N. Yartseva. - M., 1990.

Similar documents

The concept of phoneme, the composition of vowel and consonant phonemes, their differential and integral features. Concept and types of phonological positions, archiphoneme and hyperphoneme, phonemic transcription. Characteristics of the phoneme theory of the Moscow phonological school.

test, added 05/23/2010


Composition of vowel phonemes in German and Belarusian languages. Classification, main characteristics of vowel phonemes in the German and Belarusian languages. General definition of vowels and phonemes. Composition of vowel phonemes in the Belarusian language. Alternation of German vowel phonemes.

course work, added 08/31/2008


Language and speech as one of the fundamental problems in stylistics. The concept of phoneme and phonological level. The concept of language as a system and levels of the language system. The concept of morphemes and their types. Suggestion how syntactic unit text. Signs of the language system.

abstract, added 02/18/2009


Characteristics of schools. Moscow Phonological School: Fortunatov F.F., Sidorov V.N., Reformatsky A.A. Kazan linguistic school: I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, Bogoroditsky V.A., Krushevsky N.V. St. Petersburg Linguistic School: Shcherba L.V., Zinder L.R.

abstract, added 10/24/2006


Phonology is a branch of linguistics that studies the sound side of language. Phoneme as a unit of language, its functions. The concept of differential features of a phoneme, the opposition of phonemes, the conditions for its implementation in speech. Distribution of phonemes. The concept of additional distribution.

lecture, added 02/21/2012


Principles of classification of speech sounds. Characteristics of basic phonetic units. The concept of phoneme as a unit of language. Orthoepic and accentological norms. Errors in the pronunciation of some grammatical forms. Rules for pronunciation of borrowed words.

abstract, added 11/17/2010


Phonetics as a branch of linguistics. Characteristics of sounds phonetic processes, phonetic division of speech. Phonology as a scientific discipline. The concept of phoneme. Morphology as a branch of grammar. Genealogical classification of languages.

cheat sheet, added 01/15/2007


Consideration of elementary, structural and systematic approaches to study the object. Examples of syntagmatic relationships between language units when used sequentially in real speech. The concept of phonemes, morphemes, lexemes (words) and sentences.

presentation, added 02/15/2013


Comparison of acoustic and articulatory features of the French phoneme /r/ and the Russian pronunciation variant /р/ (rhotacism - irregularities in the pronunciation of the sound “r”) depending on the phonetic position and speaker using the Speech Analyzer program.

course work, added 01/18/2016


Vernacular as a specific phenomenon of the Russian language from the point of view of the structural-functional approach. Objective characteristics of vernacular, its role in Russian speech. The field of implementation of vernacular speech is oral speech. Phonemes and lexical features of vernaculars.

The essence of the phonological theory underlying the present description of the phonological system of the Russian language can be briefly expressed in six formal conditions that any phonological description must satisfy.

As I proceed, I will dwell in more detail on the significance of these conditions, and consequently of the proposed theory for the description of purely phonetic facts. I will try to compare the implications of this theory with those of other phonological theories.

The completely exhaustive and generalized nature, as well as the simplicity of the “practical” consequences arising from the proposed theory, determine its expediency.

1.1. Condition (I). In phonology, speech facts are represented as sequences of units of two types: segments, which are assigned certain phonetic characteristics (both articulatory and acoustic), and boundaries, which are characterized only by the influence they have on the segments.

1.2. Condition (2). The phonetic features used to characterize segments belong to a special, narrowly delimited class of features called distinctive features. All distinctive features are binary.

Accepting condition (2) entails describing all segments in all languages ​​in terms of a limited list of properties, such as “nasality,” “voice,” “softness,” etc. With respect to this list of properties, only question: “Does this segment have a certain property?” It follows that differences between segments can only be expressed by differences between which distinctive features are included in one segment and which in another. Consequently, segments (even in different languages) can differ from each other in only a limited number of ways.

Most linguists and phoneticians believe that all human languages ​​can be characterized by a limited number of phonetic features. This point of view is expressed in one form or another in many works on general phonetics, starting from Bell’s “Visible speech”, published in 1867, and ending with Heffner’s “General phonetics”, published in 1949. However, many scientists do not agree with this opinion. They believe, in the words of one of the authors, that “languages ​​can differ from each other infinitely and in the most unexpected ways.”

It follows that condition (2) and the point given above are mutually contradictory propositions about the nature of human language and are subject to empirical verification. If a study of a wide variety of languages ​​showed that the number of different phonetic features required for phonological description increases with the number of languages ​​studied, then condition (2) would have to be rejected. If, on the contrary, such an analysis would show that as more and more languages ​​are included in the study, the number of different phonetic features slightly exceeds or does not exceed at all a certain finite small value, then condition (2) should be accepted.

Despite the fact that languages ​​have been discovered that have phonetic features that are not characteristic of Western

In languages, the number of such signs should not be exaggerated.

Studying phonetic models tested in many languages, for example, the models described in N. Trubetskoy’s book “Grundzuge der Phonologie” or in K. L. Pike’s book “Phonetics”, as well as the modified international phonetic alphabet 1PA, successfully used in England in the study of African and eastern languages, one cannot help but pay attention to the small number of phonetic features encountered (about twenty or less). Since the languages ​​described represent a very significant part of all the languages ​​of the world, it can be expected that the number of relevant phonetic features will not increase significantly as more new languages ​​begin to undergo scientific research. It therefore appears that there is no sufficient reason to reject condition (2) for this reason.

On the other hand, condition (2) entails an even stricter restriction. It requires that segments be defined using a small number of binary properties: distinctive features. Systematic studies of available material in various languages ​​have demonstrated the full suitability of the binary distinctive feature model for phonological description. So far, no examples have been given that would cast doubt on the correctness of the binary scheme. On the contrary, the extension of the binary structure to all grissigns made it possible to obtain a satisfactory explanation of some “obscure” phonetic changes and made it possible to formulate a methodology for assessing phonological descriptions.

1.8. Segments and boundaries are theoretical constructs. Consequently, they must be appropriately related to observable objects, i.e., actual facts of speech. The weakest condition imposed on the phonological description and accepted by everyone is

Condition (3). A phonological description must provide a method for obtaining (extracting) the original utterance from any phonological record without recourse to information not contained in that record.

In other words, it is assumed that it will be possible to read a phonological record regardless of whether its meaning, grammatical structure, etc. are known. Obviously, this will only be achieved when all different utterances are written in different sequences of symbols. However, it is not at all necessary to fulfill the opposite requirement, since rules can be made to ensure that several non-identical sequences of characters are read equally. For example, the character sequences (m'ok bi) and (m'og bi) would be pronounced identically if a rule were formulated that unvoiced consonants would be voiced in position before voiced consonants. However, in this case it will be impossible to determine, based only on the statement, which of two (or more) sequences of symbols is the actual representation of a given statement. Thus, in the above example, a person receiving an auditory utterance would not be able to select one of the two phonological representations of that utterance unless he had recourse to meaning or other information not contained in the signal. It follows that a given sequence of sounds must be represented by only a single sequence of symbols. Only in this case will phonological descriptions satisfy:

Condition (For). A phonological description must include rules for obtaining (extracting) an accurate phonological representation of any speech fact without recourse to information not contained in the physical signal.

1.31. There is the simplest way to construct a phonological description that would satisfy condition (3a). This method consists of creating a system of symbols in which each symbol corresponds to one sound and vice versa. If a symbol system is comprehensive in the sense that it contains a symbol for any sound, then every person familiar with the phonetic significance of symbols will be able not only to correctly read any sequence of symbols, but also to uniquely write down any utterance in the form of the corresponding sequence of symbols. It was in this way that phoneticians at the end of the last century tried to construct a recording system that would satisfy condition (3a). This is reflected in the famous slogan of the International Phonetic Association “Association Internationale de Phonetique”): “For everyone

/ sound special symbol.” However, it is well known that all attempts to put this idea into practice were unsuccessful, since they inevitably led to a seemingly endless increase in the number of symbols, since, strictly speaking, no two identical sounds exist. The only reasonable way out of this situation would be to somewhat limit the number of characters.

1.32. This idea can be formulated as:

Condition (3 a-/): Only different statements

must be written using different character sequences. The number of different characters used in all records required for this purpose should be kept to a minimum.

In other words, the requirement “for each sound there is a special symbol” was replaced by the requirement “for each utterance there is a special notation”, and a limitation was imposed on the number of symbols used for the notation. However, the restriction caused a number of difficulties. For example, in English [h] and do not occur in the same environment. According to condition (Za-1), they should be considered positional variants of one phoneme, which strongly contradicts our intuitive idea. Even more amazing is the fact that any number (facts, statements, people) can always be represented as a binary number. It follows from this that condition (3 a-1) can be satisfied in a very trivial way, which consists in adopting an alphabet consisting of only two characters. This, however, can be done without taking into account phonetic facts. Thus, one can come to the absurd conclusion that the number of phonemes in all languages ​​is the same and equal to two.

In order to overcome these difficulties, it has been proposed that positional variants of the same phoneme be considered “phonetically identical.” Unfortunately, this approach only postpones the resolution of the problem to the next stage, which is to answer the question of what is meant by the term “phonetically identical.” Apparently, this is just a modified form of another question, which is also still unanswered: what is meant when they say that two sounds are the same.

1.33. Let us now consider the influence that condition (3a) has on the phonological recording of some speech facts. In Russian, voicing

is a distinctive feature of all obstruents, except for /s/, /s/ and /x/, which do not have voiced correspondences. These three obstruents are always voiceless, except when followed by a voiced obstruent. In this position, these consonants are voiced. However, at the end of a word (this is common to all Russian noisy ones) they become voiceless, unless the next word begins with a voiced noisy word, in which case they become voiced. For example, “would it be wet?”, Hofm’og bi] “would it be wet”; “whether to burn”, but “to burn”.

If we write the above utterances in a phonological notation that satisfies both condition (3) and condition (3 a), then they would look like this: /m'ok 1,i/, /m'og bi/, /z 'ec 1,i/, /z'ec bi/ . In addition, a rule would be needed stating that obstruents that do not have voiced counterparts, i.e. /s/, /s/ and /x/, are voiced in position before voiced obstruants. However, since this rule is valid for all noisy ones, the only result of trying to satisfy conditions (3) and (3 a) will be to divide the noisy ones into two classes and establish a special rule. If condition (For) is omitted, then the four statements can be written as follows: (m'ok l,i), (m'ok bi), (2'ec l,i), (z'ec bi), and the above the rule will be extended to all noisy ones instead of (s), (s) and (x). Thus, it is obvious that condition (3a) leads to a significant complication of the notation.

Traditional linguistic descriptions have included both writing systems satisfying only condition (3) and systems satisfying conditions (3) and (3a). The first ones were usually called “morphophonemic” in contrast to the second ones, which were called “phonemic”. In linguistic description, it is impossible to do without morphophonemic notation, since only with its help can the ambiguity arising from homonymy be resolved. For example, the fact that the English phonological notation (tacks “buttons” and tax “tax”) is ambiguous is usually explained by the morphophonemic difference between “phonemically identical” utterances.

Note, however, that for the examples from the Russian language discussed above, the morphophonemic notation and the rule regarding the distribution of voicing are quite sufficient for a satisfactory description of the actual facts of speech. Consequently, phonemic recording systems constitute a certain additional level of display of speech facts, the need for which is determined only by the desire to fulfill condition (3a). If condition (3a) can be omitted, then the need for a “phonemic” notation will disappear.

1.34. Condition (3a) refers to essentially analytical operations. Analytical operations of this kind are well known in all sciences. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of chemical compounds, analysis of electrical circuits, identification of plants and animals, medical diagnosis can serve as examples of finding appropriate theoretical models for various complexes of observed objects (for example, respectively, chemical formula, arrangement of circuit elements, classification within a general scheme, name of a disease ). However, the theoretical constructs that make up the models that arise as a result of various analytical operations are postulated within individual sciences without taking into account the operations by which these constructs are abstracted from observable objects. The introduction of theoretical constructs is never based on considerations related to analytical operations.

Thus, for example, it is impossible to imagine that in chemistry substances that can be determined visually are allocated as a separate class, in contrast to substances that require the use of more complex methods for their determination. However, this is precisely the meaning of condition (3a), since it introduces a distinction between phonemes and morphophonemes, based only on the fact that phonemes can be determined on the basis of only acoustic information, and morphophonemes require additional information for their determination.

Such a serious deviation from ordinary scientific practice can only be justified if it can be shown that the differences between phonology and other sciences are so great that they make such a deviation necessary. However, this has not been proven so far. On the contrary, it is quite common to strive to emphasize the internal identity of the problems of phonology and other sciences. This suggests the conclusion that condition (3a) is an unjustified complication that has no place in the scientific description of language.

Eliminating condition (3a) does not run counter to linguistic tradition as much as it might seem at first glance. It is hardly accidental that in the phonological descriptions of E. Sapir and to some extent JI. Bloomfield's condition (For) is absent.

1.4. Condition (4): The phonological description must be appropriately incorporated into the grammar of the language. Particular attention should be paid to the phonological recording of individual morphemes. This notation should be chosen so as to provide simple rules for all grammatical operations in which morphemes may be involved (for example, inflection and word production).

In this work, grammar is considered as a certain way of identifying all sentences of a language. Therefore, it can be considered a common definition of the term "sentence in language L". In its structure, grammar resembles a system of postulates, from which theorems can be derived by applying certain rules. Every sentence in a language can be considered a theorem of a system of postulates that makes up the grammar.

The identification process begins with the symbol “Sentence”, since it is this term that is to be explicated through grammar.

In the process of identification, the specified symbol is transposed into various systems of notation, related to one another through certain rules; At each stage of identification, a sentence is written with a certain combination of symbols (not necessarily their one-dimensional sequence), which is a consequence of the application of grammar rules. In order to delimit individual characters from each other and connect them with neighboring characters, before and after each character there is special sign&. It will be shown below that these signs play an important role in the phonological recording of a sentence, since some of them are eventually transposed into phonological boundaries. The last stage of sentence identification is the transposition of the abstract notation into sound.

The rules of transposition that form a grammar can be generally represented by the formula: “replace x with y subject to z.” However, the rules differ in the type of record that results from each of them.

The differences in notation types are consequences of the restrictions imposed on the possible values ​​assumed by the variables x, y and z. The set of rules that generate a particular type of record is called a linguistic level.

The purpose of applying rules at the highest level, the so-called direct constituent level, is to obtain tree-like models that represent structure in terms of the immediate constituents of a sentence. An example of such a tree is the partial structure of a Russian sentence presented on page 309 in terms of its immediate components.

The structure of a sentence in terms of its immediate constituents is considered fully identified when, applying the listed rules, none of the symbols can be replaced by another (for example, the symbol & Subsubstantive group & cannot be replaced by any other symbol from the rules listed above).

These "non-replaceable" characters are called terminal characters, and the sequence of such characters is called a terminal string. However, since the current grammar has many more rules than in our example, the “irreplaceable” symbols in it are not actually terminal symbols of the rules of the grammar of the immediate components of the Russian language.

The rules that generate this tree are as follows:

Replace & Sentence & with & Adverb & Subject- & Ska-

groupable&

„ & Adverb & on & Adverb & -(2)

„ & Subject & on & Substance- & Im. p. & - (3)

„ & Predicate & on & Verb- & -(4)

new group

„ & Verb- & on & Verb interchange. &Additional- & -(5)

grouping

„ & Verb interchange. & on & Prefix & Base & Past.

verb time & transition - (6)

„ & Supplement & on & Substan- & Vin. p. & - (7)

Different branching points of the tree correspond to different immediate components of the sentence. Therefore, the tree displays the structure of the sentence

according to its immediate components, and the rules of the grammar of the immediate components are a formal analogue of analysis according to the immediate components. In order for the rules to generate trees of this type, it is necessary to limit them so that one rule cannot replace more than one character. This restriction also requires that a syntactic structure tree be found for each terminal chain. In addition, it becomes possible to choose a completely unambiguous path from the initial symbol & Sentence & to any other symbol (directly composing) the tree. This path is called the derivational history of the symbol.

Next, transformation level rules are applied to trees. At the transformational level, one rule can replace more than one symbol. This allows changes to be made in the recording that could not take place when applying the rules of the grammar of the components themselves. For example, you can change the order of characters in a sequence or exclude some characters altogether. In addition, transformation rules take into account the derivational history of individual characters. Therefore, it becomes possible, for example, to formulate different rules for generating the symbol & Subsubstantive group & from the symbol & Subject &, on the one hand, and for generating the same symbol & Subsubstantive group & from the symbol & Supplement &, on the other hand. It is believed (due to the involvement of the derivational history of individual symbols) that the transformation rules apply to the trees of the structure of the immediate components, and not to the terminal chains.

The last set of rules, the so-called phonological rules, involve operations on transformed terminal strings consisting exclusively of special kinds of segments and boundaries. The operations consist of the final assignment of phonetic features to the segments.

Unlike the rules of grammar that directly make up one phonological rule, it can replace more than one symbol. However, phonological rules do not take into account the derivational history of the symbols on which operations are performed.

1. 41. Up until now, we have written sentences only with symbols representing a certain class of morphemes, for example: & Subject &, & Adverb &, & Im. etc. & etc. Obviously, at some stage in the process of sentence definition, these morpheme class symbols must be replaced by actual morphemes; for example, the symbol & Adverb & must be replaced by one or another adverb of the Russian language. This replacement can be carried out at the level of the immediate components, which is carried out by applying rules like:

„replace & Adverb &

where A, B, C denote the corresponding Russian adverbs, for example, such as there, quickly, yesterday, etc. Rules of this type make up the dictionary of the language.

The choice of some morphemes is determined by the context in which they occur. For example, in Russian there is a close connection between the phonological composition of the morpheme replacing the symbol & The stem of the verb & and the choice of the present tense suffix.

In principle, a dispute is possible about what in this case is determinable and what is determining. However, in all the cases that I have studied, considerations of elementary economy require that the choice of suffix depend on the choice of stem, and not vice versa.

Similar considerations have always underlay linguistic descriptions and have been useful in establishing the distinction between lexical and grammatical morphemes. In this work, it is not possible to delve into the question of which classes of morphemes are lexical and which are grammatical. For our purposes, it is sufficient to establish that such a distinction is necessary and that lexical morphemes must be introduced into the phonological notation before grammatical morphemes.

1.42. Let us now consider how individual grammatical morphemes are introduced into phonological notation. The application of the rules of grammar of the immediate components, which until now have completely satisfied our purposes, leads in a number of cases to difficulties. Let's consider these cases. In Russian it happens that & Noun & is a homophone of & Adjective &; for example, (s, Chn,) “blue” as & Noun & and (s,’in,) “blue” as & Adjective & meaning “blue”. Moreover, both & Noun & and & Adjective & are used before grammatical morphemes of the same class, for example, before & Pn. h. & Im. P. &. Therefore, according to the rules of grammar of the immediate components and & Adjective & Pl. & Them. n. & and & Noun & Pl. ch. &, Im. n. & must give & (s,’in,) & Mn. h. & Im. P. &. Here a significant difficulty arises: &Mn. h. & Im. n. & is given different suffixes depending on what it follows, i.e. whether it comes after & Noun & or after & Adjective &. However, according to the rules of the grammar of the immediate constituents, operations that depend on the derivational history of the symbols cannot be applied to a given sequence of symbols. Therefore, it is impossible to transpose the sequence & (s,4n,) & Mn. h. & Im. p. & in two entries, i.e. in (s’,in, -i) “blue” in the case of & Noun & and (s,*in, -iji) “blue” in the case of & Adjective &.

It is possible to get out of this difficulty, apparently, by establishing additional rules for the grammar of the immediate components of the type:

Replace & Adjective & Pl. h. & Im. n. & on & Adjective & Pn. h. & Im. n. with lag. &

Replace & Noun & Pl. h. & Im. n. & on & Noun & Pl. Ch. & Im. n. creatures &.

The above rules eliminate the ambiguity contained in the restrictions operating at the level of the immediate components. However, this comes at a high price: the number of classes of grammatical morphemes increases. Instead of dealing with one class of grammatical morphemes & Im. n. &, we have to break it down into smaller classes, and the number of these classes will be very large, since homophony is observed not only between & Noun & and & Adjective &, but also between other classes.

Along with the difficulties that arise at the level of the immediate components due to the fact that several suffixes correspond to one class of grammatical morphemes, we also encounter difficulties of another kind that arise in connection with the very widespread phenomenon of “syncretism”. In linguistics, the term “syncretism” refers to the phenomenon in which one character expresses several grammatical categories, for example, case endings of nouns in Russian, along with case, usually indicate number or gender. However, the rules at the component level very strictly require that one rule replace no more than one character.

Therefore, at this level it is impossible to apply a rule like: “replace & Mn. h. & Im. p. & to & (i) &”, where two characters are immediately replaced - &Mnch. & and & Im. P. &. As a result, we can say that the morphological process of inflection cannot be included in the rules of the grammar of the immediate constituents.

A natural solution to these difficulties is to include morphology (i.e., that part of grammar that deals with the replacement of symbols for entire classes of grammatical morphemes by individual grammatical morphemes) at the transformational level, at which the two restrictions mentioned above lose their force. This solution seems especially appropriate, since it coincides with the traditional way of studying morphological processes, in which over various

individual morphemes produce different

operations depending on which class these morphemes belong to. In traditional descriptions, replacing multiple characters with one rule is common.

1.5. As already noted in § 1.41, the level of the immediate components must contain rules like:

Replace & Adverb & with there (8a)

Replace & Adverb & with yesterday (86)

Replace & Adverb & with so (8c), etc.,

i.e. lists of morphemes. However, in the scientific description of a language one cannot be content with compiling lists of all existing morphemes. Just as the syntax of a language is much more complex than an exhaustive list of all sentences, the phonological description of a language is not a simple list of morphemes. A phonological description must include a statement of structural principles, of which real morphemes are special cases.

The process of generating a given sentence involves the selection of specific morphemes that make up the sentence from a number of possible options, that is, from lists similar to rules (8a) - (8c). The choice of certain morphemes is carried out on the basis of extra-grammatical criteria. The grammar must provide rules for selecting one morpheme from a list, and these rules are introduced into the grammar from the outside (perhaps by the speaker himself). The rules must be given in the form "select rule (8a)", and the grammar interprets them as a command to replace the symbol & Adverb & with there.

Instead of writing rules in an arbitrary numerical code that does not contain any information about the phonetic structure of morphemes, it is possible to use for this purpose writing morphemes directly in terms of distinctive features, which is much more consistent with the goals of linguistic description. So, for example, instead of the command “select rule (8a)”, the grammar can be given the following command: “replace & Adverb & with a sequence of segments in which the first segment contains the following distinctive features: non-vocality, consonance, non-compactness, high pitch, non-tension, non-nasality etc.; the second segment contains distinctive features: vocality, non-consonance, non-diffusion, compactness, etc., and the third segment contains distinctive features: non-vocality, consonance, non-compactness, low tonality, non-tension, nasality, etc.”

It is convenient to represent such commands in the form of matrices, in which each vertical column contains one segment, and each horizontal row contains one distinguishing feature. Since the features are binary, a sign (+) means that a given segment has a given distinctive feature, and a sign (-) means that a given distinctive feature is absent. A similar entry is shown in table. 1-1 (see page 321).

Since the goal of the teams is to select one morpheme from the list, distinctive features and their complexes that serve to distinguish morphemes will play an important role in the teams. Distinctive features of this type and their complexes are called phonemic. Signs and sets of features distributed in accordance with general rule language and, therefore, cannot serve to distinguish morphemes from each other, are called non-phonemic.

Each phonemic feature in a segment denotes some information brought from outside. If grammar, as set out in this paper, reflects the actual functioning of language, then the commands for the selection of individual morphemes can be considered to be carried out by a conscious effort on the part of the speaker, as opposed to the implementation of various mandatory rules of the language to which the speaker of a given language obeys automatically. Since we speak quite quickly, sometimes with identification rates of up to 30 segments per second, it is reasonable to assume that all languages ​​are structured so that the number of distinctive features identified when selecting individual morphemes does not exceed some minimum value. This assumption is expressed in the following formal requirement:

Condition (5). The number of identifiable distinctive features used in a phonological notation should not exceed some minimum value necessary to satisfy conditions (3) and (4).

In the course of further presentation, we will also operate with non-phonemic features that remain unidentifiable in the phonological recording. Such unidentifiable features will be conventionally designated as zeros at the corresponding place in the matrix. Zeros are auxiliary symbols used only for convenience of presentation; they have no function in the phonological system of the language.

1.51. Some features are non-phonemic because they can be predicted based on some other features of the same segment. So, for example, in the Russian language the feature “diffusivity - non-diffusivity” is non-phonemic in relation to all sounds except vowels, i.e., it is possible to predict the distribution of this feature in all segments that are non-vocalic and (or) consonantal. Similarly, in segment (c), the feature “palatalization” can be predicted in all cases, regardless of context.

In addition to cases of non-phonemic features that do not depend on the context, in all languages ​​there are known cases of non-phonemic properties of individual features from individual segments included in special contexts. Since the application of condition (5) is not limited to individual segments, a feature must remain unidentified in the phonological notation if it is non-phonemic due to use in a particular context. Such contextual restrictions are called distributional restrictions. Consequently, with the help of condition (5), distributive restrictions are introduced as an integral part of the grammar of the language. This is a major achievement of the present descriptive scheme, since the study and description of distributional constraints has presented significant difficulties in linguistic theory.

The following examples illustrate the place of distributive restrictions in the present theory.

Example 1. Although combinations of two vowels are quite common at the junction of morphemes, within a morpheme in Russian only two vowel combinations are allowed (*/ *и\ or (*а*и), for example (pa'uk) “spider”, jkl/auz +a) “slander”, (t,i'iinj “tiun”. Thus, if it is known that the sequence of segments within a morpheme consists of two vowels, we will know in advance all the distinctive features of the second vowel, except stress, and all the distinctive signs of the first vowel, except for diffuseness and stress. Therefore, in the dictionary entry of a lexical morpheme containing such a sequence, it is necessary to indicate only the signs of vocality - non-vocality, consonance - non-consonance, stress - non-consonance, and for the first vowel also diffuseness - non-diffusion. All other signs can be are uniquely predicted; therefore, according to condition (5), they must remain unidentified

Example 2. Within a morpheme, the sign of voicing is not distinctive before noisy consonants, with the exception of (*у), which is followed by a vowel or sonorant, i.e., a nasal consonant, smooth, or glide. The voiced or unvoiced quality of a sequence of noisy sounds is uniquely determined by the last noisy sound in the sequence. If this noisy one is voiced, then the rest of the noisy ones are also voiced, but if he is deaf, then the rest are noisy, respectively, deaf. This means that in such sequences the sign of voicedness is undetectable for all noisy ones, except for the last one.

(*р *s *k) voicing 00 -

1.512. Cases in which a feature can be predicted from grammatical context rather than purely phonological factors are not, strictly speaking, distributional constraints. For example, in the Russian language there are nouns, some forms of which are characterized by the presence of stressed vowels, and others by the presence of unstressed vowels. For example, in the noun (v*al\ “shaft” in all singular forms the stress falls on the vowel of the root, and in all plural forms - on the case endings.

Thus, when writing the lexical morpheme (v*al\ in the dictionary, it is completely wrong to indicate that the vowel of the root is stressed. It would be equally incorrect to indicate that the vowel of the root is unstressed. Strictly speaking, the sign of stress cannot be determined until the grammatical context in which (v*al\) is used is not known. However, as soon as this context becomes unknown, stress will be assigned automatically, according to the rules of declension of nouns. Since in this case the sign of stress can be predicted based on other characters that are so or otherwise must be present in the record, condition (5) requires that the attribute be unidentifiable.

In cases where a feature is inferred only from certain grammatical contexts, it is necessary to resort to another description procedure. So, for example, in the Russian language, the appearance of the sign of voicing in noisy consonants at the end of a word depends on whether the noisy is voiced (except -(*£>)) or voiceless. According to this rule, it is possible to predict the voicing feature in the last segment of the word (r*og) “horn” in the nominative singular and in the accusative singular, but not in other cases. Consequently, when writing this lexical morpheme, it is necessary to indicate the voicing characteristic of the last noisy consonant.

1.52. In the Russian language there are a number of stems, the forms of which can have a fluent vowel. Wherever these "alternations cannot be predicted from other (i.e. grammatical or phonological) factors, they should be indicated when recording the morpheme in the dictionary. This is done by means of a symbol, which is inserted at the place of the word where the fluent appears vowel, for example: jt'ur#k) “Turk”, but (p'arkj- “park”; cf. corresponding forms named after singular (t'urok) and (p'ark) and gender. n. units (t'urk+a) and (p'ark+a).

Klagstad has shown that, with a few exceptions that can be listed separately, vowel features # can be determined from context. Consequently, # can be characterized by signs of vocality and non-consonance; instead of other signs there will be zeros, i.e. # is a vowel without indicating the distinctive features of the vowels.

So, lexical morphemes are written in the dictionary in the form of two-dimensional tables (matrices), in which the vertical rows correspond to segments, and the horizontal rows correspond to distinctive features. Since all features are binary, they are identified by a plus or a minus. Wherever a feature can be predicted from context, this is reflected in the record - the corresponding places in the matrix remain unidentifiable. Table I-1 shows a similar sentence record, the analysis of which at the level of its components was given in § 1.4.

1.53. It is now necessary to study in more detail the types of segments that can be included in matrices representing various morphemes. Let us define the following order relation between segment types: we will assume that a segment type (L) differs from a segment type (B) if and only if at least one feature that is phonemic in both types has a meaning in (L) that is different from (5), i.e., plus in (L) and minus in (B), or vice versa.

Sign 1 + - + (L) “does not differ

Sign 20 + -

Sign 1 + - - All three types of segments

Comrade "various":

Sign 20+

The set of all types of segments that occur in matrices and represent morphemes of a language is called the set of fully identifiable morphonemes. Because fully identifiable morphonemes serve to distinguish one morpheme from another, they are analogous to "phonemes" and "morphophonemes" in other linguistic theories. We will write fully identifiable morphonemes with straight letters in curly brackets (()).

Like other types of segments that occur in phonological notation, fully identifiable morphonemes are subject to condition (5), which requires that the number of identifiable features be minimal. It can be shown that imposing such a constraint on the set of fully identifiable morphemes is equivalent to requiring that the matrix consisting of the set of fully identifiable morphonemes be represented as a tree. And if each branch point corresponds to a specific feature, and the two branches extending from each point represent the plus and minus values ​​​​accepted by the feature, then the path from the starting point to the terminal point of the tree will uniquely define a fully identifiable morphoneme. Since such a diagram takes into account only phonemic,

Tab. I - 1. Recording the sentence given in § 1.4, after how the choice of lexical morphemes was made*

i.e., identifiable features, then fully identifiable morphonemes are uniquely determined by pluses and minuses, without taking into account unidentifiable features.

The ability to depict a matrix of distinctive features in the form of a tree indicates the presence in the matrix of at least one feature that is identified in all segments. This feature corresponds to the first branching point and divides all types of segments into two classes. Each of the next two branch points corresponds to a feature identified in all segments of one of the two subclasses. These signs may be the same or different. Thus, all types of segments are already divided into four subclasses, with each of which you can again perform the above operation, etc. If a subclass contains only one type of segments, this type is completely identifiable, and the path along the tree describes the composition of the distinguishing features of this type segments.

Thus, representing a matrix as a tree is equivalent to establishing a certain hierarchy of features. However, such a hierarchy may not be complete. For example, if in a phonological system (see Table I-3) two features are completely identifiable, then any order of arrangement of these features will be satisfactory. A number of examples are discussed below, of which the penultimate one illustrates the partial ordering of features according to various criteria. The existence of a hierarchy of features confirms our intuition that not all features have equal weight in a given phonological system, for example, the distinction between vowels and consonants is more fundamental for various phonological systems than the distinction between nasal and non-nasal vowels or voiced and voiceless consonants.

The following examples depict matrices as tree diagrams. Under some conditions, matrices can be represented as a tree, but under others they cannot. These and other conditions are discussed below.

The matrices of some segment types cannot be represented as a tree. For example, the matrix below cannot be converted to a tree because it does not have a fully identifiable feature (i.e., a feature that does not take the value “null”).

On the left side of the tree resulting from this matrix, feature 2 precedes feature 3, and on the right side, feature 3 precedes feature 2.

I have not been able to determine whether similar cases occur in natural languages.

Due to the fact that the ordering of features is free, several trees can be obtained from one matrix that meet the above requirements.

In this case, when choosing one of these trees, you can be guided by condition (5), which gives preference to a tree with a more symmetrical shape. To illustrate, we give an example from a particular system (similar to the phonological system of the Russian language), where various models are possible:

Obviously, the second model is more parsimonious, since it contains more zeros, which is reflected in the greater symmetry of the second tree.

In Fig. I-1 phonological system of the language is presented in the form of a “tree”. Different paths along the tree from the first branching point to the terminal points define different fully identifiable morphonemes.

It will be shown below that segment types defined by paths starting from the first branch point and ending at intermediate points, that is, segment types that are “not different” from several fully identifiable morphonemes, play an important role in the functioning of language. We will call such types of segments incompletely identifiable morphonemes and denote them with asterisks for the corresponding fully identifiable morphonemes. It should be noted that a feature identified in a fully identifiable morphoneme may not be identified in an incompletely identifiable morphoneme only if all the features located in the hierarchy of the tree below this one are also unidentifiable.

1.54. It follows from condition (5) that only phonemic features are identified in the phonological recording. However, in a real utterance there cannot be unidentifiable features.

Languages ​​differ from one another in what position jephoemic features occupy in them. For some non-phonemic features there are certain rules for their phonetic implementation, for others there are no such rules, and their implementation in each specific case depends on the speaker. It is this difference that underlies the opposition between so-called allophones and free variants of phonemes.

Non-phonemic features, as free variants, cannot be properly included in linguistic description. From the point of view of such a description, the only interest is that they are free options. However, this information can be conveyed simply by omitting any mention of the characteristics of interest to us. Thus, if the further description does not contain any information about the implementation of a certain feature in a certain context, this will mean that this feature is a free option.

1.55. The rules of grammar constitute a partially ordered system. Therefore, it seems quite appropriate to study what place in this hierarchy belongs to the rules that determine the non-phonemic distribution of features. In this work, such rules will be called “F-rules”. Let us recall that at the level of the directly composing symbols, lexical morphemes are replaced by sequences of segments consisting of distinctive features (matrices). However, at this level, the symbols of grammatical morpheme classes remain unchanged in the record (see Table I-1). Only after applying the transformational rules of inflection and word production will the symbols of classes of grammatical morphemes (for example, “Past tense”, “Singular”, etc.) be replaced by their phonological sequences that are derived from them. Because transformation rules introduce additional segments of distinctive features into the record, and also modify previously introduced segments, placing F-rules before transformations may entail applying some rules twice: once before the last transformation rules and a second time after the last transformation rule. So, for example, according to the transformational rules for the declension of nouns in the Russian language, & (іь "ап) & Singular & Dan. p. & is replaced by (iv"anu). If the rules according to which non-phonemic features are assigned to unstressed vowels are applied before this transformation, then the same rules will need to be applied again during the transformation or to identify all non-phonemic features in () in some other way. Therefore, apparently, it is most appropriate to place all the rules governing the distribution of non-phonemic features after the transformation rules. However, for a number of reasons it is desirable that some F-rules be applied before transformations, even if this entails the difficulties described above.

For the Russian language, as well as for many other languages, the position is true, perhaps not universal, according to which for the correct functioning of some transformation rules, especially the rules of inflection and word production, it is necessary that certain features be identified in the record regardless of on whether these features are phonemic.

So, for example, for the correct application of the rules of Russian conjugation, information is needed about whether the verb stem ends in a vowel sound. In the third segment of the stem of the verb “tear”, the signs “vocality - non-vocality” and “consonance - non-consonance” are non-phonemic, since in the Russian language in morphemes starting with a sequence of segments, of which the first is smooth, and the second is consonant, the third the segment must be a vowel (see § 2.161, rules of morphological structure; rule 1c). Thus, according to condition (5), the phonological notation of the morpheme in question should look like this:

vocality - non-vocality + - O

consonance - non-consonance + + O

However, since the distinctive features of the third segment remain unidentifiable, it cannot be determined whether this segment is a vowel. Therefore, it is impossible to determine the correct conjugation of this verb stem. However, if the F-rule, according to which these non-phonemic features are identified (morphological structure rule 1c), is applied before the transformation, then these difficulties are easily eliminated. Since this example is no exception, we have concluded that at least some F-rules must be applied before transformation rules, regardless of the difficulties that this poses.

1.56. The considerations discussed above led us to the conclusion that it is necessary to divide all F-rules into two groups. One group includes morphological structure rules (MS-rules), which must be applied before transformations, the other group includes phonological rules (P-rules), applied after transformations. Naturally, the question arises of how to establish which F-rules are included in the MS-npa-rules group, and which are included in the P-rules group. For the Russian language the following criterion is quite satisfactory.

The rules of morphological structure must ensure that all segments appearing in a recording are either fully or incompletely identifiable morphonemes.

In other words, the set of segment types resulting from applying the rules of morphological structure is determined by all possible paths along the tree, starting from the first branch point. As noted in § 1.53, this limits the number of features that can remain unidentified: some non-phonemic features must now be identified. This result is precisely the desired one, since, as was shown in the previous section, if some limitation on the number of unidentifiable features is not introduced in this place, it will be impossible to correctly apply the transformational rules of inflection and word production.

It should be noted that incompletely identified morphonemes, according to the terminology of the Prague school, are analogues of “archiphonemes”. Although Trubetskoy defined “archiphonemes” as “a set of semantically distinctive features common to two phonemes,” in his linguistic practice he operated with “archiphonemes” in which more than one feature was neutralized (unidentifiable); see his “Das morphonologische System der russischen Sprache”.

Let us add to this that the rules of morphological structure provide for the application of transformational rules of Russian morphology to incompletely identifiable morphonemes, which are basically identical to the “archiphonemes” postulated by Trubetskoy in his work mentioned above.

1.57. The need to separate F-rules into two groups and apply MS-rules before transformations is made even more obvious by the fact that in many languages ​​there are significant differences between the restrictions imposed on sequences of segments within individual morphemes and the restrictions imposed on sequences of segments in general, without taking into account their division into morphemes. For example, in the Russian language, only very few vowel sequences are allowed within individual morphemes, while at the junctions of morphemes almost any combination of two vowels is possible. In other words, in vowel combinations within morphemes, many features are non-phonemic and should therefore remain unidentifiable in the recording.

Many of the rules that identify these non-phonemic features can only be applied if the individual morphemes are delimited from each other. However, during transformations, it is possible to regroup the symbols in such a way that individual morphemes are no longer delimited. An example of this is the phenomenon of “syncretism” mentioned above. Another example is the so-called "interrupted morphemes", especially characteristic of Semitic languages. “Interrupted morphemes” are also found in many Indo-European languages, including Russian. For example, in the neuter adjective (p’ust+o) “empty” the feature “Neuter” is expressed by the fact that the stress falls on the stem and the ending (-fo). Since the delimitation of morphemes can disappear during transformations, F-rules, which require information about the beginning and end of a morpheme for their application, must be applied before transformations.

1.58. After applying the rules of morphological structure, all segments appearing in the recording represent either fully or incompletely identifiable morphonemes. Since morphonemes are uniquely defined along different paths on the tree representing the phonological system of a language, it becomes possible to replace the matrices in which various lexical morphemes are written with linear sequences of pluses and minuses, provided that a special symbol (in our case an asterisk) will indicate the place where the identification of incompletely identifiable morphonemes. No symbol is required to indicate the end of the identification of fully identifiable morphonemes, as this is determined automatically. In the following example, a space is inserted in these places to make it easier to read. However, unlike an asterisk, a space is a redundant character and cannot be entered into a record.

After applying the rules of morphological structure, the sentence presented in Table. I-1, can be written as follows:

The meaning of the + and - signs in this entry must be established using a tree depicting the phonological system of the Russian language (see Figure I-1). Pluses and minuses are commands that order you to scan the tree from top to bottom, always starting from the first branch point. In this case, the pluses indicate the need to select the right branch, and the minuses indicate the need to select the left branch. After selecting the terminal point of the tree or the point indicated in the entry with an asterisk, the process begins again, from the first branch point. This procedure allows us to establish, for example, that the first segment of the recording given above is an incompletely identifiable morphoneme, defined by the distinctive features of “non-vocality, consonance, non-compactness, low tonality, tension.”

1.581. An important consequence follows from the inclusion of incompletely identifiable morphonemes in the recording. Rao-

We look at the noun (*/*es) “forest” 81, in which in the plural and in the 2nd locative case of the singular the stress falls on the case endings, and in all other cases of the singular - on the vowel of the stem. In light of what is stated in § 1.512, the genitive singular form will be written as (*l’es+a), and the plural nominative form will be written as (*les+’a). However, since (*les+'a) and (l,is+'a) "fox" (like unstressed (e) and (1) in all cases) are homophones, it is necessary to add a rule that would contain the statement that unstressed ( e) goes into [i], or another similar statement in terms of distinctive features. However, in this way we include unstressed (e) (as well as unstressed (o)) in the phonological system of the language, although these complexes of distinctive features are not used to distinguish utterances. This is a direct violation of condition (For-I), which specifically stipulates the impossibility of such a step. Since condition (Za-1) was rejected by us as a requirement for phonological recording, such a violation is completely justified. However, it should be noted that there is an alternative to violating the condition. (For-1), which consists in establishing several entries for all lexical morphemes containing a vowel sound (*e). So, for example, in this case (*l*es) would have to be written as /1,’es/ and /l,is-/, which undoubtedly complicates the recording in an undesirable way.

1. 6. Above, in § 1. 42, it was noted that after applying transformation rules, including the rules of word production and inflection, the sentence record will consist only of phonological symbols, i.e. morphonemes and boundaries. Symbols for grammatical morpheme classes will be replaced by the phonological sequences that are derived from them, and the symbol # (a vowel alternating with a zero) will either be represented by a vowel or excluded from the notation. As a result, only the & character remains unidentified.

Condition (6): The symbols &, according to the rules of morphology, are transposed into phonological boundaries or excluded from the notation.

A precise description of the transposition process is part of the morphology of language and therefore cannot be given in detail here. In this study we will only list all types of boundaries and all the contexts in which they occur.

In the Russian language, there are five types of boundaries, which are indicated by the following symbols:

1) The boundary of a phonemic syntagm is indicated by a vertical bar |.

2) The word boundary is indicated by a space or, in cases where ambiguity may arise, by the % symbol.

3) The boundaries of prefixes and prepositions are indicated by the = symbol.

4) Some endings are preceded by a special symbol 4, sometimes in the same cases, to avoid confusion, the symbol § is placed.

5) The boundaries of morphemes in abbreviations like (p’art-b,i* l’et) “party card” are indicated by the symbol - (dash).

Since the & symbol only transposes across these five kinds of phonological boundaries, all & symbols that do not match any of these kinds are eliminated from the entry. If during the presentation it becomes necessary to somehow indicate these junctions of morphemes, then for this purpose the sign (-) (hyphen) will be used, which, however, is not a symbol in the phonological notation.

1.7. Now we can continue to identify the sentence we took as an example. After applying the transformation rules of the language, we get the following entry:

This is the phonological notation of a sentence, since it includes only morphonemes and boundaries, and all the rules necessary to transpose this notation into sound describe only the effects of different configurations of distinctive features and/or boundaries on individual complexes of distinctive features.

Phonological rules can be formulated in such a way that there is no need to refer to the derivational history of morphonemes and boundaries. This requires the existence of a strict sequence in the application of the rules. If the rules are not ordered, their structure will become significantly more complex, then it will be necessary to turn to the derivational history of symbols.

To illustrate, consider the following example. In Russian, all smooth and paired consonants are softened before (*e). In addition, unstressed (e) becomes diffuse, i.e. [i]. The easiest way to present these facts is as follows.

Rule A: Before (*e), smooth and paired consonants are softened.

Rule B: Unstressed (e) becomes diffuse.

However, if you apply rule B first, then rule A will need to be replaced by rule A":

Rule A": Before (’e[ and before [i], which comes from (e), smooth and paired non-compact consonants are softened.

Obviously, Rule A is simpler than Rule A." However, Rule A can only be applied if the order in which the rules are to be applied is established.

Table I-2 shows the functioning of the phonological rules of the Russian language in relation to the sentence we took as an example.

At the initial stage, each morphoneme is written as a set of distinctive features, which are interpreted using a tree (Fig. I-1), displaying

taken for illustration purposes (See 1.4 and

phonological structure of the Russian language. Further, after applying individual phonological rules, morphonemes are modified. Since only some P-rules are needed in our example, not all of these rules are shown in Table. I-2. The rule P 1 b is applied first, attributing the sign of voicing to morphonemes in which this feature is unidentifiable. Next, rule R-2 applies. The table shows how this rule works. Subsequent rules are applied strictly in numerical order until the list of rules is exhausted. As a result, we get a so-called “narrow” transcription of a sentence, which can be directly translated into sound:

3 1 2 3 3 1 4 2 1 4

| fcira | p,jani-jbrad,ag31Szokcerkaf, |

“Yesterday a drunken tramp burned down the church.” The numbers above the vowel symbols indicate the degree of intensity of their pronunciation (dynamic amplification): 1 - the highest degree of intensity, 4 - the lowest degree of intensity.

In principle, phonological rules would have to be applied until all the distinctive features of all segments have been identified, and these rules should also provide for a description of the cases in which a given feature is a free variant. Then it would be necessary, for example, to have a rule stating that all sonorants in Russian are always voiced (with rare exceptions like (o*kt, ’abr,*skoj) “Oktyabrskaya”, where (g,) is often voiced). However, such rules are not included in this description. Since such facts often turn out to be controversial, we decided that the value of such additional details would be very small.

2. Phonological system of the Russian language

When conducting phonological analysis, the question always arises to what extent the proposed analysis scheme takes into account the available data. In the description it is absolutely impossible to list all the phonological features of the speech of even one person, since he can use features characteristic of other dialects and even foreign languages ​​(for example, a person speaking Russian can distinguish between nasal and non-nasal vowels in some (French) expressions, forming an integral part of that person’s colloquial vocabulary). If we try to take such facts into account, it becomes obvious that a systematic phonological description is not feasible. It therefore seems advisable to treat such cases as deviations and place them in special sections, and limit the main part of the grammar to those facts that can be described systematically. IN this description a variant of the Russian language is considered, basically identical to the version described in such well-known works on the Russian language as the recently published academic “Grammar of the Russian language” and the dictionary of Russian literary pronunciation edited by R. I. Avanesov and S. I. Ozhegov.

The so-called “literary” variant of the Russian language described in these works allows for the existence of variants for some phonological features. The present description has attempted to take these variations into account. It is interesting to note that such deviations do not affect the phonological recording of utterances, but rather the order of arrangement and content of phonological rules that transpose the phonological recording into sound.

2.1. Morphonemes. In Fig. I-1 presents a tree displaying morphonemes of the Russian language. This scheme served as the basis for compiling a matrix of distinctive features (Table I-3). The system includes 43 morphonemes; they are identified by 271 commands, each of which indicates the presence or absence of one or another distinguishing feature (+ or - in Table I-3 or branches in Figure I-1). Thus, 6.3 commands are spent on identifying one morpheme. Condition (5) requires that the number of commands used in the entry be minimal. In order to understand how much

Rice. I-1. Diagram of a tree displaying morphonemes of the Russian language. The numbers standing at the branching ducks correspond to the following distinctive features: 1. Vocality - non-vocality. 2. Consonance - non-consonance. 3. Diffusion - non-diffusivity. 4. Compactness - non-compactness. 5. Low tonality - high tonality. 6. Tension - non-tension. 7. Nasality - non-nasality. 8. Continuity - discontinuity. 9. Voicedness - deafness. 10. Softness - hardness. I. Impact - non-impact. The left branches correspond to the minuses, the right ones to the pluses.

If our circuit completely satisfies condition (5), we can compare the above figure with log 2 43 = 5.26 (5.26 is the lower limit achieved by reducing the number of commands to a minimum). It must be emphasized that this comparison must be approached with caution: the sole purpose in this case is to show that the process of reducing teams led to very satisfactory results.

Based on the Saussurean division of “longue” and “parole”, Trubetskoy N.S. creates his own phonological theory, based on the division of the science of sounds into phonology and phonetics: as a field of study of sounds from a physiological-acoustic point of view. Phonology, the subject of which is not sounds, but units of sound structure - phonemes. Phonetics refers to language as a system. Thus, phonetics and phonology, from Trubetskoy’s point of view, are two independent disciplines: the study of speech sounds is phonetics, and the study of sounds is phonology.

The only task of phonetics, according to Trubetskoy, is to answer the question: How is this or that sound pronounced?

Phonetics is the science of the material side (sounds) of human speech. And since, according to the author, these two sciences of sounds have different objects of study: specific speech acts in phonetics and the language system in phonology, then different research methods should be applied to them. To study phonetics it was proposed to use purely physical methods natural sciences, and for the study of phonology - linguistic methods themselves.

In establishing the concept of phoneme - the basic phonological unit - N.S. Trubetskoy highlights its semantic-distinguishing function. Thus, the sounds that are the subject of phonetics research have a large number of acoustic and articulatory features. But for the phonologist, most features are completely unimportant, since they do not function as distinctive features of words. The phonologist must take into account only that which, in the composition of a sound, performs a specific function in the language system. In his opinion, since sounds have a distinguishing function and have significance, they should be considered as an organized system, which, in terms of the order of its structure, can be compared with a grammatical system.

From the point of view of the Prague School, phonemes are truly unpronounceable. Being a scientific abstraction, phonemes are realized in different shades or variants that are pronounced. But the phoneme itself, as an abstract unity of all shades, is truly unpronounceable. Trubetskoy writes: specific sounds heard in speech are rather only material symbols of phonemes... Sounds are never phonemes themselves, since a phoneme cannot contain a single phonologically unimportant feature, which is actually not inevitable for the sound of speech (Amirova T.A. , 2006).

The most comprehensive and systematic views of representatives of the Prague School in the field of phonology are presented in the work of N.S. Trubetskoy “Fundamentals of Phonology,” which represents only the first part of a comprehensive work conceived by the author.

In 1921, Trubetskoy was the first in the history of Slavic studies to propose a periodization of common Slavic proto-language history, dividing it into four periods. To the first period, he attributed the era of the collapse of the Indo-European proto-language and the separation of a certain group of “Proto-Slavic” dialects from among its dialects, explaining that “in this era, Proto-Slavic phenomena mostly spread to several other Indo-European dialects, especially often to Proto-Baltic, to which Proto-Slavic is closer Total. The second period can be characterized as an era of complete unity of the “common Slavic proto-language”, completely isolated from other descendants of the Indo-European dialects, which did not have any connections with these dialects. general changes and at the same time devoid of dialect differentiation. The third period should include the era of the beginning of dialect stratification, when, along with general phenomena covering the entire Proto-Slavic language, local phenomena arose that spread only to certain groups of dialects, but they did not numerically prevail over general phenomena. In addition, during this period the dialect groups themselves “have not yet had time to establish final strong connections with each other (for example, the West Slavic group as a single whole does not yet exist, but instead there are two groups - the Proto-Lusatian-Lechitic, stretching to the east, and the Proto-Czechoslovak, pulling to the south). The fourth period is the era of the end of dialect fragmentation, when general phenomena arise much less frequently than dialectical phenomena, and groups of dialects turn out to be more durable and differentiated.

N.S. Trubetskoy was one of the first to substantiate the need for a three-fold approach to the comparative study of languages: the first - historical-genetic, the second - areal-historical (language unions, language zones), the third typological - and showed their application in a number of his works, among which the final work on general phonological typology. In this area, in addition to many universals (they were later studied by J. Greenberg and other scientists), N.S. Trubetskoy identified a number of more particular, local patterns. Thus, in the same article on the Mordovian and Russian phoneme systems, he demonstrated an important phonological principle, according to which the similarity of the inventory of phonemes does not determine the similarity of their phonological functions and combinatorial capabilities. The latter in the Mordovian language are completely different than in Russian.

Although the interests of the young Trubetskoy lay in the plane of ethnography, folklore and comparison of Ural, “Arctic” and especially North Caucasian languages. He, according to his autobiographical notes, nevertheless decided to choose Indo-European studies as a university subject, since this is the only well-developed area of ​​linguistics. After studying at the philosophy department and at the department of Western European literature, where he spent a year (since the 1909/10 academic year), N. S. Trubetskoy studied at the then newly created department of comparative linguistics (primarily Sanskrit and Avestan).

At the same time, understanding phonology as “the study of the sounds of a language, common and constant in the consciousness of its speakers,” and phonetics as the study of the particular manifestation of the sounds of a language in speech that has a one-act character.

Trubetskoy speaks about the relationship between both of these components of the doctrine, because without concrete speech acts there would be no language. He considers the speech act itself as establishing a connection between the Saussurean signified and the signifier.

Phonology is considered as a science that studies the signifier in a language, consisting of a certain number of elements, the essence of which is that they, differing from each other in sound manifestations, have a meaning-distinguishing function. And also the question of what are the relationships of distinctive elements and by what rules they are combined into words, phrases, etc. Most of the features of the sound itself are not significant for the phonologist, since they do not function as semantically distinctive features. Those. it is the study of the system of language that underlies all speech acts.

Phonetics examines physical, articulatory one-act phenomena. The methods of natural sciences are more suitable for her. For her, the main questions are: How to pronounce a sound, which organs are involved. Those. is the science of the material side of the sounds of human speech.

It should be noted that not all representatives of the Prague linguistic school shared exactly this opinion about the relationship between these two disciplines. N.B. Trnka believed that “the phonetician presupposes a linguistic system and strives to study its individual actualization, while the phonologist investigates what is functional in individual speech and establishes elements determined by their relation to the whole linguistic system.” That is, thus, the main difference between phonology and phonetics for Trnka was the different direction of their research.

Returning to the solution to this problem in “Fundamentals of Phonology”, it must be said that Trubetskoy defines three aspects in sound: “expression”, “address”, “message”. And only the third, representative, belongs to the sphere of phonology. It is divided into three parts, the subject of which is respectively: culminating language function (indicating how many units, i.e. words, phrases are contained in a sentence), delimitation function (indicating the boundary between two units: phrases, words, morphemes) and distinctive or meaningful, found in the explicative aspect of language. Trubetskoy recognizes the semantic-discriminating function as the most important and necessary for phonology, assigning a special section to it.

The main concept for distinguishing meaning in Trubetskoy is the concept of opposition - opposition on a semantic basis. Through phonological opposition, the concept of a phonological unit (“member of a phonological opposition”) is defined, which in turn is the basis for the definition of a phoneme (“the shortest phonological unit, the decomposition of which into shorter units is impossible from the point of view of a given language”).

The main internal function of the phoneme is its semantic function. A word is understood as a structure recognizable by the listener and the speaker. The phoneme is a semantically distinctive feature of this structure. The meaning is revealed through the combination of these features corresponding to a given sound formation.

Trubetskoy introduces the concept of phoneme invariance. Those. the pronounced sound can be considered as one of the variants of the implementation of the phoneme, because in addition to semantic ones, it also contains signs that are not such. Thus, a phoneme can be realized in a number of different sound manifestations.

1) If in a language two sounds in the same position can replace each other, and at the same time the semantic function of the word remains unchanged, then these two sounds are variants of the same phoneme.

2) And accordingly, on the contrary, if when replacing sounds in one position, the meaning of the word changes, then they are not variants of the same phoneme.

3) If two acoustically related sounds never occur in the same position, then they are combinatorial variants of the same phoneme.

4) If two acoustically related sounds never occur in the same position, but can follow each other as members of a sound combination. In a situation where one of these sounds can occur without the other, then they are not variants of the same phoneme.

Rules 3 and 4 regarding cases where sounds do not occur in the same position are relevant to the problem of identifying phonemes, i.e. to the question of reducing a number of mutually exclusive sounds into one invariant. Thus, here the decisive factor for assigning different sounds to one phoneme is a purely phonetic criterion. Those. The interconnection of these sciences is revealed.

In order to establish the full composition of phonemes of a given language, it is necessary to distinguish not only a phoneme from phonetic variants, but also a phoneme from a combination of phonemes, i.e. whether a given segment of a sound stream is a realization of one or two phonemes (syntagmatic identification). Trubetskoy formulated the rules of monophonemicity and polyphonemicity. The first three represent phonetic prerequisites for the monophonemic interpretation of a sound segment. A sound combination is monophonemic if:

1) its main parts are not distributed over two syllables;

2) it is formed through one articulatory movement;

3) its duration does not exceed the duration of other phonemes of a given language.

The following describe the phonological conditions for the single-phonemic significance of sound combinations (potentially single-phonemic sound complexes are considered to be actually single-phonemic if they behave like simple phonemes, that is, they occur in positions that otherwise allow only single phonemes) and the multiphonemic significance of a simple sound.

A very significant place in Trubetskoy’s phonological system is occupied by his classification of oppositions. This was generally the first experience of this kind of classification. The criteria for the classification of phonological compositions were:

1) their attitude to the entire system of oppositions;

2) relations between members of the opposition;

3) the volume of their distinctive ability.

According to the first criterion, oppositions are in turn divided according to their “dimensionality” (qualitative criterion) and according to their occurrence (quantitative criterion).

According to the qualitative relation to the entire system of oppositions, phonological oppositions are divided into one-dimensional (if the set of features inherent in both members of the opposition is not inherent in any other member of the system) and multidimensional (if the “bases for comparison” of two members of the opposition extend to other members of the same system) . Quantitatively, oppositions are divided into isolated (members of the opposition are in a relationship that is not found in any other opposition) and proportional (the relationship between the members is identical to the relationship between the members of another or other oppositions).

On relations between members of the opposition:
Private oppositions: one member of the opposition is characterized by the presence, and the other - by the absence of the attribute: [d] - [n] - everything is the same, except for nasality.

Gradual - the sign is graded: the degree of rise in vowels.

Equivalent (equivalent), where each of the members of the opposition is endowed with an independent characteristic: [p] - [w] - one is labial-labial, the other is labial-dental.

Constant and neutralized oppositions: [voiceless] - [voiced] in Russian - neutralized opposition (the phenomenon of deafening - voicing), and in German and English these oppositions are constant.

As special section“Word phonology” The Prague linguistic school distinguishes morphonology, the object of study of which is the phonological structure of morphemes, as well as combinatorial sound modifications to which morphemes undergo in morpheme combinations, and sound alternations that perform a morphemic function.

Along with the synchronic description of phonemes, the Prague people tried to determine the foundations of diachronic phonology, based on the principles:

1) not a single phoneme change can be accepted without referring to the system;

2) every change in the phonological system is purposeful.

Thus, de Saussure's thesis about the insurmountability of barriers between synchrony and diachrony was refuted.

About admission to bachelor's degree to the Faculty of Philology

General information about admission to master's degree to the Faculty of Philology

general informationabout admission topostgraduate and doctoral studiesto the Faculty of Philology.

• The specialties “Phonetics and Speech Communication” and “Speech Technologies” have existed since 1998, and as an independent department - since 2003.
• The educational program is carried out by teachers of the Department of Phonetics and Methods of Teaching Foreign Languages ​​and employees of the Laboratory of Experimental Phonetics of the Faculty of Philology.
• The department trains specialists in a promising field - analysis and automatic processing of oral speech.
  This is one of the few scientific and applied areas in which our specialists not only meet the world level, but are often ahead of it.

Graduate professional competencies

• Bachelor's degree in Linguistics

  Profile “General and applied phonetics” Knowledge of general phonetics, mechanisms of speech production and perception, the ability to use this knowledge in teaching the phonetics of a foreign language, in researching the sound structure of various languages.
  Good command of English (at least level B2 in accordance with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages) and French (at least level B1 in accordance with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages).
  Good knowledge of the International Phonetic Alphabet, skills in its use when transcribing audio material both in Russian and in other languages.
  Knowledge of modern means and methods of acoustic, perceptual and statistical analysis of speech material.
  Good command of modern computer technology.
  

• Master's degree in Linguistics, Theoretical and Applied Linguistics

  profile "Phonetics and speech communication"
  Knowledge of general phonetics, mechanisms of speech production and perception in speech ontogenesis and in the interference of sound systems, the ability to use this knowledge in teaching the phonetics of a foreign language, in researching the sound structure of various languages, various types speech, regional and dialectal variation at the phonetic level.
  Knowledge of methods and means of statistical and automated processing of speech data when solving research problems.
  

• profile "Phonetics and speech technologies"

  Knowledge of general phonetics, mechanisms of speech production and perception, the ability to use this knowledge in modeling the speech flow for tasks of automatic speech synthesis and recognition.
  Knowledge of modern methods of automatic speech synthesis and recognition, the ability to apply this knowledge when creating individual modules of such systems.
  Ability to use digital speech signal processing methods to automatically extract useful features from an acoustic signal and to modify its physical characteristics.
  Ability to solve assigned research problems both independently and when working in a team.

• ​ The international cooperation

Over the entire existence of the training program in phonetics and speech technologies, more than 50 specialists have been trained.

Of these, the following work in their specialty:

abroad 12,

in private and public organizations

St. Petersburg – 24,

in total, 65% of our graduates are engaged in professional activities using their qualifications.

During their studies, many of them had internships in various educational and scientific centers in France, Germany, Spain, Holland, Finland, Greece, the Czech Republic, the USA, etc.

Phonology (from the Greek phōnē - sound + logos - word, doctrine) is a branch of linguistics that studies the sound side of language in its functional significance, in other words, the theory of phonemes.

The central place in phonology is occupied by the doctrine of the phoneme as the shortest (indivisible in time) unit of the sound side of language, which has a distinctive (distinctive, meaningful) ability (lom, lump, rum, tom, catfish, etc.).

General phonology deals with the analysis of the essence of a phoneme, clarification of the relationship between the phoneme as a sound unit and the sounds that represent the phoneme in the stream of speech, on the one hand, and between the phoneme and morpheme, phoneme and word, on the other. It establishes principles and methods (rules) for determining the composition (inventory) of phonemes of a language, as well as the oppositions in which they are found, and the connections that exist between individual phonemes or their groups, which make up a unified system of phonemes - the phonological, or phonemic, system .

The scope of the concept of “phonology” is defined differently in different linguistic schools.

However, any of them deals with the variability of the phoneme, establishes a system of phonemes and their modifications.

Phonology originated in Russia in the 70s. XIX century Its founder was I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, who introduced the concept of “phoneme” (unit of language), contrasting it with the concept of “sound” (unit of speech).

The successor of the ideas of the scientist of the late period was his student L.V. Shcherba, who in 1912 identified the sound factors that determine the division of speech into phonemes, and pointed out the semantic-distinguishing function of the phoneme.

Initial ideas of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay developed N.F. Yakovlev, who made an important contribution to the development of phonology in the early 20s. XX century

Based on the ideas of these scientists, phonology received further development and world recognition in the works of the Prague linguistic circle.

Major phonological schools

Kazan linguistic school. Representatives: I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay,N.V. Krushevsky, V.A. Bogoroditsky and etc.

KLS is a linguistic direction of the 20th century, the main provisions of which were:

1. building phoneme theory: 1st understanding of phoneme, i.e. the phoneme was understood as a generalized type, as a mobile element of the morpheme; 2nd phoneme awareness, i.e. definition of a phoneme as a mental representation of sound;
2. phonetic alternations due to the strict distinction between evolutionary and statistical study of language;
3. identification of phonetic units (coherents and divergents on the one hand, and correlatives and correspondents on the other), which cannot be identified with sounds; attributing the issue of alternation of phonemes to the “theory of alternation” and based on historical alternations the creation of a new science - morphonology - and the introduction of the concept of “morphoneme”.

Moscow phonological school. Representatives: R.I. Avanesov, P.S. Kuznetsov,A.A. Reformatsky, V.N. Sidorov, A.M. Sukhotin, N.F. Yakovlev, M.V. Panov and etc.

MFS is a linguistic direction of the 20th century, characteristic features which were:

1. 1st understanding of A.I. Baudouin de Courtenay phonemes formed the basis of the Moscow phonological school; as a result, a phoneme is determined by a morpheme, a phoneme is understood as a series of positionally alternating sounds that may not have any common phonetic features;
2. The starting point in views on the phoneme is the morpheme, i.e. the phoneme was determined through the morpheme: the identity of the morpheme determines the boundaries and scope of the concept of phoneme, and sounds of weak positions are combined into one phoneme not by their acoustic similarity, but by their functioning as part of the morpheme (in the words valY and volY there are unstressed vowels, despite the identity of sound, represent different phonemes, because in the first case there is a phoneme<а>(cf. shaft), and in the second - a positional version of the phoneme<о>(cf. ox); the final consonants in the words fruit and raft represent different phonemes, because in the first case, a positionally transformed phoneme<д>(cf. fruits), and in the second – phoneme<т>(cf. rafts));
3. definition of two main functions of phonemes: perceptual (the ability of a phoneme to identify) and significative (i.e., the ability of a phoneme to distinguish morphemes);
4. differentiation of types of alternation - intersecting (variants) and parallel (variations) types;
5. theoretical development of the concepts of “neutralization” and “hyperphoneme”;
6. consider soft [g’], [k’], [x’] variations<г>, <к>, <х>, like [s] – variation<и>;
7. distinguishing between a phoneme in a narrow meaning, the so-called strong phoneme, formed by the main type of phoneme and its variations - members of a parallel (non-overlapping) alternation, and phonemes in a broad meaning, the so-called phonemic series, a set of sounds formed by the main type of phoneme and its variations - members of a non-parallel (intersecting) alternation, i.e. identified strong and weak positions of phonemes.

St. Petersburg (Leningrad) Phonological School. Representatives: L.V. Shcherba, M.I. Matusevich, L.R. Zinder, L.V. Bondarko and etc.

SPFS is a linguistic direction of the 20th century, the main provisions of which were:

1. 2nd understanding of phoneme A.I. Baudouin de Courtenay formed the basis of this school, where a phoneme is defined as a historically established sound type that serves to distinguish words and to create words that are potentially related in meaning;
2. when defining the concept of phonemes, they proceed from the word form, in which the shortest sound units are distinguished according to physiological and acoustic characteristics (in the word ox, the vowel phoneme is<о>, in another form of the same word volY in an unstressed position, in accordance with the sound, the phoneme is distinguished<а>; in the word forms fruits and rafts, consonant phonemes in the final syllable –<д>And<т>, but in the original form of these words fruit and raft the same final consonant phoneme<т>);
3. they believe that soft [g’], [k’], [x’] are not variations<г>, <к>, <х>and [s] – not a variation<и>, but the phonemes themselves;
4. the absence of the concepts of phonetic variants and variations (the phoneme is close to the sound and is determined by the sound in speech), however, the shades of the phoneme are highlighted - combinatorial and positional.

Prague Linguistic School(Prague linguistic circle, school of functional linguistics). Representatives: Czechs - V. Mathesius, B. Gavranek, B. Palek, B. Trnka,J. Vahek, V. Skalichka, Russians – N.S. Trubetskoy, S.O. Kartsevsky, R.O. Jacobson, French -A.Martine and etc.

PLS is a structural-functional direction in linguistics of the 20-40s. XX century, creatively combining interest in the internal relationship of language units, their semiological nature with attention to their extralinguistic functions and connections with extra-linguistic reality (considers language in connection with the general history of the people and their culture).

The achievements of PLS ​​in the field of phonology, in particular in his work “Fundamentals of Phonology” N.S. Trubetskoy highlighted the following provisions:

1. distinguished between phonetics and phonology on the basis of units of speech (phonetics) and language (phonology);
2. defined the phoneme as a scientific abstraction, realized in its pronunciation variants: “a set of phonologically significant features characteristic of a given sound formation”;
3. substantiated the concept of a phonological system, outlined the main sound functions: culminating (vertex-forming), delimiting (demarcating), distinctive (meaning-distinguishing);
4. for phonemes, he identified distinctive (differential) features that make up the content of phonemes;
5. singled out the method of opposition (Latin oppositio - opposition) as one of the leading ones in the field of studying the properties of the phoneme;
6. developed a system of oppositions.

Thus, the differential features of phonemes are manifested using the opposition method:

a) relations between members of the opposition:

• privative – when one member of the opposition has the attribute and the other does not:<в>And<ф>, <д>And<т>;
• gradual - one sign can manifest itself to a greater or lesser extent (longitude and brevity of sound):<ā>And<ă>, <д:>And<д>;
• equipolant - the members have a completely different set of characteristics: and<ц>, <п>And<р>.

The members of the opposition form a correlative pair.

b) basis for the volume of meaning-distinguishing power:

• constant - in a certain environment, phonemes retain their characteristics:<у>,<н>;
• neutralized - in a certain environment, phonemes lose their characteristics and retain only general characteristics:<б>, <э>, <з>.

These oppositions are carried over to other levels of language learning. Learning the syntax is important.