1. There is no strict division of vowels into long and short in GA, though some American phoneticians suggest that certain GA vowels are tense and likely to be accompanied by relative length: [i:] in seat, [u:] in pool
They also admit that a slight rise in tongue position during the pronunciation of tense vowels leads to a diphthongal quality of tense vowels which contrasts to a monophthongal quality of lax vowels.
2. Classification of vowels according to the stability of articulation is the most controversial subject in GA. Some diphthongs are treated in GA as biphonemic combinations. The inventory of GA diphthongs varies from three to twelve phonemes. Following DA. Shakhbagova we distinguish here five diphthongs in GA: [ei], [ai], foi], [auj, [ou].
3. Another very important feature that causes different interpretations of diphthongs and vowel length in GA is the pronunciation of [r] sound between a vowel and a consonant or between a vowel and. a silence: turn [t3:rn], bird [b3:rd], star [star].
It has been estimated that 2/3 of American population pronounce [r] and 1/3 omit it. Thus GA is rhotic in words like far, core, etc. (when [r] follows the vowels and ends the word), this sound is consonantal and non-syllabic according to Ch. Thomas. It involves the characteristic hindering of the free flow of breath which we associate with consonants. The sound [r] in far closes the syllable more definitely than in British Received Pronunciation of the word [fa]. On the other hand, there is a vocalic, or vowel-like and syllabic [r], that occurs in words like bird, murmur (after a vowel and before a consonant). Ch. Thomas writes that in such cases we should better transcribe the words bird and murmur like [brd] and [mrmr]. In such cases [r] is responsible for the characteristic vowel-like quality within the syllable; it
is responsible for syllabic quality as well. That's why Ch. Thomas says that [r] syllabic in bird and [r] non-syllabic in far should be transcribed differently. According to V.A. Vassilyev it is still the vowel of the word that forms a syllable ([3;] in bird, [o:] in corn, etc.), not the syllabic [r] sound. He mentioned although that all the vowel sounds in pre – [r] position sound more like [a], [r] gives the preceding vowel a retroflex coloring. It means that the tip of the tongue glides to the retroflex position without, however, staying there long enough to produce a full-fledged retroflex [r] sound, [r] also prolongs the vowel a little. V.A. Vassilyev uses the term «[r] – compensating» vowels (suggested by AX. Trakhterov) for the vowels in such words in British Received Pronunciation.
4. One more peculiar feature of pronunciation of vowels in American English is their nasalization, when they are preceded or followed by a nasal consonant (e.g. in such words as take, small, name, etc.). Nasalization is often called an American twang. It is incidental and need not be marked in phonemic transcription.
5. GA front vowels are somewhat different from RP. Vowels [i], [i] are distributed differently in GA and RP.
In words like very, pity GA has [i] rather than fij. In word final position it is often even diphthongized.
Vowel [e] is more open in GA. It also may be diphthongized before [p], [t], [k]: let [leat].
6. There are four mixed or central vowels in GA: [3], [ə], [¬], [a]. They differ markedly from RP vowels in articulation and distribution.
7. The three RP vowels [α], [a] correspond to only two vowels in GA – [a]. This combined with the articulatory differences between RP [α] and GA [a] and a difference in vowel distribution in many sets or words makes it very complicated. The following chart vividly shows it.
| RP | GA | |
| Dad | [] | [] |
| dog | [α] | [a] |
| path | [α:] | [] |
| dance | [α:] | [] |
| half | [α:] | [] |
Besides, word distribution of [α] in RP and GA is completely different. GA is intermediate in quality between the RP and [α]. In its production the lips are considerably less rounded.
8. Now to the qualities of GA diphthongs.
a) the diphthong [ei] is closer in GA as opposed to RP;
b) very front realization of [ª] such as in RP is not found in GA;
c) the nucleus of [aª] tends to be more advanced in GA;
d) since GA is a rhotic accent with non-preyocalic [r], it has the consequence that the following RP vowels (derived historically from vowel + [r]) do not occur in GA: [iə] in dear – GA [dir], [ə] in dare – GA [deir], [ªə] in tour – GA [tur].
1. The RP allophonic differentiation of [1] does not exist in GA. In all positions [IJ is fairly dark.
2. Intervocalic [t] as in pity is most normally voiced. The result is neutralization of the distribution between [t] and [d] in this position, i.e. latter, ladder. The original distinction is preserved through vowel length with the vowel before [t] being shorter.
In words like twenty, little [t] may even drop out. Thus winner and winter, for example, may sound identical.
3. GA [r] is articulated differently from RP one. The impression is one of greater retroflexion (the tip of the tongue is curled back further than in RP).
4. The «wh» spelling is represented in GA by [M] sound (or some-times transcribed as [hw]. So most American speakers make a clear distinction between «wh» and «w» words: where – ware, which – witch.
5. The sonorant [j] is usually weakened or omitted altogether in GA between a consonant (especially a forelingual one) and [a-] as in the words: news [nu:z], Tuesday [tuzdi], student [studant], suit [sat], tube [tab], stupid [stu:pid], during (du:ri).
A. 1. Many differences involve the pronunciation of individual words or groups of words.
2. Words apparatus, data, status can be pronounced with either [ei] in GA, but only with [ei] in RP.
3. Words like hostile, missile, reptile have final [ail] in RP. In GA they may have [əl].
1. In words of French origin GA tends to have stress on the final syllable, while RP has it on the initial one:
| GA | RP | |
| ballet | [bas'lei] | [baelei] |
| beret | [ba'rei] | [ben] |
3. Some compound words have stress on the first element in GA and in RP they retain it on the second element: weekend, ice-cream, hotdog, New Year.
4. Polysyllabic words ending in – ory, – ary, – many have secondary stress in GA, often called «tertiary»: laboratory flaebrs.ton], dictionary fdikfa.nen], secretary [sekrə.teri], testimony [testimouni].
GA intonation on the whole is similar to that of RP. But there are, of course, some differences that should be mentioned here.
1. In sentences where the most common pre-nuclear contour in RP is a gradually descending sequence, the counterpart GA contour is a medium Level Head:
I don't want to go to the theatre.
4. The Fall-Rise nuclear tone is different in RP and GA: Really?
These comparisons show that the main differences in intonation concern the direction of the voice pitch and the realization of the terminal tones. In GA the voice doesn't fall to the bottom mostly. This explains the fact that the English speech for Americans sounds «affected» and «pretentious» or «sophisticated». And for the English, Americans sound «dull», «monotonous», «indifferent».
It should also be mentioned that the distribution of terminal tones in sentence types is also different in both variants of English.
1. GA «Yes, No» questions commonly have a falling terminal tone; the counterpart RP tone would be a rising one:
Shall we stay here?
2. Requests in RP are usually pronounced with a Rise, whereas in GA they may take a Fall-Rise: Open the door.
Its emphatic variant in Mid-wavy-level Head:
2. The usual Medium or Low Fall in RP has its rising-falling counterpart in GA: Come and see me tomorrow.
3. Leave-takings are often pronounced with a high-pitched Fall-Rise in GA: Good night.
3. The rising terminal tone in RP in GA has a mid-rising contour: Do you like it?
Or it may have a level tone in GA:
In conclusion we would like to say that American phoneticians use a pitch contour system to mark intonation in the text: It's a Wery 'cold, day.
««Will you, come? Will you come?
It is certain that we have not covered here all the cases of different intonation structures used in RP and GA. Recently there have appeared in this country several papers and books on the subject, so for further information see those books.
Bibliography
1. Аванесов Р.И. Фонетика современного русского литературного языка. – М., 1979.
2. Антипова А.М. Ритмическая система английской речи. – М., 1984.
3. Ахманова О.С. Фонология, морфонология, морфология. – М., 1966.
4. Березин Ф.М., Головин Б.Н. Общее языкознание. – М., 1970.
5. Блохина Л.П. Просодические характеристики речи и методы их анализа.‑М., 1980.
6. Бодуэн де Куртене И.А. Избранные труды по общему языкознанию. – М., 1963.-Т, 1, 2.
7. Борисова Л.В., Метлюк А.А. Теоретическая фонетика. – Минск, 1980.
8. Брызгунова Е.А. Звуки и интонация русской речи. – М., 1969.
9. Буланин Л.Л. Фонетика современного русского языка. – М., 1970.
10. Виноградов В.В. Стилистика. Теория поэтической речи. Поэтика. – М., 1963.
11. Гайдучик С.М. Просодическая система современного немецкого языка. – Минск, 1972.
12. Глисон Г.А. Введение в дескриптивную лингвистику. – М., 1959,
13. Диалогическая речь: Основы и процесс / Материалы международного симпозиума по проблемам диалогической речи. – Тбилиси, 1980.
14. Дубовский Ю.А. Анализ интонации устного текста и его составляющих. – Минск, 1978.
15. Жинкин Н.И. Механизмы речи. – М., 1958.
16. Зиндер ЛЗ. Общая фонетика. – Л., 1979.
17. Златоустова Л.В. Фонетическая структура слова в потоке речи. – Казань, 1962.
18. Златоустова Л.В. О ритмических структурах в поэтических и прозаических текстах // 3 вуковой строй языка. – М., 1979.
19. Камышная И.Г. Слогоделение» современном английском языке // Исследования по теоретической и экспериментальной фонетике английского языка. – М., 1972.
20. Кантер Л.А, Основные проблемы фоностилистического анализа текста // Из фонетических особенностей речевых стилей. – М., 1978.
21. Курятникова Э.Г. К вопросу о позиционной длительности гласных // Тр. им. Н.А. Добролюбова. – Горький, 1975.
22. Курятникова Э.Г. Нормативный характер ассимиляции в русском и английском языках // Нормы реализации. Варьирование языковых средств. – Горький, 1983.
23. Леонтьев А.А. Психолингвистические указывания // Психологические очерки. – М., 1969.
24. Николаева Т.М. Фразовая интонация славянских языков. – М., 1977.
25. Панов М.В. Современный русский язык. Фонетика. – М., 1979.
26. Панаева Ж.Б. О современных тенденциях в употреблении английских тонов в некоторых синтагмах художественного и научного стилей речи // Сб. науч. тр. МГПИ им. В.И. Ленина. – М., 1978.
27. Скребнев Ю.М. Норма, нормативные реализации и субъязыковая структура языка // Норма реализации, варьирование языковых средств. – Горький, 1980.
28. Соколова М.А. и др. Практическая фонетика английского языка. – М., 1984.
29. Тарасов В.Ф., Сорокин Ю.А. и др. Теоретические и прикладные проблемы речевого общения. – М., 1979.
30. Тихонова Р.М. Некоторые особенности просодической организации чтения монологического текста и спонтанного монолога-рассказа // Проблемы фоностилистики. – М., 1980.
31. Торсуев Г.П. Вопросы акцентологии современного английского языка. – М.‑Л., 1960.
32. Торсуев Г.П. Проблемы теоретической фонетики и фонологии. – М., 1969.
[1] Learners of a foreign language often use the word "accent" to describe pronunciation features in a foreign language influenced by the mother tongue, in other words, a foreigner may be easily recognized by an accent
[2] Швейцер А.Д. Социальная дифференциация в английском языке в США-М., 1983
[3] Швейцер А.Д. Социальная дифференциация в английском языке в США-М., 1983.
[4] Crystal D. Prosodic Systems and Intonation in English. - Cambridge, 1969