Classical phonological theories. Phonological theory Phonological theory

I. Definition of phonology.

Phonology- a branch of linguistics that studies the structure of the sound structure of a language and the functioning of sounds in a language system. The basic unit of phonology is the phoneme, the main object of study is oppositions ( opposition) phonemes, which together form the phonological system of the language.

Unlike phonology, phonetics studies the physical aspect of speech: articulation, acoustic properties of sounds, their perception by the listener (perceptual phonetics).

Ivan (Jan) Alexandrovich Baudouin de Courtenay, a scientist of Polish origin who also worked in Russia, is considered the creator of modern phonology. An outstanding contribution to the development of phonology was also made by Nikolai Sergeevich Trubetskoy, Roman Osipovich Yakobson, Lev Vladimirovich Shcherba, Noam Khomsky, Morris Halle.

II . Basic concepts of phonology

The basic concept of phonology is phoneme, the minimum linguistic unit, which primarily has a semantic-distinctive function. The manifestation of a phoneme in speech is a background, a specific segment of sounding speech that has certain acoustic properties. The number of backgrounds is potentially infinite, but in each language they are distributed among different phonemes depending on the structure of each phonological set. Phonemes belonging to the same phoneme are called allophones.

The key role in phonology is also played by the concept opposition(opposition). Two units are considered opposed if there are so-called minimum pairs, that is, pairs of words that do not differ in anything other than these two units (for example, in Russian: tom - house - com - rum - catfish - nom - scrap). If two given backgrounds enter into such an opposition, they refer to different phonemes. On the contrary, if two backgrounds are in additional distribution, that is, they do not occur in the same context - this is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for assigning them to the same phoneme. So, in Russian they never occur in the same context [a] (as in the word uterus) and [ä] (as in the word crush): the first sound is pronounced only between hard consonants (and / or vowels), the second - only between two soft consonants. Thus, they can refer to one phoneme and be its allophones (if other necessary conditions are met). On the contrary, in German, similar sounds are opposed in a stressed syllable: Apfel"apple", Äpfel"apples", and therefore they refer to different phonemes.

Phonological system of the language- an internally organized set of its phonemes connected by certain relationships.

Oppositions phonemes form oppositions (according to the deafness / sonority of phonemes<п> – <б>or hardness/softness of phonemes<с> – <с’>).

Comparison phonemes in oppositions is based on a comparison of their features - differential and integral.

Integral signs of phonemes form the basis of the opposition, and differential form opposition, for example, in phonemes<т>And<д>integral features (i.e., common to both phonemes) are explosiveness, anterior lingualism, hardness, and differential (i.e., distinctive) - deafness (for<т>) and sonority (for<д>).

backgrounds- specific instances of the implementation of the phoneme (and its variants), instances of sounds used in millions and billions of statements by thousands or millions of native speakers of the corresponding language.

In articulatory-acoustic terms background, i.e. representative of a phoneme in speech, is not delimited by anything from the adjacent background, a representative of another phoneme. Sometimes they partially overlap, overlap each other, so a person who does not know a given language is not always able to distinguish and understand them.

III. Main phonological schools:

1. Leningradskaya

The founder, Academician Lev Vladimirovich Shcherba, worked in the first half of the 20th century. He and his students focused on the task of teaching foreign languages, setting correct pronunciation.

The school proceeds from the understanding of the phoneme as a sound unit with a meaningful function. Uses the criterion of phonetic similarity (identity) as a criterion for identifying phonemes.

Most foreign language textbooks in their phonetic part use the concepts and terminology developed by Shcherba. Shcherba's phonological theory itself was best presented in his textbook Phonetics of the French Language. In the future, these same concepts were supported by researchers involved in instrumental studies. sound speech and designing automatic speech recognition systems.

2. Moscow

A prominent representative of this school is Alexander Alexandrovich Reformatsky. The main works in which the views of this trend are formulated are devoted to the description of the native (Russian) language. Initially, the phonological school considered its constructions as the only true doctrine of the sound structure of the language.

With the passage of time, however, the tendency to comprehensively discuss problems and synthesize phonological theories prevailed.

Ruben Ivanovich Avanesov, one of the IDF founders, made the first attempt at such a synthesis. He put forward the concept of “weak phonemes”, which, along with “strong” ones, are part of linguistic signs.

Weak phoneme of Avanesov is a set of differential features that must be specified to determine the sound in a given position. They are associated with commands to the executive organs of speech, in order to create one or another acoustic effect.

3. American school

She developed in the early XX century as a school descriptive phonology, which solved the problem of describing the languages of the American Indians. Their concept was close to the views of the Leningrad phonological school. In particular, American scientists most clearly formulated the procedure for dividing the speech stream into phonemes of speech perception.

In the post-war years, influenced by the advances in computer technology, American linguists for the first time directly raised the question of technical modeling language ability. The pioneer of these works was also a native of Russia (or rather from Poland) Naum Chomsky.

His work founded the direction called generative linguistics. Its task is to build a formal model (automaton) for the production of correct statements in a particular language.

The phonological part of the generative theory arose thanks to the work of another Russian, Roman Osipovich Yakobson, who, in connection with the Second World War, emigrated from Prague (where he was a prominent member of the Prague School) to America. Describing the generation (production) of speech, generative phonology naturally came to a concept close to the Moscow phonological school.

The essence of the theory is that linguistic signs, through successive transformations according to language rules, are transformed from an internal representation in the phonemes of speech production into a surface representation by speech sound types. Accepting this terminology, we can call the phonemes of speech production deep phonemes, and the phonemes of speech perception - surface phonemes.

(created on the basis of an essay by Ekaterina Vlasova)

One of the representatives of the classical phonological theory was N.S. Trubetskoy. He is a prominent specialist in the field of morphology and phonology of the Slavic languages, one of the founders of the Prague Linguistic Circle. He devoted the last 12 years of his life to work on the fundamental work Fundamentals of Phonology. This book was first published in 1939 in Prague in German (Russian translation - M., 1960).

The initial theoretical premises for N.S. Trubetskoy were the provisions developed by I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay and L.V. Shcherboy. These are: a) the phoneme is the shortest unit of the language, which is realized in the sounds of speech, and b) the phoneme serves to distinguish the meaning of words. The sound systems of more than a hundred surveyed languages served as practical material for his concept. However, the merit of the scientist is not only that he combined theory with practice. Much more important is that N.S. Trubetskoy was an active supporter of a consistent system-structural approach in science, and it was this approach that gave the entire phonological theory the harmony and completeness that it lacked.

The object of study in this approach is considered as a single system, all elements of which are interconnected and interdependent. At the same time, the degree of complexity of the system, the nature of its organization and the material nature of the phenomena forming it do not play a fundamental role. A variety of objects can be interpreted as such systems, for example, natural language, a type of human culture, fashion in clothes, a living organism, a chess game, etc. For a system-structural approach, one thing is important: each element of an object can be described (i.e. characterized, defined) by its place in the system or, which is basically the same thing, by its relationship with other elements.

In the teachings of N.S. Trubetskoy these theoretical principles find themselves practical use. According to N. S. Trubetskoy, linguistic units - phonemes - form a system, and the entire tool necessary and sufficient for their description is the concepts of opposition, or opposition, and a differential feature.

First of all, all sound oppositions are divided into two types: phonological (semantic) and non-phonological. Phonological opposition is formed by any sound units, provided that their opposition is associated in our minds with different meaning. For example, Russian the castle and the stump, the gardener and the garden, the chorus "and the polecat or German. Mann" man "and Weib" woman ", Mahne" mane "and Biihne" stage ", etc. are in a relationship of semantic opposition and, therefore, according to Trubetskoy, are phonological units. Finding similarities and differences in the sound shell of these units, we thereby decompose them into a successive series of more small elements, such as, for example, [here] and [chickpea"] in the gardener and sadanut. This analysis can be continued until (cf .: here - note, current - knock, knock - bale ...), until we reach oppositions, the members of which for a native speaker are no longer split: [in ] - [n], [o] - [y], [t] - [t "], etc.

Minimal sound units that perform a semantic-distinctive function, N.S. Trubetskoy and calls phonemes and “Any word represents integrity, structure; it is perceived by listeners as a structure, just as we recognize, for example, acquaintances on the street by their general appearance. Recognition of structures presupposes, however, their difference, and this is possible only if the individual structures differ from each other by known features. Phonemes are precisely the distinguishing features of verbal structures. Each word must contain as many phonemes and in such a sequence that it can be distinguished from other words" (Trubetskoy 1960: 43). So, in relation to words, phonemes play the role of distinguishing features. How do phonemes differ from each other? This is where the special place that is given in the concept of N. S. Trubetskoy to the concept of a differential feature becomes obvious.

L.V. Shcherba, being the closest student of Baudouin de Courtenay at St. Petersburg University, creatively developed many of his teacher's linguistic ideas, often significantly reworking them. It was thanks to Shcherba that Western European linguists got acquainted with the concept of a phoneme and mastered the phonological theory. Although the roots of this theory lie in the works of Baudouin, but only Shcherba gave for the first time its consistent presentation and answer to the cardinal question: for what reasons do various sounds in the speech stream correlate with the same phoneme by native speakers and how does the selection of phonemes in the language occur? Before Shcherba, throughout the history of phonetic research, the division of the flow of speech into sounds was taken for granted, and it was believed that unequal sounds were combined into one unit simply by phonetic similarity.

Shcherba's scientific interests were wide and varied. He considered the problems of general linguistics: the relationship between language and speech, material and ideal, issues of the interaction of languages, bilingualism and mixing of languages, principles for distinguishing parts of speech, the relationship between vocabulary and grammar, problems of lexicology and lexicography, analyzed the concept language norm; he found it important to use a variety of linguistic experiments (not just phonetic ones) to solve theoretical questions (which has become widespread in recent decades); he was interested in applying the theoretical principles of science to practice and therefore was engaged in graphics and spelling, methods of teaching foreign languages. Many of Shcherba's ideas, sometimes expressed in passing, were developed in the works of researchers already in the second half of the 20th century. Below, only the phonetic views of Shcherba will be considered, and mainly what is stated in works up to the 20s of the 20th century.

In the section devoted to the acoustic description of vowels, Shcherba critically analyzes in detail the data obtained by various researchers on the material European languages; the characteristic tones of vowels found by him (generally related to formants) in some cases are close to those known from modern works. Considering the allophones of vowels, the author dwells in particular detail on the features of their implementation in the vicinity of soft consonants. He notes the special sound of the part of the vowel adjacent to the soft consonant, and draws attention to its phonological significance.

Shcherba noticed significant changes in sound and articulation in the case of vowel contraction between soft consonants, when “the tongue does not have time to take the right position”, and instead of a, o, u in the words son-in-law, aunt, people may receive sounds like [*, P, z ]. This observation also later received objective confirmation in acoustic studies.

For unstressed vowels, the articulation was relaxed and weak compared to stressed vowels, their indistinctness and similarity in sound. Shcherba considered the main reason for the qualitative reduction of unstressed ones to be the reduction in their duration compared to shock ones.

Shcherba notes in passing that in unstressed syllables there is neither o nor a after soft and j, and “not only in pronunciation, but also psychologically, i.e. in intention", and instead of them, a, e are pronounced: head = galava, dance = pl"esat".

The quantitative characteristics of vowels are considered in great detail, taking into account different phonetic positions. Stressed vowels, according to instrumental records, are generally one and a half times longer than unstressed ones; more subtle differences are also found: stressed vowels are longer before fricative consonants than before stops, longer before voiced than before deaf ones, the same relationship is observed for unstressed vowels. These data are similar to those obtained for other languages and reflect universal patterns.

Thanks to L.V. Shcherba, the concept of a phoneme became known to Western European linguists.

1 Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher vocational education"North Ossetian State University named after K.L. Khetagurov"

The article analyzes the concept of one of the founders of phonology I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay on the phoneme, describes the general development of linguistic thought in the second half of the 19th century, i.e. years of formation of his linguistic worldview. The doctrine of the phoneme is proposed to be considered in connection with the one constructed by I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay general theory alternations (alternations) and the theory of morphological articulation of speech. The analysis of the main terms of the phonological concept of the scientist is carried out: anthropophony, which studies the acoustic and physiological properties of speech sounds; psychophonetics, that is, etymological phonetics, which studies phonetic-acoustic and historical phonetics. It is concluded that the main principles of the Kazan linguistic school were the distinction between phonetic and morphological word articulation; strict distinction between sound and letter; preventing the mixing of processes occurring in the language at a given stage of its existence, and processes occurring over a long period of time, etc.

kinakema

phonological schools

phonology

1. Baudouin de Courtenay I.A. Selected writings. - T. 1. - S. 121.

2. Baudouin de Courtenay I.A. Some departments of "comparative grammar" of Slavic languages // Selected Works. - T. 1. - S. 118-119.

3. Baudouin de Courtenay I.A. On the Old Polish language before the 14th century. - Leipzig, 1870. P.38.

4. Gatsalova L.B., Parsieva L.K. About some geminated consonants in Ossetian// International Journal of Applied and fundamental research. - No. 9 (part 2). – 2014.

5. Kirov E.F. Paradigmatic-syntagmatic phonology of language and communicative phonology of speech. Diss. ... Doctor of Philology. - Kazan, 1993. - S. 27.

6. Panov. M.V. Russian phonetics. - M., 1967. - S. 370.

7. Parsieva L.K., Gatsalova L.B. Distributive analysis of phonemes /къ/-/кI/ in Ossetian and Chechen // Contemporary Issues science and education. - 2014. - No. 2.

8. Parsieva L.K., Gatsalova L.B., Martazanov A.M. Features of the sound structure of the Russian, Ossetian and Nakh languages // International Journal of Applied and Fundamental Research. - No. 9 (part 2). – 2014.

9. Protogenov S.V. Phoneme in the aspect of phonological schools and issues of vocal systems modeling. Diss.…cand. philol. Sciences. - Tashkent, 1970. - S. 21.

10. Saussure F. de. Notes on General Linguistics. - M., 1990. - S. 244.

11. Toporov V.N. I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay and the development of phonology // I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay. To the 30th anniversary of his death. - M., 1960. - S. 28-36.

12. Shcherba L.V. Next problems of linguistics // Selected works on linguistics and phonetics. L., 1958, note on p.14.

The emergence of phonology as a branch of the science of language is associated with the name of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay - one of the largest linguists of the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries, the founder of the Kazan Linguistic School. In order to better understand and appreciate the contribution of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay in linguistics, one should at least very briefly characterize the general development of linguistic thought in the second half of the 19th century, i.e. years of formation of his linguistic worldview.

Mid 19th century - these are the years of the emergence of a new direction in comparative historical linguistics, called neogrammatism (Junggrammatism). During this period, I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay listened to the lectures of A. Schleicher, the head of the movement preceding neogrammatism, wrote to his journal and was a contemporary of Karl Brugmann, Bertolt Delbrück, Herman Osthoff, and August Leskin. With many of them he repeatedly met and was personally acquainted. By the nature of linguistic methods of description I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay is considered one of the founders of neogrammatism. However, already in his early works he outgrew this trend and became one of the founders of modern structuralism.

The historical approach of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay opposed the thesis about the need to study living languages in their modern state, without denying, however, the importance of the historical approach, and opposed the practice of studying disparate phenomena with the requirement that it is necessary to highlight the facts of the language in their relationship. In addition, it touches on many issues: the problem social character language, the problem of differentiation of concepts about language and speech (“Some remarks on linguistics and language”, 1871), the problem of the interaction of languages (“Experience in the phonetics of Rezyan dialects”, 1875, “On the mixed nature of all languages”, 1901), the doctrine of sign nature language, the concept of linguistic values ("Introduction to Linguistics", 1917).

I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay was interested in children's speech, issues of pathology, wrote about the need to distinguish between statics and dynamics in the language, for the first time used the term "applied linguistics", widely used mathematical formulas to explain his positions.

L.V. Shcherba noted that everything new that was in Ferdinand de Saussure's book "Course of General Linguistics" had long been known to Russian linguists from the writings of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay. Here, perhaps, there is some exaggeration, but in essence the idea is correct. Two great linguists - I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay and F. de Saussure - met personally in December 1881, when I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay visited Paris in connection with his election as a member of the Paris Linguistic Society. Later, when F. de Saussure worked intensively on Lithuanian materials, they corresponded. In one of his letters, Saussure wrote: “I am infinitely happy that you do not think that I acted too immodestly by turning to you, and that I benefited greatly from this; I rejoice in the opportunity to re-establish contact with an eminent scientist whom we still remember well in Paris. Allow me once again to express my deep gratitude to you and, at the same time, feelings of the most sincere respect.

Taking advantage of the advice of N.V. Krushevsky by F. de Saussure's term "phoneme", I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay did not put the only content into it. The stratification of the phonological theory of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay are, according to E.F. Kirov, primarily epistemological factors, which he tends to see in the implicit orientation of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay on different linguistic objects.

The teachings of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay about the phoneme should be considered in connection with the general theory of alternations (alternations) he built and the theory of morphological articulation of speech (although the term phoneme has been used only since the 80s, the first phonological constructions of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay date back to the early 70s - x years).

In the language, morphemes are distinguished as the minimum units. The sound composition of morphemes of common origin (homogeneous) may not coincide. The reasons for this are varied. Homogeneous morphemes break down into sounds or combinations of sounds that make up a given morpheme, i.e. for homogens. Homogenes are of two types: divergents- modifications of the same sound, due to the current laws, and correlates- historically related sounds, but anthropophonically different. Homogeneous sounds in related languages are already correspondents.

The need for a twofold approach to the analysis of speech sounds (acoustic-physiological and morphological) - and the discrepancy between these aspects is proved already in the earliest works of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay (“On the Old Polish Language before the 14th Century”, 1870 and “Some General Remarks on Linguistics and Language”, 1871).

In studies on the Old Polish language, he writes: “Only by physiological necessity, which operates in all epochs of the development of the language, is the law of the Polish language (and Slavic in general) explained that at the end of a word, sonorous consonants turn into their corresponding silent ones, although psychologically, for the instinct of the people, in the mechanism of language they remain sonorous.

The approach to phonetics from the point of view of the “mechanism of language” should be considered as the beginning of phonological research. In addition, according to S.V. Protogenov, this is already “structuralism”.

The phoneme is determined by I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay as “the sum of generalized anthropophonic properties of a known phonetic part of a word, indivisible when establishing correlative links in the field of one language and correspondent links in the field of several languages. In other words: the phoneme is phonetically indivisible from the point of view of the comparability of the phonetic parts of the word. And further: "I understood the phoneme as that sum of phonetic properties, which is an indivisible unity in comparisons, whether within the same language or several related languages" . At the same time, in the field of several languages, correspondence links are established between the sounds of the same phoneme. I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay did not create a phonological concept based on "correspondents" when comparing several languages, nevertheless, prolegomena for its creation in the phonological views of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay are available, for example, in the work "Experience in the theory of phonetic alternations". The term "correspondent" or "correspondence alternant" actually conveys the concept of a genetic phoneme, that is, a genetophoneme. In the same work there is a definition from which I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay does not retreat until the end of his life: “The phoneme is the only representation belonging to the world of phonetics, which arises in the soul through the fusion of impressions received from the pronunciation of the same sound - the mental equivalent of the sounds of the language.”

Physically, a phoneme is not only a single sound of speech. Baudouin points out that from an anthropophonic point of view, a phoneme can equal:

a) whole indivisible sound;

b) incomplete sound (for example, softness in the case of alternating hard and soft);

c) an integral sound plus the properties of another;

d) two or more sounds. For example, the combination "oro" in Russian words is considered as one phoneme.

I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay develops a position on smaller elements than the phoneme. He introduced the concept of kinema, akusma and kinakema. “Kinema - from the point of view of linguistic thinking, further indecomposable pronunciation or phonation element, for example, the representation of the work of the lips, the representation of the work of the soft palate, the representation of the work of the middle part of the tongue, etc.

Akusma - from the point of view of linguistic thinking, further indecomposable, acoustic or auditory (auditory) element, for example, the representation of instantaneous noise received from an explosion between compressed pronunciation organs, the representation of the acoustic result of the work of the lips in general, the representation of nasal resonance, etc.

Kinakema is a combined representation of kinema and akusma in those cases when, thanks to kinema, akusma is also obtained. Kinema and akusma may co-exist and may be mutually exclusive.

From these positions, the phoneme is already defined as “the combination of several further indecomposable pronunciation and auditory elements (kinem, akusm, kinakem) into one single whole due to the simultaneity of all relevant works and their partial results”, and the sound of the language as “the acoustic result of the instantaneous, transient detection of the existing phonemes in the individual psyche". The idea of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay on comparing not individual sounds, but individual elements of sounds, i.e. kinem, as it seems to us, was way ahead of its time in methodological terms.

As we can see, in the works of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, you can find various definitions of the phoneme. This unit was also understood by him as "the sum of generalized anthropophonic properties", distinguished by morphological analysis when establishing correlative links in the field of one language and correspondent links in the field of several languages, i.e. through comparative historical analysis. He defines the phoneme both as a representation of the sound of speech, "the mental equivalent of the sound of speech", "sound representation", and as "the combination of several further indecomposable pronunciation-auditory elements into one single whole." It is most logical to assume that the presence of several definitions of the phoneme indicates a change in the views of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, however, it is quite possible that for him all three of these things are phonemes.

In addition to the undivided concept of a phoneme, I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay uses terms: optional phonemes, dependent and independent, equivalent and non-equivalent, commensurate and incommensurable, etc.

Very important is the indication of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay to the fact that phonemes and all pronunciation-auditory elements in themselves have no meaning from the point of view of linguistic thinking. “They become linguistic values and can be considered linguistically only when they are part of comprehensively living linguistic elements, which are morphemes associated with both semasiological and morphological representations” .

Thus, I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay developed in general terms the doctrine of the phoneme in four plans:

Establishment of a purely abstract functional unit common to the phonetic system of related languages (genetophoneme).
Establishment of a functional unit within one language, in which there is a variation of morphs within one morpheme (paradigmophoneme or morphophoneme).
The establishment of a figurative unit within the phonetic variant of the spoken word in the language of the individual, in which there are unambiguous mapping relationships between the phoneme (image) and the sound (prototype), which implements the phoneme in speech.
Establishment of an articulating complex unit within the phonetic variant of a word in the language of an individual, in which there are identification relations between a sample in the mind (typically, a sound representation, a psychophoneme) and a symbol that enters the auditory analyzer during the listening phase, which is divided into typical features for recognition purposes, and in the speaking phase it is saturated with typical features, which in phonology have received the name of distinctive features. In this case, the phoneme is understood as a complex of distinctive features (a bundle of RP, in the terminology of R.O. Yakobson).

In general, the science of the sound structure of the language I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay subdivides into anthropophony, which studies the acoustic and physiological properties of speech sounds; psychophonetics, otherwise etymological phonetics, which studies “functional representations, i.e. phonetic-acoustic representations, both in themselves and in connection with other representations, not only linguistic in the exact sense, i.e. morphological, but also extralinguistic, i.e. "semasiological", and historical phonetics. The terms "phonetics" and "phonology", apparently, Baudouin used as synonyms. The second aspect of phonetics is “psychophonetics”, distinguished by I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, was the prototype of modern phonology.

I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay introduced the concept of a linguistic unit into scientific use. The work “Some General Remarks on Linguistics and Language” states: “It is necessary to distinguish the categories of linguistics from the categories of language: the former represent pure abstractions; the second - what lives in the language as a sound, syllable, root, stem (theme), ending, word, sentence, different categories of words, etc. " .

Understanding the phoneme as a unit of the linguistic plan, i.e. as an abstract linguistic unit, Baudouin notes that one should not chase "with phonemes for great anthropophonic accuracy." The same work contains many fundamental maxims for phonology, which in modern terminology can be expressed as the problems of marked and unmarked members of the alternation, ways to determine the main position of phonemes, questions of expressing a phoneme by a sound zero, problems of an archiphoneme. M.V. Panov notes that with this work of 1881 "the true theory of the phoneme begins, the theoretical full-fledged phonology begins" .

Theoretical thoughts of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay had a noticeable influence on the entire subsequent development of the science of language, both here and in the West. In his general phonological theory, one can find the origins of all three major European schools created by Russian scientists: the Moscow school of N.F. Yakovlev, St. Petersburg school L.V. Shcherba (perhaps, it should be separated from the Leningrad school, since in the Leningrad period L.V. Shcherba already formed another - not a psychophonetic school) and the Prague school of N.S. Trubetskoy and R.O. Jacobson.

The fourth school, related to the comparison of related languages and the modeling on this basis of common phonemes for a number of genoisomorphic languages within the framework of a hypothetical model representation, has not been created. And this is obviously due to the fact that comparative linguistics of the synchronous type focused more on contrasts than on the commonality of features in related languages, although the issue of this type was already touched upon in the “Memoir on the original vowel system in Indo-European languages» F. de Saussure. Nevertheless, if a serious motive for modeling, for example, the modern Common East Slavic language, is found, a phonology of this type can be created, and there is a theoretical basis for this within the framework of the general phonological theory of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay.

To a certain extent, the fourth direction of phonological views of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay corresponds to the development by R.O. Jacobson, G.M. Fantom and M. Halle of a universal set of binary distinguishing features.

I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay was the founder and long-term leader of the Kazan Linguistic School, which included N.V. Krushevsky, V.A. Bogoroditsky, A.I. Anastasiev, A.I. Aleksandrov, P.V. Vladimirov, V.V. Radlov, S.K. Bulich, K.Yu. Appel and others.

The main principles of the Kazan Linguistic School include: strict distinction between sound and letter; distinction between phonetic and morphological word articulation; preventing mixing of processes occurring in the language at a given stage of its existence, and processes occurring over a long period of time; priority attention to the living language and its dialects, and not to the ancient monuments of writing; upholding the full equality of all languages as objects scientific research; desire for generalizations; psychologism with separate elements sociologism.

The works of representatives of the Kazan Linguistic School anticipate many ideas of structural linguistics, phonology, morphonology, language typology, articulatory and acoustic phonetics. They had a clear idea of the systemic nature of language. The teacher himself and his successors seriously influenced the formation of linguistics in the 20th century.

Ideas and concept of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay continue in modern phonological research, and structuralism, which until recently was subjected to harsh criticism, has been developed in interdisciplinary studies of the sound structure of the language.

Reviewers:

Khugaev I.S., Doctor of Philology, Leading Researcher, Vladikavkaz Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Government of North Ossetia-Alania, Vladikavkaz;

Kalabekova L.T., Ph.D. in Philology, Head of the Department of Foreign Languages for Humanitarian Faculties, North Ossetian State University named after K.L. Khetagurov, Vladikavkaz.

Bibliographic link

Parsieva L.K., Gatsalova L.B. PHONOLOGICAL THEORY I.A. BAUDOUIN DE COURTENAY AND THE KAZAN LINGUISTIC SCHOOL // Modern problems of science and education. - 2014. - No. 5.;
URL: http://science-education.ru/ru/article/view?id=15113 (date of access: 01.02.2020). We bring to your attention the journals published by the publishing house "Academy of Natural History" Leningrad Phonological School

Our phonemes of speech perception turn out to be identical to the concept of phonemes developed by the Leningrad Phonological School (LPS). (Please allow me not to rename it to St. Petersburg. Not at all out of special love for Comrade V.I. Lenin, but because it was formed under this very name). The founder of this school, Academician Lev Vladimirovich Shcherba, worked in the first half of the 20th century in St. Petersburg - Petrograd - Leningrad. He and his students focused on the task of teaching foreign languages, setting the correct pronunciation. Most foreign language textbooks in their phonetic part use the concepts and terminology developed by Shcherba. Shcherba's phonological theory itself was best presented in his textbook Phonetics of the French Language. In the future, these same concepts were supported by researchers involved in the instrumental study of sound speech and the design of automatic speech recognition systems.

Moscow Phonological School

The concept of speech production phonemes turns out to coincide with the phonological system according to the theory of the Moscow Phonological School (MPS). A prominent representative of this school is Alexander Alexandrovich Reformatsky. The main works in which the views of this trend are formulated are devoted to the description of the native (Russian) language. Initially, each phonological school considered its constructions as the only true doctrine of the sound structure of the language. In the course of time, however, mainly in the depths of the Moscow school, the tendency to discuss problems in a comprehensive manner and to synthesize phonological theories prevailed. Ruben Ivanovich Avanesov, one of the IDF founders, made the first attempt at such a synthesis. He put forward the concept of “weak phonemes”, which, along with “strong” ones, are part of linguistic signs. If the phoneme of speech perception is a set of indistinguishable sounds determined by the position in speech, the phoneme of speech production is a program for choosing one or another sound depending on the position, then Avanesov’s weak phoneme is a set of differential features (those and only those) that must be specified for definition of sound in this position. From the point of view of the structure of the linguistic mechanism, Avanesov's phonemes really occupy an intermediate position between the phonemes of speech production and speech perception. They are associated with commands to the executive organs of speech, developed by programs for the implementation of signs in order to create one or another acoustic effect corresponding to the required phoneme of speech perception.

Prague Phonological School

Another phonological theory, intermediate between the theories of LPS and MPS, was developed by the so-called Prague Phonological School (PPS), which arose in Prague simultaneously with MPS and LPS by the works of Russian linguists who emigrated from the revolution. It was this school that became most famous in the West, and its most prominent representative, Nikolai Sergeevich Trubetskoy, is considered the founder and classic of world phonology. Similarly to Avanesov, Trubetskoy distinguishes two types of sound units in the composition of a word - phonemes and archiphonemes. Archphonemes appear in those cases when the conditions of the speech chain do not make it possible to recognize which particular phoneme of speech production was the basis for the appearance of a given sound. The concept of an archphoneme essentially coincides with the concept of Avanesov's weak phoneme. Another interpretation of the phenomenon of neutralization of phoneme differences in the speech chain was given by the Moscow phonologist Pyotr Savich Kuznetsov in the concept of hyperphoneme. A hyperphoneme is the set of all phonemes that can give given sound. Such a unit, from the point of view of the structure of the language mechanism, corresponds to the development of a system of hypotheses regarding the comparison of the chain of phonemes of speech perception perceived by hearing with one or another sign (word) represented in memory by a chain of phonemes of speech production.

American phonology

In the same years, at the beginning of the 20th century, a school of descriptive phonology developed in the United States, which solved the problem of describing the languages of the American Indians. Their concept was close to the views of the Leningrad phonological school. In particular, the American dicryptivists most clearly formulated the procedure for dividing the speech stream into phonemes of speech perception. In the post-war years, under the influence of the advances in computer technology, American linguists for the first time directly raised the question of the technical modeling of language ability. The pioneer of these works was also a native of Russia (or rather from Poland) Naum Chomsky (Americans pronounce this name as Noum Chomsky). His work founded the direction called generative linguistics. Its task was set as the task of constructing a formal model (automaton) for the production (generation) of correct statements in a particular language. The phonological part of the generative theory arose thanks to the work of another Russian, Roman Osipovich Yakobson, who, in connection with the Second World War, emigrated from Prague (where he was a prominent member of the Prague School) to America. Describing the generation (production) of speech, generative phonology naturally came to a concept close to the Moscow phonological school. True, it must be said that at first the generativists tried to interpret the production of speech too abstractly as an action of some kind of formal calculus, like algebra, which, however, led to the emergence of the theory of formal languages in the framework of mathematics, which already has an indirect relation to linguistics. The general scheme of phonetic speech production in generative phonology is that linguistic signs, through successive transformations according to language rules, are transformed from an internal (deep) representation in the phonemes of speech production into a surface representation by speech sound types. Accepting the terminology of generativists, we can call the phonemes of speech production - deep phonemes, and the phonemes of speech perception - surface phonemes.

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 Phonemic segmentation 5
1.2 Phonological oppositions and differential features 6
1.3 Phoneme and allophones. Distributive analysis 10
Chapter 1 Conclusions 12

2. The founders of phonology and their contribution to the study of the phoneme 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 System phonology 25

Conclusions on Chapter 2 28

Conclusion 30
References 31

Introduction

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

However, in fact, the selection of individual sounds in the flow of speech is not at all determined only by the sound. The same sound by native speakers different languages evaluated in terms of sound composition differently: Koreans will not notice the difference R from l, Arabs O from y, for French in words weight And the whole how different sounds will be judged by vowels rather than final consonants; and speakers of so many languages will not be able to hear the difference between raid And pour.

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

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

The aim of our work is to consider different approaches to the theory of the phoneme, and more specifically, the consideration of the definitions of the phoneme by different linguistic schools that developed at the end of the twentieth century.

In the first chapter of our work, we solve the following tasks:

1) reveal the functions of the phoneme

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

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

4) reveal the definitions of the phoneme and allophone

In the second chapter, we briefly review the work of the largest European linguists and phoneticians of 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 the phoneme of linguistic schools that exist in our time on the territory of 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 (linearly shortest) 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 distinction (differentiation) of linguistic signs as meaningful units.
So, 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 is possible to recognize each of these words and distinguish them from each other. In the same way, different phonemes appear in identical positions, distinguishing exponents, and thus in general:

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

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

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

In most cases, the exponents of words turn out to be multiphonemic. Single-phoneme exhibitors have, for example, Russian words A/a/, And/i/, at/u/, V/v/, To/k/, morphemes - l/l/ in spa l, -be/t"/ in sleep, -s/s/ in tables, -at/u/ in go-y, V- /v/ in climb, -A- /a/, - j- And - at/u/ in step-a-j-y(spelling: I walk). One phoneme each contains

Exponents of English words o /@U/ `null', A /eI/ `excellent American school)", e /i:/ `number e (in mathematics)", I /aI/ `i",

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

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

Exponents of many morphemes in these languages are monophonemic.

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

1.1 Phonemic segmentation

Sounding speech is, from the point of view of acoustic and from the point of view of articulation, a continuum, i.e. indivisible whole. Linguistic units in general and phonemes in particular are of a discrete nature, i.e. they are quite clearly distinguished from each other in syntagmatic and paradigmatic respects. The distinguishability of phonemes in speech is not based on acoustic or articulatory features, but on structural and functional features, i.e. actually linguistic. Phonemic segmentation is set by the language system itself. As a result of phonemic segmentation, a chain of discrete phonemes is associated with a number of sounds (backgrounds).
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, syllable Yes in a word (word form) water is divided into two phonemes: /d/ and /a/, reflecting the presence of a morphemic suture: water. Similarly, a syntagmatic boundary is established between the phonemes /v/ and /a/ in the word form grass, between /u/ and /p/ in word form u-pad-u.

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

With the help of the morphological criterion, it is possible to 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 [v:], two phonemes /v/ are distinguished, one of which is the exponent of the morpheme V, and the other is initial in the exponent of the root morpheme - waters-. The morphological criterion makes it possible to prove that there are no diphthongs in the Russian language as single phonemes, and in German and English diphthongs are monophonemic.

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

Thus, the 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 the indivisible exponent of the morpheme and/or word. In its functions, such a syllable is similar to a phoneme. Therefore, in such cases, the syllable is spoken of as the shortest phonological unit - the syllabem.

1.2 Phonological oppositions and differential features

Each phonemic (non-syllabic) language has a small, closed set of phonemes. They can exercise 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 only 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, we will use following characteristics oppositions:

By the number of opposing members:

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

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

By the number of differential features that serve to distinguish between opposing phonemes:

o one-sign oppositions (for example: English /g/:/k/, opposed on the basis of voicedness: deafness (unvoicedness) - gum:come), And

o multi-attribute, for example: Rus. /t/:/z/, contrasted on the grounds of sonority: deafness and occlusion: cleftness (disconnection) - tol:angry;

in relation to the system of phonemes:

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

o proportional, for example: rus. /l/:/r/ = /l"/:/r"/ - fishing:moat = 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 /d/ with other phonemes (/d/:/t/, /d/:/n/, /d/:/d"/, /d/:b/, /d/:/g/, /d /:/з/, phonological content /д/ appears as a set of features

loudness ( house:volume),

mouthiness ( ladies:us),

non-palatalization ( dot:goes),

linguality ( gave:ball),

front tongue ( dol:Goal),

closure ( gave:hall).

Trubetskoy classified differential signs, distinguishing three groups:

1. Private = when the presence of a feature is opposed to the absence of a feature, for example, sonority (the work of the vocal cords during articulation) = this is the presence of a feature, and deafness ( vocal cords do not work) = this is the absence of a feature.

2. Gradual, or stepped, there are almost none in Russian phonetics. In English phonetics, a solution of the mouth is considered under the gradation sign. Distinguish broad eg. /a:/ , medium eg. /e/ and narrow eg. /i/ mouth solution for differentiating vowels.

3. Equivalent, or equivalent, signs, when one sign in one member of the opposition is replaced by another in another member. So, for the phonemes of English. /k/ and /d/ privative is the opposition according to sonorousness / deafness, and equipotent = according to the 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 sign of consonance.

In general, many oppositions are of a group nature: for example, the class of occlusives is opposed to the class of fricative and the class of trembling, the class of front-lingual is opposed to the classes of middle-lingual and back-lingual, the class of non-palatalized is opposed to the class of palatalized, the class of non-rounded vowels is opposed to the class of rounded (labialized), etc. Such phonological oppositions (following N.S. Trubetskoy) qualify as phonological correlations.

Most often, minimal pairs are selected for opposition, i.e. different words that differ minimally in sound terms, 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 the same phonetic environment, for example, the opposition of words cat: weaves quite enough 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 qualified as non-phonemic (excessive). 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 an 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 less than number the 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. Yakobson considered it possible to classify a phoneme as a "bundle", a "bundle" of differential features among the definitions of a phoneme. 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 offered 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 articulatory and acoustically realized in different ways in phonemes of different classes.

Oppositional analysis makes it possible to:

not only to reveal the 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 of this phoneme. Such a set remains unchanged, invariant for any implementation of a particular phoneme in speech.

1. 3 Phoneme and allophones. Distributive analysis

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

coarticulation (superposition of articulations of adjacent sounds),

· combinatorial sound changes of accommodation type ** Accommodation (from Latin accommodatio - adaptation) - 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 (the beginning of articulation) of the next 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 next one (regressive accommodation). and assimilation ** Assimilation - assimilation, the emergence of similarities with another, neighboring sound, for example. pronunciation instead of voiced b in the word grandmother of a deaf sound P[bapka] as a result of likening in deafness to the following To. ,

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

Phonetically conditioned (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 affect the phoneme, we can observe various allophone correlations, for example, English. /d/ is pronounced with a nasal explosion before the nasal sonants sudden, admit, could not and 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 distributive method as an arsenal of "detection" techniques language system in speech, they divide the entire analysis procedure into three stages: segmentation of the utterance (establishment of backgrounds), phonemic identification of backgrounds (identification of the phonemic affiliation of a given background), and classification of phonemes.

Distributive analysis is especially effective at the second stage. Its rules are:

If two different backgrounds do not occur in an identical phonetic environment, then they are in relation to additional distribution and are allophones of one phoneme.

Such, for example, are the relationships between non-aspirated and aspirated stops [p] and , [t] and , [k] and in English and German, between non-labialized and labialized consonants [p] and in Russian. With this approach, one more 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 is the 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 meet in an identical phonetic relation and at the same time can serve as a distinction different words, then they are in relation to contrast 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. Such are the relations between different (multi-stressed and single-stressed, front-lingual and lingual) variants of the German phoneme /r/, between the stop and fricative realizations of the Russian phoneme /g/.

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

Chapter 1 Conclusions

So, complete characteristic phoneme is multidimensional, since a phoneme can be characterized by:

in relation to linguistic signs (morphemes and words), in the construction of exponents of which phonemes participate (constitutive function), ensuring the distinction and identification 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 own 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 various sounds (backgrounds), reduced to one phoneme as its phonetically determined variants (allophones) and optional variants based on distributive criteria.

Phonemic analysis is usually aimed at establishing an inventory of phonemes and discovering the set of correlative oppositions that underlie the phoneme system. The inventory of phonemes is finite, it has from 20 to 80 or 100 elements. The set of phonological correlations is also finite (about a dozen). The result of such an analysis is the presentation of the system of phonemes in the form of their classification. One can speak about the system of phonemes only in relation to a certain specific language. The phonemic system of a particular language is unique.

Classifications of vowels and consonants of 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 contribution to the study of the phoneme

Each of the scientists described the phoneme in his own way, taking one or more bases as the main feature. All views on phoneme theory can be divided into 4 main groups: the psychological approach, the functional approach, the physical approach, and the 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 subjective opinion the author of this work.

Adherents psychological approaches considered the phoneme as a kind of ideal image, the achievement of which every speaker strives to achieve. This "ideal sound" differs from what the speaker says, partly because it is almost impossible to produce the perfect sound, and partly because of the influence of neighboring sounds on the sound. Allophones were considered as various materializations of sound in speech.

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

The greatest resonance among the works on general phonetics was the book Wilhelm Fietor"Elements of phonetics and orthoepy of German, English and French, taking into account the needs of learning" 1884

Describing the vowels of three languages, Fietor meant phonemes (more precisely, the main allophones of phonemes), each time indicating how many vowels of this type differ in language and on what grounds (however, in some cases, the notes indicate the variation of vowels), which clearly indicates the author's commitment to the psychological approach. This approach to describing the sounds of the three languages was especially evident when the author contrasted "independent" sounds - nasal vowels - with a nasalized vowel before nasal consonants. It is at psychological approach it can be argued, as Fietor did, that in German and English there are two (u) that differ quantitatively (in duration) and qualitatively, while in French there is only one (u) closed, which in German is two different (o), the same in French, while in English there are three different vowels of this type, and so on.

Ivan Alexandrovich 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 “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 ..., 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 the language is outlined, which later led to the allocation of a peculiar 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 "sound statics", which includes these two aspects of describing the sound system of a language, and "sound dynamics" - "laws and conditions for the development of sounds in time".

According to Baudouin, the division of the flow of speech into separate sounds is an anthropophonic division; “from the point of view of phonetic-morphological ... whole connected 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, which arises in the soul by psychological fusion of impressions received from the pronunciation of the same sound , is the mental equivalent of the sound of language (des Sprachlautes). A certain sum of individual anthropophonic representations was associated with the integral representation of the phoneme, which, on the one hand, are articulatory representations, i.e. representations of physiological articulatory works performed 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 consider the phoneme as shortest sound, with which the meaning of a word can be differentiated. These include N. Trubetskoy, L. Bloomfield, R. Jacobson, M. Hale.

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

A very significant role Fields of Passy in the development of phonetics. Paul Passy's work on general phonetics is his doctoral thesis "On phonetic changes and their general characteristics» (Etude sur les changements phonetiques et leurs caracteres generaux, Paris 1891). The very selection of these minimal units Passy did not explain either by acoustic-articulatory or 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 suffices to indicate only some of the frameworks within which sound variation is permissible (ie, obviously, certain sound types). Passy did not explain what determines the choice of these groupings; according to the classification tables of vowels and consonants given by him, 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 “The Sounds of Speech”, 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 sounds of speech of several European languages; in this work, the author proposed his own classification of vowels and consonants and collected their articulatory and acoustic characteristics.

Speech sounds, according to Trautmann, stand out due to differences in sound; at the same time, a separate sound of speech is such a sound created by the organs of speech, which is perceived as a single whole, even if it ends differently than it begins, for example, a, p, s. In essence, the author is guided by the unconscious phonological approach of a native speaker, as has been done since antiquity, and by many linguists at the present time. Physical or material approach developed by N. Techmer, J. Storm, D. Jones, B. Bloch. These scholars considered a phoneme to be a group of similar sounds meeting 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 Tekhmer, 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 offered his own definition of a simple speech sound, in which he considered it necessary to use only articulatory features: this is any such element of language (jeder Theil der Sprache) that is produced by simultaneously combining several articulations, be it a tone or noise. Thus, Techmer refused to characterize the sound of speech as the minimum further non-segmentable unit of the language (which implies a linguistic criterion), but gave a purely physiological characteristic. In practice, such an approach in its pure form is not feasible, and Techmer still had to operate with the realizations of the phonemes of a particular language.

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

For the history of phonetic studies highest value had his book "English Philology" (Englishe Philologie), published twice, in 1881 and in 1892.

Storm voiced the idea of consistency 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 adjacent sounds. If at the same time one sound changes, very often there is a shift of the whole group. 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 “act on the ear” of a Frenchman or an Englishman in different ways, that the Germans misperceive French nasal vowels, and the British are mistaken in determining the place of French stress - all these “hearings”, as it is clear in our time, depend on differences between phonological systems of languages.

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

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

Otto Jespersen(Otto Jespersen 1860 - 1943), one of the greatest linguists late XIX- beginning of XX century. Quite a lot of space in his works is given to a question that has been repeatedly discussed in the literature, which is of great importance for the study of the sound structure of a language - the question of the relationship between acoustic and articulatory characteristics of speech sounds. Jespersen considered two competing approaches. According to one, priority was given to articulation, for 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 grounds that speech is perceived by ear and it is in the sound form that language is transmitted from generation to generation. The author himself did not express 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 flow of speech 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 "representations-types", while in fact in speech each phoneme corresponds to several sound shades (allophones in modern terms); combining shades of one phoneme and distinguishing between different phonemes, he explained 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 per se, 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 arguments about the phoneme, Shcherba gives the following final definition: “A phoneme is the shortest general phonetic representation of a given language that can be associated with semantic representations and differentiate words and can be distinguished in speech without distorting the phonetic composition of the word.” In this definition, almost all (there is no only an identification function) characteristics of the phoneme, which are noted even today: its linear minimality, constitutive and differentiating functions, are already indicated.

Shcherba found proper linguistic criteria for substantiating 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 ended 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 phonologicalsky schools

At present, there are several phonological schools that have their own definitions of the phoneme and therefore approach the problem of establishing the composition of the phonemes of individual words in different ways. 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 unconditionally to achieve this goal.

Two phonological schools emerged in Russia. One of them, created in Leningrad (Leningrad, or Shcherbovskaya school), where L.V. 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 one or another morpheme.

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

Also, I. Baudouin de Courtenay was the founder 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, Sergey Konstantinovich Bulich, Karol Yu. Appel.

Also in this work, the points of view of representatives of the schools of Functional Phonology and Systemic Phonology will be presented.

2.1 .1 Kazan phonetic school

The main principles of the Kazan school include the following: strict distinction between sound and letter; differentiation of phonetic and morphological word articulation 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, u, i denote a combination of two sounds ([th] + vowel). And in words like measure, village, beak, sit down- one vowel sound [e], [o], [y], [a] and the softness of the preceding consonant.

Baudouin's definitions of the phoneme varied, but the phoneme was always understood by him 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, putting them in line with a stable mental representation (called the term phoneme taken from F. de Saussure, but interpreted in a completely different way). The phoneme is understood as a “linguistic value” determined by the language system, in which only that which is “semasiologised and morphologized” has a function.

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

2.1 .2 Leningrad phonetic school

The phoneme LFSH is a relatively independent autonomous material unit that does not have a direct connection with the morphemes in which it is included. Professor L.R. Zinder, a follower of L.V. Shcherba, pointed out that "a phoneme that has certain positive traits, can always be identified by these features". Naturally, the representatives of the LFS always consider the sound as a representative of the 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. Zinder, "... if a given word form is characterized by a well-defined composition of phonemes, then this 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, an alternation of phonemes occurs. For example, in the words garden - gardens alternate "t" and "d". In other cases, for example, in the words cat and code, it turns out that the root morphemes of words different in meaning and spelling in different positions can include either "t" or "d" as the last phoneme (cf .: tot b eats, tod s, koT ik, kod t ore etc.). Thus, it can be seen that, although in such cases morphemes are endowed with an 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 designation LFSH.

			dog

As we can 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 - first of all, their functional load in the language is taken into account. 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 concrete-sound (articulatory and acoustic) difference or identity of the sounds expressing them." Therefore, in contrast to the LFS, 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 (a constitutive function). The analysis of the IMF involves determining the composition of phonemes at the morphemic level and is based on the assumption that the phonemic composition of a morpheme is unchanged. By definition, M.V. Pan's phoneme - "... is a functional phonetic unit, represented by a number of positionally alternating sounds." Therefore, the IPN phoneme unites 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 the word. For example, in the word dog the first vowel is always unstressed and is not included in a series of alternations. It is impossible to say with certainty what it is: a representative of the phonemes [o] or [a]. In such cases, IDF supporters speak of 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 IPF, 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 IPF:



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

It can be concluded that the method of analysis of the Moscow School does not give the researcher the opportunity to determine in any case full squad phonemes of the 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 between morphemes and words. A phoneme is defined as a set of distinguishing features. A phoneme is a collection of phonological essential features characteristic of this sound formation..."

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

According to Trubetskoy, in such positions, dephonologization occurs and two phonemes are replaced (in our example, /t/ and /d/) by one archiphoneme (/T/), a unit that includes only common features of two phonemes; at the same time, the opposition of the signs of sonority-deafness is neutralized. Therefore, according to FF, the words cat And code each of two phonemes and one archiphoneme.

Analysis of table examples by 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 can see, none of the traditional phonological schools has an impeccable solution to the problem of establishing the composition of the phonemes of a word. Supporters of LFS reject the functional approach to the definition of a phoneme, which violates the integrity of the morpheme; adherents of MFSH and FF recognize the impossibility of determining the phonological status of some sounds and use the broader concepts of hyperphoneme or archiphoneme.

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

An attempt to solve it in a different way was made in the concept of systemic phonology. Its main provisions were formulated and substantiated by L.N. Cherkasov in the work "Theory of linguistic systems and system phonology".

2.1 .5 System phonology

In SF, the phoneme is considered as a functional system differem(distinguishing 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"from/. The resulting combination of sounds does not correspond to any word of the Russian language. Therefore, we can conclude that the sign of velarization has a functional semantic connection with the meaning of the morpheme and is a distinctive feature - a differem. When conducting a complete analysis of a word and isolating all the phonemes that make it up, 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 representatives of differemes. The definition of differemes leads to the identification of each phoneme. This method of analysis gives the researcher the opportunity to identify specific phonemes in those cases that are considered by other phonologists as hyperphonemic or archiphonemic situations. For example, if in a morpheme - code- replace deafness with voicedness in the final [t], as in the word coda, 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 voicedness retains here a functional connection with the meaning of the morpheme. However, if we are in a word codes we replace y [d] 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 differem. According to SF, in such cases the sounds [t] and [d] are representatives of the phoneme /d/. However, its implementation is affected language norm. The norm is defined as "a mechanism for the implementation of language units in speech." As L.N. 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, occupying an intermediate position between the abstract units of the language and the specific forms of their implementation."

The correlation of language, norm and speech in the implementation of language units can be represented as follows:

		Differems

	Speech sounds	Phonetic signs

Norm units - pronema, consisting of throw(phonetic signs). The norm is a kind of intermediary between language and speech. Depending on the position of the phoneme in the word, the norm can regulate its implementation in speech in different ways.

In some cases, all differems are realized in speech without hindrance. Such positions of phonemes are defined in SF as strong systemic and differ in that in them "the diferemes of a given phoneme are fully manifested (through all sorts 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 maintain a functional semantic connection with the meaning of the morpheme. For example, in Russian, the norm does not allow the presence of voiced vowels at the end of words. Therefore, according to the SF, in such positions, the voiced differem is blocked and replaced by a deafness kinema. It is this kinema that is expressed in speech as a component of voiceless sounds. However, when conducting differem analysis (as in our example with cat - code) one can set a blocked voiced differem and define a "voiced" phoneme represented by a "voiced" sound. In a word code is the phoneme /d/, but it is in asystemic positions, i.e., in a position where certain differems 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 differem (when it is replaced by voicedness, the exponent of the word is destroyed). According to SF, phonemes in such cases are in weak systemic positions, since "phonemes manifest themselves through oppositions, through active relations by difference, and such relations are not found here ... due to the absence of those phonemes that could enter into relations with the available phonemes.

The definition of a weak systemic position helps us to take a different look at the hyperphonemic situations that the representatives of the IPF 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 differemes of these phonemes and establishing their phonological status (in this case, we are dealing with an unstressed phoneme /a/). Thus, in such situations, it is possible to determine all the 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 system phonology makes it possible to carry out a deeper analysis of the phonemic composition of a morpheme/word and to determine specific phonemes even in cases where this is impossible from the point of view of traditional phonological schools. In addition, the basis of the analysis is the determination of the presence of a functional semantic connection between the features of a phoneme and the meaning of the word, in the exponent of which it is included. Thus, the functional rather than the material properties of the phoneme come to the fore.

Chapter 2 Conclusions

At present, there are two views on the phoneme: one is, as it were, a view "from the outside", when the phoneme is considered through its realizations, the other is a view "from the inside", when it is considered through the bases 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: “The reduction of a phoneme to a set of differential features does not see a qualitative difference between phonemic features and the phoneme itself. In reality, the phoneme is not the sum of individual features, but a qualitatively new phenomenon. This is an image, and like any image, a phoneme cannot be decomposed into separate features as basic elements. It is formed on the basis of individual characteristics and taking into account a number of other internal and external factors, including more high levels language." (Dukelsky)

The opinion of M.I. intersects with the opinion of this author. Matuyevich and Kasevich, who rightly believe that “in reality, each phoneme of a particular language is a complex unity of features that, when combined, give a new quality of the language” and that “a thing differs from the mechanical set of features that are present in its definition.” Jacobson agrees with the stated point of view: “the 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 some combinatorial properties."

Conclusion

Phonological science does not stand still. Every year, the baggage of world knowledge about the phoneme is replenished with new research. In Russia, annual international conferences, posing ever new questions regarding phonological problems.

The phoneme is the basic unit of the sound structure of a language, the ultimate element distinguished by the linear articulation of speech. The phoneme is not the simplest element, because consists of merisms (features) that exist simultaneously (at the same time). A phoneme is not a physical sound (the views of many scientists of the 19th century), not an idea of a sound, not its mental equivalent (the early works of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, the 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. Twoddell), but above all an element morphemes, outside of which the phoneme is unthinkable.

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

List of used literature

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

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

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

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

5. Big 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 in English. - 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, L., 1960

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

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