CC BY
9VARIABILITY AS THE CONCEPT OF ALLOPHONIC VARIATION
SABINA ELKHAN POLADOVA
Azerbaijan University of Languages Associate Professor, School of Education, Department of English Phonetics
Baku, Azerbaijan Republic Orcid id: 0000-0003-4886-971X
Annotation. This article argues that the pronunciation norm should be considered an integrated concept that includes the pronunciation prescribed by the dictionary and its varieties depending on the speaker's communicative intention, which in turn determines the pronunciation style and the ratio of pronunciation types. Further, by an uncodified norm we should understand common features of the implementation of phonemes regardless of dialect and sociolect which have not been reflected at this time in existing dictionaries. The main purpose of the article is to reveal the norms and variability of phonetic devices in language.
Key words: concept, variability, allophonic variation, dialect, sociolect
introduction
There is a consensus among researchers that the variability of phonemes is the main feature of the norm and a fundamental property of the language, which manifests itself to the greatest extent in the colloquial style.In fact, the formation of linguistics as a science was closely associated precisely with the discovery of the laws of variability. What is then understood by variation and variability? Variation implies the simultaneous use of several equal or hierarchically organized variants. In most cases, it is tied to diachrony and/or dialect and sociolect. Variability, on the other hand, is studied primarily in the synchronic aspect, although the complete negation of the diachronic aspect cannot be considered fruitful.
We can say that the concept of variability is closely tied to the concept of allophonic variation and is applicable to the implementation of differential features. When in the material implementation of sound units, one differential feature at the system level corresponds to a number of acoustic parameters at the implementation level [3, p.7]. Notably, allophone variation includes both combinatorial-positional and free variation, since this does not contradict the concept of allophones as varieties of one phoneme.
Free variation takes place when two phonetically different units meet, but do not contrast, in the same environment [5, p.128].However, they are not to be confused with optional variations. From the point of view of F. Veyselli, optional variants are those variants that can replace each other without changing the meaning [17, p.178]. Interestingly, John Lyons notes that we can specifically formulate the conditions for the appearance of free variants in phonological terms while optional variants are random by nature [5, p.129].
It is difficult to agree with the latterstatement, since everything (or almost everything) in language is conditioned by objective linguistic and extralinguistic reasons or contexts.Lyons' statement should therefore be clarified by the fact that the phonetic etymology of many optional variants at this stage of language development is most likely difficult or almost impossible to trace.In addition, when dealing with an optional variant of the same word, we can also encounter historical, dialectal or colloquial alternations of different phonemes, which is impossible with free variation.
It remains thus to determine the relationship between the concepts of combinatorial-positional and free variation.If free variants of one phoneme are found in the same phonetic environment, then this is impossible for its combinatorial-positional variants. In other words, the variants never occur in the same phonetic position [15, p.56].
The problem of finding the facts of variability and its role in the functioning of the language system worried many linguistics from the earliest years of the field. Their aim then was to establish
ОФ "Международный научно-исследовательский центр "Endless Light in Science"
a system from the "chaos" of phenomena. Currently, the fact that variability is conditioned by the existing system relations in language can be considered to be well-established.We adhere to the point of view of V.G. Gak here, who believes that it is necessary to take into account the interaction of a linguistic form, a person and his psychology, as well as extra-linguistic factors[2, p.71].
Further, V. M. Solntsev defines phonetic variability as the existence of a phoneme in a language in the form of a number of variants (or allophones) [12, p.233].For Solntsev, the general condition for variability is the discrete nature of linguistic units.He likewise identifies two main factors of variability:
1. The existence of each unit in the form of a class.
2. The use of one representative of the class in speech [12, p.212].
This provision requires some clarification. Considering discreteness, one should keep in mind taxonomic units, but here we need to remember that speech is continuous. To this point, R.K. Potapova believes that the discreteness of speech is an apparent phenomenon:it is the result of the pattern recognition process introduced into speech by analysis [9, p.8]. This analysis is then carried out at the level of the language system, taking into account the context and various extralinguistic factors. According to Potapova, it would be more correct to speak of the phenomenon of continuity (continuity) and discreteness in this case. The objectivity of the above point of view proves the impossibility of optimal segmentation of speech flow solelyby phonetic characteristics.
There is another point of view that should be considered here.According to this,variability is defined as a consequence of the distribution of phonemes in the structure of words and sentences, which is reflected in the allophonic variation of phonemes [11, p.156].However, the reasons for variability cannot be revealed deeply, relying only on the laws of phonotactics.
G.P. Torsuev identifies the following reasons for variability:
1. The device of the organs of speech as a pneumatic-mechanical basis of all sound units and the process of speech itself.
2. Systemic relationships, i.e. the location of sound units in the structures of words and sentences.
3. Style and genre of speech [14, p.34].
The style and genre of speech and the degree of its preparedness depend on the communication situation and can be combined under the name of situational variability. Dialectal and local differences, as well as sociolect, can then be singled out as the fourth reason and relate closer to variance.
One of the most important reasons for variability -the principle of saving speech efforts due to which there is a simplification of articulation -was formulated by A. Martine. This law of least effort can be found in P. Passy's, who describes it as follows:
• language constantly strives to avoid and take out that which is unnecessary;
• language constantly strives to highlight what is necessary [6, p.65].
However, simplification of the articulation of a phoneme is not a mutation of the phoneme itself, but rather a selection from a number of options provided by the system and produced by a person under the influence of linguistic and extralinguistic factors[6, p.176].
This leads us to the following factors of variability:
1. The interaction of physiological and phonemic components that determine the economy of speech efforts and its degree.The reasons due to the interaction of these components are usually called linguistic. Combinatorial-positional conditions can be singled out as the main reason for the variability.
2. The communicative intention of the speaker, taking into account the style and genre depending on the situation of communication, a sign of spontaneity and non-spontaneity, the topic and the relationship of communicants.The components of this factor tend to be extralinguistic.It also plays a subordinate, albeit very active role: from among the possibilities provided by the system, the
communicant selects those that correspond to his communicative intention, developing them, and, thereby, introducing changes into the system.
The question of the relationship between linguistic and extralinguistic in changing the system remains highly contested territory.Some linguists believe that "all changes in the language are ultimately determined by the needs of communication, that is, factors that lie outside the actual language system.However, the internal structure of the system also exerts a certain pressure on the course of language development determining it in one direction or another" [8, p.19].
We do not agree that social factors play an active role in changing the system, arguing rather that the phonetic system as a system of possibilities will not change if there are no objective linguistic reasons. Instead, we agree with L.A. Verbitskaya's statement that potential changes in the system are inherent in the system itself, whilethe direction of changes depend on extralinguistic factors, social factors in particular [16, p.39].
Combinatorial changes in phonemic factors
The concept of a phoneme was introduced relatively long ago, but linguists continue to argue about its essence: which phonological concept to use when and how it should be interpreted. V.B. Kasevich writes: "The members of each class are concrete elements equated to each other, that is, identified. Each class is associated with an abstract element that takes in all that is common that is characteristic of all members of a given equivalence class" [4, p.7].An even clearer formulation of the abstractness of the phoneme can be found in Trubetskoy: "a phoneme is a set of phonologically significant features characteristic of a given sound formation, it cannot contain a single phonologically insignificant feature" [15, p. 43].
Z. Willem and B. Bartde who, referring to B. De Boer, W. Sandler, S. Kirby, note that "the term combinatorial structure may refer to combinations of speech sounds (combinatorial phonology), combinations of signs in sign languages (which could be called combinatorial cherology) or combinations of meaningful morphemes or words (compositional semantics)" [18, p.138]. The majority of researches agree that combinatorial conditions can be called the main reason for the variability of phonemes.L. R. Zinder writes, for example: "Modification is an allophonic variation, in which the corresponding sound differences never appear in a given language as phonemic opposites. This variation is entirely due to the combinatorial conditions in which a phoneme may find itself in a given language" [19, p.218].
These variations are primarily affected by automated speech skills.Since the awareness of phonetic processes by speakers is the lowest at this spoken level of language, it is when variation is greatest. [7, p. 128].In other words, combinatorial variation is a consequence of the phonetic laws operating in a particular language, which function automatically, and therefore native speakers often do not notice these changes. According to the academic Shcherba, these changes simply do not fall into the "bright point of consciousness" [10, p.112].Combinatorial allophones of phonemes appear due to coarticulation, which is the reason for the heterogeneity of speech sounds noted by researchers for a long time.
In classical phonetics, this issue is resolved by recognizing the heterogeneity of the phoneme, as well as by highlighting the setting sounds in it, produced while the pronunciation organs are at rest.Here you can also find transitional phonetics, produced during the sliding of the pronunciation organs from one position to another.Installation and transition sounds replace each other, connecting in a chain. Transient sounds are not independent and their quality depends on the setting.
It is clear that the doctrine of setting and transitional sounds contradicts the doctrine of the phoneme as an indivisible shortest unit of language and cannot be accepted in relation to the phoneme.The doctrine of the three-phase articulation was, perhaps, a more successful attempt to explain the phenomenon of coarticulation.According to this explanation, articulation consists of implosion, endurance and explosion, which replace each other in the process of speech production.However, many authors have criticized this approach to the connection of sounds in the stream of speech. Experimental data shows that "the distinction in the flow of speech of moments of
ОФ "Международный научно-исследовательский центр "Endless Light in Science"
movement and rest is impossible, finally, and because any sound is formed as a result of the work of all the pronunciation organs simultaneously" [19, p.220].
In real speech, the process of connecting sounds in the speech chain is different: one of the phases of the previous sound becomes the starting position for articulating the next one [13, p. 11]. Thanks to the use of methods of instrumental analysis, in particular oscillographic and spectral analysis, it was confirmed that it is impossible to clearly define the sound boundaries in a coherent, especially spontaneous speech [1, p. 64]. For example, when a consonant-vowel combination is used, the consonant explosion may coincide with the vowel implosion, while in vowel-occlusive consonant combinations, the vowel explosion may merge with the consonant implosion.In combinations of occlusive - occlusive, the first consonant can lose its explosiveness, and the second consonant can lose its implosion.The most common case of coarticulation is in fact the formation of correlates of differential features of adjacent phonemes throughthe actions of different organs. Thus, the discovery and study of coarticulation introduces a number of essential clarifications in the doctrine of implosion, endurance, and explosion in relation to coherent speech.
The concept of setting and transitional sounds as well asthe three-phase nature of articulation at the present stage has been reworked into the concept of stationary (relatively stationary) and transitional (first transitional and second transitional) areas in the articulation of sounds.It is known that any of these sections, includingstationary ones, may be absent.
In early studies, researchers believed that the main characteristics of sounds are associated precisely with a stationary section (exposure). However,the characteristics of sounds are not associated with any one phase of articulation. In fact, it has been experimentally confirmed that acoustic signs of sounds can be associated with any phase of articulation. Therefore, important information about the consonant is often contained precisely in the transitional area, which reflects the peculiarities of the adaptation of phoneme articulations, on which the main shades of the representative phonemes depend.
Traditionally, it is believed that when reproducing phonemes and their combinations, adaptations are temporary andtransient. Nevertheless, these changes meet with constancy under similar linguistic and extralinguistic conditions, which leads us to assume the relative constancy of phoneme realizations under similar conditions.
Many researchers, recognizing boththe linguistic and extralinguistic conditions of these phenomena, consider the main reason for variability to correlate to frequency. More specifically, research indicates the dependence of quantitative and qualitative variability on the frequency of the phoneme: the higher the frequency, the greater the likelihood of its wide variation.In particular, A. Martinet once pointed out the interdependence of the frequency of a phoneme and its functional load: the more frequent the unit (phoneme), the less its distinctive power [6, p. 184].
Consequently, it is fair to assume that the more frequentlya phoneme occurs in various combinatorial conditions, the greater the degree of its variation.
This, however, does not explain the possibility of constant "mutation" of the phoneme and transient changes in the phonetic system.Nevertheless, the possibility of changing the system of phonemes cannot be completely denied, as evidenced by well-known data of historical linguistics. Therefore, a more thorough study of the features of the implementation of the phonetic system will make it possible to predict possible changes in the language. Determining the boundaries of the variability of phonemes in a spontaneous monologue statement can be a step towards solving this important problem.
Conclusion
To conclude, variability as the main feature of the norm is provided for by the language system and is due to the complex interaction of linguistic (coarticulation and prosodic characteristics of an utterance) and extralinguistic (communicative intention of the speaker in a given communication situation) factors.
When describing the phoneme system, the articulatory classification must be supplemented by an acoustic classification, since there is no contradiction between the two. However, the head of the articulatory classification should be the signs of the way to overcome the obstacle, the active organ and the place of formation, and not the noisy sonority -since a prerequisite for consonants is the articulatory focus rather than the work of the vocal cords. It is especially important to study the acoustic correlates of differential features and investigate which of the acoustic parameters are most useful for perception of features.
REFERENCES
1. Bondarko, L.V. Styles of pronunciation and types of pronunciation // Questions of linguistics. Volume 2. Moscow, 1974, pp. 64-70.
2. Gak, V.G. Linguistic variability in the light of the general theory of variability (to the problem of factors and the role of variability in language) // Variability as a property of a language system (Abstracts of reports). Moscow, 1982, pp. 71-75.
3. Goverdovskaya, S.E. Consonant combinations with sonanthic elements in modern English // Author's abstract. Cand. diss. Kalinin, 1984.16 p.
4. Kasevich, V. B. Phonological problems of general and oriental linguistics. Moscow: 1983.296 p.
5. Lions,J. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Moscow, 1978. 543 p.
6. Martine, A. The principle of economy in phonetic changes (Problems of diachronic phonology). Moscow, 1960.
7. Osipova, S.V. About some convergent-divergent processes in the vocal system of national variants of the English language // Phonology of the text (collection of scientific works). Moscow, 1984, pp. 18-36.
8. Potapova, R.K. Theoretical and applied aspects of speech segmentalology // Problems of phonetics.Vol. 2.Moscow, 1995.
9. Raevsky, M.V. Experience in defining the concept of "pronunciation norm" // Standards for the implementation of linguistic means. Gorky, 1986.
10. Shcherba, L. V. Selected works on the Russian language. Moscow, 1957.
11. Solntsev, V.M. Language as a system-structural education. Moscow, 1971.
12. Staburova, L.G., Maistrenko, T.I., Papanova, L.V. Course of phonetics of English language. St. Petersburg: 1997.168 p.
13. Stepanov, Yu. S. Fundamentals of linguistics. Moscow, 1966. 271 p.
14. Trubetskoy, N. S. Fundamentals of Phonology. 2nd edition. Moscow: 2000.352 p.
15. Verbitskaya, L. A. Orthoepy and questions of speech culture // Applied linguistics. St. Petersburg, 1996.
16. Veyselli F.Y. Elements of general and private linguistics. Part I.Baku, 2011. 357p.
17. Willem Zuidema, Bartde Boer.The evolution of combinatorial structure in language // Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. Volume 21, June 2018, Pages 138-144.
18. Zhivov, V. M. Timberlake, A. Parting with structuralism (theses for discussion) // Questions of Linguistics. Issue 3. 1997, pp. 3-14.
19. Zinder, L.R.General phonetics. Leningrad: 1979.
