Если у вас возникли сложности с курсовой, контрольной, дипломной, рефератом, отчетом по практике, научно-исследовательской и любой другой работой - мы готовы помочь.
Предоплата всего
Подписываем
Lecture 2
Theme: Problems of Phonostylistics.
Plan:
Pronunciation is by no means homogeneous. It varies under the influence of numerous factors. These factors do not have linguistic meaning so it is appropriate to refer to these factors as extralinguistic. The information about stylistic variations in learning, understanding and producing language is directly useful for the design, execution and evaluation of teaching phonetics. The branch of phonetics most usually applied for such information is phonostylistics.
Phonostylistics is a rapidly developing and controversial field of study though a great deal of research work has been done in it. It would not be accurate to say that phonostylistics is a new branch of phonetics. It is rather a new way of looking at phonetic phenomena. Linguists were until recently not aware of this way of analysis and awareness came only as a result of detailed analysis of spoken speech.
Before describing in detail what the problems and tasks of phonostylistics are one should give some understanding of what gave a mighty impulse to this new way of looking at phonetic phenomena. The point is that during the first half of our century linguists have shown interest in written form of the language and so the emphasis in language study was laid on analysing written speech. It is only during the last thirty-five years that the situation has changed. It may be said that it was the invention of the tape-recorder and other technical aids that was the real turning point in phonetics and linguistics in general. Linguists got a good opportunity of studying the other form of language realization — spoken speech — the variety which had hitherto (up to this time) been largely or completely ignored. It is not only the absence of mechanical aids which accounts for the lack of linguistic research that has been carried out into this variety of language and the procedure difficulty of obtaining reliable data to investigate. There is, however, a further reason. Until quite recently theory and research on language was based on the assumption that it is only the written form of language realization that can serve a reliable object of investigation, while the spoken form is not worthy of scientific analysis because it produces deviations from the literary norm.
Nobody would want to deny the fact that spoken speech is the primary medium of’ language expression. So when linguists became involved in investigating language in use they realized that language is not an isolated phenomenon, it is a part of society. In real life people find themselves in various and numerous situations. In these situations language is used appropriately, i.e. people select from their total linguistic repertoires those elements which match the needs of particular situations.
This fact changed the whole approach to the language. Rather than viewing language as an object with independent existence, a thing to be described for its own sake, it became evident that it must be seen as a tool, a means to an end outside itself. That end is, of course, communication and it is only in the context of communicative situation that the essential properties of a linguistic system can be discovered and analysed.
So it is taken to be reasonably obvious that much of what people say depends directly or indirectly on the situation they are in. The nature of this dependency is fairly complicated and it would be quite unrealistic to attempt to analyse all aspects of it. Variations of language in different situations it is used in are various and numerous but; all these varieties have much in common as they are realizations of the same system. That means that there are regular patterns of variation in language, or, in other words, language means which constitute any utterance are characterized by a certain pattern of selection and arrangement.
The principles of this selection and arrangement, the ways of combining the elements form what is called "the style". Style integrates language means constructing the utterance, and at the same time differs one utterance from another.
It must be noted that the category of style is not new in linguistics. The branch of linguistics that is primarily concerned with the problems of functional styles is called functional stylistics. Stylistics is usually regarded as a specific division of linguistics, as a sister science, concerned not with the elements of the language as such but with their expressive potential.
It has been suggested that a functional style can be defined as a functional set of formal patterns into which language means are arranged in order to transmit information. A considerable number of attempts have been made in recent years to work out a classification of functional styles. But in spite of this fact it is still an open question in linguistics. In other words, there is no universal classification that is admitted by all analysts.
This fact can be accounted for by the following reasons. As it was pointed out earlier, language events take place in situations. The factors that determine the usage of certain language means are quite numerous and various. Their interdependence and interconnection are of complex nature. Consequently it is difficult to decide which of the factors are of primary importance and should be considered the most reliable criterion.
In addition, language as a means of communication is known to have several functions. In the well-known conception suggested by academician V.V.Vinogradov, three functions are distinguished, that is the function of communication (colloquial style), the function of informing (business, official and scientific styles) and the emotive function (publicistic style and the belles-lettres style). Classification of this kind actually reflects some of the aspects of stylistic phenomena. However, the criterion of distinguishing styles does not seem accurate enough. It is obvious that what is called the emotive function is the general task of literature but not of style. Besides, the language of fiction should not be treated on the same footing with the functional style of a language.
The other two above-mentioned functions cannot serve as a basis for distinguishing functional styles because there is no simple correspondence between the function and the style. For example scientific style is used not only for informing people but also for communication of scientists in discussions, talks, speeches and so on. Colloquial speech, in its turn, always combines those two functions. What is to be taken into account here is the difficulty of distinguishing those two functions, which is one of the basic problems. In fact communication is the process of exchanging information. The actual difference between communicating and informing can be marked primarily in a dialogue — monologue opposition.
There exist various classifications of functional styles. The terms that are most commonly dealt with are: scientific style, publicistic style, business style, belles-lettres style and colloquial style. The latter functions predominantly in everyday oral speech, though most scholars share the opinion that there is no simple correspondence between the styles and the forms of language realization.
It should be noted that in the process of studying the characteristics of functional styles phonetic level of analysis has been completely ignored.
Oral speech has its own specific characteristics and the quality of various forms and kinds of oral speech is by far larger than in written speech. So it is quite clear that description and comparison of all these variations is a matter of severe complexity as, on the one hand, each form is specific and, on the other hand, there are regular patterns of partial likeness between them. Now one thing is evident, that the sets of phonetic style-forming features do not correspond to functional styles in pure linguistic approach. They are characterized by different qualities.
It was mentioned that certain nonlinguistic features can be correlated with variations in language use. The latter can be studied on three levels: phonetic, lexical and grammatical. The first level is the area of phonostylistics.
Summarizing, one may say that phonostylistics studies the way phonetic means are used in this or that particular situation which exercises the conditioning influence of a set of factors which are referred to as extralinguistic. The aim of phonostylistics is to analyse all possible kinds of spoken utterances with the main purpose of identifying the phonetic features, both segmental and suprasegmental, which are restricted to certain kinds of contexts, to explain why such features have been used and to classify them into categories based upon a view of their function. Before describing phonetic style-forming factors it is obviously necessary to try to explain what is meant by extralinguistic situation. It should be noted that if a systematic exhaustive and ultimately realistic view of phonostylistic differentiation of oral speech is to be attained an orderly analysis of the communi cative extralinguistic situation appears to be obligatory. The analysis shows that it can be defined by three components that are purpose, participants, setting. These components distinguish situation as the context within which interaction (communication) occurs. Thus a speech situation can be defined by the co occurrence of two or more interlocutors related to each other in a particular way, having a particular aim of communicating, communicating about a particular topic in a particular setting.
Firstly, a situation is connected with the purpose and the topic of the communication. Purpose can be defined as the motor which sets the chassis of setting and participants going, it is interlinked with the other two components in a very intricate way. The purpose directs the activities of the participants throughout a situation to complete a task. Such purposes can be viewed in terms of general activity types and in terms of the activity type plus specific subject matter.
There appear to be a considerable number of quite general types of activities, for example: working, teaching, learning, conducting a meeting, chatting, playing a game, etc. Such activity types are socially recognized as units of interaction that are identifiable.
It has been shown what is generally understood by an extralinguistic situation and what components may be con sidered as its constituents. It is, perhaps, easy to see how numerous the main factors determining variation in language usage are. What important here is variations of phonetic means. A framework for understanding and describing them has to deal with the constant and decisive features of the situational circumstances of language event that are relevant for phonetic level of analysis. It would be true to say that this problem was given a good deal of attention and there is a lot of data obtained with the help of special investigation. It allows us now to single out, a number of factors which result in phonostylistic varieties. They are:
the degree of spontaneity (or the degree of preparedness or the/reference of the oral text to a written one).
It should be mentioned right here that the purpose or the aim of the utterance may be called a phonetic style-forming factor. All other factors cause modifications within this or that style and that is why may be referred to as style-modifying factors.
There is one more thing that should be pointed out here. All these factors are interdependent and interconnected. They are singled out with the purpose of describing phonetic phenomena so that to give a good idea of how the system works.
The first factor we should consider is the purpose of the utterance and the subject matter. As it was mentioned earlier, these two constituents are closely connected. As the subject matter in large part determines the lexical items, it is the aim of the utterance that affects pronunciation. So in this respect the aim could be spoken of as the strategy of the language user and so it may be called a style-forming factor. On the phonetic level there are variations related to describe what language is being used for in the situation: is the speaker trying to persuade? to exhort? to discipline? Is he teaching, advertising, amusing, controlling, etc.? Each of the above-mentioned variants makes the speaker select a number of functional phonetic means with the purpose of making the realization of the aim more effective. In terms of phonostylistics one may analyse various phonetic ways of reflecting the speaker's purposive role in the situation in which the text occurred.
Another extralinguistic factor most often referred to is the speaker's attitude to the situation or to what he is saying or hearing. It is common knowledge that a communicative situation is part of a human being's everyday life situation so it is natural for a language user to consider the situation from his point of view, revealing his personal interest and participation in what he is saying. The thing he is talking about may satisfy him or not, may please him or not, may elicit his positive or negative response, his emotions. This factor forms a complex bundle with another characteristic feature of oral speech. It is no new notion that any oral text is addressee-oriented. This means that the listener is always concrete, no matter whether communication takes place in public or private atmosphere. This factor can well be said to greatly differ oral form of language realization from its written form. In sum, this factor can be considered a relevant feature of oral speech. It’s most common linguistic realization is intonation varieties which can be numerous like varieties of attitudes and emotions an individual can express in various life situations. One might conclude that subjective colouring of oral speech is one of its most integral characteristics.
Considering the form of communication one should say that nature of participation in the language event results in two possible varieties: a monologue and a dialogue. It should be mentioned that a distinction between a monologue and a dialogue is a fairly conditioned one.
From the linguistic point of view only one feature is considered to be relevant, i.e. the length of the utterance. Monologues are usually more extended. They are also characterized by more phonetic, lexical and gram matical cohesion. This means that monologues usually have more apparent continuity and self-contained ness than conversation. Phonetic organization of either of the two varieties cannot he analogical since each kind is characterized by specific usage of language means of all the three levels.
It is obvious that the process of speaking is very often recognition of social roles and relationship. The interaction of individuals depends upon their learning and accepting the roles of social behaviour. A certain individual may possess a certain rank in an organization which entitles him to be addressed in a certain fashion by his subordinates, in another way by his equals and in a third way by his superiors. So to come to terms with how roles and relations are realized in language we speak of formality of discourse. Formality reflects how the addresser (the speaker) interacts with the addressee (the listener). The relationship is the situational category, the extralinguistic reality.
Formality results from mutual relations among participants in language events. So one might say that spoken language shapes relationships, it defines and identifies them, and it is the category of formality which marks speaking "the right" kind of language.
Considering a communicative situation from the point of view of sociolinguistics one would have to admit that it makes the language user realize the importance and necessity of stylistic demands for his language consciousness. So the dichotomy (separation) formal — informal (official — unofficial) can be understood as the absence or presence of socially realized necessity to follow certain rules while generating an utterance. Informal communication does not make the speaker use obligatory forms, it allows using them. The category of formality is generally included into the set of style-differentiating factors applied. It suggests that a language user possesses the ability to speak in different styles. It is the case with people whose professions are highly verbal ones. Such people usually have a very cultural background. In the opposite case the linguistic behaviour of a speaker in a formal situation does not differ from his behaviour in an informal situation.
The influence of this factor upon the phonetic form of speech is revealed by variations of rate of articulation. So one might say that the variable along which styles of speaking differ is mainly sounds. In a formal situation the language user tends to make his speech distinct, thorough and precise. His conscious attention to the form of production makes him choose the full style of pronunciation. The notion of the appropriateness of speaking slow enough is presumably part of the cultural code which insists that it is rude to talk fast and less explicit in such situation. In an informal situation he would prefer less explicit and more rapid form because this form would be more appropriate and would function efficiently as a mode of communication.
It would be a vast oversimplification to assume that there are only two varieties of pronunciation. There are, certainly, many more of them. Indeed there is an infinite number and they have no definable boundaries, each merges imperceptibly into the next.
The two polar varieties that have been mentioned above illustrate the role of degree of formality as an extralinguistic category.
Analysing extralinguistic factors one should add some more to the above-mentioned ones. They are: the speaker's individuality, temporal provenance, and social provenance, range of intelligibility, sex and age of the speaker. The first thing to know about them is that they are incidental, concomitant features. They are characteristic of a language user and can not vary, with very little exception, like all the above-mentioned ones. So they are not deliberately chosen by the speaker at the time of text production, though they may very well serve as his identifying features, thus from this point of view they may be considered informative.
One of the most important style-modifying factors is the degree of spontaneity. The types of speech situations which lead to spontaneous speech include classroom teaching, television and radio interviews, sporting commentaries on radio and television of an event actually taking place, conversation between experts in a particular field of everyday conversations. One should realize, of course, that between two poles of spontaneity there are a number of more delicate distinctions. For example, the sporting commentator has studied notes and has described this sort of thing before; the people whose professions are highly verbal ones such as the journalist, the politician, the teacher, the lawyer and the stage entertainer become accustomed to producing spontaneous texts and are very often called upon to speak spontaneously about the same area of experience. This means that although they have no written text in front of them there are elements of preparation and repetition in their speaking performances which give them some of the characteristics of written modes. These characteristics are most clearly identified at the phonetic level of analysis.
If an utterance is qualified as fully spontaneous from linguistic point of view it means that its verbal realization is taking place at the moment of speaking, though, of course, it could be thought over in advance. There are situations where this kind of speech activity is not possible. The reason that accounts for that results from three things: a) the utterance is too long to be re membered because, as we know, there are memory constraints; these are utterances produced in the form of lectures, reports, etc.; b) the time of the speaker is limited, so the message has to be conveyed without any hesitation; for example, news over the radio and TV; c) the speaker is realizing somebody else's utterance, for example, reading, a piece of prose, quoting, etc. In the above-mentioned cases the utterance or rather its verbal realization is prepared in advance, i.e. written on a sheet of paper. This script version is used at the moment of production — it is read. This type of presentation is qualified as fully prepared. The speaker may use the written variant just to help himself remem ber the logic succession of the uttered contents. In this case the speech is also fully prepared. In either of the above-mentioned cases a written text was made with the purpose of being pro duced orally. It serves as a means of optimization of the process of transmitting the message. This kind of written text should be distinguished from literary written texts which are not to be read aloud though such possibility is not completely excluded. The latter differs from the former in fairly specific organization of lexical and grammatical means which is one of the most important characteristics.
Now if one look upon the degree of spontaneity as a style-modifying factor he should admit that it has a decisive influence on the phonetic organization of an oral text. In other words, the primary distinction that should be drawn is the distinction be tween two kinds of speech activity, i.e. speaking and reading (speech without and with reference to the written text). This dis tinction is included by most phoneticians into the set of influencing factors no matter what aspect of speech is analysed. Actually the two kinds of oral texts differ quite considerably in the way the phonetic means of the language are used. If we want to describe the difference it must be admitted that this is where phonetics overlaps with psycholinguistics, a new interdisciplinary subject.
Psycholinguistics as a distinct area of science developed in early sixties though the contact of linguistics and psychology is known to have lasted for more than a hundred years. Language is considered to be an instrument of human psychics and so information from psychology plays an important and practically useful part in the development of linguistics.
It is true that investigation of speech cannot be carried out without considering the structure and organization of activities due to which production and perception of speech take place, the latter being psycholinguistics study area. Language is known to be a human activity. Any human activity can exist in two forms, i.e. in the form of the process and in the form of the product as the result of the process. So it is perfectly clear that it is impossible to interpret phonetic characteristics of living speech without having an idea of the psychic laws of speech perception and speech production.
Speaking and reading being processes of communication and varieties of speech activity are two different psychic processes, i.e. the sounding utterance is generated in quite different ways. When a written text is being read aloud, a reader has got a verbal realization before his eyes, the script which has been prepared in advance either by himself or by an other person. So he need not think of what to say or rather of how to put the ideas into words. The only thing he has to do is to make the graphic symbols sound, i.e. to realize orally the ideas verbally expressed by means of lexis and grammar of the language. Oral realization should be made according to pronunciation rules of a particular language. Besides, if he is to read with comprehension the graphic symbols of the language he must learn to supply those portions of the signals which are not in the graphic representation themselves. He must supply the significant stresses, pauses and tone sequences. In short, the reader should learn to use the phonetic means of a language to be able to express the ideas of the written text adequately. If he has acquired this sort of habit, psychologically he is quite sure of what he is going to produce. As a result the usage of phonetic means is characterized by a very high degree of regularity. Melodic, temporal, rhythmic organization of the text is even; pauses are made at syntactical junctures within and between the sentences. The text sounds loud and distinct (both sounds and intonation are meant).
While spontaneous speech is taking place (when no notes are used) the process of psychic activity consists of two equally important items, i.e. a) the process of searching (remembering) information and the ways of expressing it verbally and b) the process of giving (transmitting) information. The speaker has got an intention to express some ideas and he should choose an adequate linguistic form to express these ideas and in this way to generate the utterance.
Naturally the psychic mechanisms of generating the spoken utterances are quite different. Consequently, phonetic means of the language are also used differently, the difference being the marker of the form of speech activity.
Sources:
Васильев В.А. "Фонетика английского языка" М; 1970г.
Васильев В.А. Теоретический курс "Фонетика английского языка" М; 1962г.
Леонтьев С.Ф. Теоретический курс английской фонетики. М; 1981г,1988 г.