The accentual structure of English language

Contents:
 

Introduction

In this course paper we shall treat some problems of accentual structure. . According to D.Crystal the terms "heaviness, sound pressure, force, power, strength, intensity, amplitude, prominence, emphasis, accent, stress" tend to be used synonymously by most writers. According to G.P. Torsuev the notions “stressed” and “prominent” should not be used synonymically. The effect of prominence is created by some phonetic features of sounds which have nothing to do with word or sentence stress.

RI.Avanesov considers the variability in the placement of the Russian word stress an individual sign of every particular word which presents a difficulty for foreign learners and sometimes for the natives. It is interesting to note that Russian word stress may have stylistic distinction and poetic usage, cf. молодéц — мóлодец, девúца - дéвица, шéлковый —шелкóвый.

In chapter I. we shall regard to English stress. It is common knowledge that sounds of speech have different degrees of sonority. Vowels are more sonorous than consonants. Open vowels are more sonorous than close ones. The quantitative, and qualitative components of word stress they are also significant.

In the point 1.1. we shall say about tha nature of word stress and prominence. According to A.C.Gimson, the effect of prominence is achieved by any or all of four factors: force, tone, length and vowel colour.

In the point 1.2. we shall consider the placement of word stress. The word siress in English as well as in Russian is not only free but it may also be shifting, performing the semantic function of differentiating lexical units, parts of speech, grammatical forms.

In chapter II. We shall pay attention to the question of typology of accentual structure.

According G.Torsuev Accentual types and accentual structures are closely connected with the morphological type of words, with the number of syllables, the semantic value of the root and the prefix of the word.

In the point 2.1. we shall to point out degrees of stress and rhythmical tendency. The accentual structure of English words is liable to instability due to the different origin of several layers in the Modern English wordstock. In Germanic languages the word stress originally fell on the initial syllable or the second syllable, the root syllable in the English words with prefixes. This tendency was called recessive.

The aim: to analyse the opinions, poins of view of phoneticians to accentual structure.

Tasks: 1) To give the definitions of word stress

2) To sigle out the nature of word stress and prominence

3) To study the degrees of word accent.

Chapter I. English stress as a phenomenon

It is common knowledge that sounds of speech have different degrees of sonority. Vowels are more sonorous than consonants. Open vowels are more sonorous than close ones. The quantitative, and qualitative components of word stress they are also significant. Certain distinctions of the vowel length and colour are reduced or lacking in unstressed syllables^ The fact .strengthens the idea that the accentuation is influenced by the vowel length and, quality. The vowel of the stressed syllable is perceived as never reduced or obscure and longer than the same vowel in the unstressed syllables. Thus, the word "stress" or "accent" is also defined as qualitative where the vowel colour or qualily is a means of stress and quantitative with relatively increased length of the stressed vowel. Compare the quality (colour) and quantity (length) of the same vowel in a word, e.g. ab'stract, 'car-park; идú, úли, yмý.

It is fair to mention that there is a terminological confusion in discussing the nature of stress. According to D.Crystal the terms "heaviness, sound pressure, force, power, strength, intensity, amplitude, prominence, emphasis, accent, stress" tend to be used synonymously by most writers. The discrepancy in terminology is largely due to the fact that there are two major views depending on whether the productive or receptive aspects of stress are discussed. The main drawback with any theory of stress based on production of speech is that it only gives an explanation of the phenomenon but does not analyse it on the perceptive level. Instrumental investigations study the physical 'nature of word stress.

1.1             Peculiarities of Word Stress in English

It is known that the word-accent in the English language is free. Linguists have a firm belief that the nature of free word-stress in this or that language is determined by the unpredictability of its place. However, research shows that in English there are certain factors which define the place of word-stress in a word or a word form. Unlike languages in which the accent is completely free, the freedom of word-stress in English is limited by a number of tendencies which let the place of the accent in a word be predicted. Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember, as D. Jones marked, if it is at all possible to formulate the rules of the place of word-stress in English they will contain a set of exceptions.

It is impossible to disagree with the statement that the arrangement and the degree of word-stress in compound words in English are determined by historically developed factors. The inconsistent character of accentual variants of compound words can be connected with simultaneous and different in time influences on the accentual structure of a word caused by diverse factors and accentual regularities. D. A. Shakhbagova explains the instability of the accentual balance of compound words by the unstable semantic balance of their components.

Linguistic causes are considered to be the most essential for accentual changes and variations in word-stress. The major factors which determine the accentual structure of English words are the following: recessive, rhythmic, retentive, semantic, morphological and the factor of analogy. The recessive tendency is considered by many linguists to be a decisive force which regulates word-stress in English. It is the first and the most ancient tendency characteristic of all Germanic languages. According to this tendency the word-stress is placed at the beginning of a word. It is the recessive tendency which defines the direction of the accent movement. In Old English the first syllable was mainly stressed, in some cases — the second. V. A.Vassilyev distinguishes two types of recessive stress: unrestricted and restricted.

Unrestricted recessive stress in Modern English falls on the initial syllable, if it is not a prefix which has lost its meaning. This type of stress is observed in the majority of native English words (for example, father ['- -], wonder ['- -]). Restricted recessive stress falls on the root of native English words with a prefix which has lost its previous meaning (for example, among [-'-], forget [-'-]).

The main factor which diachronically determined the place of word-stress in English was the prevalence of monosyllabic and disyllabic words in the Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian languages. Words with several syllables (three or four) were derivatives. They all had a constant stress, the place of which was determined by the recessive tendency (for example, wonder ['- -], wonderful ['---], wonderfully ['----]).

Owing to these factors the effect of this tendency has been very strong during the whole period of the development of the English language. The recessive tendency determined the place of word-stress in a great number of borrowings. The loan words gradually submitted to phonetic regularities of the English language. When for some reason or other the word-stress did not fall on the first or second syllable there appeared a secondary stress on one of the syllables. I.I. Wolfson assumes that secondary stress first appeared on the initial syllable in all cases. A significant amount of three-syllable words of French origin which used to have the last syllable stressed, later, due to the effect of the recessive tendency, got the stress on the first syllable. So, for example, the word radical originally had the stress on the last syllable. Then according to the recessive factor it got the stress on the first syllable. Later the stress on the last syllable weakened and the last syllable ceased to be perceived as stressed. According to the retentive tendency (from Latin retentus) a derivative word keeps the stress of its initial word (for example, person ['- -] — personal ['---]. If a derivative word shifts the main stress closer to the end of the word there appears a secondary stress on the syllable which was the carrier of the main stress in the initial word (for example, personal ['---] —personality [,- -'- - -]).

The frequent use of everyday vocabulary which in most cases consists of one syllable has caused another tendency — rhythmic. This tendency means the alternation of stressed and unstressed syllables. Prepositions, conjunctions, particles, articles, auxiliary verbs turned out to be unstressed. In Modem English they are also unstressed. It was also promoted by the fact that between short words with their own lexical meaning and therefore stressed there often appeared unstressed words with grammatical meaning. The borrowed complex words of four or more syllables began to submit to the rhythmic tendency of alternation of stressed and unstressed syllables receiving a secondary stress. And in this way the stress divided them into two parts which structurally and rhythmically coincided with short words. The rhythmic tendency is caused by the difficulty of pronouncing two stressed syllables successively.

Recent research shows that rhythmic tendency itself cannot cause the presence of the secondary stress though O. Espersen, for example, considered this tendency to be the main reason for the secondary stress to appear in a word. G. M. Skulanova explains the influence of rhythmic tendency upon the place of the secondary stress. She writes that the secondary stress in simple and derivative words never falls on the syllable directly previous to the syllable with the main stress. There is always an unstressed syllable between them (for examplе, e,xami’nation).

This factor often becomes apparent in the arrangement of word-stress in a compound word in English in which a tendency to change accentual models under the influence of phrase rhythm depending on the position in a syntagm manifests itself.

It concerns first of all compound marked words, i.e. words which  have  variants  with  a  special  mark  in  the  Pronouncing Dictionary (EPD). Most clearly this phenomenon manifests itself if the variant row contains subsidiary variants with different accentual models, which are marked in the same way. For example, there exist accentual models ['- -] and [-'-] in the same variant row, marked with the labels "under influence of sentence-stress" or "according to sentence-stress". Such a combination of accentual models is possible because the variants have components with a different place of stress and the mark, which is connected with the rhythmic organization in a phrase, which regulates their use. There can exist variants with the same accentual model (for example, [-'-]) but with different marks.

The influence of rhythmic tendency can be compared to litmus paper which reveals the latent connection between the accentual model and the mark. For example, in compound nouns all subsidiary variants with the accentual models ['- -] and ['- ,-] are marked by the syntactic label "when attributive". The use of these variants in the function of an attribute can be explained by the effect of the rhythmic factor, because both the models have the main stress on the first component of the compound word.

The most essential for accent shift and the appearance of accentual variations in the language are the factors of morphological and word-formation character E. A. Glikina considers that the analysis of regular connections between the structure of a compound word and its lexical and grammatical type is the only way of investigation. I. A. Fedyanina emphasizes the fact that the accent submits to strict laws based on the dependence of accent on morphology. Thus, "it is hopeless to study accent from the angle of pure phonetics". It is connected with the fact that, firstly, a lot of phonetic issues are boarding on morphology and, secondly, phonetic changes directly influence the process of grammatical transformation.

Varieties in word stress in different parts of speech are determined by the distinction of their syntactic functions. The results of the research show that the accentual structure of the main and the subsidiary orthoepic variants depends on the part of speech the word belongs to. The main variant of most compound nouns has an accentual model with a unifying stress on the first component (['- -]) Compound adjectives, verbs and adverbs have a secondary stress on the first component and the main stress on the second ([,-'-]).

The analyses show that all compound nouns which, owing to the influence of semantic-morphological factor can fulfill the function of an attribute and have the accentual model with the secondary stress on the first component ([,-'-]). Besides, this model is considered to be the most perspective for subsidiary variants, since all the new words have this model in their accentual variant row.

The same reason causes a different degree of variation of the accentual structure in various parts of speech. Compound adjectives and adverbs have a larger degree of variation than compound nouns and verbs.

The morphological factor is connected not only with the morphological type of a word but also with its structure.  The diachronic analysis of the accentual structure of compound words helped to discover the accentual redistribution determined by the number of syllables in their components. It is well-known that secondary stress appears in polysyllabic words on the syllables which are the most distant from the syllable with the main stress and therefore they do not depend on it much. In other words, the number of syllables in the second component of a compound word predetermines the choice of the accentual model of this word. This factor is called syllablic-quantitative. If the second component of a compound word is monosyllabic the accentual model with a unifying main stress on the first component is predominant (['- -]), i.e. the second component is unstressed. If the second component is polysyllabic (has two or more syllables), the accentual variant gets the accentual model with the main stress on the first component and the secondary stress on the second (['-, -]).

The morphological factor in English reveals itself, for example, in stressed syllables in which the stress is caused by the accentuation of some English word-forming suffixes. In this case the stress is morphologic. Certain groups of morphemes become stressed owing to the fact that they keep their semantic weight. In such cases the effect of the two factors is united and linguists single out the semantic-morphological factor of word-stress. This is G. P. Torsuyev's term (1960). This principle regulated word-stress in English already during the early period of its development.

In compound and complex words in English the position of word-stress depends on the semantic weight of the components of the word. Compound words represent a combination of two or three stems in which one of them defines another, or limits its meaning, or introduces an element of contrast. When a semantically more important element is at the beginning, the first component is stressed (for example, 'rain-coat, 'opera-glasses). If the main element is the second one, the main stress falls on the second component (for example: ,arm-'chair, ,eye-'witness).

A different interpretation of this tendency is given by E. A. Glikina in her dissertation research. She believes that the semantic factor manifests itself in compound words where their general meaning is more or less clearly deduced from the meaning of their components. Such words have secondary stress on the second component. Compounds words possessing a high degree of semantic integrity tend to preserve the unity of accent.

In G- P- Torsuyev's opinion, the semantic factor is the leading factor in the English language. It becomes rather distinctly apparent in the tendency to place the stress on a root morpheme, a prefix with its own meaning (usually productive).

The place and the degree of stress can also depend on the chance of opposing the compound word to other words or word-combinations. Thus, one of the components becomes more important according to its structure or meaning. D.Jones marks that both the components can be felt equally important and the distribution of stress, therefore, can depend on a very small difference in the degree of the importance of the components. G. P. Torsuyev explains the instability of accent balance of many compound words in English by the unstable semantic balance of their components.

The semantic factor, undoubtedly, remains now a rather important factor which defines the place and the degree of stress in a compound word. The stressed component in a compound word is a determinant. It provides more important information in the process of communication.

The accentual leveling on the analogy is also an important factor. It has already been mentioned that for the most part compound adjectives have the accentual model [,-'-] in the main variant. If a word used to have another accentual model, which was registered in previous editions of the dictionary, (for example, the model ['- -]), it is changed by the basic model and the model with the unifying stress remains in the variant row but at its periphery and belongs to a subsidiary variant. Such a process takes place, for example, in the adjectives thick-skinned, thick-set.

Leveling on the analogy also takes place in a group of compound nouns. For example, the accentual model [,-'-] was used in the word churchyard till 1997. But then it got another accentual model (['- -]), which used to belong to a subsidiary variant of the word. This is the basic accentual model for nouns; therefore it has occupied the place of the main variant. The compound nouns tomcat, oil-paint, beefsteak have undergone a similar process.

1.2 The placement of word stress

Russian phoneticians (L.V.Zlatoustova; L.L.Bulanin, ) insist on the quantitative character of the Russian word stress as its principal feature, though other components of word stress in Russian are not denied. We would like to dwell on the term prominence here. It seems to cause some ambiguity when related to word stress. The stressed syllables are often said to be the most prominent syllables in the word. According to G.P.Torsuev the notions "stressed" and "prominent" should not be used synonymically. The effect of prominence is created by some phonetic features of sounds which have nothing to do with word or sentence stress. It is common knowledge that sounds of speech have different degrees of sonority. Vowels are more sonorous than consonants. Open vowels are more sonorous than close ones. Sonority is the inner quality of vowels which is not directly connected with the accentual structure of words but with other articulatory characteristics, it contributes to the effect of prominence.

The word siress in English as well as in Russian is not only free but it may also be shifting, performing the semantic function of differentiating lexical units, parts of speech, grammatical forms. It is worth noting that in English word stress is used as a means of word-buildingi in Russian it marks both word-building and word formation, e.g.

‘contrast – con’trast

‘music – mu’sician

дóма – домá;

чýдная - чуднáя

Oppositions are also found among compound verbs:

to 'switch 'on - to 'switch 'off

'to turn 'on - to 'turn 'off             

Words with meaningful prefixes are likewise semantically opposed to those without prefixes. Compare:

'educated - 'un'edueated             

'please - 'dis'please             

'cyclone - 'anti'cyclon             

,under’stand' - 'misunder'stand             

Compound numerals have naturally two equal stresses, making both elements significant, e.g. 'twenty-three, 'sixty-'five.

Numerals with the -teen suffix are marked by two stresses to oppose them to the numerals with the unstressed suffix -ty. If the suffix -teen is not stressed the vowel [i:] in it is shortened and obscured, the sonant [n] is weakened, there is consequently a danger of misunderstariding, e.g.             

- 'What ,page is it? ||

- ‘Seven,teen. ||

- ‘Seven,teen | or ,seventy? |||

The above-given illustrations show how important it is in teaching practice to make the students realize that the accentual structure of words is conditioned by the semantic interrelation of their elements. The teacher should attract the students' attention to the correlation between the accentual and semantic structures of words which will save the students many mistakes. The regulation of the accentuation in the Russian language is too complicated and is practically unpredictable. The stress may fall on the same morpheme in the derivatives where word-formation is performed by the grammatical means alone, e.g. кожа — кожи — кожей - кожу; год — годы — годом. In another group of words the stress may effect different morphemes of the word participating in the word-formation alongside with the grammatical means, e.g. сад—сады — садами — садом; пар — пары - парами-— паром; but: пара — пары — парами — парам:

RI.Avanesov considers the variability in the placement of the Russian word stress an individual sign of every particular word which presents a difficulty for foreign learners and sometimes for the natives. It is interesting to note that Russian word stress may have stylistic distinction and poetic usage, cf. молодéц — мóлодец, девúца - дéвица, шéлковый —шелкóвый.

'The complicated system of the accentual structure of English words makes teacher trainees be very attentive to the subject. The typical mistakes of Russian learners in the sphere of word stress are the rnispronunciation of: 1) words with the main and secondary stresses (,conver'sational); 2) words with two equal stresses in connected speech {up'stairs, 're'organize); 3) words with the full vowel in the unstressed syllable ('architect). ;

The instability of English accentual structure of words presents much difficulty for Russian learners. Students' attention should be attracted to English multisyllabic words the accentual structure of which is regulated by the rhythmical tendency and the use of the secondary stress in those words, as it has no anal-ogy in the Russian language, compare: 'transpor'tation - транспортировка, de,mocrati'zation — демократизация.

Another group of words presenting difficulty for Russian learners is large group of compounds which are marked either by two equal stresses (compound adjectives) or by one stress (compound nouns). The semantic factor in defining the accentual structure of compounds should be most decisive, as it has been illustrated above. One more group of words requires learners' attention, the group which forms accentual oppositions of different parts of speech by way of conversion accompanied by the shifting of stress, e.g. 'combine (n) — com’bine (v), 'insult (n) — in’sult (v).

In case of doubt it is advisable to consult a pronouncing.

1.3 Overview of English accents

Before looking at examples of differences between accents, it might help to have a sense of what the major accents are and where they're spoken. But you can safely skip this subsection if you prefer.

The British Isles

There is no "British" accent. England, Scotland, Ireland, and possibly Wales all have their own unofficial standard accents, and the standards of Scotland and Ireland in particular are as different from that of England as American accents are. The standard, or prestige, accent of England is usually referred to as Received Pronunciation (RP). This is what the royal family, all recent Prime Ministers, and most BBC announcers speak. It is probably what most Americans think of as an "English" accent, though it is spoken as a native accent by no more than about 10% of the English population. It differs most noticeably from General American in the pronunciation of a few vowels and in the way /r/ is treated following vowels. For example, in RP there would be no [r] sounds at all in the phrase the northern fourth of the park.

Within England there are many identifiable regional accents, probably more than in the United States in fact. Among these, London accent (sometimes called "Cockney") stands out because it is familiar to many Americans through film and drama characters such as Eliza Dolittle in "Pygmalion/My Fair Lady" and because it has a number of very characteristic features. Many of the vowels in this accent differ considerably from RP (and General American). Other very striking features are the loss of initial /h/ ("'e 'as an 'ard 'eart" = "he has a hard heart") and the frequent glottal stops in place of other stops in other accents ("iʔ'll taʔe a loʔ o' time to seʔle" = "it'll take a lot of time to settle"). Perhaps the other major accent boundary in England separates the accents of the north from those of the south. Americans may be familiar with northern England English through the speech of the Beatles or the characters in films such "The Full Monty". These accents can be identified fairly easily because they make no distinction between the vowels /ʌ/ and /ʊ/; both are pronounced like /ʊ/.

Scottish and Irish English share one feature with northern England English; the tense vowels /i/, /u/, /e/ and /o/ are not pronounced as diphthongs, as they are in RP (and General American). In addition, these accents are like General American, and unlike most accents of England, in how they treat /r/ after vowels.

The Western Hemisphere

The unofficial standard accent of the United States is usually called General American (GA). This is the accent of much of the Midwest and the West and the most frequent accent for US newscasters, though, interestingly, only five of the last ten US Presidents have spoken it. As the prestige accent, it has been encroaching on some regional accents, for example, in the northeast, but at the same time, changes within GA are creating what amount to new accents. One striking example of this is Northern Cities accent, spoken in cities such as Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, and Rochester, and distinct from GA in the pronunciation of lax vowels.

Almost everyone is familiar with Southern US accent, spoken by people mainly in the southeastern part of the country. Like London accent, this accent has strikingly different vowels from other English accents. African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) is a dialect associated with an ethnic group rather than a region, though of course you don't have to be African-American to have learned it. The accent associated with this dialect is similar in many ways to Southern US accent, while the grammar has its own characteristic properties.

People from the northeastern US are often easy to identify by their accents; the accent of New York City stands out within this region, again mostly for its vowels. Some other US cities, especially Pittsburgh, are known for particular pronunciation conventions. In Pittsburgh, for example, [a] may be used where GA has /aw/, so downtown may be [,dan'tan].

Standard Canadian English (except in the province of Newfoundland) is very similar to General American, and it doesn't vary much from place to place. Two features that can help identify Canadians are their pronunciation of /ay/ and /aw/, which we'll learn about later, and a tendency to use rising pitch at the end of some statements as well as questions.

English is the native language of much of the Caribbean, with some features common to the region and others specific to particular islands. Americans may be familiar with Caribbean English through the speech of Jamaican performers of reggae music. As with other accents, there are characteristic vowels in these accents, and in addition, a tendency in the Caribbean, as there is in some US accents, to make no distinction between /t/ and /θ/ and between /d/ and /ð/. Jamaican English in particular also has quite striking intonation patterns.

The Southern Hemisphere

English is the native language of most Australians and New Zealanders and a sizable minority of South Africans. While the standard English accents of these countries tend to approach RP, the broad accents of most English speakers in all three countries have tense (long) vowels similar to those in London accent. The lax (short) front vowels of Australian and New Zealand English differ from those in other accents. Americans are likely to be familiar with these features from the speech of actors such as the Australian Paul Hogan.

Non-native accents

English is spoken as a second language by millions of people, especially in regions that were once colonized by Britain in South Asia and Africa. In some of these regions there are particular English pronunciation conventions that derive from the phonology of the local languages. So in the English of South Asians (Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans, Nepalese, Bhutanese, and Maldivians), the alveolar consonants /t/, /d/, /n/, and /l/ tend to be replaced by retroflex consonants, an important place of articulation for consonants in the languages of this region. Some of these conventions may be viewed as belonging to a kind of non-native regional or national English standard. These non-native standards are one of the ways in which English is becoming even more of an international language.

Phonetic differences

You learn that the phoneme /e/ is pronounced [yɛ] in Jamaican English. As a speaker of General American, how easy would it be for you to master this aspect of a Jamaican accent?

Probably the most common sort of difference between accents is purely phonetic. A phoneme in one accent corresponds perfectly to a phoneme in another accent, so we can consider it to be the same phoneme, but it differs in its precise realization, that is, how it is articulated and perceived.

How to make your /o/s sound English or Irish or Scottish

Take the vowel /o/. In GA, this is pronounced as a diphthong beginning as a rounded mid back vowel and ending as a rounded high back vowel (or semivowel): [oʊ]. In RP, on the other hand, this same phoneme has a slightly different realization. It begins as an unrounded mid central vowel and ends as a rounded high back vowel: [əʊ]. In other accents, such as Irish, Scottish, and northern English, /o/ is not a diphthong at all; it is realized as [o]. But since the set of words in GA with [oʊ] is the same as the set of words in RP with [əʊ] (with perhaps a few exceptions) and the other accents with [o], we can see these as the same phoneme. If you're a speaker of GA, and you want to sound English, one thing you could do would be to simply pronounce all instances of /o/ in your speech as [əʊ], just as a speaker of RP could pronounce all instances of /o/ as /oʊ/ as a part of affecting an American accent.

Another similar example concerns the vowel /ɑ/, as in the words hot, sock, and rob. In RP, this vowel is pronounced in roughly the same position as it is in GA (that is, with the same height and backness), but in RP it is somewhat rounded (leading some Americans to think that the RP vowel in these words is /ɔ/). Sometimes a different symbol is used for the vowel in fact. But this difference between the accents is a bit more complicated than this because, as we'll see below, it applies to only some instances of /ɑ/ in GA.

For English vowels, the pattern of phonetic differences between accents is often more extensive than just the correspondences between individual phonemes. The realization of a number of vowel phonemes in one accent may correspond to different realizations for all of those phonemes in another accent. This may be true for the lax ("short") vowels or the tense ("long") vowels or both.

Let's compare the tense vowels, including the diphthongs, of GA and London accent. These accents have the same set of tense vowel phonemes, which we have been writing using the symbols /i, e, u, o, ay, aw, ɔy/, but each is realized differently in the two accents, in some cases, very differently. The first figure below summarizes what you already know about the tense vowels of GA. Recall that each of these vowels is actually pronounced like a diphthong, though this is not reflected in the symbols used for /i, e, o, u/ and it may be difficult to hear or feel for /i/ and /u/. Each line represents one of the phonemes, and it is labeled with a word containing the phoneme (written in the same color as the line). Circles at one end or the other of an arrow represent rounding, and the arrows next to the words show the direction of the diphthong. The second figure shows the corresponding vowels in London accent. Click on the words to hear my imitation of a Londoner saying them. The colors in the two figures represent phonemes that correspond, though in some cases they differ considerably in their phonetic realization, as you can see.

How "phoned Ray" in London sounds like "found rye" in Indianapolis

The main point to note here is that there is a clear correspondence between the GA and London vowel phonemes, even though the correspondences might not be reflected in the symbols that we use to represent the phonemes. For example, we have been using /e/ to represent the vowel in bait, but [e] is very far from the vowel in this word in London; for London accent, a better symbol would be [aɪ], which of course is the realization of a completely different phoneme in GA, the one in the word bite. So when we are talking about two phones in different accents, there are two ways we can compare them, phonetically and phonemically/lexically. Phonetically, the vowel [aɪ] in London, as in the word bait, is quite similar to the vowel [aɪ] in GA, as in the word bite. But phonemically or lexically, the vowel [aɪ] in London functions the same way as the vowel [eɪ], that is, /e/, in GA.

Phonemic differences

You're a young speaker of a Caribbean accent in which there is no /θ/ or /ð/ phoneme (thing is /tɪŋ/; this is /dɪs/). When you start school, you're expected to learn a prestige accent in which distinctions are made between /t/ and /θ/ and between /d/ and /ð/. In what ways might this be difficult for you?

Another possibilitity is that two accents may differ in the number of phonemes. That is, a distinction that is made in one accent and used contrastively is not made in the other accent. This means that some words that contrast in one accent may sound the same in the other accent.

I have already mentioned two examples of this phenomenon. Many, perhaps most, speakers of GA and Canadian English do not make a distinction between the phonemes /ɔ/ and /ɑ/; they have a single phoneme instead. The actual phonetic character of the sound varies somewhat; it is more like [ɑ] for Americans but more like [ɔ] for many Canadians. The point is that the speakers do not distinguish words from one another using a distinction between [ɑ] and [ɔ]. Pairs of words like the following are distinct in other English accents, but they sound the same for these speakers.

1.                 awed, odd

2.                 dawn, Don

3.                 cawed, cod

4.                 caught, cot

In these accents, there is a distinction between /ɑ/ and /ɔ/ before /r/, for example, in pairs such as car and core, part and port, lard and lord. But in this same context, there is no distinction between /ɔ/ and /o/, so we could consider a word such as core to be /kor/ rather than /kɔr/.

Because these pairs of words sound the same in this accent, there is a potential problem for the hearer that does not exist in an accent where the distinction is made. We know that this feature of this accent is relatively new; that is, the earlier distinction made in this and other accents has been lost (and is apparently being lost by more and more speakers). Given the problem that hearers have distinguishing words like the pairs above, how can such a change take place? In fact it turns out that there are very few such pairs. The additional burden on the hearer is apparently small enough that the loss of the distinction is tolerated by speakers and hearers of the accent.

Another example was also mentioned earlier, the lack of a distinction between the phonemes /ʌ/ and /ʊ/ in accents of northern England. For these speakers there is a single phoneme, normally pronounced [ʊ]. So the following words, which sound different in most other accents, are pronounced in the same way by these speakers.

5.                 cud, could

6.                 buck, book

7.                 luck, look

8.                 putt, put

9.                 stud, stood

In this case, unlike that of /ɑ, ɔ/ in North America, it is the accent that fails to make the distinction that is more conservative; Middle English did not make a distinction between /ʌ/ and /ʊ/. In any case, as before, the lack of a distinction does not leave hearers for this accent handicapped because there are not many pairs of words distinguished only by this difference.

As a final example of phonemic differences in English vowels, consider how the vowel /ɑ/ in GA corresponds to vowels in RP. In GA this vowel appears in words where it is spelled "o" — hot, shock, stop — and words where it is spelled "a" — father, part, carve. In RP, on the other hand, these sets of words have different vowels, a short, rounded, low, back vowel in the first set (which I'll write with /ɑ/ even though it differs a little from GA /ɑ/) and a long, unrounded, low, back vowel in the second set (which I'll write /ɑ:/). That is, in RP, the words father and bother do not rhyme. Most of the words with /ɑ:/ in RP have an /r/ in GA that does not appear in RP, as we'll see below. This means that, even though RP has two vowel phonemes where GA has one, there are few if any words that are distinguished in RP but not in GA. For example, a pair such as pot and part is distinguished by the consonant (/r/) in GA but by the vowel in RP (GA: /pɑt/, /pɑrt/; RP: /pɑt/, /pɑ:t/).

But RP /ɑ:/ also corresponds to many words that have /æ/ in GA. Some words are pronounced with /æ/ in both accents, for example, gas, bad, can, and lamp. Other words with /æ/ in GA are pronounced with /ɑ:/ in RP, for example, glass, rather, can't, and laugh. Note that there is in general no way to predict from the context which words will have /æ/ and which will have /ɑ:/ in RP. Thus an American trying to imitate an RP accent will have to remember which words have which phoneme. This is difficult and leads to frequent over-generalization mistakes such as the pronunciation of gas as /gɑs/ or stand as /stɑnd/ in American attempts at imitating RP.

Differences in the number of English consonant phonemes are not as common, but there are some. In a number of accents, especially in the Caribbean, in London, in AAVE, and in some US cities, the dental fricatives /θ, ð/ do not exist as separate phonemes. Where other accents have these phonemes, these accents have either /t/ and /d/ or /f/ and /v/. So in accents where /θ/ is not distinguished from /t/ and /ð/ is not distinguished from /d/, each of the following pairs of words would sound the same.

10.             tin, thin

11.             tie, thigh

12.             boat, both

13.             true, through

14.             tread, thread

15.             den, then

16.             ride, writhe

In these accents an older distinction has been lost, but as with /ɑ/ and /ɔ/ in North America, the loss apparently does not seriously interfere with communication because there are not too many pairs of words that end up as homophones with the loss of the distinction.

Going from an accent with fewer to an accent with more distinctions is difficult.

Going back and forth between two accents is more complicated when the number of phonemes differs than when there are only phonetic differences. Say a speaker of GA or Canadian English who does not make the distinction between /ɑ/ and /ɔ/ wants to learn or to imitate the speech of someone from London or New York or Houston, all places where the distinction between these two phonemes is made. The problem is that words with these phones in this person's mental lexicon are all represented in terms of one vowel category, whereas the same words are represented in terms of two different categories in the mental lexicons of speakers of other accents. For each word, say, caught or hawk or hot or lock, the speaker will have to figure out which vowel in the other accent is appropriate. But unless the speaker has learned this for each word, this will be impossible. In this situation, speakers often make mistakes, over-extending either one or the other phone. For example, a North American speaker might overuse /ɔ/ in trying to speak with an RP accent, using this vowel for words like hot and lock. In the same way, a speaker from northern England trying to speak with an RP accent, might over-extend the vowel /ʌ/, using it for words normally containing /ʊ/ such as sugar and cushion.

Note that a speaker going in the other direction would not have the same problem. A speaker of RP would just have to remember to pronounce both /ɑ/ and /ɔ/ in the same way when imitating GA and to pronounce /ʌ/ and /ʊ/ in the same way when imitating an accent of northern England.

Chapter II. The questions of typology of accentual structure