facebook
twitter
vk
instagram
linkedin
google+
tumblr
akademia
youtube
skype
mendeley
Global international scientific
analytical project
GISAP
GISAP logotip
Перевод страницы
 

REVISITING THE ISSUE OF PHONOSTYLES

REVISITING THE ISSUE OF PHONOSTYLES
Irina Usachenko, преподаватель

Николаевский национальный университет им. В.А. Сухомлинского, Украина

Участник конференции

At the current stage of linguistic science development, special attention is paid to the issues of language functioning in the process of communication, study of various factors that direct language process and affect the implementation of language means, structural linguistic features of styles and patterns of their implementation.

Phonostylistics is a relatively new branch of linguistics, one of the main objectives of which is to identify different phonetic modifications under the influence of extralinguistic factors, although the referencesof the phonetic means’ role in utterances styling are found in many studies.

Traditionally the linguistic science divides phonostylistics into segmental and suprasegmental depending on the aspect under study, i. e. sounds or speech prosody accordingly. Phonetic studies of segment set are much more numerous and this section is more developed. Thus, the study of sound symbolism begins with Plato and Aristotle [7].

Analyzing the segment (phonemic) level of linguistic structure, phoneticians- experimentalists increasingly turn to the study of phonetic ambiguity, i. e. sounds that cannot be unambiguously interpreted at the phonemic level. With acoustic and audit types of analysis, such issues as the correlation of complete and incomplete elements of pronunciation type in speech signal, the degree of quantitative and structural deformation of segment units under the influence of intra- and extralinguistic factors and, therefore, “resistance” of vocalic and consonant segments of various kinds of influences they are exposed to in every speech act, are examined [2; 5; 13 et al.].

Linguistic science operates with such concepts as language style and speech style. Language styles are different sets of language means depending on the limitations of their composition and varying concentrations as well as intenseness of each particular style by the language means typical only for it. Speech styles differ not only by the language means composition and their concentration specific to them, but also by varying degrees of language means implementation, their repeatability and particular sequence of their use in a particular field of communication [3, P. 9].Thus, the speech stylistics aims to examine aspects of pronunciation variability, i. e. to study the stylistic forms of a word developed by the variability of phonemes.

Phonostyles cannot stand separately from functional styles. In stylistic differentiation of speech phonetic means can be basic ones, but they can also correlate with lexical and grammatical means. It is assumed that there is a connection of stylistic devices of language system’s different levels: phonetic, lexical, syntactic, and morphological.

Different authors use several terms: “pronunciation type”, “speech style”, “language style”, “phonetic style”. Our work will deal with the term “phonetic style” or “phonostyle”, which refers to a kind of phonetic means combination of all levels of language phonetic system, peculiar to a statement in a particular form in a certain speech situation [4, P. 7].

The main aspects of phonostylistic studies are the search of patterns of language phonetic means functioning in different forms and types of oral speech as well as the study of sound variability. Works on the typology of oral speech utterances made it possible to determine the extralinguistic factors that influence the choice of language phonetic means in styling of a particular utterance more accurately. Linguistic science differentiates external and internal extralinguistic factors. External factors contribute to the generation of stylistic features which are the set of functional style qualitative features that should be obtained by a language for the effective implementation of specific goals of communication in a certain field of speech communication.

Many style features are characteristic of not one, but several styles, but in all of them the same features have their own specificity, their functional and stylistic quality. This fact is determined by the differences of language means and the ways of their implementation, differences in target and functional focus, and specificity of the styles [5].

Y.M. Screbnev names the situation nature of the speech act (official or not, solemn or casual, etc.), relation of the speaker to the speech recipient, i. e. the degree of intimacy between the speaker and the listener, understanding of speech communicative goals – business, scientific explanation, transfer of the speaker’s emotional attitude to the subject of speech among the factors, influencing the linguistic means’ choice by a speaker [14]. Y.O. Dubovskyi provides another division: objective factors of a language situation that are independent of interlocutors, namely the form of speech (monologue, dialogue – unilateral, bilateral, multilateral), the type of speech (speaking, reading, citations), the method of communication (direct contact or by technical means), the external conditions of communication (in front of a large audience or a small group of people), stylistic orientation of the speech act (official – unofficial), etc. Other factors depend on the speaker or interlocutor and are identified by them: their age, social status, territorial identity, speaker’s degree of readiness (spontaneous, quasispontaneous or prepared speech), the speaker’s profession [8, P. 15]. M.O. Sokolova believes that these factors are divided into two groups: those which form the style and those which modify it. The first group expresses the speaker’s strategy and includes the goal and topic of an utterance. Each option provides a selection of different phonetic means to implement an effective communication. The second group includes such extralinguistic factors as the speaker’s relation to the communicative situation, to what he says or hears; the form of communication (monologue, dialogue or polylogue); the formality degree of the situation and discourse (formal / informal). There are also such important additional factors as the social status of the speakers and the type of publicity (public / non-public speech), the degree of preparedness (prepared / spontaneous speech) [15, P. 21]. The role of these factors in the production of texts is different: some of them, such as the degree of preparedness, play a crucial role, others (e.g., number of recipients) – a minor one. We proceed from the idea that all factors that form a style are interrelated, and only their combination constitutes a phonostyle.

M.V. Panov in connection with the discussion of the speech styles’ problems draws a parallel with lexical styles [10]. R.I. Avanesov mentions that speech styles are closely related to language styles as a whole, but the correlation of speech styles with styles of vocabulary is not straight and simple [1]. N.I. Portnova rightly believes that functional and phonetic styles are not identical, but they form a dialectical unity, which is reflected in the overall scheme of the social situation [12].

S.M. Haiduchyk notes that phonetic styles are “the complex of phonetic means peculiar to a linguistic utterance in a certain form and situation in a certain field of communication” [6]. The framework for the study of phonetic style was established by M.V. Lomonosov, who distinguished three styles of spoken Russian literary language of the eighteenth century: high, medium and simple. Academician L.V. Shcherba clearly defined two poles – complete style and conversational style [16, P. 21-22].

In the course of further development of the speech style doctrine, linguists have identified three pronunciation styles – high, neutral and conversational. It is believed that different styles of pronunciation cannot be represented as closed systems, isolated from one another; on the contrary, they are very closely related to each other and are characterized by interpenetration.

Phonetic variation is determined by the need to differentiate various styles and genres of speech. Linguists involved in phonostylistics, basing on the L.V. Scherba’s notion as for coexistence of many styles according to a wide variety of language social conditions, point the ways for future research in the field of phonostylistic differentiation of speech. So, S.M. Haiduchik identifies five phonetic styles: solemn, scientific, official, neutral, and relaxed, and the criterion for this division is a field of their use [6]. There is another appropriate classification of phonetic styles, covering all types of phonetic means of language segment and suprasegment levels, peculiar to utterances under the condition of presence of these extralinguistic factors, and promotes their use in the process of phonostylistic aspect description of other languages. In his turn, E. Nurahmetov believes that distinguished phonetic styles do not cover the variety of phonetic means at sound and prosodic levels, but he notes that the allocation of these styles discovers the way for further studies of phonetic means of communicative types and kinds of utterances [9]. O.D. Petrenko identifies three phonostyles: reciting, and also reading a report without a microphone in a formal setting; pronunciation when reading texts on the radio or reading of fiction; calm business conversation [11, p. 30]. The scientist notes that the existence of the norm implies these oppositions: system – norm – individual speech, literary language – spoken language – a dialect, official style – casual style, sociolect – annolect – sexolect – idiolect.

A. Cruttenden uses two contrasts: formal / informal, rehearsed / spontaneous [17, P. 37-40]. D. Jones analyses five styles: fast familiar, slow spoken, facing the audience, theater and opera [3, P. 21]. Y.A. Dubovskyi in the course of oral monologue utterances study opposes public (meeting and non-meeting) and non-public (official and unofficial) styles. The author makes it clear that all types of spoken oral text can have direct or indirect contact implementation [8, P. 82]. The given classification demonstrates the fact that the author distributes phonostyles depending on the relations formality degree between the speakers and the audience. V. Yakubovych identifies five phonostyles: formal (dramatic language, opera singers’ singing), full (characteristic of the political and judicial speakers), spoken (used during the interview, parliament debates, scientific discussions), informal (practiced among equal communicators in their social position and on television and radio, in classrooms), extremely informal (family, circle of friends). The author says that the first two types are characteristic of monologues, the others are for dialogues [18, P. 114-115].

Phonostyles as well as functional styles rarely exist in their pure form. Depending on the purpose of communication and the communicative situation in general they can intertwine, complementing each other. However, each phonostyle is characterized by a certain ratio of  typological characteristics, among which the form of speech (verbal / written), the type of speech (monologue / dialogue), the degree of preparedness (prepared / spontaneous), the number of communicants (public / non-public), the relationship between participants in the communicative act (formal / informal) are chief ones. The study of functional-stylistic differentiation of oral speech remains an urgent task of communicative phonetics and phonostylistics.

 

References:

1.    Аванесов Р.И. Русское литературное произношение / Р.И. Аванесов. – М.: Просвещение, 1984. – 384 с.

2.    Бондарко Л.В. Звуковой строй современного русского языка / Л.В. Бондарко. – М, 1977.

3.    Великая Е.В. Просодия в стилевой дифференциации языка. Монография / Е.В. Великая. – М.: «Прометей» МПГУ, 2008. – 163 c.

4.    Гайдучик С.М. Фоностилистический аспект устной речи: Автореферат дис. … доктора филол. наук / С.М. Гайдучик. – Л., 1973.

5.    Гайдучик С.М. Фоностилистическая дифференциация устной речи / С.М. Гайдучик // Романское и германское языкознание: Сб. науч. тр. – Минск, 1979.–Вып. 1. Вопросы экспериментальной лингвистики. – С. 15-22.

6.    Гайдучик С.М. К вопросу о классификации фонетических стилей и о предмете фоностилистических исследований/ С.М. Гайдучик// Романское и германское языкознание. Респ.межвед.сб. –Минск, 1981.–Вып.11.–С. 9-15.

7.    Гордеева Т.А. Фоностилистическая маркированность немецкого литературного произношения / Т.А. Гордеева // Известия высших учебных заведений. Поволжский регион. Гуманитарные науки. – 2007. - №1. – С. 98-107.

8.    Дубовский Ю.А. Просодические контрасты в языке. Уч. пос./ Ю.А. Дубовский.– Симферополь: СГУ, 1983.

9.    Нурахметов, Е. Проблемы супрасегментной фоностилистики (на материале фр. яз): дис. д-ра филол. наук: 10.02.05 / Е. Нурахметов. – М., 1997.-235 с.

10. Панов М.В. Позиционные отношения в стилистике / М.В. Панов // Труды по общему языкознанию и русскому языку. Т.1. –М.: Языки славянской культуры, 2004. –С. 30-35.

11. Петренко А.Д. Социофонетическая вариативность современного немецкого языка в Германии / А.Д. Петренко. – К.: Рідна мова, 1998. – 254 с.

12. Портнова Н.И. Социально-стилистическая вариативность звуковых единиц современного французского языка в процессе вербальной коммуникации (экспериментально-фонетическое исследование): дис. … д-ра филол. наук / Н.И. Портнова. – М., 1991.

13. Потапова Р.К.Сегментно-структурная организация речи (экспериментально-фонетическое исследование): дис. … д-ра филол. наук /Р.К. Потапова. – Л., 1981.

14. Скребнев Ю.М. Языковая и субъязыковая норма/Ю.М. Скребнев // Нормы реализации.Варьирование языковых средств: Межвуз.сб.н.тр. – Горький, 1984. – С. 161-173.

15. Теоретическая фонетика английского языка. – М.: Высшая школа, 1991.

16. Щерба Л.В. Фонетика французского языка / Л.В. Щерба. – М., 1953.

17. Cruttenden A. Intonation / A. Cruttenden. – Cambridge, 1986.

18. Yakubovich V. An Introduction to English Phonetics and Phonology / V. Yakubovich. – Pyatigorsk: PGLU, 2001.

Комментарии: 2

Баласанян Марианна Альбертовна

Уважаемая коллега. Спасибо за интересное и познавательное сообщение. Хочется подчеркнуть, что источники, цитируемые в настоящей статье, отражают современную точку зрения на исследуемую проблему. С уважением, баласанян М,А..

Назаренко Елена Вячеславовна

Уважаемая Ирина, Ваше исследование крайне актуально и имеет перспективы дальнейшего развития. Желаю удачи и новых научных достижений! С уважением, Назаренко Е.В.
Комментарии: 2

Баласанян Марианна Альбертовна

Уважаемая коллега. Спасибо за интересное и познавательное сообщение. Хочется подчеркнуть, что источники, цитируемые в настоящей статье, отражают современную точку зрения на исследуемую проблему. С уважением, баласанян М,А..

Назаренко Елена Вячеславовна

Уважаемая Ирина, Ваше исследование крайне актуально и имеет перспективы дальнейшего развития. Желаю удачи и новых научных достижений! С уважением, Назаренко Е.В.
Партнеры
 
 
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
Would you like to know all the news about GISAP project and be up to date of all news from GISAP? Register for free news right now and you will be receiving them on your e-mail right away as soon as they are published on GISAP portal.