5. What distinctive oppositions illustrate the existence of occlusive, constructive, occlusive-constructive consonants?

This principle of consonant classification provides the basis for the following distinctive oppositions: (1) Occlusive (stops) vs. constrictive

pine—fine Bern—fern dare —share bat —that bore—thaw bee — thee care—there mine—t hine ca me—lame

In these pairs the occlusive /p, b, d, k, ml are opposed to the con­strictive /f, J¹, S, 9, 1/. (2) Constrictive vs. occlusive-constrictive (affricates)

fare — chair fail — jail work — jerk

In these pairs the constrictive /f, w/ are opposed to the occlusive-constrictive (affricates) /tf, dg/.

6. What distinctive oppositions illustrate classificatory subdivisions within the groups of occlusive and constructive consonants?

"Within the groups of occlusives, or stops, and constrictives, noise consonants may be opposed to sonorants.

(a) occlusive: noise vs. nasal somrants

pine—mine boat — moat tale—nail dead—need kick—king

In these pairs the occlusive noise /p, b, t, d, k/ are opposed to the nasal sonorants /m, n, rj/.

(b) constrictive: noise vs. sonorants

same — lame vain — lane then — when

In these pairs the constrictive noise consonants /s, v, ö/ are op­posed to the constrictive sonor ants /1, w/.

Unicentral constrictive consonants may be opposed to bicentral consrictive consonants.

(c) constrictive unicentral vs. constrictive bicentral

same — shame thine — wine

In these pairs the constrictive unicentral /s, 5/ are opposed to the constrictive bicentral Ц, w/.

Constrictive consonants with a flat narrowing can be opposed to constrictive consonants with a round narrowing.

(d) flat narrowing vs. round narrowing

fame — same vat — sat

In these pairs the constrictive consonants with a flat narrowing /f, v/ are opposed to the constrictive consonants with a round narrow­ing /s/.

7. What distinctive oppositions prove the existence of oral and nasal consonants phonemes?

This principle of consonant classification provides the basis for the following distinctive oppositions. Oral vs. nasal

pit — pin seek — seen thieve — theme sick — sing

In these pairs the oral consonants It, k, v/ are opposed to the na­sal /m, n,

The method of minimal pairs helps to identify 24 consonant pho­nemes in the English language on the basis of such an analysis which demands a recourse to the meaning, or to the distinctive function of the phoneme. V. A. Vassilyey ^г writes that those linguists who reject meaning as external to linguistics think that it is possible to "group the sounds of the language into phonemes even without knowing the meaning of words" as D. Jones put it. V. A. Vassilyev states thai "this belief I. . .] is based on two laws of phonemic and allophonic distri­bution (1) that allophones of different phonemes always occur in the same phonetic context I. . .] and (2) that consequently, the allophones of the same phoneme never occur in the same phonetic context and always occur in different positions [. . .]." From these laws "two con­clusions are deduced: (1) if more or less different speech sounds occur in the same phonetic context, they should be allophones of different phonemes; and (2) if more or less similar speech sounds occur in dif­ferent positions and never occur in the same phonetic context, they are variants of one and the same phoneme [...]. This method is known in modern phonology as the purely distributional methodof identifying the phonemes of a language as items of its phonemic system."

Though the practical application of the purely distributional meth­od is theoretically feasible, there are many difficulties in its use.

The principle which determines the choice of the most suitable method for teaching purposes is called the principle of pedagogical expedience in phonemic analysis.

8. What distinctive oppositions illustrate classificatory groups of rounded and unrounded vowels?

Rounded vs. unrounded vowels:

don — darn pot — part

In these pairs the unrounded vowel phoneme hi is opposed to the rounded hi phoneme.

9. What distinctive oppositions illustrate classification groups according to the:

   1. horizontal;

Horizontal movement of the tongue (a) front vs. central

cab—curb bed—bird

In these pairs the front vowel phonemes / , / are opposed to the central phoneme / /.

back vs. central

pull—perl cart—curt call—curl

In these pairs the back vowel phonemes / , , / are opposed to the central phoneme / /.

2. vertical movements of the tongue?

(close (high) vs. mid-open (mid)

bid—bird put—port week—work

In these pairs the close vowels / , , / are opposed to the mid –open vowel / /.

open (low) vs. mid-open (mid)

lack—lurk bard—bird call—curl

In these pairs the open vowels / , , / are opposed to the mid –open vowel / /.

10. Can the existence of front-retracted and back-advanced vowels be proved by minimal pairs?

11. Is the length of the vowels the only distinctive feature of long and short vowel phonemes?

There are long vowel phonemes in English /i:, а, о:, и:, э:/ and short /i, e, ae,¹ л, и, и, э/. But the length of the vowels is .not the only distinctive feature of minimal pairs like: Pete—pit, beet—bit, Bart—bad, etc. In other words, the difference between /i:—i,

а—л/, etc. is not only quantitative but also qualitative, which is conditioned by different positions of the bulk of the tongue. E.g. in the words bead—bid not only the length of the vowels /i:, i/ js different but in the /i:/ articulation the bulk of the tongue occupies a more front and high position, than in the articulation of A/.