Conclusion

It has been the task of the author to present, however briefly, what can best be described as the diacritical level of language. It has long been accepted at the English Department of Moscow State University that the generally recognized dialectical unity of the oral and written forms of language should not be allowed to remain a mere general statement. It is high time that the actual unity of both were documented and demonstrated as clearly as possible.

This being (as far as we know) the first ever attempt to condense the wealth of the material which is already available to whoever concerns him/herself with the diacritical level of language, the author would be very grateful indeed for sugges­tions and criticisms, because this extremely involved domain of philological study is her main preoccupation, as well as the object of her unfailing interest. Nevertheless, there is no doubt whatsoever that time has come when simply paying lip service to the idea of the indissoluble connection between the oral and written forms of language should not be allowed to go on unsupported by detailed and thorough investigations in the field.

Among the main difficulties encountered when writing the manual the following ones may be mentioned: when no deci­sion could be made or no consistency could be discovered as to the actual placement of this or that issue within the body of the manual, the material was reduced to the form of an appendix. The author found a certain amount of satisfaction in at least presenting the problem, mentioning it, bringing it to the notice of specialists. Thus, for example, it still remains

64

unclear what place in the feature level belongs to syllabifica­tion, accentual types of words, consonant clusters.

Whenever we found it difficult to allot a place for this or that subject, we resorted to the method of appendices, because we felt bound to bring together (at long last) the so far disjointed parts of the feature level which (although investigated separately to a considerable extent) are still unavailable to the learner as a consistent, global presentation of what we have described in the preface as the “fundamentals of language”, following the great Jacobson and Halle.

APPENDIX 1

The system of English vowels (according to A.I. Smirnitsky)

The English vowel system is less controversial than the system of consonants.

If the English vowels are classified according to the nine main positions, derived from the division into “three rows” and “three elevations”, the system will have the following form (which is the usual way of representing the system of English vowels):

according to the height of the tongue	according to the position of the bulk of the tongue	Front	Central	Back
High		i: (1) I (2)	u (8)	u: (9)
Mid		e (3)	э: (11) э (12)	л (10)
Low		se (4)	а: (5)	о: (7) о (6)

Each symbol in this table denotes a certain phonological en­tity. In other words, the symbol [i:] stands for all the variants of that phoneme: e.g.[bi:], [bi:d], [bi:t], etc.

66

APPENDIX 2

Professor Hill’s Structural Model⁵⁰

As an example of a systemic representation of vowels which is based not on A.I. Smirnitsky’s approach (where everything is valid only when derived from the realities of speech), we adduce here A.Hill’s system, the ultimate aim of which is reducing the facts to the following structural model:

~ i I i I u ~

e э о

~ as | a | о

Here “i” stands for the vowel in “bit”, “pit”, “e” — in “pet”, “bet”, “э” — in “but”, “butt”, “u” — in “put”, “ se” — in “bat”, “bad”, “a” — in “pot”, “o” — in “bought”, “want”, “o” — in “home”.

Each of these nine elements (the syllabic nuclei) may be real­ized as such or in combination with the following three glides:

postvocalic [w] — a glide upward towards the high back corner

postvocalic [h] — a glide downward centre

postvocalic [y] — a glide upward towards the high front corner

The English overall pattern provides the possibility of combin­ing any vowel with any following semivowel, making 27 complex nuclei or diphthongs, which with the nine simple vowels make a total of 36 vowels and nuclei. No single dialect employs them all, but all 36 may be found among the English dialects. A few exam­ples will help the reader to understand how the model works:

[a] lot [lat]; [ay] light

[i] bit; [iy] beat

[e] bet; [ey], bait

[i] bid; [ih] tyeard

[a] pot [pat]; [aw] pout [pawt]

[u] look; [uw] Luke [luwk]

As can be seen from these examples, A. Hill, in contrast with A.I. Smirnitsky, left on one side all the refinements of strong and weak vowels. He has taken one abstract feature and shown it, because he was interested not in the reality of speech, but in the model as such.

67

APPENDIX 3

The system of English consonants (according to A.L. Smirnitsky)

According to the place ч of articu-

Labial

Forelingual

Back-lingual

Pha-ryngal

\ lation According\ to the manner-. of articula- \ tion \

p b m w

labi­oden­tal

den­tal

alve­olar

velar

plo­sives

t d

к g

nasal reso-nants

n

j

fricatives

f V

e a

s z

J" 3

h

lateral

1

medial

r

j

occlusive- constric- tive

affric­ates

tj d3

It is clear from the table that A.I.Smirnitsky arranges the con­sonants under three general headings. Thus it becomes clear that the main modes of production are based on 1) complete closure of the air passage (occlusive), 2) incomplete closure (constrictive) and 3) a combination of the two (complete closure accompa­nied by incomplete closure). Complete closure is resolved either orally or through the nose — hence the secondary classification into the “plosives” and “nasals”. The “semivowels” and “lateral” consonants are formed by narrowing the air passage (incomplete

68

closure). The principle of incomplete closure brings together more than half of the consonants. It is accompanied and modified by additional characteristics, which, in most cases, are very impor­tant but, nevertheless, incapable of undermining the fundamental similarity.

The most important point, duly emphasized by Smirnitsky, is the systematic character of the sounds of the language. It is clear from his table of consonants that the oppositions between the sounds are clearcut. But not every distinction between the sounds is important from the point if view of the phonological system as a whole.

APPENDIX 4