I. The study of syllabic structure of English and Russian words (theories).

It is generally known that speech is a continuum. But it can be broken into minimal pronounceable units into which sounds show a tendency to cluster or group themselves. These phonetic groups are given the name of syllables. Being the smallest pronounceable units, the syllables form language units of greater magnitude, that is morphemes, words and phrases. Each of these units is characterized by a certain syllabic structure. A meaningful language unit has two aspects: syllable formation and syllable division. Do we speak in syllables? If we do it, for example in Russian, it may have a specific purpose:

[хо-ро-шό] – 1) to help a pupil write a word orthographically correct;

2) to show a person that he isn’t clever or competent enough in writing.

[спар-так чем-пи-он] – 3) to declaim (recite) to support a favourite team, etc.

[я же вас пре-ду-преж-дал] -4) to make speaker’s words sound meaningful (not in his opponent’s favour).

Though a syllable can be studied on four levels:

- acoustic;

- articulatory;

- auditory;

- functional.

About 78% of all syllables in Russian are open. It is the dominant type of syllables. In Germanic languages the dominant type is a close one.

The syllable can be approached from different points of view. Thus many theories exist to study this phenomenon. Here are the most spread ones.

Theory I. Ancient Egyptian theory. According to this theory there are as many syllables in a word as the quantity of vowels in it. On this theory the teaching of orthography is based in schools.

Compare the words:

Beat them – there are 2 syllables in it.

Rhythm – there is 1 syllable in it.

But if we try to rhyme these words in the word rhythm there will appear to be 2 syllables. We “destroy” the inner structure of the word.

Theory II. Sonority theory by O. Jespersen. According to O. Jespersen each sound is characterized by a certain degree of sonority which is understood as acoustic property of a sound that determines its perceptibility. It starts with the open vowels as the most sonorous, continues through the close vowels, the sonorants, the voiced fricatives, the voiced plosives, the voiceless fricatives and ends with the voiceless

plosives as the least sonorous. For example,

.

P l a: n t

According to V. A. Vassilyev, the most serious drawback of this theory is that it fails to explain the actual mechanism of syllable formation and syllable division (*Vassilyev V. A. English Phonetics: A Theoretical Course. – M., 1970) According to the degree of sonority all sounds can be subdivided into the following categories:

Vowels и voice 100 % The word ритм has

Sonorantsр. м 2 syllables.

(voice + noise)

Voiced

consonants

Voiceless т

consonants voice 0 %

A syllable here is seen as a wave of sonority. The scheme also allows us to define the borderline between syllables as a place of minimal sonority. There is some other example:

Vowelsа о а voice 100 % The word аорта has

Sonorants . р 1 syllable.

(voice + noise)

Voiced

consonants

Voiceless т

consonants voice 0 %

This theory is convenient, still it is not applicable in those cases when we have 2 adjacent vowels.

Theory III. Due to the analysis of articulatory or motor aspect of the syllable we could start with the so-called expiratory, or chest pulse or pressure theory which as based by R. H. Stetson (*Stetson R. H. Motor Phonetics. – Amsterdam, 1951). This theory is based on the assumption that expiration in speech is a pulsating process and each syllable should correspond to a single expiration so that the number of the syllables in an utterance is determined by the number of expirations made in the production of the utterance. The major accent in this theory is placed upon the force of articulation. We talk more about breathing out not of breathing in. A pulse is a result of contractions of muscles. Thus the idea is that we speak portion by portion. In obvious cases indeed the number of pulses coincides with the number of syllables. But the fact that in a phrase a number of words and consequently syllables can be pronounced with a single expiration makes the validity of this theory doubtful (* Торсуев Г. П. Вопросы акцентологии современного английского языка. – М.-Л., 1960). For example, сорокапятитысячный. In spontaneous pronunciation of this word in Russian it is hard not only to count the number of pulses, but it is next to impossible to count the number of syllables. The way we do it is subconsciously. Another example: “literary”. We can probably say there are 4 syllables in this word. However we can’t be categorical about it because in a natural conversation in words of this type reduction is very active and what we actually say it does not always coincide with the dictionary or transcription image. The 2 sounds “r” in “literary” are likely to merge into one long sound “r”. This also affects the number of syllables. It also seems to be reduced. To sum up this theory has at least 2 weak points:

1. The number of pulses obviously depends on the style of pronunciation.

2. It is connected with the first point. It is dependent on the tempo or pronunciation.

They are interconnected because we can’t change over from one style to another without suprasegmental factors causing significant changes. To clarify the point, you can’t go from so-called full literary style down to colloquial speech without changing the tempo, melody, pausation, etc. One complements the other.

For example, Выходите? It is in formal style.

Выходьте? In colloquial speech we even drop sounds.

Выхоите? We are careless about it.

The same can be said about these examples: “смотрите” and “сотри”, “здравствуйте” “здрасти”.

Theory IV. The theory of muscular tension by L. V. Shcherba. The point is that in most languages there is a syllabic phoneme in the centre of the syllable which is usually a vowel phoneme or, in some languages, a sonorant. The phonemes preceding or following the syllable peak are called marginal. The energy, that is the tension of articulation, increases within the range of prevocalic consonants and then decreases within the range of postvocalic consonants. Therefore the syllable can be defined as an arc of articulatory (or muscular) tension.

A. Vassilyev has modified this theory. The point is that the syllable like any other

pronounceable unit can be characterized by three physical parameters: pitch, intensity and length. Within the range of the syllable these parameters vary from minimum on the prevocalic consonants to maximum on the centre of the syllable, then there is another decrease within the postvocalic consonants. If we take into consideration the tension of articulation and the above mentioned acoustic data on the speech production level the syllable can be treated as an arc of articulatory effort.

Theory V. A syllable is defined as a wave of explosion – implosion. By explosion we mean the tendency and the movement of speech organs towards a more open position. Implosion – is the movement of speech organs towards a more closed position. For example,

•r - i i - t • • t – n • silence 1, 2 - waves

1 2 2 voicless consonants are nearby.

['rItn] written

This theory doesn’t work in some consonantal clusters where it is hard to tell which consonant is more open and which tendency we face. It also can be hardly applied to vocalic clusters because the question about which of the vowels is more open is not correct.

Not a single theory is universal. It is very difficult to find a universal theory which would explain all the cases including all the controversial aspects. As a definition for the term “syllable” there can be suggested the following one:

A syllable is a speech segment between the two, restricted by the two, placed between the two minimal openings of speech organs; which is the minimal unit of speech and it is characterized by an increase of sonority.