British and American pronunciation models

In traditional phonetic description, it has been usual to describe the characteristics of one particular type of speech. Where possible, analysts have looked for a ‘standard’ or ‘model’ accent. In Spain, for example, Castilian Spanish has for centuries been treated as the ‘purest’ form of Spanish, and the one which foreigners should attempt to copy. In Britain, a similar standard traditionally is known as Received Pronunciation (RP).

In the nineteenth century Received Pronunciation (RP) was a social marker, a prestige accent of an Englishman. “Received” was understood in the sense of “accepted in the best society”. The speech of aristocracy and the court phonetically was that of the London area. Then it lost its local characteristics and was finally fixed as a ruling-class accent, often referred to as “King’s English”. It was also the accent taught at public schools. With the spread of education cultured people not belonging to upper classes were eager to modify their accent in the direction of social standards.

We know that teaching practice as well as a pronouncing dictionary must base their recommendations on one or more models. A pronunciation model is a carefully chosen and defined accent of a language. In the first edition of English Pronouncing Dictionary (1917), Daniel Jones defined the type of pronunciation recorded as “Public School Pronunciation” (PSP). He had by 1926, however, abandoned the term PSP in favour of “Received Pronunciation” (RP). The type of speech he had in mind was not restricted to London and the Home Counties, however being characteristic by the nineteenth century of upper-class speech throughout the country. The Editor of the 14^th Edition of the dictionary, A.C. Gimson, commented in 1977 “Such a definition of RP is hardly tenable today”. An increasing number of writers now prefer to refer to the standard English pronunciation as a BBC accent. This model accent for British English is represented in the 15^th (1997) and the 16^th (2003) editions of EPD. This is the pronunciation of professional speakers employed by the BBC as newsreaders and announcers. Of course, one finds differences between such speakers – they have their own personal characteristics, and a growing number of broadcasters with Scottish, Welsh and Irish accents are employed. On this ground J.C. Wells (Longman Pronunciation Dictionary, 3^rd edition – 2000) considers that the term BBC pronunciation has become less appropriate. The model of British English pronunciation recorded in LPD is a modernized version of RP. According to J.C. Wells, it is what was traditionally used by ВВС news readers. However, P. Roach writes, there is a useful degree of consistency in the broadcast speech of these speakers. Their speech does not carry for most people the connotations of high social class and privilege that PSP and RP have had in the past. An additional advantage is that it is easy to gain access to examples. That is why EPD prefers the term ВВС accent.

For American English, EPD also follows what is frequently heard from professional voices on national network news and information programmes. It is similar to what has been termed General American, which refers to a geographically (largely non-coastal) and socially based set of pronunciation features. It is important to note that no single dialect – regional or social – has been singled out as an American standard. Even national media (radio, television, movies, CD-ROM, etc.), with professionally trained voices have speakers with regionally mixed features. However, ‘Network English’, in its most colourless form, can be described as a relatively homogeneous dialect that reflects the ongoing development of progressive American dialects. This ‘dialect’ itself contains some variant forms. The variants involve vowels before [r], possible differences in words like cot and caught and some vowels before [l]. These differences largely pass unnoticed by the audiences for Network English, and are also reflective of age differences. What are thought to be the more progressive (used by educated, socially mobile, and younger speakers) variants are listed first in each entry in EPD. J.C. Wells prefers the term General American. According to him, this is what is spoken by the majority of Americans, namely those who do not have a noticeable eastern or southern accent.

 

Most distinctive features of American English pronunciation

Vowels. American English is commonly described as having lax vowels, tense vowels, and wide diphthongs. Lax vowels are lower and made with less oral tension; they do not usually end syllables. Vowel length in American English is generally considered to be conditional by phonological environment, so the long/short distinction in BBC English is not usually present, though they have retained the length mark on the tense vowels [i: ɑ: ɔ: ɜ: u:] in order to mark their relationship lo the English long vowels. Since the diphthongal movement in [eı] and [oʊ] is small in American pronunciation, these are treated as tense vowels.

Vowels preceding /r/ are notably influenced by rhotic colouring. Word spellings such as bird, word, earth, jerk, which now rhyme with [ɝ] in American English, at one time in history had differing vowels. The retroflexed vowels [ɝ] and [ɚ], stressed and unstressed, are among those features that noticeably distinguish American English from BBC English. All vowels occurring before [r]within a syllable are likely to become "r-coloured" to some extent.

• lax vowels: ı e æ ʌ ʊ ə

• tense vowels: i: ɑ: ɔ: ɜ: u: eı oʊ

• wide diphthongs: aʊ aı ɔı

• retroflexed vowels ("r-coloured") ɚ ɝ

There is an issue in the symbolization of the diphthong in the word home. This has for many years been represented as [əʊ]. [oʊ] is the preferred transcription for the American English diphthong, though it can be argued that the latter symbolization would be suitable for both.

The American [æ] vowel is somewhat closer than BBC [æ], and seems to be evolving into an even closer vowel in many speakers. It is used in the same words as BBC [æ] and also in most of the words which in BBC have [ɑ:] when there is no letter “r” in the spelling, e.g. pass, ask. The quality of American [ɑ:] is similar to the BBC [ɑ:] vowel; it is used in some of the words which have [ɑ:] in BBC when there is no letter “r” in the spelling (e.g. father, calm). It also replaces the BBC short [ɒ] vowel in many words (e.g. hot, top, bother): bother rhymes with father.

American [ɔ:] is more open in quality than BBC [ɔ:]. It is used where BBC has [ɔ:] (e.g. cause, walk), and also replaces BBC short [ɒ] in many words, e.g. long, dog;. American [u:] is similar to BBC [u:], but is also used where BBC has [ju:] after alveolar consonants (e.g. new, duty).

Consonants. There are numerous phonetic and phonological differences between British and American English, as there are within regional and social varieties within the two political entities. Two differences receive sufficient attention and have attained sufficient generality within the two varieties. One is phonetic: the "flapped" medial [t] (as in butter) is transcribed as [t̬]. The other is phonological: the presence (in American English) of postvocalic [r](as in farmer ['fɑ:r.mɚ]).

It should also be noted that the difference between "clear" and "dark" [l] is much less marked in American than in the BBC accent, so that even prevocalic [l]in American pronunciation sounds dark to English ears.

The accent used for British English is classed as non-rhotic - the phoneme [r] is not usually pronounced except when a vowel follows it. The American pronunciations, on the other hand, do show a rhotic accent, and in general in the accent described, [r]is pronounced where the letter “r” is found in the spelling.

 

Styles of pronunciation

Styles of pronunciation are those special forms of speech suited to the aim and the contents of the utterance, the circumstances of communication, the character of the audience, etc. As D. Jones points out, a person may pronounce the same word or sequence of words quite differently under different circumstances. Thus in ordinary conversation the word and is frequently pronounced [n] when unstressed (e.g. in bread and butter ["brednÙ "bʌtǝ], but in serious conversation the word, even when unstressed, might often be pronounced [ænd]. In other words, all speakers use more than one style of pronunciation, and variations in the pronunciation of speech sounds, words and sentences peculiar to different styles of speech may be called stylisticvariations.

Stylistic oppositions have long been observed in linguistic literature in the two marginal types of pronunciation: formal and informal. Formal speech suggests dispassionate information on the part of the speaker. It is characterised by careful articulation and relatively slow speed. Informal speech implies everyday conversation.

D. Jones distinguishes among different styles of pronunciation: the rapid familiar style,the slower colloquial style,the natural style used in addressing a fair-sized audience,the acquired style of the stage,and the acquired style used in singing. A. Gimson defines formal speech as slow colloquial style. G. Brown describes it as formal slow colloquial style of speech.

L.V. Shcherba writes of the need to distinguish a great variety of styles of speech, in accordance with the great variety of different social occasions and situations. For the sake of simplicity he suggests that only two styles of pronunciation should be distinguished: (1) colloquialstyle characteristic of people’s quiet talk, and (2) fullstyle, which we use when we want to make our speech especially distinct and, for this purpose, clearly articulate all the syllables of each word. V.A. Vassilyev calls full style normal speed colloquial style of speech. Other Russian researchers call it full style.

The kind of style used in pronunciation has a definite effect on the phonemic and allophonic composition of words. More deliberate and distinct utterance results in the use of full vowel sounds in some of the unstressed syllables. Consonants, too, uttered in formal style, will sometimes disappear in colloquial. It is clear that the chief phonetic characteristics of the colloquial style are various forms of the reduction of speech sounds and various kinds of assimilation. The degree of reduction and assimilation depends on the tempo of speech.

S.M. Gaiduchic distinguishes five phonetic styles: solemn (торжественный), scientific business (научно-деловой), official business (официально-деловой), everyday (бытовой), and familiar (непринужденный). As we may see the above-mentioned phonetic styles on the whole correlate with functional styles of the language. They are differentiated on the basis of spheres of discourse.

The other way of classifying phonetic styles is suggested by Y.A. Dubovsky who discriminates the following five styles: informal ordinary, formal neutral, formal official, informal familiar, and declamatory. The division is based on different degrees of formality or rather familiarity between the speaker and the listener. Within each style subdivisions are observed.

M. Sokolova’s approach is slightly different. When we consider the problem of classifying phonetic styles according to the criteria described above we should distinguish between segmental and suprasegmental level of analysis because some of them (the aim of the utterance, for example) result in variations of mainly suprasegmental level, while others (the formality of situation, for example) reveal segmental varieties. So it seems preferable to consider each level separately until a more adequate system of correlation is found.

The style-differentiating characteristics mentioned above give grounds for establishing intonational styles. There are five intonational styles singled out mainly according to the purpose of communication and to which we could refer all the main varieties of the texts. They are: 1. Informational style. 2. Academic style (Scientific). 3. Publicistic style. 4. Declamatory style (Artistic). 5. Conversational style (Familiar).

Nevertheless, the differentiation of intonation according to the purpose of communication is not enough; there are other factors that affect intonation in various situations. Besides, any style is seldom realized in its pure form.

Lecture 3