Standard English in the United States and England 9783110814484, 9789027975669

Citation preview

JANUA LINGUARUM STUDIA

MEMORIAE

N I C O L A I VAN WIJK D E D I C A T A edenda

curai

C. H. VAN SCHOONHVELD Indiana

University

Series Minor,

159

Standard English in the United States and England

Aleksandr D. Svejcer

Mouton Publishers The Hague • Paris • New York

ISBN 90-279-7566-3 © Copyright 1978 Mouton Publishers, The Hague

No part of this issue may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers. Printed in Germany

CONTENTS

Preface

1

Preface to the English Edition

5

Introduction

7

I

II

The Bases of a Contrastive Analysis 1. Concerning the Question of the Variants of a Standard Language 2. Types of Intersystemic Relationships and Methods of Analyzing

13 13 18

Distinctive Elements of the Phonic System 1. The Norms of Standard Pronunciation in England and the United States 2. The Phonetic Differences Between the American and British Variants of Standard English 3. Phonetic Characteristics of Regional Types of Standard American Pronunciation 4. The Phonological Interpretation of the Differences Between AE and BE 5. Inventorial Differences 6. Distributional Differences 7. Intonational Differences

27

46 51 61 64

III

Grammatical Differences 1. The Object of Contrastive Analysis 2. Morphological Differences 3. Syntactic Differences

75 75 77 84

IV

Lexical Differences 1. Characteristic Features of a Contrastive Analysis on the Lexical Level

93

27 30 37

93

vi

2. Divergences Between Variants and Divergences Within Variants 3. Lexical-Semantic Divergents 4. Lexical-Semantic Analogues a) Analogue Oppositions of Word Variants b) Analogue Oppositions of Different Lexical Units . . . . 5. Analogue-divergent Strings 6. Complex Oppositions 7. Interpénétration of American and British Vocabulary . . . .

96 100 Ill 114 130 143 147 156

Conclusion

163

Bibliography

165

Subject Index

171

PREFACE

In spite of the fact that the differences between the English language in the United States and in England have long been a subject which has attracted scholars, there are no works in linguistic literature devoted to a systematized comparison of these two basic variants of the English language. As a rule, in works devoted to this subject, the distinctive elements of the American and British variants are examined not in the context of a linguistic system, but in isolation, without taking into consideration their connection and interrelationships with other elements of linguistic structure. It seems clear, however, that the true picture of the correlation which exists between the American and British variants of the English language may be revealed not by simply enumerating their distinctive features, but only by revealing the specific gravity of the distinctive elements, as well as of the scale and depth of the differences on all levels of linguistic structure. This can be achieved only if the distinctive and common elements are examined as a constituent part of a single linguistic system. This is the purpose of this book, which constitutes a synchronic comparison of the American and British variants of the English language, encompassing the phonetic, grammatical, and lexical-semantic levels. With this book the author completes the work which had its inception in the Outline of The Modern English Language in the United States, published earlier in the Biblioteka filologa series.1 It further developed the results of the author's research which were presented in a doctoral dissertation defended in 1967. The present work is intended for teachers, graduate students, and students in the more advanced courses in specialized schools for linguistics, and may be used in theoretical courses on the phonetics, grammar, and lexicology of the modern English language. The fact that the book is directed to a wide audience of readers rather than to a narrow circle of specialists can not help but be reflected in the presentation of material and the degree of detail given. In proceeding from the aims formulated above, great importance is attached to bringing out the rank or level of the distinctive elements, and to making a distinction between the differences which affect the inventory of units of a certain language level and those differences pertaining only to the variants of these units. No less important from this point of view is showing the place

2 occupied by the distinctive elements in the system of the corresponding English language variant with respect to their intrasystemic connections. This makes it possible to determine to what extent the differences which affect individual elements also affect other elements, correlated with the former through their intrasystemic relationships, as well as to determine to which intrasystemic shifts, regroupings, or, using the American scholar Weinreich's expression, "structural consequences" these particular divergences lead. All of this sheds light on the correlation between the common and the distinctive elements in the structure of the language as a whole and thereby aids in solving the problems raised above. In the past, linguists were considerably more concerned with the origin of the differences between the American and British variants than with revealing the correlation between them in the modern language. Naturally, it would be useful to draw on historical data when examining the phenomena of the modern language. Considering the basic aim of the work and its limited scope, however, the author has been obliged to refrain from diachronic excursions. Readers interested in a historical elucidation of this problem may refer to the specialized works mentioned in the Bibliography, and particularly to the appropriate sections of An Outline of the Modern English Language and the author's doctoral dissertation. As is clear from the title, this work is confined to the STANDARD LANGUAGE. This means that phenomena which lie outside the standard language and are not sanctioned by its norms are not included in the analysis. This is caused, specifically, by the fact that for the concept of a variant (as distinct from a territorial dialect), the determining feature is the existence of territorial variations of the standard norms, and, consequently, the most essential distinctive features of the English language variants being compared may be shown within the limits of the standard language. At the same time, the most varied functional-stylistic off-shoots of the literary language served as the subject of investigation. Along with phenomena characteristic of bookish and written speech, phenomena typical of spoken and colloquial speech have also been subjected to comparative analysis. The material has been drawn from the most varied genres — belles-lettres, social and political journalism, drama, scientific and technical literature, official business documents, advertisements, etc. Data from dictionaries have been widely used. Along with this, information received from informants questioned by the author and other scholars was used. The author obtained a broad picture of the phenomena through personal observations made during his visits to the United States, England, and Canada, and remarks made in personal conversations by the American linguists Professor A . H. Marckwardt, Professor A. W. Read, and Professor M. Mathews.

3 A comparative synchronic study of overlapping systems, such as the systems of two variants of the same language, represents a new trend in research, with terminology which has not yet been established. Sometimes different works use different terms to designate the same concept. At the same time, however, the same terms are frequently used with different meanings. This book, when such cases arise, will in so far as possible give references to equivalent terms found in the works of other authors. New terms introduced by the author are accompanied by appropriate explanations. The varying degrees of exploration of the linguistic facts included in the wide range of phenomena examined in this work have been reflected in the structure of the book, in the completeness of the description in certain sections, and in its detail. In the time which has passed since An Outline of the Modem English Language in the United States was published, considerable supplementary work has been done, both in gathering specific material and in its theoretical generalization. At the same time, in such an important sphere as intonation, the lack of liable and comparable background data made it impossible to reveal completely all the distinctive elements of the American and British variants. Since this book is the first attempt to give a systematized treatment of the distinctive features of both variants, it can not lay claim to being an exhaustive analysis of all the specific problems connected with this subject. The author expresses his sincere gratitude to Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Professor V. N. Jarceva, Professor I. R. Gal'perin, Professor A. V. Kunin, Professor V. A. Vasil'ev, and Professor E. A. Makaev, whose valuable advice and observations were of great assistance to him in his work on the book.

PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION

This book is based on the author's doctoral dissertation, a contrastive study of two varieties of Standard English, British and American. The work was inspired by the achievements of Soviet and Czechoslovak linguists who proposed, instead of the conception of language as a monolithic system, a model of language as a 'system of systems' or a hierarchy of microsystems within a macrosystem. The study was likewise stimulated by C. F. Hockett's 'common core' model of overlapping systems and by U. Weinreich's insightful proposal for a systemic study of dialectal variation. The study was completed in the early sixties, and the book certainly reflects some trends of that period both in its general orientation and methodology. This, however, is not an apology. After all, the first step had to be taken towards a systemic description of two closely interrelated varieties of the same language, such as the American and British variants of Standard English. And, in our view, at that initial stage a taxonomic 'item-and-arrangement' model (the term is used without any pejorative connotation) seemed and still seems appropriate. Prior to constructing a somewhat more refined dynamic model, it was necessary to reveal the distinctive elements and correlate them with the common core at each level. In an effort to probe into the linguistic nature of the object of study, the author based his comparison on an analysis in terms of oppositions with marked and unmarked terms while trying, at the same time, to ascertain in each case the nature of the variation (inventorial, distributional, phonemic, allophonic, etc.). This does not mean, however, that if I were to write this book now, I would have written it in exactly the same way. It would have required more than a rewording of the book in modern terminology. One could, for instance, speak of two parallel surface realizations of the same underlying structure where previously one spoke of two parallel variants of the same invariant unit in British and American English, but would that add anything new to the differentiation of intersystemic variation in terms of variant and invariant structures? It would certainly be tempting to use the new methodology developed by 'variationists' (e. g. W. Labov's variable rules or D. DeCamp's implicational scaling), although a number of fundamental problems involved in the use and

6 evaluation of these methods still appear unresolved (see the discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of variable rules vs. implicational series in R. W. Shuy (ed), Sociolinguistics: Current Trends and Prospects, 23rd Annual Round Table, Washington, 1973). The book contains some elements of sociolinguistic research (e. g. the questioning of informants with the correlation of their responses to their social status), but if it were written now, it would have greatly benefitted from the current sociolinguistic studies. Unfortunately, most of the presentday sociolinguistic research in English has been limited almost exclusively to 'outgroups'. As a result, Standard English has been driven into a marginal position. Yet indirectly this research does give some new insights into standard language problems (e. g. Labov's data on socially conditioned 'code switching' between standard and substandard forms, depending on the social situation). An inspiring example in this respect is the recent inquiry of Soviet sociolinguists into the problem of the socially determined variability of standard Russian (Russkij jazyk po dannym massovogo obsledovanija [The Russian Language According to Mass Survey Data], Moskva, 1974). Undertaken now, a contrastive study of American and British English would certainly benefit from the serious and well-documented studies of educated, spoken English by R. Quirk and from the insightful work on English intonation by M. A. K. Halliday. It would also reflect the pioneering contrastive studies of American and British intonation by Soviet phoneticians (see abstracts of dissertations: D. A. Saxbagova. Intonacionnaya struktura obscego voprosa v amerikanskom variante anglijskogo jazyka v sopostavlenii s britanskim. [The Intonation Structure of the General Question in American English As Compared to British English]. Avtoreferat, Moskva, 1974; L. L. Grafova. Intonacionnaja struktura special'nyx voprosov v amerikanskom variante anglijskogo jazyka (v sopostavlenii s britanskim. [The Intonation structure of Special Questions in American English / As Compared to British English]. Avtoreferat, Moskva, 1971). But that would definitely amount not to a rewrite, but to an entirely new book, a book which is sorely needed today and for which studies, such as my Standard English in the United States and England, have — hopefully — laid the groundwork.

INTRODUCTION

The differences between the English language in America (American English, abbreviated AE) and the English language in Great Britain (British English, abbreviated BE) have long been discussed in both specialized linguistic and popular literature. Arguments concerning which of the variants of the English language should be considered as the "model" and whether AE should be considered an independent language, definitively detached from BE, continue to this day. A characteristic feature of the views expressed is the obvious exaggeration of the divergences between the American and British variants. Perhaps the most hypertrophied representation of the specific features of AE has come from H. L. Mencken, the author of the well-known book, The American Language (Mencken, 1957).1 His work is of some interest as a collection of extensive factual material. The value of the facts which he has gathered, however, is to a considerable extent reduced by their obviously biased selection, subordinated in advance to the goal which he set for himself — to prove the existence of a separate American language. Moreover, the interpretation of linguistic facts in Mencken's book appears extremely doubtful in a number of instances (for example, attributing such forms as won't, ain't, double negation, etc. to specific features of AE). Excessive consideration is given to linguistic curiosities and to examples of eccentric individual word coinage (cf. ,.for example, such forms as pitilacker, barberatorium, crosswordpuzzleitis, etc.). In essence, all of the arguments which Mencken advances in favor of AE being an independent language add up to the fact that AE and BE are not completely identical. A lack of total identity, however, characterizes not only different languages but also different dialects and even idiolects (individual dialects) of the same language. The arbitrary and unscientific handling of linguistic facts is especially glaring in Mencken's appraisal of AE. Thus, when he comes across archaisms in the American variant, he immediately hastens to note that the American variant is more faithful to Shakespeare's traditions than the British one, while, noting innovations in it, he ascribes a more progressive nature to AE. In all fairness one must mention that Mencken himself laid absolutely no claim to the scientific nature of the judgements which he presents. Mencken's

8 critics (Bratus', 1948, Arnold, 1958) clearly overrate his role, attributing him with creating "the theory of American language". In actuality he has not created any theory and, strictly speaking, uses the words LANGUAGE and DIALECT in reference to AE not as linguistic terms and without making any distinction between them. Just as weak are the arguments advanced in favor of AE being a dialect of BE. (Bratus', 1948) From the fact that the divergence between these variants of the English language is not so great as Mencken tries to portray it, it still does not follow that AE occupies a subordinate position with respect to BE and should be proclaimed as its dialect. The argument as to which term best applies to the phenomenon in question cannot be considered fruitful, if those participating in the argument do not try to give at least a working definition of the terms around which the argument centers. The two-volume monograph by George P. Krapp (1925) was the first serious work devoted to a study of the characteristic features of the American variant and to the origin of those features. Krapp's work is of most interest in its historical aspect. The author makes extensive use of historical data on the United States, to the extent to which it sheds light on the genesis and evolution of the phenomena which he is examining. The sections of the book which are devoted to a study of American pronunciation on a historical basis are exceedingly interesting. Krapp was one of the first to establish and document a historical connection between modern American pronunciation and the pronunciation of the early modern English period. He demonstrated a number of direct parallels with certain specific features of AE in modern territorial dialects in England and correctly pointed to a tendency toward extinction of the dialectal features in AE, connecting this fact with the constant migration of the American population and the erosion of indigenous speech communities. Nevertheless, Krapp's work has grown obsolete in many respects in the light of the achievements of modern linguistics. One of its basic weaknesses, although also inherent in a number of later studies, is the atomistic approach to the phenomena being studied and the lack of systemic comparisons between AE and BE In the following period, A Dictionary of American English on Historical Principles (1936-44) and the Linguistic Atlas of New England (1939-43) should be regarded as the major works. The multivolume Dictionary of American English, edited by W. A. Craigie, is, even today, the most fundamental and reliable record of the AE lexicon. In structure and presentation of material it resembles the famous Oxford Dictionary. The historical approach to the material is also reflected in the use of the term Americanism, which is interpreted by the compilers as a

9 lexical unit which originated in the United States. Following this principle, the compilers include in the dictionary words and set phrases which were first recorded in the speech of Americans, including those which subsequently penetrated into the speech of the English and even into the international vocabulary. At the same time, it excludes lexical units which, having originated in England, became obsolete there, but were preserved in America. Thus, when using this dictionary, one should bear in mind that it does not actually reflect the modern state of English in the United States and can only to a certain extent give an idea of the divergences which are observed today between both variants of the English language. The work of compiling the Linguistic Atlas of the United States has been in progress since 1930 under the guidance of the eminent dialectologists H. Kurath and R. McDavid. Volume one of the Atlas and A Handbook of the Linguistic Geography of New England, containing the key for the interpretation of the Atlas data, were published in 1939. American dialectologists did the field work through selective questioning of individual informants in pre-selected population centers, trying in this way to reflect the spread of innovations from cultural centers and the preservation of archaic phenomena in isolated regions. When selecting informants, the compilers of the Atlas took into consideration their social characteristics and age. The Atlas served as material for extensive monographs summarizing the research done by the Atlas field workers in the area of phonetics (H. Kurath and R. McDavid, 1961), grammar (E. B. Atwood, 1953), and lexicology (H. Kurath, 1949). The information acquired by the dialectologists made it possible to examine and define more precisely the boundaries of the dialectal areas, the isoglosses of the dialectal phenomena, and, finally, the composition and grouping of AE dialects. The extensive factual material which they gathered made it possible to examine a number of important stages in AE history in a new light and to study its synchronic aspects in much greater depth. For all that, the Atlas suffers from a number of weaknesses: 1) The Atlas questionnaire did not contain enough material to satisfy the needs of phonemic analysis; 2) By selecting as informants only indigenous inhabitants of the regions investigated and leaving out numerous migrants from other regions of the United States, the compilers automatically gave the Atlas a certain "historical" bias; 3) A certain lack of coordination in the methodology of working with the informants could not help but affect the authenticity and value of the materials gathered; 4) Comparisons with data on the linguistic geography of Great Britain was

10 of a purely episodic nature. Of the most fundamental works published in the postwar period, one should mention the studies made by the West German scholar Hans Galinsky (1951-52 and 1957), which include a vast amount of material and contain broad generalizations based on correlating data on the linguistic comparison of AE and BE with the socio-cultural differences between England and America. The author devotes considerable attention to a stylistic differentiation of the phenomena which he examined, and was almost the first to attempt to establish the types of differences between AE and BE, although his classification at times proceeded from arbitrary, inessential bases. Unfortunately, many of the materials used by Galinsky are not only not typical of the standard language, but also represent obvious deviations from the standard accepted in the United States. In comparing this type of phenomena with England's standard language, the author violates one of the fundamental conditions for a comparative analysis. Frequently the author buries in oblivion another extremely important rule, that the facts compared must be expressed in units of the same system. By simultaneously using data from English and American phoneticists, who often interpret completely identical phenomena in different ways, and by not attempting to transpose them into a unified system, Galinsky creates an impression of the existence of deep divergences where such divergences do not in fact appear. Moreover, he does not attempt to outline even the general contours of the phonemic patterns of the AE and BE dialects which he examined, nor to draw any line of demarcation between purely phonetic differences and those which affect the phonological system of the American and British variants. The approach to the material is characterized by extreme subjectivity. Thus, for example, when subdividing differences into MORE NOTICEABLE and LESS NOTICEABLE categories, the author ascribes to the former a greater or lesser degree of diphthongization of vowels, and to the latter a phonological contrast between voiced and unvoiced [w]. Galinsky did not succeed in escaping Mencken's influence, which appears both in the tendency to exaggerate the differences between AE and BE, and in the pursuit of "exotic" and at times obviously obsolete examples of shortlived neologisms. Characteristic of Galinsky is an uncritical use of obsolete and long refuted contentions of other authors, particularly of the once popular view that almost all of the distinctive features of AE were attributed to the influences of other languages. Thus, Galinsky's deductions and conclusions require a most guarded and critical approach. Yet his study is unquestionably interesting as one of the few attempts to describe the distinctive elements of AE on the comparative plane. This section has described only the most fundamental works devoted to the

11 distinctive features of AE. Even from this far from complete survey, however, one may draw quite definite conclusions in regard to the extent to which this problem has been explored. It should, above all, be noted that scholars have succeeded in gathering extensive factual material pertaining to the different aspects of the English language in the United States. Considerable progress has been made in studying the territorial dialects of AE and in historical lexicography. As far as a synchronic description of the distinctive features of AE in comparison with BE is concerned, the achievements are much more modest. In point of fact, matters have not progressed beyond the first timid attempts to outline the basic types of existing divergences. One of the reasons for the unsatisfactory condition of the works in this area is the undeveloped state of some of the basic problems connected with a synchronic study of the variants of the same language. We shall dwell on these problems in detail in Chapter I. NOTE 1 The text of the book gives only abbreviated references to works, with mention of the author's name and the year of publication. Detailed bibliographical data are given in the Bibliography.

I THE BASES OF A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS

1. Concerning the Question of the Variants of a Standard Language As may be seen from the preceding section, linguists have in the past been chiefly concerned with answering the question as to whether AE and BE are varieties of the same language or independent, albeit closely related, languages. In this connection there must be a clarification of the way in which modern linguistics has resolved the question of differentiating closely related languages, on the one hand, and variants and dialects of the same language, on the other hand. Some scholars favor the psychological criterion of mutual intelligibility (Bloomfield, 1926; Sapir, 1935; Hockett, 1959). Here it is postulated that if people understand one another they are consequently speaking the same language, and conversely, if people do not understand one another, they are obviously speaking different languages. On the face of it, such a criterion appears quite convincing, inasmuch as it stems from the basic function of language as a means of communication between members of the same linguistic community. In practice, however, the application of this criterion entails a number of difficulties. For even if one excludes the obstacles to mutual understanding which are caused by the complexity of the subject, and makes the important stipulation that mutual intelligibility is signalled by the ability to understand one another in conversations on everyday subjects, it still remains unclear as to what will happen in cases when those speaking different dialects of the same language understand each other not completely, but only partially, and with some difficulty. On the other hand, mutual understanding can hardly be used as the criterion for monolingualism for the additional reason that, as we know, those who speak closely related languages (for example, Czechs and Slovaks, Danes and Norwegians) can also communicate with each other without experiencing great difficulties in the process. In the works of other authors the basic emphasis is placed on structurallinguistic criteria. In some studies it is the phonological criterion which is singled out (Trubetzkoy, 1938; Bloch, 1948) and in others the grammatical criterion (Polak, 1954). Singling out any one feature as the decisive one can scarcely be considered valid. Structural features should undoubtedly be taken into con-

14 sideration. But it would seem that their study should be of a multifaceted nature and involve all levels of linguistic structure. If one uses the structural criteria, it is relatively easy to designate the polar phenomena and practically impossible (without considering other criteria) to differentiate transitional forms. To anticipate, let us note that the correlation between AE and BE obviously pertains to the polar cases in which there exists not only structural similarity, but also, to a considerable extent, material identity. It is this condition precisely which prompts the authors of all of the serious studies to consider AE and BE as varieties of the same language. When guided by features of structural similarity, it is relatively easy for scholars to identify monolingualism in cases in which this has not yet been determined by the speakers themselves (cf., for example, the works by American linguists on the study of the Amerindian languages). Frequently, however, by virtue of a number of historical and ethnic factors, traditional division into languages and dialects, which is to a considerable extent supported by the national self-awareness of the members of the various linguistic communities, comes into obvious conflict with patterns which stem from purely linguistic features. Here closely related languages may be closer to each other with respect to structure than the dialects of some languages. It is precisely because of this that Soviet linguists propose considering not only intralinguistic features, but also a number of extralinguistic features, including the unifying role of the standard language (cf. Avanesov, 1959; Jarceva, (2) 1968). The criterion of orientation towards a certain standard language acquires special significance in cases in which it is difficult to draw a sharp boundary between adjacent dialects of two cognate languages (for example, Russian and Belorussian, German and Dutch). This criterion is also directly related to the case which we are examining, since the community of the standard language cements as it were the fundamental unity of the English language in all of its territorial varieties. The question of the correlation between the standard language and dialects was dealt with comprehensively and correctly in works by Soviet scholars (Avanesov, 1962; Avanesov and Orlova, 1965; Guxman, 1956; Gal'perin, 1958; Jarceva, (2), 1968, etc.). Guided in their works by the Marxist conception of a national language, the Soviet linguists consider the latter to be not an extratemporal but a historical category, originating under the conditions of economic and political concentration which characterize the forming of a nation (see V. M. ¿irmunskij, 1968, p. 67). At the same time, the fundamental unity of a national language by no means signifies its absolute uniformity. In developing the question of the structure of a national language, the Soviet dialectological school considers it to be a complex and diverse phenomenon, differing in various spheres, but always retaining its own identity and characterized by a

15 fixed complex of common structural features. Soviet dialectologists consider the standard language with its numerous functional and stylistic offshoots, its written and spoken forms and the dialectal language in its territorial variations to be polar varieties of the national language. A number of fundamental differences have been established between a standard language and a dialect. While the standard language is characterized by a complex interrelationship of written and oral forms, dialects on the whole incline strongly toward the sphere of oral language. In the functional respect, standard language is distinguished by its universal nature. It is the language of culture, science, and journalism, the basis for the language of belles lettres. Dialects, however, are used chiefly within the limits of everyday communication. In contrast to dialects, the standard language is characterized by a goaldirected selection of linguistic facts, which are regulated by the norm. In a number of cases the standard language may act as an interdialect, i. e., serve the purposes of interdialectal communication. From this a conclusion may be drawn concerning the dominating role of the standard language in modern society. Being an embodiment of the national model, the standard language exerts considerable influence not only on the written, but also on the oral language of the widest strata of the population. In this connection, the dialectal phenomena are perceived as deviations from the norm. It is not by chance that it is sometimes designated in linguistic literature by the term "prestige dialect" (Francis, 1958), emphasizing its social significance, or by the term "standard language" (BrozoviS, 1967), emphasizing its standardized nature. In light of the foregoing, the groundlessness of the assertions that AE is a dialect of BE becomes perfectly clear. First of all, it should be borne in mind that the linguistic phenomena characteristic of AE break down into two categories. To the first category belong, for example, combinations of the verb want with in, o f f , out, of the type to want in, instead of to want to go in, the diphthong [si] in words like bird, the form hadn't ought, French harp instead of harmonica, etc. All of these elements are more or less clearly localized, are clearly dialectal in nature, and lie outside the bounds of the standard. To the second category belong such phenomena as the retroflex [r] in bird, word forms like gotten, the words aluminum, sidewalk, etc. These phenomena are in complete accordance with the norms of AE, although they contradict the norms in operation within the BE area. From this it becomes clear that the distinctive features of the English language in America involve not only dialectal phenomena, but also phenomena of the standard language. Characteristic in this sense is the varying correlation between these phenomena in England and in the United States. Thus, for example, in the United States, the past tense form of the verb to eat - ate -

16 is usually pronounced [eit], and the pronunciation [et] is regarded as substandard. In England, however, as we know, the standard form is [et], and [eit] is regarded as a pronunciation which contradicts the norm (Marckwardt, Quirk, 1964). Such a réévaluation of the same phenomena from the point of view of their relation to the standard language is quite characteristic of the divergences observed between AE and BE. Of course, except for this type of distinctive elements, the norms of AE and BE coincide. However, it follows from the fact that partial divergences between them are still observed that AE can not in any way be considered to be a territorial dialect of BE, inasmuch as the standard of Great Britain does not have unconditional, obligatory force for the AE area, and inasmuch as in the United States, as well as in England, a hierarchal order exists: "Dialect standard language". From the features of the standard language listed above, it is clear that this concept belongs not to purely linguistic but rather to socio-linguistic categories. One of its basic, definitive components is the authority, or, in the language of modern sociology, the "social prestige" of the linguistic norm. At the same time, for the analysis which follows, it is exceedingly important to clarify the correlation between linguistic units and the norms of language, i. e . , to define the norms of language in terms of linguistic units. We find this type of definition in E. A. Makaev's article "The Concept of Systemic Pressure and the Hierarchy of Linguistic Units". Noting that each level of the language is composed of a fixed set of constituent units (i. e . , the units which form the given level — phonemes, morphemes, etc.) which permit a larger or smaller number of variants, the author of the article describes the norm as a "regulator which determines the set of variants, the limits of the variability, and the permitted and unpermitted variants" (Makaev, 1962). If one takes this idea further, it is possible to describe a standard language as a system in which some variability is permitted, determined not only by the structural features peculiar to a certain linguistic unit or specific level but also by the differences in the regulatory action of the norms in the various areas where this language is spoken. The point is that the limits of variability for the units of a language may in part not coincide in the various regions where it is spoken. Thus, among local variants one should differentiate those which, under any condition, remain outside the limits of the standard language (the vernacular, dialects) and those which in some regions may be drawn within the orbit of the standard language, but in others are rejected by the norm. But inasmuch as we are speaking of a single standard language, it must be borne in mind that acertain set of invariable constituent features exists which is inherent in the given language in any territory of its distribution. Unity does not, of course, mean identity. "It would be unmaterialistic and

17

undialectic to think that a language which serves one nation, one society, one national culture and civilization, one science and literature, may be of the same nature as a language which distributes these functions between two nations" (Brozovic, 1967). In connection with this, the question has been posed in modern linguistics concerning the special type of linguistic situation arising when the same language serves two different nations, i. e . , concerning the variants of a language (Smirnickij, 1955, Rizel', 1962, Brozovic, 1967). The most elaborate description of the variants of a standard language comes from the Yugoslav linguist D. Brozovic who notes that variants originate in all nationally non-homogeneous standard (i. e . , literary) languages. The relation of the variants to the dialects is no different from the relation of the standard language to the dialects. One should distinguish, on the one hand, variants of the standard language, i. e . , the units formed which possess complex linguistic peculiarities and functions, and, on the other hand, the zones in which there is no distinct differentiation and where the various features characteristic of the variants are hybrid. Among the latter (called, in other terminology, TRANSITIONAL AREAS ), one should obviously include Canada, where the English language reveals very few distinctive features of its own, and at the same time is under pressure from both British and American variants with the features of the latter clearly predominating. As far as the relationship, STANDARD LANGUAGE : VARIANTS , is concerned, it is in a sense analogous to Saussure's LANGUE : PAROLE, inasmuch as the non-homogeneous standard language exists in principle only as an abstraction and in practice both its written and spoken forms are realized in the form of variants. As far as the latter observation is concerned, it may be accepted, with the important reservation that homogeneity is by no means always a feature of variants. We shall see below for example, that on the level of the phonic system the American variant of the standard English language is by no means a homogeneous unit. In summing up what has been said, we shall define the basic concepts which will henceforth be used in this work. DIALECT means a territorially enclosed variety of a language, limited to the sphere of popular-colloquial speech, and contrasting with the standard language. A VARIANT OF THE STANDARD LANGUAGE is a regional variety of a single norm-governed standard language. It was pointed out above that a variant of the standard language is in precisely the same relationship to the dialects distributed within a given area as a standard language is to the dialects within the framework of a nationally homogeneous language. Hence it follows that between the variants and the dialects of a standard language there are close bilateral relationships of the same kind as are generally observed between a standard language and the dialects (i. e . , on the one hand, the leveling influence which the standard

18 language exerts on the dialects, and on the other hand, the promotion of individual dialectal phenomena, causing them to penetrate the standard language). The aggregate composed of the given variant of the standard language and the territorial dialects distributed within its area will be called the NATIONAL VARIANTS OF THE LANGUAGE, as the aggregate c o m p o s e d o f t h e

STANDARD LANGUAGE + the DIALECTS, under the condition of a nationally homogeneous language, is called a NATIONAL LANGUAGE. As may be seen from the definitions, the difference between the concepts of a VARIANT OF THE STANDARD LANGUAGE and a DIALECT is not characterized by any structural features. Structurally both a VARIANT OF THE STANDARD LANGUAGE and a dialect are in themselves individual systems included in the complex system of the national language and united with it by a single set of common features. This question will be treated in more detail in the following section. 2. Types of Intersystemic Relationships and Methods of Analyzing

Them

In modern linguistics, the concept of language as a complex system or "system of systems" instead of the oversimplified view of language as a single system is increasingly gaining ground. Scholars come to this conclusion when examining language on various planes. We, however, are naturally interested in the structure of language in its spatial projection. In this respect, the abovementioned works by R. I. Avanesov and other Soviet dialectologists on the structure of the Russian national language are extremely important. According to these works, the Russian language in its territorial aspect represents a SYSTEM OF INDIVIDUAL SYSTEMS. These individual systems (or MICROSYSTEMS) are not objects which are external with respect to each other, but are intricately interwoven. They are 'the same' from the standpoint of some features and 'not the same' from the standpoint of others. The aggregate of microsystems forms a MACROSYSTEM (SYSTEM OF SYSTEMS), which is characterized by features common to the macrosystem as a whole and by features which differentiate some microsystems from others. The above is fully applicable to the English language, which may also be represented as a complex system consisting of overlapping subsystems. The method of modeling these microsystems and macrosystems permits us to show the structural differences between the variants of the English language which we are examining. This method essentially consists of the following. On each level, (if, of course, the material permits this) a homogeneous system, which can serve as the object for direct observation, is singled out. This system is regarded as a microsystem. The aggregate composed of microsystems of both variants forms a macrosystem. If it is necessary to include more extensive linguistic objects in the examination (for example the national variants of the

19 English language or the English language as a whole), macrosystems of a higher order are constructed. The hierarchy of individual systems established in this manner may be correlated with the division of the English language into variants and dialects, but does not coincide with it. After all, as was mentioned above, this division rests not on intralinguistic but on socio-linguistic criteria. It is fully possible that at a certain level the structure of the given variant will prove to be nonhomogeneous, and, consequently, instead of a single microsystem, the scholar will have to construct a whole series of microsystems. On the other hand, it is also possible that there will be cases in which the divergences at a given level will not effect the units forming its system. In such a case the comparison of variants at this level as two different microsystems will prove impossible. It should be emphasized especially that the hierarchy, MACROSYSTEM MICROSYSTEM does not coincide with the hierarchy STANDARD LANGUAGE DIALECT, since they are based on different features. Therefore the standard language is not a macrosystem with respect to the dialects. From the intralinguistic standpoint, the standard language and dialects, as structural varieties of a national language, are equivalent. At the same time, if the analysis is limited to the standard language, then within its limits, construction of a. hierarchial series MACROSYSTEM - MICROSYSTEM, with the reservations noted above, is completely justified. The idea that subsystems making up a system of a higher order must not be considered as isolated from each other, or as enclosed, is extremely important. Hie concept of a language as the sum total of the overlapping systems of its components — variants, dialects, and idiolects — lies at the basis of the idea of the COMMON CORE (Hockett, 1959).

The diagr&m presents an extremely simple graphic representation of the correlations between the common and distinctive elements of two opposed microsystems. The shaded section designates the common core. In this book, COMMON CORE means the aggregate of identical elements of two microsystems. We will illustrate this statement with a concrete example. Let us assume that in

20 microsystem A the vowels in road and rode differ (as sometimes occurs in AE), while in microsystem B these vowels do not differ. At the same time, both microsystems differentiate road and rode, on the one hand, and raid, red, read, etc. The vowel phonemes which are distinguished in both microsystems are included in their common core. The concept of the common core is extremely important and essential for a comparative analysis of such overlapping systems as the dialects and variants of the same language. Here one must bear in mind that using the model of the common core is possible only when the linguistic forms being compared (variants, dialects, etc.) are actually opposed to each other on the given level as discrete microsystems, i. e . , when the differences concern part of the inventory of the units of the given level and not just their realizations. Numerous facts attest to the fact that there is every basis for extending the concept of the common core to the relationships between the American and British variants of the English language, inasmuch as the microsystems of these variants are closely interwoven. The English linguist R. Quirk and his American colleague A. Marckwardt write very convincingly of this in their joint work, A Common Language, in which, noting that the microsystems of both variants overlap on different levels, they come to the conclusion that "it's by no means a straight simple line of distinction that runs down the middle of the Atlantic, so to say, separating America from Britain" (A. Marckwardt, R. Quirk, 1964, p. 18). In fact, the lines of distinction form an intricate crisscrossing pattern. The question may arise as to whether in general AE and BE can be compared if their distinctive features are so tightly and intricately interwoven. A contrastive analysis may, of course, be successful on the condition that the object of comparison consists of separable, i. e . , discrete, units. Let us turn to the objects of our comparison, the American and British variants of standard English. In spite of the overlapping of their microsystems, one cannot help but observe that they have definite distinctive features at all levels. Even on the level of the phonic system, where in America one unquestionably notices a considerably greater variability in the linguistic norms than in England, there is, as we shall see below, a coexistence of several microsystems characterized by a unique set of distinctive features. Here the basic distinctive power is acquired not by certain elements taken individually, inasmuch as they may simultaneously be found in several microsystems, but by the combination of these elements itself, which in each case will be unique. It would seem that the segmentation of the objects of comparison, based on these principles, is in complete accordance with the concept of language as a system, for, if one does not confine oneself to an atomistic comparison of separate elements, and bears in mind the systemic nature of the objects compared, one cannot but realize that not only the separate features, but also the

21 features in combination, should be included as distinctive features of the microsystems being compared. If one agrees that the British and American variants are correlated with each other as overlapping microsystems, one further conclusion, relating directly to the methods of contrastive analysis, should be drawn. In comparing the systems of different languages, one almost always contrasts heterosystemic elements, i. e . , elements belonging to systems which represent objects external with respect to each other. In comparing phenomena pertaining to overlapping systems with a common core, however, it should be borne in mind that not only elements which lie beyond the limits of the common core (in our case the specific phenomena of the American and British variants) but also the specific phenomena of a certain variant may be contrasted to the phenomena of the common core. It may be assumed that the greater the specific gravity of the common core of the microsystems being compared, the greater the probability of such contrasts. Thus we have come to the question of the basic types of intersystemic relationships which characterize the American and British variants of standard English. An analysis of the material attests to the fact that when contrasting the elements of the microsystems being compared, different types of relationships are revealed. On the one hand, bi-elemental correspondences may be singled out, both members of which have a clearly-expressed local color. Lexical units equivalent in meaning of which one is an Americanism and the other a Briticism (for example, baby carriage : perambulator) may serve as an example of this type of correspondence. Oppositions of this type are analogous in meaning to the intrasystemic oppositions which are described as EQUIPOLENT (Trubeckoj, 1960), i. e. , oppositions, both terms of which are logically equivalent and in which the presence of one feature is in opposition to the presence of another. The term of the opposition characterized by a certain feature is called the marked term. Oppositions of this type consist of two marked terms. Inasmuch as the local feature (i. e . , the presence of local color in a given phenomenon) underlies the oppositions which we are examining, we may speak in this case of oppositions consisting of two locally-marked terms or of OPPOSITIONS WITH BILATERAL LOCAL MARKEDNESS. The terms of such oppositions are incompatible within the limits of the same microsystem or, in other words, are in a relationship of intersystemic complementary distribution. On the other hand, there is a large group of correspondences, the terms of which are mutually exclusive only in one of the microsystems while in the other they may be in free variation or coexist, with a certain stylistic or semantic differentiation. Actually, in this case, the presence of a local feature in one of the terms of the opposition is in contrast to the absence of this

22 feature in the other. Here one cannot help but perceive an analogy with those intrasystemic oppositions which N. S. Trubeckoj placed in the category of PRIVATE ONES , i. e. , those in which one term (the MARKED one) is characterized by the presence and the other (the UNMARKED one) by the absence of a certain feature. In our case it is a question of correspondences consisting of a locally-marked term, (or, in other words, belonging only to one of the variants) and an unmarked term, characterized by the absence of this feature (or, in other words, belonging to the common core). We shall call oppositions of this t y p e OPPOSITIONS WITH UNILATERAL LOCAL MARKEDNESS. T h e

relative predominance of oppositions with unilateral or bilateral local markedness is an indicator of the correlation between the common and distinctive elements in the microsystems being compared. A necessary condition for contrasting the various elements belonging to different systems is the clarification of their relationship to the other elements of the corresponding systems. From this standpoint the differentiation of the correspondences according to how broad a scope of certain linguistic facts is encompassed becomes especially important. In other words it must be determined precisely whether it is a question of a basically unrestricted series of linguistic facts, of phenomena which have definite lexical-grammatical or other restrictions, or of single facts. In connection with this, the differentiation of proportional and isolated oppositions, once outlined by N. S. Trubeckoj, acquires special significance. An opposition is considered proportional if the relationship between its terms is identical to the relationship between the terms of any other opposition or series of other oppositions; an opposition is considered isolated if the terms of the other oppositions do not reveal similar relationships. The correspondences between the diphthongs [ou] and [ei] in the British and American variants, which are contrasted on the basis of the same feature (a greater degree of diphthongization in the American variant), can serve as an example of PROPORTIONAL OPPOSITIONS on the phonetic level. On the other hand, the opposition of AE [founj : BE [Jon] (two variants of pronouncing shone the past tense form of the verb shine) should be considered as ISOLATED, i. e . , other pairs with this difference are not found. Fully applicable to our material and accepted in Russian dialectology (Avanesov, 1962) is the differentiation of oppositions depending on whether their terms constitute a simple or a complex phenomenon. SIMPLE OPPOSITIONS are characterized by the fact that their terms in a sense have no dimensions, and each of them represents merely a point in the structure of the language (for example, BE fishmonger : AE fish dealer 'one who sells fish'). COMPLEX OPPOSITIONS are characterized by the fact that at least one of their terms forms a paradigmatic series (for example, a morphological paradigm, a syno-

23 nymic series, etc.). Finally, there should be singled out one more group of oppositions, in which, on the one hand, the distinctive feature may be the absence or presence of a certain phenomenon, and on the other hand, its occurrence. We shall call oppositions of the first type ABSOLUTE and of the second, RELATIVE. The study of this type of oppositions opens wide possibilities for the use of statistical methods. A contrastive-comparative description of different linguistic systems united within the limits of a system of a higher order should satisfy a number of requirements. First of all, a clear delineation of the synchronic and diachronic aspects of the study is necessary. As was indicated in the Introduction, this has by no means always been successful in the past. This was shown particularly in the varying interpretations of the concept of an AMERICANISM, which sometimes means a phenomenon first arising on American soil and sometimes means a phenomenon revealing definite features specific to American usage. It has already been mentioned that a comparison of linguistic phenomena should be of a systemic nature. Otherwise the danger arises of comparing isolated, uninformative, and at times quite noncomparable facts. In order to rule out the possibility of such errors, comparisons must be carried out within the limits of each level of the linguistic structure (phonological, grammatical, and lexical-semantic) and phenomena belonging to different stylistic subsystems of the language must not be considered identical. In our case it is especially important that the phenomena being compared from both variants be restricted to the standard language. Fulfilling this undoubtedly important requirement still does not in itself guarantee the systemic nature of the comparisons. One can, after all, even within the limits of the same level, compare single elements of different systems without regard for the place which they occupy in their own systems. The same phonic types in different systems may be related to different phonemes. Hence the requirement made of a comparative study — that the elements being compared should be first of all evaluated and characterized within the context of their own systems, i. e . , in terms of the intrasystemic relationships. We mentioned above the task set by the American scholar U. Weinreich of Studying t h e STRUCTURAL CONSEQUENCES OF PARTIAL DIVERGENCES in a

comparative analysis of several microsystems. This task is directly relevant to the subjects of our study. In turning to the phonic system of the American variant, it would not be enough to limit ourselves to establishing the fact that in certain varieties of AE the preconsonantal [r] may be either present or absent. It is important to ascertain which elements of the phonological systems of the R-LESS VARIETIES fulfill distinctive functions analogous to those ful-

24 filled in other systems by preconsonantal [r]. Similar problems also arise on the grammatical level. Here again the presence or absence of a certain form may essentially affect the functions of other forms and cause the elements of the grammatical system to be regrouped accordingly. The comparability of the systems being compared is also ensured by the fact that they are described in the same units. This requirement is especially important for a phonological analysis. As we know, discrepancies in the phonological interpretation of the same type of linguistic material, caused by the wellk n o w n NON-UNIQUENESS OF PHONEMIC SOLUTIONS are a considerable hin-

drance in solving the problems of a contrastive typological analysis. A contrastive description of the American and British variants is possible only on the condition that the units of description are transposed into a single system. At the same time, one should remember that even such American phoneticists as J. S. Kenyon and G. K. Thomas, who are most closely affiliated with the English phonological school, in a number of cases sharply diverge from the latter when interpreting exactly the same type of material. The lack of a unified approach is felt especially keenly, as we will see below, in the sphere of intonation. In conclusion, two basic types of differences which are revealed by compared systems with a common core - INVENTORIAL and DISTRIBUTIONAL (U. Weinreich, 1954) — should be mentioned. The former pertain to the inventory of constituent units on a certain level while the latter pertain to the differences in the distribution of the same units (i. e . , phonemes, morphemes, etc.). A more detailed delimitation of the differences for each level of the linguistic structure is also possible. For example, one may single out differences in the phonic substrata of phonemes, i. e . , differences which are not of a functional, but of an articulational-acoustical nature. The latter, in turn, may be ABSOLUTE and COMBINATORY, i. e . , either not conditioned or conditioned by a certain environment. The delimitation of inventorial and distributional differences is linked very closely with the differentiation of distinctive features in one more way: from the standpoint of determining the relative weight of the various distinctive elements, it is necessary to ascertain in each instance whether it is a question of differences relating to different allophones of the same phonemes, different allomorphs of the same morphemes, or different phonemes, morphemes, etc. In other words, it is important to determine the rank of the differences, by drawing a clear distinction between the differences on the level of the variants of the linguistic units and the differences on the level of the units themselves. In this chapter we have touched on the most general facets of the question concerning the correlation between systems being compared and concerning the principles of their comparison.! These questions will be examined in more

25 detail in the appropriate chapters.

NOTE 1 For a different treatment of the principles of comparative analysis see the works of E. A. Makaev (1969).

II DISTINCTIVE ELEMENTS OF THE PHONIC SYSTEM

1. The Norms of Standard Pronunciation in England and the United States We have already noted that on the level of the phonic system standard English in the United States is distinguished by a considerably greater variability of its norms than is the standard English in England. As we know, in England the existence of a single dialectal basis for the standard language ensures a considerably higher degree of unification in its pronunciation norms. The socalled SOUTHERN ENGLISH or RECEIVED PRONUNCIATION (RP) is widespread among the educated population of the entire country and, in contrast to the territorial dialects, does not have any local coloring.1 According to the English linguist, D. Abercrombie, RP speakers are distinguished from other educated people by the fact that it is impossible to determine their origin from their accent (Abercrombie, 1955). The standard pronunciation of BE is described in detail in scientific and educational pedagogical literature. The question of the standard for American pronunciation, however, has been studied considerably less. The fact that in America there is no single pronunciational standard based, as in England, on some local type of pronunciation, is quite well known. The American dialectologist Professor Hans Kurath notes that there is no basis for assuming that in the foreseeable future the inhabitants of Virginia will bow in matters of pronunciation to the inhabitants of New York, or the inhabitants of Detroit to the inhabitants of Boston (Kurath, 1961). It would, however, be erroneous to jump to the conclusion, on the basis of such observations, that in America there is in general no standard whatsoever and that only different types of dialectal pronunciations exist. Such a conclusion clearly contradicts the actual situation, for in reality, within the area of the basic dialectal groupings of AE, a social stratification of linguistic phenomena, including phenomena pertaining to the phonic system, is observed (see Labov, 1966). Within more or less extensive regions of the United States, certain phonetic phenomena are differentiated by features which do or do not correspond to the standard. Moreover, the so-called STANDARD and SUBSTANDARD forms are clearly differentiated. Both of these may be divided into two categories: 1) phenomena which are sanctioned by the norms in all

28 regions of the country and phenomena which correspond to the norms only in certain regions and, correspondingly, 2) phenomena which are rejected by the norms in all regions of the country and those which are considered substandard only in certain regions. Thus, in the sphere of pronunciation, the concept of adherence to the norm or non-adherence to the norm may be of both a universal and a narrowly localized nature. Let us take a few examples. Phenomena such as the aspirated [p] in prevocalic position and the assimilated [tl 3 ] and [tjj instead of [d] and [tj in cordial and don't you correspond to the generally accepted norms. Naturally, such phenomena have no local color. A considerable number of local phenomena, however, are also included among those universally sanctioned by the norms. For example, the New York pronunciation belongs to the so-called r-less type. A considerable number of New Yorkers, however, do pronounce retroflex [r] in preconsonantal and final position, and this pronunciation is not only not regarded as a deviation from the norm, but, according to W. Labov (1966), enjoys a greater social prestige. Both variants of pronunciation (with the preconsonantal [r] and without it, in words which are spelled with r) are considered acceptable, though the former is clearly winning the day. The same thing is true of the different articulational shadings of [1], which may be absent or present in a certain speech area. This type of divergence is completely within the range of permissible variations, regulated by the norms in all parts of the United States. On the other hand, pronouncing [1] instead of [e] in words like pen, which is observed in the southern states, is considered substandard everywhere, including the south. Thus, we see that the concept of nonconformity to the norms of the standard language and the concept of the territorial limitation of a phonic phenomenon are not at all identical. Along with this, certain divergences between regional norms of pronunciation are also noted. Pronunciation which is considered "standard" in one region may prove to be "substandard" in another. For example, an opposition like [hw] : [w] in pairs such as which : witch constitutes a characteristic feature of the speech of many Americans, although in a number of regions (for example, in New York, Philadelphia, etc.), these words are homophones. It is characteristic that when the American linguist T. Pyles observed in his article "Linguistics and Pedagogy" that in his speech the baby whales and the baby wails sound absolutely the same (in both cases [weilz]), there was an immediate response to his article from a school teacher in a region where [hw] is prescribed by the norm. In her opinion, not differentiating [hw] from [w] is typical only of uneducated people. The problems connected with divergences in the regional norms become especially acute in regions where there is a large influx of population from other parts of the country and where the teachers frequently correct the pro-

29 nunciation of students who have recently arrived from other regions. For example, in schools in Michigan, children who have come from the southern states are taught to correct their diphthong [seu] in down, owl, now, although in the south such pronunciation is in accordance with the accepted standard. Factual evidence indicates that standard American pronunciation breaks up into several regional types, which may be described as systems with predominant similarity and partial divergences. Singling out discrete homogeneous systems which correspond to the basic types of American pronunciation is fraught with a number of difficulties. First of all, it should be remembered that even a description of the idiolects of individual Americans attests to the fact that their phonemic systems are to a certain extent heterogeneous (Labov, 1966). It is, above all, necessary to allow for the so-called bidialectism, which may be described as the coexistence of elements of two different microsystems in the language of the same individual. Within the context of the constant migration of the population, which is characteristic of the United States, bidialectism is frequently evinced by the fact that migrants from other regions, who have to a certain extent assimilated the pronunciation standard of their new surroundings, continue to use the native dialect in family and everyday situations. Switching from their own dialect to the local standard depends on the social situation. Such bidialectism is noted specifically in Negro families who have moved north from the southern states. We know that bidialectism inevitably involves the mixing of the elements of the two microsystems (the so-called MIXING OF DIALECTS), since alternate use of two different systems with predominant similarity, and at times with quite subtle differences, requires increased selectivity (essentially even more than for bilingualism, involving two systems which differ sharply from each other). Sometimes certain "substandard" forms of the local dialect used in everyday, informal speech and their equivalent forms from the standard language, used in so-called "FORMAL SPEECH" coexist in the speech of the same person. Cases of switching from local dialectal forms to so-called PRESTIGE F O R M S , (i. e . , to forms of the standard language), depending on the communicative conditions and the social situation have been definitely established by the American scholar W. Labov (1966), who analyzed the social stratification of the speech of New Yorkers. This circumstance should be taken into account when evaluating the data of the Linguistic Atlas, in which the concept of CULTIVATED SPEECH corresponds to the information obtained as a result of questioning educated informants. It is therefore very important when determining the most typical varie-

30 ties of American literary pronunciation to proceed not only from the material in the Atlas but also from data contained in other works. The broad independent study made by C. Thomas, who questioned chiefly young informants, is of great interest in this respect. Thomas' study is also highly interesting because it attests to the obvious influence of urbanization on the extinction of certain typical dialectal features. It should also be remembered that the differentiation between standard and dialectal forms may in some regions be less clear-cut than in others. Observations made by the compilers of the Linguistic Atlas indicate that these forms are most sharply contrasted in the southern United States (the old plantation country) and in the old cities along the Atlantic seaboard (in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Richmond, and Charleston). In other regions there is a more gradual scale of transitions from the standard to the dialect. This is particularly true of most of the rural areas in the United States. In both cases, however, the fact that educated informants questioned by the compilers of the Atlas, Thomas, and the other authors, on the whole gave the same type of answers to the investigators' questions confirms the correctness of the assumption that it is possible to outline the range of phenomena which lie within the sphere of standardized language. It will be advisable to begin the comparison of the phonic system of the American and British variants of standard English by examining the phonetic features characteristic of AE and BE.

2. The Phonetic Differences Between the American and British Variants of Standard English A description of the phonetic differences between the American and British variants of standard English may begin with the differences in the sphere of vocalism where the distinctive elements of both variants stand out in bolder relief. It is especially necessary to determine the general nature of the differences in this sphere. For purely practical purposes, one may take as a frame of reference the vowel system of the British variant, which has been described in some detail in scientific literature and therefore does not require a detailed characterization. Readers interested in a detailed description of the RP vowel system may refer to the well-known works by the English phoneticists D. Jones and I. Ward and the Soviet scholars G. P. Torsuev, V. A. Vasil'ev, and 0.1. Dikufina. Let us turn to the general characteristics of the AE vowels. As may be seen from the diagram on page 31, the front vowels occupy essentially the same position in the coordinate network of vowels as do the

31 corresponding sounds in BE. Just as in the British variant, long [i:J shows a tendency toward diphthongization. The vowel [e], in contrast to its British variant, is used only as the first element of the diphthong [ei]. [e] is used as a pure monophthong in AE, i. e . , a broader vowel, which is sometimes also heard in the British variant.

The diphthong [ei] differs from the corresponding sound in the British variant only in the degree of diphthongization. Many Americans pronounce an almost totally monophthongized variety of this vowel, chiefly in unstressed syllables. Other conditions being equal, the glide of [ei] is heard more clearly before voiced consonants and in final position. In England the monophthongal [e:] is heard only in dialectal speech (in Northern English and Scottish dialects). The vowel [a], which in standard English pronunciation figures only as the first element of the diphthongs [ai] and [ a u j , in certain regions of the United States (chiefly in New England) forms a monophthong, used in words like ask, half, path, can't (but not cant), aunt (but not ant). In the individual HYPERCORRECTED pronunciation of some Americans, [a] is a conscious imitation of the 'Boston accent'. It alternates freely with [ae], used in analogous positions in more casual, informal speech. In England the monophthong [a] is found only in the North country dialects. The diphthong [ai] reveals certain regional variations. In the majority of the regions in the country, its initial element is pronounced as it is in England. Along with this, however, the pronunciation [ai] (chiefly in the New Y o r k area) is also noted. In some regions of the South, before an unvoiced consonant the narrow variety [a] is used as the first element of this diphthong. In some southern states, the diphthong [ai] undergoes full monophthongjzation. The diphthong [au] also has several local varieties, differing according to the

32

pronunciation of the initial element. For most Americans [au] is characteristic. Another wide-spread variant is [au]. The [aeu] found in a number of regions along the Atlantic coast is considered 'substandard' except in the South where it is sanctioned by the literary norm. In contrast to British [a:], which is a back vowel, the American [a] is characterized as a central vowel. These sounds do not differ from each other in the tongue height: they both belong to the broad low variety.2 The second feature characteristic of the American [a] is the fact that it has two variants — long and short [a]. In most of the regional types of American pronunciation, short nonlabialized [a] is found in words like not, top, dock, nod, rob, i. e. , where in RP a short labial [o] is used. In some r-less types of AE, long and short [o] are contrasted in the same phonetic environment (cf. cot [kat] and cart [ka:t]). In regional types with a preconsonantal [r], long [a:] is found only in a strictly limited group of words {father, alms, palm, etc.). Here long and short [a] are opposed in a few minimal pairs like bomb [bam] : balm [ba:m]. In some regions of the Midwest, the difference between these sounds is so insignificant that phoneticists, native to this pronunciation type, transcribe them identically as [a]. As far as the vowel [D J is concerned, it is fcund in AE considerably less frequently (chiefly in the eastern part of New England and in western Pennsylvania). It may in certain positions alternate with [a] and [o]. The vowel [a] also differs from the corresponding sound in BE, although less noticeably than [a]. Its articulation in the American variant is characterized by a somewhat greater tendency toward variability. Noticeable variations are observed in the tongue height (from the mid-broad to the low-narrow), the length, degree of labialization, and tension. The initial element of the diphthong [ou] differs noticeably in stand. /, /a-o/ or /a-o/). Thus, the minimal structure of this link, common to all the microsystems, is a binary opposition, and, consequently, only two phonemes may be included in the inventory of the overall pattern. The invariant contrast in this range is obviously a contrast on the basis of the absence or presence of labialization. In concrete microsystems, this contrast is usually complicated by an opposition on another basis (its being associated with a certain degree of retraction or rise). The minimal contrast included in the overall pattern is not identical with any concrete opposition found in a certain microsystem but is an abstracted expression of the common features which characterize any microsystem in this range. We shall designate this contrast conventionally as /a-o/.

59 An analogous solution should also be adopted with respect to the opposition /a-a/. Here the minimal inventory consists of the phoneme /a/, which should enter the overall pattern. As far as the phoneme /a/ is concerned, it should be eliminated as characterizing only part of the microsystems, namely, those microsystems which correspond to the r-less types of pronunciation. On this basis we shall also eliminate the series of diphthongs with a glide to /a/ from the formula for the overall pattern. The overall pattern is thus characterized by the following inventory of phonemes: /iriretarataru-u^ateitai-au^ou'oi/. The inventory of the overall pattern serves as a graphic confirmation of the predominance of common structural features in the microsystems being compared. Representing a further abstraction from the phonetic substrata, the overall pattern emphasizes the principal unity of the RELATIONAL FRAMEWORK of the microsystems. Only in individual sectors, as we have seen, do the systems being compared differ because of the relative structural complexity and because of the presence of additional oppositions. Having established the functional equivalence between the phonemes of the individual microsystems, we may now determine the DEGREE OF SIMI-

LARITY between the phonemic inventory of microsystem VII, corresponding to the standard pronunciation of BE, and the inventory of each of the microsystems in AE. The percentage relationship between the common and distinctive elements in the inventory of the microsystems compared may thus be established and the specific gravity of the distinctive elements determined. To calculate the degree of similarity of the microsystems, we will use the formula proposed by the Polish scholar Tadeusz Milewski for the structural and typological comparison of the phonological systems of different languages (Milewski, 1963). In deriving his formula for the similarity of two systems, T. Milewski proceeds from the fact that a typological comparison is a comparison of the function of the elements of a language and of their relationship to the other elements in their system. Moreover, he introduces the concept of equivalent phonemes, i. e . , those which are in the identical place in identical positions in the systems of the languages being compared. With regard to the material which we have examined, the concept of equivalent phonemes fully corresponds to the concept of phonemes of the overall pattern, which correspond in concrete microsystems either to the diaphones or the common core phonemes which show no regional variations. On this basis, the degree of similarity of the microsystems may be calcu-

60 lated according to the formula: a -

b = X

a + b In this formula, a designates the sum of the diaphones and identical phonemes in the microsystems being compared while b is the sum of the remaining phonemes, i. e . , those phonemes of microsystem A which have no functionallyequivalent phonemes in microsystem B and those phonemes of microsystem B which have no functionally—equivalent phonemes in microsystem A ; x is the index of the degree of similarity (in percent). Also included in the list of functionally—identical phonemes will be all the consonant phonemes, among which, as we indicated above, no inventorial differences have been observed. According to the calculations made, microsystem VI, corresponding to the Southern variety of standard American pronunciation, reveals the greatest degree of similarity with microsystem VII, which corresponds to the British type of standard English pronunciation (95%). The eastern New England microsystem reveals approximately the same degree of similarity to BE (93%). The New York pronunciational type, which we examined, has a somewhat lower degree of similarity. 6 The inventory of microsystems IV (western Pennsylvania) and V (the Midwest) is characterized by the least degree of similarity to RP - 83.1%. The so-called r-less types of American pronunciation stand highest in the degree of similarity to the British variant. They reveal the greatest degree of similarity to the microsystem of the British pronunciation type according to the functional characteristics of their constituent phonemes. Such a relatively high index is explained by the functional parallelism of the diphthongs with a glide to the neutral vowel, which are present in the phonemic inventory of these microsystems, with the exception of microsystem II (New York). The fact that the degree of similarity between the varieties of the American variant is characterized by approximately the same range of fluctuations as are the similarities of the regional types of AE to the British standard is extremely significant. In evaluating the above indices, it should be borne in mind that with a different phonemic solution the corresponding values will be different. For example, if one proceeds from Trager and Smith's model, the degree of similarity of the phonemic inventory (if one includes only the nine SIMPLE VOWFXS in the latter) will in all cases be 100%, and the alternations observed in the vocalic system will be reflected only in the lists of COMPLEX NUCLEI. In any case, for any phonological interpretation of the divergences between

61 the British variant and the basic varieties of the American variant, this index will remain quite high. If, moreover, the relatively low functional load of the distinctive elements (cf. above) is considered, then it is possible to draw a definite conclusion concerning the full predominance of the common elements and concerning the relatively small specific gravity of the distinctive elements.

6. Distributional Differences The distributional differences between the American and southern British pronunciation types are much more numerous and varied than the divergences in the phonemic inventory. Their full enumeration would be impossible within the scope of this book. Those who wish a more detailed introduction to this type of divergence between AE and BE may refer to the work by H. Kurath and R. McDavid, based on the material from the Linguistic Atlas (H. Kurath, R. McDavid, 1961). In this section we shall attempt only to single out the basic types of distributive differences. The first fact to draw attention is that the distributional differences between the different types and subtypes of English standard pronunciation break up into two basic categories: 1) the differences caused by discrepancies in the inventory of phonemes and 2) the differences not caused by inventorial divergences. Differences included in the first category are, specifically, those revealed by the microsystems being compared in the position between consonants and /r/. In this situation, in words like car, garden all the microsystems use /a/. The exception is the eastern New England pronunciation type, which lacks this phoneme and which uses its functional analogue /a/ in this position. Also included here are the distributional differences observed before plosives, affricatives, sibilants, etc. , in words like stop, lodge, bosh. In this position, microsystems I (eastern New England), IV (western Pennsylvania), and VII (the British standard variant), which have /d/ in their phonemic inventory, use this phoneme. At the same time, the majority of the regional types of the American variant which lack this phoneme use /a/ in the analogous position. The differences in the second category are considerably more widespread. Let us first examine those which appear before certain unvoiced fricative consonants in words like ask, laugh, path. We shall exclude from consideration those differences which the eastern New England pronunciation type reveals in this position, inasmuch as they are determined by the specificity of its phonemic inventory, i. e . , by the fact that it has the aforementioned vowel phoneme /a/, which is used in this position. As we know, the British variant uses the phoneme /a/ in this position. At the same time, in the majority

62 of microsystems in the American variant, /ae/is found here. The exception is microsystem II (New York) in which / » / alternates with /a/ in this position. This divergence does not stem from inventorial differences since the phonemic inventory of all these microsystems includes both /a/ and /ae/. Before velars /g / and /q/ in words like log, long, certain microsystems (for example, II and III, corresponding to the New York and Middle Atlantic pronunciational types) use the vowel phoneme /a/ and others (for example, microsystem VI, which corresponds to the Southern type of American literary pronunciation) use the phoneme /o/. Here both phonemes coexist in the inventory of eacfi of these microsystems and, consequently, the stated distributional difference cannot be considered to be conditioned by a discrepancy in the phonemic inventory. At the basis of the differences belonging to this category lies a discrepancy in the DISTRIBUTIONAL RANGE of the same phonemes. Such differences, for example, are observed in the distribution of the consonant phoneme /r/. Microsystems III, IV, and V of the American variant display the maximal range of the distribution of /r/. In them /r/ is used in all possible positions, including preconsonantal positions and at the end of words. In the British variant, /r/, as we know, is found in prevocalic (for example, rose) intervocalic (very), and linking (far away) positions but is not used in the rest. Still narrower is the distributional range of It I in some varieties of the Southern pronunciation type of AE where /r/ is, in addition, also missing in intervocalic and linking positions. It should also be noted that the distribution of phonemes which characterizes the microsystem corresponding to the British type of standard English pronunciation does not coincide with any of those which characterize the different regional types of American pronunciation, although it has a number of features in common with each of the latter. Thus, for example, it resembles the eastern New England regional type of AE (microsystem I) in the use of /d/ in the so-called "short-o words" like stop, rock. At the same time, it is characterized by distributional differences, caused by a discrepancy in the phonemic inventory, in words like law, caught, awe, where British English uses /o/ and microsystem I, /o/. British English differs from microsystems II, III, IV, V and VI in the use of /a/ in words like ask, dance, path where the norms of the American variant specify I?el. In reality, not counting the New York regional type in which /a/ is sometimes found in these words as an optional variant, all the other varieties of standard American pronunciation contrast with the British through the absence of /a/ in this position. Incidentally, the use of /ae / in the abovementioned position is, from the standpoint of the Englishman, no less, if not more, a characteristic feature of the AMERICAN ACCENT than is retroflex /r/ since the latter is also found in certain territorial dialects of England (in the

63 southwestern part of the country). The other position in which the distributional differences between microsystem VII (the British variant) and microsystems I-VI (the American variant) are obvious is before /r/ in words like hurry, worry, furrow. Here only the New York regional type, like the British variant, uses /A/ more or less consistently. In the rest of the regional varieties of standard American pronunciation, /a/ clearly predominates. Many distributional differences are connected with the neutralization of the phonemic oppositions which occurs in certain positions in the various microsystems. As we know, neutralization of phonemic positions usually implies removal of the phonological (semiologic) oppositions in certain positions in which only part of the phonemic inventory of the given language or dialect is used. Under these conditions only one of the terms of the opposition is generally used. The latter is considered to represent an archphoneme, embodying the aggregate of distinctive features common to the two phonemes (Trubetzkoy, 1960). Thus, in minimal pairs like hoarse : horse, in a number of the varieties of the American variant (especially in eastern New England and the South) a clearly expressed opposition of the phonemes /ou/ and /a/ is observed. In other regions of the United States and in the south of England this opposition is neutralized. Moreover, in the western Pennsylvanian regional type of AE, /ou/ usually appears as the representative of the archphoneme of this opposition, and here the words hoarse and horse, are as a rule pronounced alike — with a monophthongized variant of this phoneme, [o]. At the same time, in New York, in the Middle Atlantic region, in the Midwest, and in the southern United States, as well as in England, /o/ represents the archphoneme. Also characteristic is the behavior of the front vowels /e/, /ea/, and /»/ in words like merry, Mary, marry. In this position the maximal differentiation of these vowels is observed in eastern New England (microsystem I), in the south of the United States (microsystem VI), and in England (microsystem VII). At the same time, in the Middle Atlantic area (microsystem III), and in western Pennsylvania (microsystem IV), a neutralization of the opposition /ea-e/ takes place in this position. The archphoneme is represented by /e/. In other words, merry and Mary are here pronounced alike — /'men/. In microsystem V (Midwest) in this position, the opposition /e-as/ is also frequently neutralized. Here the archphoneme of this opposition is also /e/, and all three words are homophones. In certain regions of the southern United States, in words like barn, bom the phonemic opposition /a-o/ is neutralized, and the latter vowel represents the archphoneme. Thus, barn and bom are pronounced alike - with /o/. At the same time, in other positions the contrast between /a/ and /a/ is quite clearly observed (for example, in such pairs as cot: caught).

64 A similar phenomenon is observed also in the genetically related clusters of VOWEL+• R and in the diphthongs with a glide to the neutral vowel, in which, in the microsystems which we are comparing, a fluctuation of the first element between /•/ and /i/, /o/ and /a/, /ae/ and /e/ is observed. While for certain microsystems the features which differentiate /os/ from /oa/ and /aes/ from /es/ retain their semiologic power, for the rest, the difference between these diphthongs is just as phonologically irrelevant as is the difference between /is/ and /is/. The differences connected with the neutralization of semiologic oppositions in certain microsystems and their preservation in others constitute one of the most important types of distributional differences and in the last analysis represent divergences in the distributional range of certain phonemes opposed to each other in the microsystems of the British and American variants which are being compared. The behavior of a number of vowel phonemes in a position of neutralization permits us to elicit the following rule: before /r/ in a neutralization of an opposition such as DIPHTHONG : MONOPHTHONG, the monophthong usually appears as the representative of the archphoneme. Thus, in the neutralization of the opposition /ou.o/, ¡of usually appears as the representative of the archphoneme, and in the neutralized opposition /es-e/, /e/ is usually the archphoneme. In the same situation, when there is a neutralization of an opposition, the terms of which are the broader /as/ and the narrower /e/, the latter is usually the archphoneme. 7. Intonational

Differences

The question of the intonational differences between the American and British variants of the English language is one of the topics least studied. In spite of the fact that special monographs exist which are devoted to a description of the intonational peculiarities of standard English in England and America (Armstrong and Ward, 1949; Pike, 1956), scholars have not essentially tried to make a systemic comparison of the intonation of the American and British variants. As is generally known, in the works by British authors graphic diagrams of the tonal contours, depicted in the form of tonograms and intonation curves, are generally used when analyzing intonation (cf. Jassem, 1952). At the same time, in modern American linguistics, a system of analysis has been adopted which is based on a comparison of relative pitch levels (Wells, 1941; Pike, 1956). As a result of these major divergences, the data from experimental studies is far from being uniformly interpreted. The lack of a metalanguage which would permit us to reduce the data of American and British authors to a common denominator sometimes leads to curious consequences. Thus, for example, the West German scholar Kurt Wittig

65 (1956) is mistaken when he attributes excessive significance to the divergences in intonational transcription. In basing his work on the analysis of relative levels adopted in the United States, this scholar comes to the conclusion that the melodic contour of American intonation is in itself of a step-like nature in contrast to British intonation, which is differentiated, in his words, by a continuous contour. On the basis of this, Wittig comes to the conclusion that phonological analysis of the pitch level (the Pike-Wells diagram) is applicable only to AE but not to BE. One scarcely needs to prove that the idea of describing intonation in discrete units, which underlies the analysis by Pike and Wells, in no way proceeds from the specific features of a certain variant of the English language. On the other hand, in instrumental analysis, the intonation of both variants appears to be, as Wittig himself admits, contradictory to his preceding statement, in the form of continuous contours. This scholar does not realize that in this case it is a question not of the differences in the melodic contours but of a different approach to interpreting phonetic phenomena. To solve completely the problem of the intonational differences between AE and BE one must above all satisfy the first requirement made of any comparative analysis — a description of the initial data in the same, or at least commensurable, units. It is necessary, as the American scholar J. Sledd so graphically put it, to reconcile the levels and pitch contours with each other, so that they do not cast sullen and perplexed glances at each other across the Atlantic Ocean (Sledd, 1955). Both methods of analysis (Armstrong and Ward, Pike and Wells) are imperfect in many ways. Our task does not lie in giving a detailed critical analysis of their shortcomings and an elucidation of their relative merits. It is important only to note that by virtue of the difficulties mentioned, as well as of the undeveloped state of a number of other problems connected with the study of intonation, our observations are of an especially preliminary and inevitably fragmentary nature. 7 In this work, Pike's four-sign scale is used as the basis for a comparative description. It was chosen because, in the first place, it makes it possible to carry out the comparison in discrete units, i. e. , with more contrast and, in the second place, it is easier to transpose the data of English scholars into Pike's system than to translate Pike's data into the transcription of English phoneticists with its more detailed presentation of the pitch movement. We prefer Pike's system to those of other American authors because Pike used it for a more complete and thorough study of American intonation with regard to its semantic and expressive-stylistic aspect. One must bear in mind that transposing the data from one system into another inevitably entails a certain loss of information in cases when these systems are constructed on completely different principles.

66 In Pike's transcription, the level of relative pitch is designated by the numbers from 1, the highest, to 4, the lowest; the symbol 0 designates stress and the symbol //, the final pause. Pike notes in his work that the British falling tone (Tune One) corresponds in functional use to the American contour - 3 °2 - 3 02 - 4 and in structure resembles the American descending stress series. Let us give a few examples to illustrate the use of the American intonation pattern which corresponds to British Tune One:

I'll

study

3-

02-3

I

want

to

go.

3.

02-

-3-

// 02-4

Tom

has

gone.

92-3

-3-

0 2 4 II

English

is

easy.

02-3

-3-

0 2 4 //

lesson

to-night

at

home.

02-3

3-02-3

-3-

0 2 4 //

my - -3-

Such intonation is noted not only in statements but also in questions which begin with interrogative pronouns and do not require an affirmative or negative answer (special questions): What's

your

name?

02-

-3-

0 2 4 II

How

can

reparations

be

made

to

02-3

-3-

02.3

-3-

03.2

-3-

the

dead? 0 2 4 //

An analysis of the above examples attests to the fact that the intonation of a simple nonemphatic statement and a question not requiring an affirmative or a negative answer is characterized by more or less equal alternations of slight rises and falls of the pitch with a final fall. Some scholars (Allwood, 1964)

67 describe the melodic movement which precedes the final descent as a WAVY MOTION. The most characteristic pattern of this part of the contour is °2-3 °2-3. Depending on the rhythmic structure of the syntagma, the fall °2-3 may include a stressed syllable and the unstressed one which follows or the stressed syllable alone. In any case, these wavy motions of the pitch do not go beyond the limits of two adjacent levels, and, moreover, both the stressed and the unstressed syllables form nondescending series right up to the falling end point of the syntagma. In the British variant, a different melodic pattern corresponds to this communicative type. In it the first stressed syllable, pronounced with a certain rise, forms the upper limit of the high range of the syntagma, and the stressed syllables which follow form a smoothly descending series (Torsuev, 1950). Cf. the following examples, transposed from the Armstrong and Ward transcription into Pike's system (in Pike's system the gradual fall of the pitch within the limits of the two contrasting levels is designated by _ ' _ ' _ ' ): They

came

3-

02-

I

mean

3-

°2-

to

call

yesterday

afternoon.

_'_ to

go

there

03-4

next

month. 034

What

time

would

you

3-

02-

'_

'_

How

long

will

3-

02-

_'_

it

II

like

me

H to

call? 034 H

take

me?

03.4.4

a

A similar melodic pattern (descending stress series) as has already been indicated is also found in American intonation. Here, however, according to Pike's observations, it is a special case of emphatic intonation. You're 3-

a

big °2-

bad

boy! 0 3 4 //

68 Isn't

that

nice!

02

_'_

0 3 4 //

It's

. very,

3-

02-

very

excellent!

034

//

Thus, while in the British variant this melodic contour is stylistically neutral, in the American variant it contains a strongly expressed emotional and expressive coloring. On the other hand, in standard English pronunciation, one sometimes finds a contour which somewhat resembles the wavy intonation pattern of A E described above. Ordinarily this melodic contour is used in emphasizing the word carrying the major stress, which is uttered with an extended range of descent: He

must

03-

2

go

01.

there

at

once!

2-3

-3-

o\-4 II

This intonation pattern differs from the melodic tone characteristic of nonemphatic intonation in A E not only because of the extended range of the final descent but also because there is a smooth descent after the word carrying the major stress. Let us now consider the basic divergences which are revealed by the contours with a final rise in pitch. As we know, in the British variant the intonation of a nonemphatic question which requires an affirmative or negative answer (general question), like the intonation of the communicative types examined above, is characterized by an initial rise and a following descending scale of stressed syllables. The difference between them lies in the fact that in this case the syntagma ends with a rise in tone. Aren't °2Have

you

3-

02-

you

feeling

_'_ ever

tired? 04.3

been

_'_

there

// before? 04.3

¡I

69 Does

this

bus

°2-

go

to

the

center?

_'_

04.3

/I

In the American variant, the intonation pattern of the section which precedes the final rise is characterized above all either by a more or less flat contour or by a gradual rise in tone (ascending scale). Cf. the following examples: Are

you

there?

3-

"3-2

Does

he

care?

3 Won't

03.2 you

sit

2Is

//

// down? 02-I

he

3Was

3-

he

//

tired

this

morning?

03.2

2-

02-1

here

yesterday?

03.2

02-1

II

/I

A gradual rise in the pitch usually occurs when the word which bears the principal semantic load is not located at the end of the syntagma. The rising tone is seemingly achieved in two stages: first on the syllable carrying the major stress and then at the end of the syntagma. In the British variant, contours are also found in which the final rise precedes the ascending scale of stressed syllables: Didn't 04-

you

do

it?

03.2

-1

¡I

In contrast to the American variant, however, this type of melodic pattern is characterized in British pronunciation by an exceedingly high degree of ex-

70 pressiveness. At the same time, the melodic pattern of the British Tune II is also noted in AE where it possesses a completely different emotional and expressive connotation. Whereas in the British variant, a sentence uttered in the following manner: Do

you

like

them?

3-

°2-

034

-3

¡I

signifies an ordinary polite question, in AE such an intonation may express surprise or restrained curiosity. In the words of the American scholar D. Bolinger (1957), a question pronounced in this way may be, for example, a reply expressing disbelief in answer to a statement ("I eat oysters every day".). The question here is once again that of the expressive and stylistic differences in the use of the same intonation pattern in AE and BE. Sometimes scholars are also concerned with more subtle differences. It is known, for example, that in the British variant, within the falling intonation, the final unstressed syllables may either continue the descent or remain on the same level as the last stressed syllable: What

are

you

going

to

do

°2-

about 3-

04.

it? 4

a

The latter pattern is also used in the American variant, although considerably less frequently. In the speech of Americans it serves as a means of strong emphasis and contrastive singling out of a certain element in the syntagma. For example: Let

him

do

it.

02-

3

04.

4 II

instead of the usual Let

him

do

it.

02-

4

03.

4 I/

Sometimes this sort of sharp descent falls on one of the syllables of a poly-

71 syllabic word: It's

a

mansion.

034

02-3

H

According to Pike's observations, such an intonation pattern (early drop) is found most frequently in one of the southern regional types of American pronunciation (the Louisiana region). As far as the other regions of the United States are concerned, such an intonation is very uncommon. In Pike's opinion, the frequent use of this melodic pattern (we should note, incidentally, that Armstrong and Ward consider it quite usual and characteristic for BE) impresses Americans as being exceedingly affected. Obviously, the difference in the occurrence of this intonation pattern is here combined with the difference in emotional and expressive overtones. The material gathered by Pike and other American scholars attests to the fact that the use of rising and falling intonation,in AE and BE on the whole coincides. Cases of the use in the American variant of contour °2-3 at the end of an utterance are in a class by themselves. These are the cases in which the contour °2-3 before the final pause gives the utterance a vacillating and indecisive character. The utterance concluded with this contour, according to Pike, produces an impression of incompleteness. The listener either waits for the speaker to continue the utterance or interprets his faltering tone as a lack of certainty. I

want

3-

to

go...

(but I can't).

o2-3

Well,

I

02-3

4

studied . . .

(but guarantee no learning).

02-3

Some authors (Wittig, 1956) assume that in such a case the American variant uses the falling tone for the same function as that for which the rising tone (Tune II) is used in BE. In reality, however, the difference is of another nature. It should be remembered that contour 02-3, i. e . , the fall of the voice to the middle level, in contrast to contour Q2-4, is not used in the American variant to conclude an utterance. According to Pike's definition, 02-3 in statements is one of the contours which precedes the concluding one. Hence it becomes clear that if

72 the melodic pattern °2-3 °2-3 °2-4 // is broken off before the concluding basic contour °2-4, the utterance gives the impression of having been broken off in the middle of the sentence. It is not by chance that in the above examples the last word is followed by a series of dots. Utterances of this type should therefore be regarded not as statements of a noncategorical nature, corresponding to those which are pronounced in BE with a rising tone, but as incomplete, interrupted utterances, with a connotation of extreme uncertainty. In spite of the extremely limited amount of comparable data, it appears possible to draw a number of preliminary conclusions in regard to the nature of the divergences between AE and BE in the sphere of intonation. One cannot help but agree with G. P. Torsuev's observation that the most significant part of the melodic pattern of the syntagma is the melodic movement in the last stressed word (syllable), i. e . , the tonal ultima. If one compares the set of concluding contours in AE and BE, a considerable predominance of common elements over distinctive elements is discovered. The inventory of intonational contours itself coincides to a considerable extent, although in individual cases they are differentiated according to their functional use. Thus, for example, the pattern characterized by a descending scale of stressed syllables is noted in both variants, although in each variant it possesses a special expressive and stylistic coloring. The expressive and stylistic differences in the use of similar contours is, apparently, a quite typical case of the functional divergences between British and American intonation. To this category belong the differences in the use of contours with final unstressed syllables ( E A R L Y D R O P ) , contours with a more or less level pitch movement before the final rise, contours with a descending scale, etc. Finally, it should also be especially emphasized that the most noticeable differences between American and British intonation in nonemphatic statements and questions are revealed not in the final, concluding contour, which bears the basic semantic load, but in the pitch movement preceding it. Here the differences are not semantic but expressive and stylistic. The above cases in which the descending scale in the British variant is in opposition to the wave form pattern in the American variant belong to the category of proportional contrasts. The rest of the oppositions are of an isolated nature. In conclusion it should be pointed out that an analysis of the divergences in the phonic system of the American and British variants of standard English attest to the total predominance of common elements over distinctive elements. This is indicated by the fact that the major portion of the phonemic inventory coincides, by the predominance of distributional over inventorial differences, by the high degree of similarity of the microsystems being compared, by the

73 isomorphism o f their structures, and by the identity of the set o f basic intonational contours. At the same time, the existence o f partial divergences in the inventory o f constituent units o f the phonological system permits us to define the correlation between the American and British variants on this level as the correlation o f several microsystems with a c o m m o n core.

NOTES 1 In England, during the last few years, a certain departure of the pronunciation norm from the strict canons of "Oxford pronunciation" has been observed (Quirk, 1962). 2 The classification of English vowels, used here and elsewhere in the book, corresponds to that worked out by Soviet phoneticians. See V. A. Vasil'ev, English Phonetics. A theoretical course. Moscow, 1970, pp. 85-86. 3 Data cited in E. Haugen and W. Twaddell. Facts and phonemics. Language, vol. 18. No. 3 (1937), pp. 231-232. 4 At present there is evidency of a further spread of this phenomenon in Britain. 5 For a more graphic delimitation of allophones and phonemes, the former are contained within brackets and the latter in parentheses. 6 In actuality, some of the intermediate microsystems-which were not included in our examination have a still higher degree of similarity to BE. Thus, one of the variants of New York pronunciation, which included diphthongs with a glide to /a/ has a 97.8% degree of similarity. 7 Since this book first appeared in Russian there have been a number of major contributions .o the study of English intonation, including M. A. K. Halliday's Course in Spoken English: Intonation, London, 1970,"and a series of contrasive studies of American intonation and a series of contrastive studies of American and British intonation (see Foreword to the English edition).

Ill GRAMMATICAL DIFFERENCES

1. The Object of Contrastive Analysis Before turning to the characteristics of the grammatical differences between the British and American variants of standard English, the object of contrastive analysis should be more precisely defined. Specifically, we should determine the number of objects which are subject to a contrastive study on the morphological and syntactic levels. In the preceding chapter we noted the absence of a single pronunciation standard in AE and the presence of several regional types of standardized American pronunciation. As a result, the comparative analysis on the phonological level encompassed not two objects (AE and BE) but several. There must now be an explanation of the situation existing in the sphere of grammar. As far as the British variant is concerned, there is no doubt that it has a single standard model in the sphere of grammar. In the American variant, a number of forms are noted, the distribution of which is limited to certain regions in the United States. Among them are the negative form of the modal verb ought-hadn't ought (instead of oughtn't), which, according to data in the Linguistic Atlas, is found primarily in the northeastern United States. Also belonging here are combinations of the verb want with o f f , in, out, with ellipsis of the verb of motion (he wants off instead of he wants to get o f f , he wants in instead of he wants to come in), widely distributed in the Midwest and partially in the Middle Atlantic region (Marckwardt, 1948). Such phenomena, however, which have a clearly expressed local coloring, are deviations from the norms of the standard language and are found only in the speech of informants with little education. An analysis of the actual material attests to the fact that grammatical phenomena which have such local coloring are completely alien to the written standard language and are used in belles-lettres only for characterizing through speech characters who speak local dialects. An exception is the special form, found in the South, of the 2nd person plural pronoun you-all (y 'all, yawl): "Have you-all any eggs? " spoken to a storekeeper, means: "have you and your associates, the store as a group entity, any eggs? " (G. A. Smith)

76 "Yawl wait. The popcorn will start in a minute". (W. Faulkner) "I'm going to tell", Jason said. " Y a w l made me come". (Ibid.) According to the data in the Linguistic Atlas, the opposition you~you-all (y'all) is found in the southern United States in the speech of informants of all social groups, regardless of their level of education. Thus, the formyou-all is the only locally limited form which is sanctioned by the norm in a specific region of the country. Even in this area, however, its use is limited to colloquial speech and is alien to the written form of the standard language. The data in the Atlas and the above cited monograph by Atwood (1953) permit us to draw the conclusion that in the sphere of grammar the norms accepted in America do not reveal the variability which was noted in the preceding chapter in connection with the phonic system of the American and British variants. There is quite a high degree of unification of grammatical norms, and thus, instead of several objects for contrastive study there are only two two, the British and American variants of standard English. In other words, in the sphere of grammar the American variant of standard English confronts the British as a single relatively homogeneous entity. The question of whether it is possible to regard the contrast of BE and AE on the morphological and syntactic levels as the opposition of two discrete microsystems will be the subject of consideration in the subsequent sections of this chapter. The answer to this question will in the final analysis depend on whether any divergences in the inventory of constituent units of these levels - of morphemes and syntaxemes — may be successfully singled out. The problem of singling out the object of comparison in the sphere of grammar is closely linked with differentiating lexical divergences from grammatical divergences. In a number of cases this is not so easily done since a number of divergences exist which may be treated as both lexical and grammatical. Especially pertinent here are the divergences which are connected with the semantics of syncategorematic words. The tight interweaving of lexical and grammatical meanings among prepositions enables us to examine the differences connected with their semantics and functional use either in the section on syntactic divergences or in the chapter devoted to lexical divergences. Inasmuch as the divergences in meaning observed among the prepositions break down into the same categories and reveal the same principles as the divergences which are revealed among the autosemantic words, it is more advantageous to consider this question in the chapter devoted to lexical differences without setting it off into an independent section. On the other hand, the differences connected with the presence of a preposition in certain combinations in one variant and the absence of it in another constitute, in our opinion, differences of a structural nature and are examined in this chapter. It is also possible to consider from different angles the differences which

77 include individual word forms (for example, gotten : got, proven : proved). In principle, two solutions are also possible here. We may either exclude this type of difference from our examination in the grammatical section and relate them to the category of lexical differences on the grounds that it is a question of grammatical-morphological variants of individual words (A. I. Smirnickij's term) and not of divergences in the grammatical forms as such, or we may regard them as partial divergences in the distribution of various allomorphs. Since both approaches are fully compatible, for they reflect different sides of the same phenomenon, in this work these differences will be examined on the morphological level as differences in the distribution of allomorphs and also on the lexical-semantic level as differences in the morphological characteristics of individual words.

2. Morphological

Differences

The units of contrast on the morphological level are morphemes and allomorphs. We must first answer the question as to the existence of any divergences in the inventory of these units itself. The differences which are noted between BE and AE on the morphological level include such pairs as got: gotten, struck : stricken, pleaded : pled, dived : dove. It is clear that the question is not that of the existence of any particular morphemes in the American or British variant. In reality, if one proceeds from the fact that a morpheme is a class of semantically similar allomorphs in complementary distribution, it should be noted that in both variants the verb paradigm is characterized by the same inflectional morphemes. We shall designate them as {-Dil (past tense form) and {-D2} (form of participle II). Furthermore, there is no basis for speaking of differences in the inventory of allomorphs. If one turns to the foregoing examples, it is not hard to be convinced that here the opposition lies between such allomorphs of morphemes {-Di} and {-D2} as are present in both variants and are not a distinctive element of AE or BE. In the first case the allomorph /d — (e) / in got is opposed to /an/+/D — (e) I in gotten. In struck : stricken we see the opposition of the allomorphs /a — (ai) / and /an/+/i — (ai) /, in pleaded : pled, I id I and /e — (i) I, and in dived : dove / -d / and /ou •