|
The discussion so far may suggest a rather straightforward dichotomy:phonetics is universal, while phonology is language-specific. But thingsare not quite that simple. First, phonologists also attempt to distinguish those patterns whichare characteristic of a single language and simply reflect its history, fromothers where a more universal motivation is at issue. In the case of theabsence of *fnil, or more generally the absence of word-initial [fn-]clusters, we are dealing with a fact of modern English. It is perfectlypossible to produce this combination of sounds; there are words in manylanguages, including Norwegian fnise ‘giggle’, fnugg ‘speck’, which beginwith just that cluster; and indeed, it was quite normal in earlier periodsof English – sneeze, for example, has the Old English ancestor fne¯san,while Old English fnæd meant ‘hem, edge, fringe’; but it is not part of theinventory of sound combinations which English speakers learn and usetoday. The same goes for other initial clusters, such as [kn-]: this againwas common in Old English, as in cna¯wan ‘to know’, and survives intoModern English spelling, though it is now simply pronounced [n]; again,[kn-] is also perfectly normal in other languages, including German,where we find Knabe ‘boy’, Knie ‘knee’.
On the other hand, if you say the words intemperate and incoherent toyourself as naturally as you can, and concentrate on the first consonantwritten n, you may observe that this signals two different sounds. Inintemperate, the front of your tongue moves up behind your top frontteeth for the n, and stays there for the t; but in incoherent, you are producingthe sound usually indicated by ing in English spelling, with yourtongue raised much further back in the mouth, since that’s where it’sgoing for the following [k] (spelled c). Processes of assimilation like thisinvolve two sounds close together in a word becoming closer together interms of pronunciation, making life easier for the speaker by reducingvocal tract gymnastics. Assimilation is an everyday occurrence in everyhuman language; and it is particularly common for nasal sounds, like theones spelled n here, to assimilate to following consonants. Explaininguniversal tendencies like this one will involve an alliance of phonologyand phonetics: so phonologists are interested in universals too. However, phonological differences also exist below the level of thelanguage: frequently, two people think of themselves as speakers of thesame language, but vary in their usage (sometimes you do say tomayto,while I say tomahto). This is not just an automatic, phonetic matter: insome cases a single speaker will always use one variant, but in others,individuals will use different variants on different occasions. It also has nothing to do with the physical characteristics of the different speakers,or the different environments in which they may find themselves,although this was a common belief in the days before linguists adopteda rigorous scientific methodology: thus, Thomas Low Nichols, anineteenth-century commentator on American English, speculates that‘I know of no physiological reason why a Yankee should talk through hisnose, unless he got in the habit of shutting his mouth to keep out thecold fogs and drizzling north-easters of Massachusetts Bay’. There is anatural tendency for geographically distant accents to become moredifferent; the same tendency has led the various Romance languages,such as Italian, Spanish, Romanian and French, to diverge from theircommon ancestor, Latin. In addition, speakers often wish, again subconsciously,to declare their allegiance to a particular area or socialgroup by using the language of that group; these accent differences canbe powerful social markers, on which we judge and are judged. Furthermore, although there are agreed conventions, which form thebasis of the phonology of languages and of accents, those conventionscan be subverted in various ways, just as is the case for other areas ofhuman behaviour. In short, even phonologically speaking, there is morethan one English – indeed, on one level, there are as many Englishesas there are people who say they speak English. Providing an adequateand accurate phonological description is therefore a challenge: on theone hand, a single system for English would be too abstract, and wouldconceal many meaningful differences between speakers; on the other,a speaker-by-speaker account would be too detailed, and neglect whatunifies speakers and allows them to recognise one another as using thesame system. In what follows, we will concentrate on a small numberof varieties – Southern Standard British English; Scottish StandardEnglish; General American, the most frequently encountered broadcastingvariety in the United States; and New Zealand English. All of theseare abstractions, and combine together a range of constantly shiftingsubvarieties; but they are useful to illustrate the range of variation withinEnglish, and represent groupings recognisable to their speakers, providinga level of accuracy which a monolithic ‘English’ system could not.
|
