Two friends about the studies

– ¯I ˈhear your ˈtutors deˈcided to ˈgive you ˈthree tu‘torials in the ˈnext ‘week on the ˌsubject of Ob‘lomov.

– ‘Yes, ¯but I ‘can’t ˌsee how I can ˌfit all this ˌin with my ‘essays.

– ˆSurely your ˌtime-table doesn’t ˌtake up “all the ‚time “every ‚day.

– ˈI ˙don’t ˙see how I can ‘possibly ˌfit in as ˌmany as ^↘three tu˙torials in ^↘one ‘week. You ˈknow that the ˙extra hours of ‘language will be ˌgiven as ‘well.

– ¯Now I ‘don’t really ‚see how you ˙can ‘either. ¯But I sup^↘pose your ^↘tutor ˙gave you the ˌusual ˇplan which is comˇpulsory ¦ for a ˌstudent to perˇform│ at ˌleast ^↘seven tu^↘torials ^↘on Obˇlomov.

Two friends talking in a cafe

– I ˈwouldn’t ˙mind a‘nother cup of _\tea. It’s ^↘so ‘comfortable ‚here.

– ‘Yes, it’s a ‘nice ‚cafe. But I’m a‘fraid we shall ^↘have to _\leave.

– ¯Oh, _\Kate, ¯just a _\few minutes ‚more ...

– ¯All ‚right. But ˈdon’t be ˙late for the ˇtrain.

c) sphere of communication varied, subject-matter and social status un­changed;

Teacher at school introducing new material in a geometry class

If you have a ˈstereo˙metrical ‚figure – we’ll ˌcall it _\F – and we ˈwant to _\move it from its o‘riginal po‚sition in _\space, which we’ll ˈcall ˈS_/1 into a ‘different poˌsition which we ˌcall ˈS_\/2,│ >then ¦ we can ˈsee that there are ‘two ˌways in which we can _\do this. There are ˈtwo _\cases.

The ‘first case ‚is that ¦ you can ˈmake this ‘movement ¦ from ˈS_/1 to ˈS_/2 ˈby ˙means of a “motion│ which we’ll ˌcall a ˙transˆlation,│ ¯trans_\lation ¦ ˌmeans a _\motion and it ˌmeans a ‚motion which is “parallel to itself.

‚Or ¯it can be ‚made ˙by ˌro‘tation,│ ‚or ¯it can be ‚made ˙by а ˈheli‘coidal ˌmotion│–ˈheli‚coidal˙motion is a ˈcombi_\nation of a ˌtrans‚lation│ and ¦ ¯a ro_\tation. ˌAnd ¦ ˈin ¦ po_\sitions ˈS_/1 and ˈS_/2│ the figure reˈmains “congruent with itˌself. You ‘know what ‘_\congruent’d:\congruent' with itself ˌmeans, _\don’t you?

A lecture to college students

If a ˈstereo‘metrical ‘figure ‚F│ be ˈbrought from its o“riginal poˇsition in ˈspace ˙S_/1│ˌinto ¦ a ‘different ро‚sition ˈS_/2,│ ˈtwo ‚cases will be dis_\tinguished. The ‘first ‚case is ¯that ¦ the ¯tran‘sition from ˈS_/1 to ˈS_/2│¯can be ‚made ˈby ¦ ˈmeans of a ‘motion│ ‘that ‚is, by a ˙trans‘lation,│ a ˈshift ˇparallel to itself,│ by ˈroˇtation or ‚by ¦ a ˈheli‚coidal ‘motion, ˈthis ˌbeing a ˈcombination of the two ‘former. In the poˇsitions ˈS_/1 and ˈS_/2│the ^↘figure ^↘thus re‚mains ˇcongruent with it_\self. ˈLet us supˇpose that this disˈtinction ˙seems ‘simple eˌnough│ but it ˈcarries ˇconsequences ˈvery “far from _\simple.

Unit 2. Prosodic Peculiarities of Formal and Informal Speech

Explanation

It would be convenient to describe the phonetic, and particularly, prosodic characteristics of each of the varieties of English in relative terms, which presuppose some frame of reference, a kind of prosodic norm to proceed from. It seems appropriate to regard the basic intonation contours as such a norm. The peculiarity of each of the styles might then be seen in two ways:

1) as statistical preference of some of the patterns in comparison with the others;

2) as modifications from the ‘normal’ characteristics of the basic patterns.

The norm is regarded as the invariant of the phonetic patterns circulating in language-in-action at a given period of time. It is interesting to note that the norms represent to a certain extent the ideals of speech behaviour cherished by a language community; they do not always coincide with the actual speech behaviour used. Deviations from these phonetic patterns may be great but they never exceed the range of tolerance set by the invariant, otherwise an utterance may become unrecognizable or misleading, as in the case of a very strong foreign accent.

It should be made clear that the norm, too, can be defined from the point of view of style, as it also correlates with certain extra-linguistic factors. The basic prosodic patterns are most readily identifiable with two intermediate stylistic subvarieties: formal neutral and informal ordinary. Generally speaking, there is a considerable overlap between them, and they both can be taken as representing the ‘norm’, while the two extreme, ‘polar’ subvarieties – formal official and informal familiar – can be characterized in terms of distinctions between each other, on the one hand, and each other and the ‘norm’, on the other.

Some of the contrasts between the two polarities are intuitively felt: official, and, first of all, public speaking will obviously be louder and slower, more careful, distinct and tense in articulation than informal familiar speech. This seems to be a universal phonetic characteristic of the given stylistic varieties. What a foreign student actually needs in order to acquire the correct speaking habits is the knowledge of the specific relationships in speed and loudness between different elements of an utterance in the given language, English in this case.

The fast speed of delivery in the informal conversational style and the relatively slow tempo of formal speaking are closely connected with the number of stresses in an utterance: in a slow delivery there is more time to stress all the words that can suitably take stresses, while in a rapid delivery the stresses are limited to those words that are really important, and the intervening groups of unstressed words consequently become longer. As a result, there is a noticeable difference in the rhythmic patterns utilized in the varieties of spoken English being compared.

In the descriptions of speech styles it is generally stated that the informality of a conversational situation is reflected, among others, in the fact that any kind of language may occur without its being linguistically inappropriate, whereas a formal situation will not allow of a similar intrusion. This observation is just as true about intonation: the entire range of prosodic means can be used, i.e., as David Crystal puts it, anything may occur in an informal conversation. However, as it is pointed out by the quoted author, this ‘anything’ is restricted in two obvious ways which help us to identify the stylistic status of a text:

a) prosodic feature typical of some other stylistic variety must not extend over more than one supra phrasal unity;

b) a complex of prosodic features acting as stylistic markers of other language varieties is not incorporated in more than one phrase simultaneously. It means that, let us say, tense and loud articulation which is characteristic of formal official style can hardly be expected in an informal situation over a stretch of speech covering more than one phrase.

At the same time informal speech reveals an opposite tendency: to make frequent use of only a small number of basic prosodic configurations. In other words, within any given stretch of utterance very little actually occurs. Typical examples of this second peculiarity are provided by a very high proportion of falling (descending) types of head and low variety of the falling tone in informal speech. They are especially common for monosyllabic response-utterances:

_\No. _\Yes. _\Sure. _\Right.

Alongside the tendency towards using simple falling tones one can observe a wide use of low rising and falling-rising tones in complete statements, which can be explained by the appropriateness of the attitudinal meaning of these tones – the informal friendliness and politeness – for the situation. A common means of expressiveness in informal conversation is the use of complex tones and emphatic varieties of simple tones, the high prehead and types of head such as the sliding and the scandent heads for instance. In general, since there seem to be no restrictions on the range of emotions which might be displayed in an informal-familiar situation, the prosodic expression of emotion is similarly unrestricted, e.g.:

Harry: ¯ We shall be ^↘awfully ^↘late ˇhome, if ˈthat "number "12 ‘bus ¦ "doesn’t ˈcome ˇsoon … Let’s ˈstand in this ‘doorway ˈout of the _\\wind.

Nora: ˈAll ‚right, but we ^↘must be ^↘careful "not to ‘miss the ‚bus. ˈHow did you en‚joy the ˙film?

Harry: I’d ˈnever have “gone if I had ˆknown ¦ it was ˈgoing to be "so _\silly.

Nora: “Why, ‚‚what was “silly aˌbout it?

Harry: The ˌwhole "story was ab_\\surd. "No “sane ‚people would have ‚acted as “they did. I ˈwish we ˙hadn’t “stayed to the ˌvery ‚end. ^↗Such a ^↗waste of "time ˙and _\money.

An important point about informal conversation is also a wide use of contrastive placement of nucleus and the frequency of pauses (silent or voiced) within an utterance for the purpose of expressing hesitation.

The speed of informal conversation is generally described as quite fast, but the tempo here is as changeable as one wishes it to be. It is characteristic that the speed of utterance may increase from normal to fast, slow to normal, or vice versa; it may be reduced towards the end of an utterance, or in relation to the adjacent utterance. However, it is not possible to give definite rules which would ascribe all the intonation patterns of a language to their appropriate stylistic usage; and, vice versa, to describe any of the styles in terms of specific (marked) phonetic features only. The latter make up only a part of the whole prosodic ‘portrait’ of the text in any given style.

Besides, it must be noted that phonetic features are not the only markers of the style of speech. Stylistic differentiation is also realized on the other language levels – grammatical and, especially, lexical. For example, formal neutral written style of speech (student’s essays, summaries, reproductions) is characterized by the following features:

(a) Restrictions upon the vocabulary.Words and phrases labeled colloquial, familiar, vulgar, slang are excluded as inappropriate.

(b) Absence of abbreviations. Contracted verbal forms (I’m, we’re, he’d, etc.), colloquial abbreviations of words (ad, exam, vac), symbols like &, %; figures (e.g. There were 7 mistakes in your work) should not be used.

(c) Orderly grammatical structure.The ideas are arranged in a logical sequence, in measured syntactical structures. Paragraphs are more fully developed than in informal style.

(d) Impersonal treatment of the subject matter.The author usually tries to avoid the first person singular; sometimes it results in wider use of the passive voice.

Or compare, for instance, the wording of the following conversational formulae:

Good-bye. Cheerio. See you. Bye-bye. It was nice seeing you.

Thank you. Thanks. Thank you very much, indeed.

Good morning. Hello. Hi! I’m ever glad to see you.

Morning. Happy to see you. Nice to see you.

Of course, when lexical and grammatical stylistic markers are involved, the role of the phonetic means is not so conspicuous, but they are in no way irrelevant. It is the phonetic characteristics that the identification of oral speech varieties is primarily based upon.

QUESTIONS:

1. In what two ways might the peculiarity of each style be seen?

2. Give a definition of the phonetic norm.

3. What is the correlation between the norms and the actual speech behaviour used?

4. What are prosodic peculiarities of formal official and informal familiar speech? Compare them in terms of speed, loudness, the number of stresses in an utterance.

5. What nuclear tones are generally used in informal speech? What is it determined by?

6. Is stylistic differentiation of speech realized only on the phonetic language level? Prove your point of view giving examples.