1

المرجع الالكتروني للمعلوماتية

Grammar

Tenses

Present

Present Simple

Present Continuous

Present Perfect

Present Perfect Continuous

Past

Past Continuous

Past Perfect

Past Perfect Continuous

Past Simple

Future

Future Simple

Future Continuous

Future Perfect

Future Perfect Continuous

Passive and Active

Parts Of Speech

Nouns

Countable and uncountable nouns

Verbal nouns

Singular and Plural nouns

Proper nouns

Nouns gender

Nouns definition

Concrete nouns

Abstract nouns

Common nouns

Collective nouns

Definition Of Nouns

Verbs

Stative and dynamic verbs

Finite and nonfinite verbs

To be verbs

Transitive and intransitive verbs

Auxiliary verbs

Modal verbs

Regular and irregular verbs

Action verbs

Adverbs

Relative adverbs

Interrogative adverbs

Adverbs of time

Adverbs of place

Adverbs of reason

Adverbs of quantity

Adverbs of manner

Adverbs of frequency

Adverbs of affirmation

Adjectives

Quantitative adjective

Proper adjective

Possessive adjective

Numeral adjective

Interrogative adjective

Distributive adjective

Descriptive adjective

Demonstrative adjective

Pronouns

Subject pronoun

Relative pronoun

Reflexive pronoun

Reciprocal pronoun

Possessive pronoun

Personal pronoun

Interrogative pronoun

Indefinite pronoun

Emphatic pronoun

Distributive pronoun

Demonstrative pronoun

Pre Position

Preposition by function

Time preposition

Reason preposition

Possession preposition

Place preposition

Phrases preposition

Origin preposition

Measure preposition

Direction preposition

Contrast preposition

Agent preposition

Preposition by construction

Simple preposition

Phrase preposition

Double preposition

Compound preposition

Conjunctions

Subordinating conjunction

Correlative conjunction

Coordinating conjunction

Conjunctive adverbs

Interjections

Express calling interjection

Grammar Rules

Preference

Requests and offers

wishes

Be used to

Some and any

Could have done

Describing people

Giving advices

Possession

Comparative and superlative

Giving Reason

Making Suggestions

Apologizing

Forming questions

Since and for

Directions

Obligation

Adverbials

invitation

Articles

Imaginary condition

Zero conditional

First conditional

Second conditional

Third conditional

Reported speech

Linguistics

Phonetics

Phonology

Semantics

Pragmatics

Linguistics fields

Syntax

Morphology

Semantics

pragmatics

History

Writing

Grammar

Phonetics and Phonology

Reading Comprehension

Elementary

Intermediate

Advanced

English Language : Linguistics : Phonology :

English /r/ Introduction

المؤلف:  APRIL McMAHON

المصدر:  LEXICAL PHONOLOGY AND THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH

الجزء والصفحة:  P230-C6

2024-12-26

54

English /r/
Introduction

In The rôle of history, I quoted Labov (1978) in defence of my intention to reintegrate synchronic and diachronic evidence. Labov's (1978: 281) view is that, provided we adopt the uniformitarian principle, and therefore accept that `the forces which operated to produce the historical record are the same as those which can be seen operating today', we can use the linguistic present to explain the linguistic past. However, if we are serious about the reintegration of synchrony and diachrony, the connection should work both ways: that is, the linguistic past should ideally also help us understand and model the present.


The first part of the equation has already been proved: in Synchrony, diachrony and Lexical Phonology: the Scottish Vowel Length Rule, I showed that a possible life-cycle for sound changes and phonological rules can be formulated in Lexical Phonology. The default case was represented by æ-Tensing; and a variant pathway, involving two cycles of alteration of the underlying representations, was required for processes like the Scottish Vowel Length Rule, which involve historical rule inversion. A model designed primarily for synchronic phonological description therefore provides insights into change. I hope to show that we can indeed also use the past to explain the phonological present, with special reference to English /r/, which is of particular relevance because it has been discussed in a variety of phonological frameworks (see Broadbent 1991, McCarthy 1991, 1993, Scobbie 1992, Donegan 1993, Harris 1994, Giegerich in press); is characterized by interesting interactions between /r/ itself and preceding vowels; and arguably again involves rule inversion. We shall see that the ostensibly arbitrary synchronic process of [r]-Insertion in varieties with both linking and intrusive [r] is in fact historically principled, and that the synchronic situation has been produced by a series of historical steps, each conditioning the next. Moreover, each of these steps seems still to be preserved in some variety of Present-Day English. This further notion of the interaction of historical change and synchronic variation is familiar from creolistics: Bickerton, for instance, in describing the creole continuum in Guyana, claims that `a synchronic cut across the Guyanese community is indistinguishable from a diachronic cut across a century and a half of linguistic development' (quoted by Romaine 1988: 165). We shall see that this also holds, mutatis mutandis, for the English speech community in its widest sense.


However, it is not enough to explain synchronic patterns with reference to the changes which have created them: we must also account for the contributory changes themselves. To do so, I suggest we require further reference to phonetic parameters, and indeed a wholesale revision of the feature system: to this end, I shall tentatively propose the incorporation of the gestural system of representation used in Articulatory Phonology (Browman and Goldstein 1986, 1989, 1991, 1992; McMahon, Foulkes and Tollfree 1994, McMahon and Foulkes 1995, McMahon1996) into Lexical Phonology.


But this reliance on historical and phonetic evidence does not mean the analysis arrived at is phonology-free: on the contrary, a highly con strained phonological model will again force us to draw certain conclusions, not only about the current status of /r/, but also about its history. Thus, some arguments below will be historical, but others will be theory-internal, depending on particular properties of the model assumed here. The emphasis on formal models distances this approach a little from Labov (1978): while he defines the linguistic present largely in terms of social influences on speakers, and the quantitative analysis of inter- and intra-personal variation, I believe that part of a synchronic phonological analysis must also involve idealization from these data and consequent model building and evaluation. Where such models cast light on the interaction between synchronic phonology, dialect variation and sound change, this may in itself be evidence for that view.

EN

تصفح الموقع بالشكل العمودي