Radoslav Pavlík
THE WORD AS A SOCIOPHONETIC UNIT In: Foreign Language Acquisition in European Context: Euro-Paths. Edited by M. Kostelníková and S. Brychová. Bratislava: Lingos 2007. pp. 68 – 77. ISBN: 978-8089328-01-7
Radoslav Pavlík
1
The Word as a Sociophonetic Unit
The Word as a Sociophonetic Unit Radoslav Pavlík Comenius University Bratislava Faculty of Education Abstract: The paper is concerned with the phonic aspects of the word, analyzed from the point of view of sociolinguistics and other functional linguistic approaches. The main objective is to briefly define and characterize the word from a sociolinguistic perspective. In contrast to the traditional structuralist and generativist treatment of the phonic form of the lexical unit, the sociophonetic approach enables a richer employment of fine phonetic detail in communication, and it can explain and systemize even seemingly unpatterned, non-standard or redundant phonetic phenomena. Within the framework of this functionalist perspective, we propose these three characteristic features of the phonic structure of the word: (a) The phonic elements of the word and the variant phonic realizations of the same word carry not only the basic denotative meaning, but also other types of meaning, e.g. connotative, social, situational, etc. The ability to encode all such different aspects of meaning into the phonic form of the word is a sign of communicative competence. (b) All nonindividual, systematic, patterned, and conventional variability belongs to the language system. Such variability should be investigated and incorporated into the models of language and speech. (c) The sound-form of the word is recognized in two complementary ways – bottom-up (segmentally) and top-down (holistically). The variability of the phonic form does not jeopardize its correct identification, and it enables a smooth transmission of various types of meaning. Abstrakt: Príspevok sa zaoberá problematikou zvukovej stránky slova z hľadiska sociolingvistiky, resp. iných funkčne zameraných lingvistických smerov. V článku si kladieme za cieľ stručne definovať a charakterizovať slovo zo sociofonetickej perspektívy. Na rozdiel od tradičného štrukturalistického a generativistického ponímania fónickej formy lexikálnej jednotky, sociofonetický prístup umožňuje širšie využitie fonetického detailu v procese komunikácie a dokáže objasniť a systematizovať aj zdanlivo nesúrodé, nespisovné, či redundantné fonetické javy. V rámci tejto funkcionalistickej koncepcie charakterizujeme fónickú štruktúru slova tromi základnými vlastnosťami: (a) Zvukové prvky slova a variantné realizácie zvukovej podoby slova nesú okrem základného denotatívneho významu aj ďalšie typy významu – konotatívny, sociálny, situačný, atď. Schopnosť zakódovať všetky tieto významové aspekty do zvukovej formy je prejavom komunikatívnej kompetencie (b) Všetky variabilné zvukové formy slova, ktoré sú nadindividuálne, systematické, konvenčné a kódované patria do jazykového systému. Takúto variabilitu treba skúmať a zahrnúť ju do modelov produkcie jazyka a reči. (c) Zvukovú formu slova rozpoznávame na základe dvoch komplementárnych princípov – segmentálne a holisticky. Variabilita zvukovej formy neohrozuje jej identifikáciu a umožňuje plnohodnotný prenos rôznych druhov významov. Keywords: word, word sound-form, phononym, hypophononym, sociolinguistics, meaning, communicative competence, European framework of reference Kľúčové slová: slovo, zvuková forma slova, fononymum, hypo-fononymum, sociolingvistika, význam, komunikatívna kompetencia, európsky referenčný rámec
Radoslav Pavlík
2
The Word as a Sociophonetic Unit
Introduction The word is a term which is nowadays firmly established in linguistics, despite its formal elusiveness, and it has been the subject of ongoing research for decades. Nevertheless, there are still some aspects of this notion that deserve further attention and discussion. For instance, the concept of the word from a phonic point of view has been relatively neglected by linguists, especially when we consider how extensively this term has been studied within such linguistic disciplines as morphology, lexicology, semantics, pragmatics, etc. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to outline the basic characteristics of this concept in phonic terms, especially with regard to sociolinguistic factors bearing on the process of communication. This sociophonetic approach to the analysis of the word in communication belongs to a group of functional approaches, e.g. Prague-school functionalism, sociolinguistics, Cognitive linguistics, etc., which are usually contrasted with the socalled formal approaches, e.g. structuralism and generativism (cf. Newmeyer 1998: 7–18). We will attempt to show here that using this approach helps us cover and explain many seemingly disparate and/or unimportant facts that traditional formal linguistic analysis leaves unaccounted for. The paper thus addresses some facets of communicative competence and language skills development crucial for fostering communication and learner self-confidence, which is one of the aims of the Euro-paths project. 1. The Traditional Definition of the Word The definition of the word, in general, is a difficult task, because what is formally one word in one language may be two or more words in another, e.g. Slovak form písala, which is considered to be one word, may be expressed in English as she was writing, which counts as three words. These questions are usually dealt with within the purview of comparative linguistics and language typology, and we will not concern ourselves with these issues here. Nonetheless, since the formal aspect of the word (in particular, its phonic dimension) is the subject-matter of this paper, it is necessary to have a brief look at some of the features that have been used so far in characterizing or defining this term. In relation to the notion of the linguistic sign, the word can be seen as an instance of a union of meaning and a sound-image (Saussure 1959: 15, 1989: 51). However, the word and the linguistic sign cannot be equated. Although it is true that every word is a linguistic sign, every linguistic sign is not a word (Dokulil 1958: 108; Lipka 1992: 68). For example, the linguistic sign can be expressed as a single morpheme (the smallest linguistic sign), or a group of morphemes – a single polymorphemic word or a combination of words, e.g. a collocation (cf. Horecký 1978: 93, 1983: 50). In general, the word can be defined by means of these characteristics (Sapir 1921: 34–35; Horecký 1978: 92; Cruse 1986: 35–36; Kvetko 2003: 12–15): (a) Symbolic nature Every word is a linguistic sign, which is a combination of a concept and a sound form. (b) Conventionality Words are conventional units agreed upon tacitly by the members of society. (c) Arbitrariness The relation between the meaning (content) and phonic shape (form) is, in general, arbitrary. (d) Tendency towards universality Words are abstractions at some level and they tend to be universal. (e) Intuitive psychological existence Speakers of all languages, with or without writing systems, have no difficulty isolating individual words intuitively.
Radoslav Pavlík
3
The Word as a Sociophonetic Unit
(f) Positional mobility Words are the smallest elements of the sentence which have positional mobility, i.e. they can be moved around in the sentence. (g) Inseparability They are typically the largest units which resist interruption by the insertion of new material between their constituent parts (morphemes). Despite this general agreement on the main characteristic features of the word, it is also generally accepted that, with reference to individual linguistic levels, the term word is ambiguous, and it is customarily used in a number of different senses (Lyons 1968: 68; Singleton 2000: 5). In this respect, linguists distinguish the following types of word (Krámský 1967: 369–373; Bauer 1983: 11–13; Jackson 1988: 2–8; Singleton 2000: 6–9; Kvetko 2003: 10, inter alia): (a) Orthographic words: words with different spelling are different orthographic words, e.g. scary and scarey are two different orthographic words even though they are forms of the same phonological, lexical, grammatical, and semantic word. (b) Phonetic words: words with different allophonic make-up are different phonetic words, e.g. the words [ bεts ] and [ bε ] are different phonetic words. This, it must be emphasized, is not a purely terminological distinction, because, as we can see, the two allophonic forms carry different meanings – they indicate the social class of the speaker. Other phonetic variations of words may indicate the geographical, situational, or other aspects of the speakers using them. These issues will be discussed in more detail later. (c) Phonological words: different phonological words are, in principle, also different phonetic words. These forms, however, are considered to be a part of the language-system and they are normally indicated in dictionaries as variant, though acceptable forms. For example, the words / ek n m k/ and / i k n m k/ are two different phonological words but one orthographic, lexical, grammatical, and semantic word. Many phonetically variable words (e.g. words with elided or shortened elements) become accepted in the course of time and they become a different phonological word, e.g. cupboard / k b d/. (d) Lexical words (Lexemes): these are abstractions consisting of a group of variant forms with the same basic meaning, e.g. the forms shoot, shoots, shooting, and shot are all subsumed under the lexeme ‘shoot’. These variant forms are called word-forms, and they have their orthographic, phonetic, and phonological form. (e) Grammatical words: all forms with different grammatical categories express different grammatical meaning and they are different grammatical words, e.g. shoot, shoots, shooting, and shot. The difference between a word-form and a grammatical word is that one word-form can have more grammatical meanings. For instance, the word-form shot can be either a past tense or a past participle. Similarly, the word-form shooting can function as a noun or a verb. On the other hand, two different words-forms, e.g. dreamed and dreamt, have the same grammatical meaning – they count as one grammatical word. (f) Semantic words (Sememes): One word-form can have different (related or unrelated) meanings, e.g. the word-form shoot means (1) to fire a gun, (2) to kill/injure, (3) to kick a ball, (4) to film, etc. 2. The Word Sound-Form from a Formal and Functional Point of View It seems that the traditional phonetic and phonological definition of the word as indicated above does not fully capture the true nature of the concept. That is, such a limited and simplified characterization normally does not consider how the phonic form is used in real-life communication. Here are the main aspects (and, at the same time, drawbacks) of the traditional (formal) phonetic and phonological definition of the word:
Radoslav Pavlík
4
The Word as a Sociophonetic Unit
1. Traditional (structuralist and generativist) linguistics treats the word as an abstract sound-form carrying the basic denotational meaning. In fact, traditional phonology deals primarily with denotational meaning, and such phonological tests as the minimal-pair test or the commutation test are based on the assumption that the minimal phonic units are those that differentiate between two different denotational meanings. Other types of meaning are not normally taken into consideration (cf. Chomsky 1965, 2002; Jakobson, Fant and Halle 1969; Jakobson and Halle 1975; Sommerstein 1977; Solntsev 1983; Roca and Johnson 1999). 2. The word is seen as a mere combination of allophones or phonemes. Words are considered to be units composed of a definite and specific (unchangeable) number of segments (phonemes) which are recognized by the listener in a bottom-up fashion, that is, the word is recognized on the basis of the presence of the individual phonemes (Chomsky and Halle 1968; Jakobson, Fant and Halle 1969; Jakobson and Halle 1975). 3. The traditional view of the word sound-form usually admits no formal variation. One phonic form is posited as a canonical and correct (pristine) form, and all other forms are seen as derived from this form – they are either combinatorily-produced variants, imperfect realizations or outright corruptions of the canonical form. In other words, a distinct boundary is drawn between competence (an abstract canonical sound-form) and performance (the realization of this form in speech) (Saussure 1959; Chomsky 1965, 2002; Chomsky and Halle 1968) Let us now propose a different characterization of the sound-form of the word from a sociophonetic point of view, one that attempts to deal with the word from a broader communicative perspective (i.e. taking into account all factors that are, or can be, significant – meaningful). Within the framework of this theoretical stance it is also useful to devise a new name for the word soundform, which would reflect its sociophonetic aspect. Tentatively, we will name it phononym, for want of a better term, and characterize it in the following way: 1. The phononym is an entity which can be seen as a collection of related sound-forms with the same denotational meaning, but different social, connotational, situational, geographical, etc. meaning. It can be treated as an abstract unit realized in communication through particular instances – let us name them hypophononyms. These hypophononyms are, in a way, similar to what phonology refers to as phonetic representation (Roca & Johnson, 1999: 46–48), but there are differences. Phonetic representations are usually the result of an application of phonological rules to lexical representations in the process of performance, they normally work with either a standard language variety or an idealized (and therefore partially artificial) variety, and they usually do not cover linguistic behaviour in context-based communicative situations. Hypophononyms, on the other hand, can be seen as variations of the same underlying abstract form that are the result of a number of different influences, and they can be determined statistically to correlate with such factors as not only combinatoriality, but also social class, age, gender, ethnicity, geographical affiliation, medium, field, genre, style, role-relationship, tempo of speaking, frequency of use, and so on (cf. Pavlík 2006). It should also be noted that while traditional phonology normally admits only the existence of one underlying form from which the surface forms are derived by means of rules, the sociophonetic perspective also allows for the possibility that the variant phonetic representations (hypophononyms) are listed in the lexicon as separate units – exemplars (containing a lot of phonetic detail) and existing in parallel with the underlying forms. At the moment of production (speech), these hypophononyms are usually not generated by means of rules from the underlying form, but are retrieved directly from memory (Bybee 2001: 35–62; Taylor 2002: 307– 308). In other words, there is less computation and more storage. However, rules are not disposed of, as it might seem at first sight, but they are used to specify which form is selected in which particular context. This means that there are various types of rules/norms at different levels of abstraction governing different units. All such rules used in communication (i.e. rules for generating
Radoslav Pavlík
5
The Word as a Sociophonetic Unit
surface forms, rules for selecting forms according to situation, etc.) form a part of the communicative competence of an individual. Within this perspective, there are no haphazard, sloppy, or incorrect forms (unless, of course, they are produced by someone without sufficient competence, e.g. a non-native speaker). All soundforms that are non-individual and conventional can be explained with reference to linguistic, social, situational, geographical, psychological, etc. factors. At the same time, it is important how these forms are judged by listeners in concrete communicative situations. All hypophononymes must be produced in concordance with the situation, e.g. forms as [ be ] (better), [ l ö] (little), [ts i] (tea), etc. are acceptable and communicatively well-formed in a situation when a London lower-class blue-collar worker talks to his friend, but unacceptable and communicatively ill-formed when used by a news-reader on national news. Similarly, the strongly elided form of the word actually – [ l ] – will be considered inappropriate in slow tempo of speech and/or formal style, just as the nonreduced form [ kt l ] will sound odd in informal style and/or in fast speech. Finally, the analysis of the word sound-form from the sociophonetic point of view allows us to treat all conventional vocally-delivered paralinguistic features as linguistic, i.e. meaningful in the process of communication. For instance, the use of falsetto tone in English serves as a mocking device whereas in Tzeltal, a Mayan language of Mexico, falsetto serves as a marker of honorific respect (Laver 1994: 22). Ignoring or disregarding this coded usage may result in serious communicative problems. Put differently, everything that ensures smooth and problem-free communication is considered to be important and therefore linguistic. 2. The phononym can be characterized by its patterned and coded variability. It is an entity with variable forms, but this variation is non-individual and patterned. That is, the variation is conventional and coded. It thus covers many aspects of sound which have usually been relegated to the domain of speech (which is often considered to be unstructured and heterogeneous), e.g. assimilated or elided forms. Classical linguistics had a clear goal – to find the stability and unity of form, to constrain variation, to look for maximum uniformity. This was a legitimate way of describing language as an abstract construct where social and other factors were left out of consideration. However, from a broader perspective, which attempts to take into account all factors (social, situational, physiological, etc.) present in natural real-life linguistic communication, it is necessary to embrace variation (not avoid it), and build it into the broader theory of language as a social resource (cf. Halliday 1978: 38). It is now apparent that much more phonetic detail is used linguistically than traditional linguistics suggests. Whenever this detail is conventional, it must be considered to be linguistically important. In other words, when we learn a language, the ability to distinguish between different denotational meanings cannot be considered to be sufficient. Competence is not just linguistic competence, and linguistic competence covers more than the ability to distinguish between different lexical forms. All the sound-forms that are non-individual and carry some communicatively important information will be considered here as part of the language-system. 3. The phononym (and its specific hypophononyms) is not just a structural concatenation of segments, but it is also a holistic entity. According to Trubetzkoy, ‘... each word is a phonic entity, a Gestalt, and is also recognized as such by the hearer, just as an acquaintance is recognized on the street by his entire appearance.’ ‘As a Gestalt, each word always contains something more than the sum of its constituents (or phonemes), namely, the principle of unity that holds the phoneme sequence together and lends individuality to a word’ (Trubetzkoy, 1969 in Fudge 1973: 51). It is a matter of fact, and many psychological experiments prove this point, that word-forms in speech are perceived in two complementary ways. On the one hand, there are bottom-up processes of speech perception according to which identification of the word ‘... results from a one-
Radoslav Pavlík
6
The Word as a Sociophonetic Unit
way flow of information from the receptors upward to higher and higher stages of processing’ (Sekuler and Blake 1990: 425). More importantly, however, there are also top-down processes of speech perception, where words are perceived as wholes, and their componential make-up may not be canonical. This is why listeners recognize the word faster than its component parts – syllables and phonemes (Darwin 1976: 177). Furthermore, from the point of view of speech production, it has been suggested that speech is produced according to a neurally encoded program, and ‘... the preparation and articulation of a speech program is not performed on a sound-bysound, or even on a word-by-word basis. It is much more likely that neural elements corresponding to much longer stretches of speech are assembled in advance, and then allowed to be articulated as a single continuous program’ (Laver 1970: 68). These facts are particularly important for understanding why sound changes can take place, and they also help to explain why the empirically attested variation and non-canonical phoneme actualization do not pose any real problems in communication (Greenberg, Hollenback and Ellis 1996: 24). During the process of speech perception, listeners naturally attempt to assign some meaning to utterances – that is the main goal. As long as this is possible, the listener does not necessarily need canonical segments. ‘... the listener does not always need all the acoustic information present in normal utterances in order to assign the correct meaning to those utterances. Once a meaning has been assigned, the listener automatically experiences a perception of certain phonetic elements which may, in reality, be missing in the acoustic signal’ (Oller and Eilers 1975: 289). It is now becoming clear that the so called target theories of perception, which claimed that each sound has a distinct set of formant frequencies – a target, have to be re-evaluated, since no invariant vowel targets have been determined. Moreover, the cues for the identification of sounds are present in the neighbouring segments to such an extent, that a correct identification of a particular sound is often impossible without some context (Gottfried and Strange 1980: 1626–1627; Strange 1989: 2152; van Son and Pols 1999: 3, 15–16, 18–20; Solé 2003: 289). Not all sound variation, however, is of equal importance in the description of language and language change. Nevertheless, the important thing is to study all perceptually detectable variation, describe it in detail, and search for all kinds of patterning and systematicity. The ultimate goal should be to determine those perceptually (relatively) invariant forms, which are endowed with some socio-cultural significance (by the term socio-cultural we mean all possible aspects of meaning present in linguistic communication and valuable in some way to human beings). 3. Some consequences of the sociophonetic approach to linguistic analysis The sociophonetic approach to the analysis of spoken text has a number of consequences, both for theoretical and applied linguistics: (a) All aspects of word-meaning are important (not just the denotational meaning), and this, in turn, brings out the significance of fine phonetic detail. No minor phonetic detail can be dismissed as unimportant if it is patterned and coded. Every conventional phonic variation is important and should be built into the model of language as a social resource. (b) The dichotomy between competence and performance (as defined in traditional formal linguistics) does not really exist here, because most of the phenomena considered to be a matter of
Radoslav Pavlík
7
The Word as a Sociophonetic Unit
performance are structured and patterned, and therefore a part of competence. Competence thus includes the knowledge of the various linguistic units on various abstraction levels plus a multitude of rules for generating text (i.e. rules for the combination of segments, rules for assigning lexical units to conceptual structures, rules for combinatory assimilatory processes, rules for contextbased/socio-cultural selection of lexical units, etc.). The basic philosophy of this approach is this: What the speaker does (performance) is done according to what he knows (competence). Such disciplines as sociolinguistics, pragmatics, etc. are therefore concerned with competence, because they are about the knowledge of the speaker. The imperfections of performance thus cover only those aspects that have not been explained so far (or perhaps cannot be explained), and do not seem to be patterned, coded, and conventional. (c) The traditional phonetic or phonological transcription of words in general-purpose and specialized dictionaries is considered to be insufficient. This is because in such dictionaries, there is usually only very limited information on the variability of the pronunciation of words. What is more, in the case of multiple pronunciations there is no guidance as to how to use them in concrete situations. There is a need for specialized pronunciation dictionaries for the learners of languages which would, first of all, cover a broader range of phonic variability, and, secondly, they would give a detailed account of the use of these variant forms in context-based situations. This could include, for example, segmental pronunciation, elisions, assimilations, intonational contours, rules for variation, different speech styles, recordings of context-based interactions, etc. It is obvious that such dictionaries would require a lot of research and would look very different from our traditional dictionaries. (d) As far as the teaching of pronunciation is concerned, it is important that teachers build sociophonetic awareness in their students and make them sensitive to various dialects, sociolects, styles, etc. To be competent language speakers, the students must be able to encode in their phonic form not only the basic denotational meaning, but also other types of meaning discussed here earlier. Their pronunciation should reflect such aspects as social class, age, gender, medium, genre, style, rate of speech, frequency of word-usage, etc. The simple differentiation of lexical forms may be a legitimate goal for beginners, but advanced students should strive for a broader range of communicative (phonetic) sub-competences.
4. Conclusion The paper discusses the notion of the word from a sociophonetic perspective, which has been relatively neglected in comparison with the study of this concept in such disciplines as morphology, lexicology, semantics, etc. This sociophonetic approach to the analysis of the word in communication belongs to a group of functional approaches which are usually contrasted with the so-called formal approaches. The word is an entity which can be seen as a collection of related sound-forms with the same denotational meaning, but different social, connotational, situational, geographical, etc. meaning. The particular instances of the word sound-form may be viewed as variations of the same underlying abstract form that are the result of a number of different influences, and they can be determined statistically to correlate with such factors as not only combinatoriality, but also social class, age, gender, ethnicity, geographical affiliation, medium, field, genre, style, role-relationship, tempo of speaking, frequency of use, and so on, and so forth. These entities, named phononyms, are collections of variable forms, but this variation is non-individual and patterned. That is, the variation is conventional and coded. It thus covers many aspects of sound which have usually been relegated to the domain of speech (which is often considered by structuralists to be unstructured and heterogeneous), e.g. assimilated or elided forms. At the same time, the phononym is not just a
Radoslav Pavlík
8
The Word as a Sociophonetic Unit
structural concatenation of segments, but it is also a holistic entity, i.e. words are perceived as wholes, and their componential make-up may not be canonical. This helps to explain why sound changes can take place, and why the empirically attested variation and non-canonical phoneme actualization do not pose any real problems in communication. This sociophonetic approach brings out the importance of fine phonetic detail in linguistic analysis, and blurs the distinction between competence and performance. References: Bauer, L. (1983). English Word-Formation. Cambridge University Press. Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (2002). Syntactic Structures, 2nd edition. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Chomsky, N. and Halle, M. (1968). The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row. Cruse, D.A. (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge University Press. Darwin, C.J. (1976). ‘The Perception of Speech’, in E.C. Carterette and M.P. Friedman (eds.) Handbook of Perception VII: Language and Speech, New York: Academic Press, Inc, pp. 175–226. Dokulil, M. (1958). ‘K povaze vztahu slova a pojmu, věty a myšlenky’, in A. Dostál (ed.) O vědeckém poznání soudobých jazyků, Praha: Československá akademie věd, pp. 108–112. Fudge, E. C. (ed.) (1973). Phonology. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Gottfried, T.L. and Strange, W. (1980). ‘Identification of Coarticulated Vowels’, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 68: 1626–1635. Greenberg, S., Hollenback, J. and Ellis, D. (1996). ‘Insights into Spoken Language Gleaned from Phonetic Transcription of the Switchboard Corpus’, in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP), Philadelphia, pp. 24–27. Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic. The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold. Holmes, J. (2001). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 2nd edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Horecký, J. (1978). Základy jazykovedy. Bratislava: SPN. Horecký, J. (1983). Vývin a teória jazyka. Bratislava: SPN. Jackson, H. (1988). Words and their Meaning. London: Longman. Jakobson, R. (1962). Selected Writings I.Phonological Studies. Mouton & Co. Jakobson, R. and Halle, M. (1975). Fundamentals of Language, 2nd edition. The Hague: Mouton. Jakobson, R., Fant, G. and Halle, M. (1969). Preliminaries to Speech Analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Krámský, J. (1967). ‘Postavení slova v systému jazyka’, Slovo a slovesnost 28: 369–373. Kvetko, P. (2003). Essentials of Modern English Lexicology. Bratislava: Retaas. Laver, J. (1970). ‘The Production of Speech’, in J. Lyons (ed.) New Horizons in Linguistics, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, pp. 53–75. Laver, J. (1994). Principles of Phonetics. Cambridge University Press. Lipka, L. (1992). An Outline of English Lexicology. Lexical Structure, Word Semantics, and WordFormation, 2nd edition. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. Newmeyer, F. J. (1998). Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Oller, D. K. and Eilers, R. E. (1975). ‘Phonetic Expectation and Transcription Validity’, Phonetica 31: 288–304. Pavlík, R. (2006). Elements of Sociolinguistics. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského. Roca, I. and Johnson, W. (1999). A Course in Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
Radoslav Pavlík
9
The Word as a Sociophonetic Unit
Saussure, F. de (1959). Course in General Linguistics. New York: Philosophical Library. Saussure, F. de (1989). Kurs obecné lingvistiky. Praha: Odeon. Sekuler, R. and Blake, R. (1990). Perception, 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company. Singleton, D. (2000). Language and the Lexicon. An Introduction. London: Arnold. Solé, M.-J. (2003). ‘Is Variation Encoded in Phonology?’, in M.-J. Solé, D. Recasens and J. Romero (eds.) Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), Barcelona: Futurgraphic, pp. 289–292. Solntsev, V.M. (1983). Language: a System and a Structure. Moscow: Nauka Publishing House. Sommerstein, A.H. (1977). Modern Phonology. London: Edward Arnold. Strange, W. (1989). Dynamic specification of coarticulated vowels spoken in sentence context, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 85: 2135–2153. Taylor, J.R. (2002). Cognitive Grammar. Oxford University Press. Trubetzkoy, N.S. (1969). Principles of Phonology. University of California Press. Trudgill, P. (1983). Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society, 2nd edition. Harmondsworth: Penguin. van Son, R.J.J.H. and Pols, L.C.W. (1999). ‘Perisegmental Speech Improves Consonant and Vowel Identification’, Speech Communication 29: 1–22. Wardhaugh, R. (2002). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 4th edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
