Page 1 of 10
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 8, No. 6
Publication Date: June 25, 2021
DOI:10.14738/assrj.86.10431. Poladova, S. E. (2021). The Consonant System of the English Language and its Modification in Colloquial Speech. Advances in Social
Sciences Research Journal, 8(6). 505-514.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
The Consonant System of the English Language and its
Modification in Colloquial Speech
Sabina Elkhan Poladova
School of Education, Azerbaijan University of Languages, Baku, Azerbaijan
ABSTRACT
This paper is concerned with the study of the modifications of consonants caused
by their mutual influence, taking into account the varying degrees of connectivity of
the elements of the speech chain. As such, this study of vocal connections of various
types is carried out from the point of view of the nature of the junction of the
elements – more or less close. Thus, this paper is devoted to problems concerning
the phenomenon of vocal junction as it is established in linguistics in general and in
phonetics in particular. The relevance of these problems stems from the need for
disclosure and knowledge of the mechanism of internal organization of speech flow.
This paper is aimed at analyzing the features of the vocal stitch and its components,
which allow you to delve deeper into the mechanism of production of related
speech. Thereby, this study attempts to identify modifications of elements of
interdisciplinary vocal combinations, which are important for the implementation
of their delimitative function, as these are manifested in the distinction of different
units of speech.
Key words: English consonants, phoneme system, colloquial speech, aspiration,
modification
INTRODUCTION
Currently, linguistics has a phonemic description of the segmental units of most languages, with
the English language being one of the most studied in this regard. Nevertheless, the information
available in the literature does not fully reflect the characteristics of vocal units in real speech
embodiment. Instead, a study of the allophonic variation of English consonants in conditions of
a vocal junction will be used to supplement the published system description of English
vocalism with specific phonetic data.
As F. de Saussure has written on this topic: “There is nothing collective in speech, its
manifestations are individual and instantaneous. Speech activity, taken as a whole, is
unknowable, since it is heterogeneous” [21].This explains the inattention to the peculiarities of
the implementation of the phonetic system in speech, which is associated with a significant
degree of variability of linguistic units, particularly phonetic ones. These features were
considered insignificant for the system, which should develop according to its own laws.
Until recently, the main features of the structuralism trend in linguistics have characterized the
overwhelming majority of works by representatives of the Moscow and Prague phonological
schools.
Page 2 of 10
506
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 8, Issue 6, June-2021
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
These structuralist features were also characteristic of American generative phonology, in
particular the standard model of Chomsky and Halle, which denied the important role of social
experience and the close connection of the system with the processes of production and
perception of speech. In addition, generative phonology argued that knowledge of the language
is neutral in relation to speech [13].
THE ENGLISH CONSONANT SYSTEM
Traditionally, 24 consonant phonemes are distinguished in the English language system (See:
table 1). Some researchers, however, do not classify /l/, /j/, /w/, /r/, and /h/ as consonants
[10], with /h/ sometimes considered a vowel sound. Others increase the number of affricates
in the consonant system [6]. Some researchers even place voiceless [M] in the system of
consonantism of American English along with the orthographic “wh” [23].
The question of the belonging of slit sonorates /l/, /j/, /w/, and /r/to vowels or consonants
remains to this day a controversial topic in linguistics. According to acoustic parameters, these
should be classified as glides, or their equivalent – the second elements of diphthongs [7].
So, G. Fant notes the secondary importance of noise in the perception of phonemes /l/, /j/ and
/r/, and the similarity of their acoustic picture with the acoustic picture of vowels, although, on
the other hand, the author himself admits the presence of a noise component in these sounds
in the shock position, significantly affecting their spectrum [4].
The phoneme /w/, however, even in terms of acoustic parameters, is difficult to rank as a vowel
due to a sharp increase in flatness, which sharply decreases compactness and increases low
pitch (the author gives three signs of vowels established by Jacobson: an increase in
compactness, a decrease in low pitch and flatness [4]).
According to articulatory parameters, namely the presence of an articulatory focus that is
absent in vowels, these phonemes should be ranked among consonants, although /1/ and /r/
are often vocalized. In addition, smooth sonorants are deafened after voiceless plosives and are
realized as voiceless fricatives, while vowels do not undergo this process. Furthermore, /w/
and /j/ cannot be syllabic elements, another inherent feature of vowels.
A lot of controversy raises the question of which sign to take as the basis for the classification
of consonants. One approach, taken by a significant part of domestic and foreign linguists, is to
consider the most stable correlation for the work of the vocal cords, on the basis of which it is
necessary to develop a classification [8].
Another approach taken by an opposing group of linguists, ourselves included, prioritizes
correlation as a way to overcome the obstacle. L.A. Chistovich believes that these are the
problems of priority of articulatory classification over acoustic and solves it as follows: acoustic
features are determined at the level of perception, whereas the syllable is the minimum unit of
perception at the level where the transition from an acoustic signal to semantic elements of the
language is possible (information about phonemic affiliation of the components of the syllable
is issued only after the analysis of the entire syllable). Consequently, not acoustic, but
articulatory signs of speech signals should underlie the phonemic classification [3].
Page 3 of 10
507
Poladova, S. E. (2021). The Consonant System of the English Language and its Modification in Colloquial Speech. Advances in Social Sciences
Research Journal, 8(6). 505-514.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.86.10431
On the other hand, the syllable is also the smallest pronunciation unit. A much more convincing
argument is that a prerequisite for the formation of consonants is the presence of an
articulatory focus [1], and not the work of the vocal cords. It is not at all a matter of the priority
of articulatory classification over acoustic classification, as there are no contradictions between
the acoustic and articulatory descriptions [8]. After all, any work of the articulatory organs
produces an acoustic effect, and there is a definite correlation between articulatory and
acoustic signs. Moreover, articulation is often inaccessible to direct observation, and we can
often draw conclusions about its features based only on its acoustic characteristics. In fact,
when comparing two articulatory parameters, preference tends to be given to the one that is
mandatory despite the need to supplement the acoustic articulation classification.
Based on the available literature, we can say with a certain degree of confidence that the
American and British variants of the English language at the present stage of development use
the same consonant system, but there are a number of significant discrepancies in its
implementation (although some authors speak of an increasing convergence of British English
(BE) and American English (AE) [28]. This system can be represented in the following table.
Table 1. The English consonant phoneme system.
Occlusive
According to the current
body and place of
formation of
the obstacle
According to the
formation of obstacles
and noise
Labial Lingual
Bilabials
Labiodentals
Guttural
Predental
Mediolingual
Backlingual
Interdentals
(apical) Apical-alveolar
Palatals
Cacuminal
Obstruent р, b t, d k, g
Sonants (nasal) m n ŋ
FricativeObstruent f,v θ,ð s,z ʃ,
3
h
Glides w l r j
Affricates ʧ,
ʤ
According to the method of overcoming obstacles the following groups are distinguished:
occlusive – /p/, /b/, /t/,/d/, /k/,/g/,/m/,/n/, /ŋ/; affricates – /ʧ/, /ʤ/; and fricative – /s/,
/z/, /v/, /f/, /θ/, /ð/, /ʃ/,/3/,/ w/,/l/,/j/,/h/,/r/.
Some complexity for classification is represented by affricates which, according to L. R. Zinder,
can be described as a special kind of occlusive. Affricates are sometimes considered as a
combination of occlusive and fricative. We cannot, however, accept this as a fact since it would
Page 4 of 10
508
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 8, Issue 6, June-2021
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
contradict the concept of the phoneme as the shortest and indivisible phonetic unit. As such,
acoustic-articulatory heterogeneity is not a sufficient reason for considering a phoneme as a
combination. The inhomogeneity of affricates has no functional significance, although some
phonetists describe these affricates as a special type of occlusive [31]. However, it seems to us
more consistent to join the linguists who distinguish them into a separate group of occlusive
and fricative[25].
The question of the number of affricates in the consonant system of the English language also
causes significant controversy. Russian phonetists traditionally distinguish two affricates: /ʧ/
and /ʤ/. According to the acoustic-articulatory parameters, foreign linguists on the other hand
classify /ts/,/dz/,/tr/ and /dr/ as affricates [11], while Gimson adds to them /tθ/, and /dð/(so- called “phonetic clusters”) [6].
However, the proof of the monophonemicity of affricates is the impossibility of a morphemic
seam within them. Therefore, you cannot consider /ts/ and /dz/ to be monophonemic
formations, since /s/ and /z/ can be a sound manifestation of the plural ending of a noun or the
third person singular of a verb.
Similarly, we recognize the combinations of the two phonemes, /tθ/ and /dð/, since /θ/ and
/ð/ serve as a sound manifestation of the affix of the ordinal numeral.
The situation is more complicated with /tr/ and /dr/. You cannot draw a morphemic border
between the first and second elements at the beginning of a word in the following words:
chatter, just, dress, trip. However, there are words such as press and crash, where combinations
of phonemes are traditionally distinguished: /pr/, /kr/. Therefore, relying on the criterion of
consistency (if at one point of the system at the beginning of words a complex from the acoustic- articulatory point of view is considered as a combination of phonemes, then at another point of
the system we will act similarly), we will consider / tr/, / dr / as combinations of phonemes.
On similar grounds, it would seem possible to consider /ts/ and /dz/ as combinations of two
phonemes, but this is not so. According to the laws of phonotactics, at the beginning of a
phonemic word in native English words, there are no other occlusive consonants before /ʃ/
[27]. Thus, adhering to the positions of Russian linguists, we recognize the existence of two
affricates in the system of the English language: /ts/ and /dz/. Nevertheless, this does not entail
the denial of the existence of phonetic affricates – the possibility of contextually affricative
pronunciation of “phonetic clusters” [27].
According to the active organ in the English language, there are labial (according to the place of
formation, labial /p/, /b/, /m/, /w/, and labiodental /f/, /v/), lingual and laryngeal /h/
phonemes. Lingual, in turn, are subdivided into front-lingual, medio-lingual (/j/) and back- lingual (/k/, /g/) depending on which part of the tongue is active when these phonemes are
pronounced.
Among the front-lingual, at the place of formation, there are the interdental /θ/ and /ð/;
alveolar /t/, /d/, /n/, /l/, /s/, /z/; palatoal veolar /ʃ/ ,/3/, /ts/, /dz/; and cacuminal /r/ in BE
Page 5 of 10
509
Poladova, S. E. (2021). The Consonant System of the English Language and its Modification in Colloquial Speech. Advances in Social Sciences
Research Journal, 8(6). 505-514.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.86.10431
(where rounding of the lips is a concomitant feature), and in AE — retroflex [23]. In addition,
sliding articulation /r/ is noted in AE [12].
Some authors believe that the place of formation of consonants is not a relevant feature [15].
However, this does not hold true and is most likely a misunderstanding of L.R. Zinder's words
that the place of formation in consonants is not a prerequisite for education. Of course,
consonants are often assimilated according to the place of education, which does not mean
irrelevance of the considered feature. In English, there are equivalently proportional
oppositions whose members differ only in the place of formation: /s/ and /θ/, /z/ and /ð/,
which proves the groundlessness of the above statement.
By the predominance of noise or voices, noisy and sonorous kinds of consonants can be
distinguished. In Russian, noisy consonants are usually divided into voiceless and voiced. It
is believed that in English, voiceless/voiced is the minimum distinguishing feature. For
English consonants, according to a number of authors, fortitude / laziness (strength /
weakness of articulation) is relevant. Voiceless/voiced is, in contrast to fortitude / laziness, a
frickle sign which actually gave way to the power of articulation. According to the strength
of articulation, all English consonants are divided into strong (“fortis”) which includes all
voiceless sounds in English, and weak (“lazy”) which include voiced obstruent and sonorous.
Thus, it is believed that the occlusive /p/, /t/, /k/ and their voiced pairs, which make up their
privative oppositions, differ not so much in voiceless/voiced, but in the strength / weakness of
articulation, since the sign of voiceless/voiced is extremely variable. So, for example, it would
seem that at the absolute beginning of the word in the pre-vocal position “lazy” consonants are
stunning. Let us disagree with this point of view. First, as already mentioned, the variability of
a feature does not indicate its irrelevance. Secondly, the strong positions for the
implementation of a particular differential feature in different languages may not coincide.
This position, of course, is strong for distinguishing between Russian voiced and voiceless
features, but it does not have to be strong for the implementation of the voiced feature in
English. Perhaps, in the English language such positions would be intervocal and prevocal after
sonorous. This problem can be solved when using the method of instrumental analysis, which
allows us to reveal how much the variation in the sign of voiceless / voiced coincides with the
variation in the sign of strength / weakness of articulation.
Aspiration plays an important role in distinguishing them. Thus, when breathing is lost,
voiceless explosives /p/, /t/, /k/ are perceived as /b/, /d/, /g/ –i.e. their voiced equivalents
[14].However, this feature does not refer to voiced and voiceless spirants and affricates. Thus,
all of the above makes us doubt the existence of there being sufficient ground for recognizing
the priority of the sign of the strength of articulation over the sign of voiceless/voiced.
We can therefore assume that in the cases above there is an overlap of signs of voiceless/voiced
and aspiration, which is the reason for this effect. Yet in other cases, the sign of voiceless /
voiced prevails. In addition, in the system of English consonants, there is not a single case when
“fortis” is voiced, and “lazy” is voiceless gives us reason to join Russian and foreign linguists
who recognize the division of English noisy ones into voiceless and voiced [25] and assume that
Page 6 of 10
510
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 8, Issue 6, June-2021
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
the sign of voicelessness/ voicedness remains universal for the Russian and English languages,
while fortitude / laziness plays a subordinate role.
As mentioned earlier, British and American English use the same consonant system, where
consonants are members of oppositions for the same differential characteristics. However, as
noted in literary sources, some integral features or the degree of implementation of one or
another differential feature may not coincide. For example, in AE the phoneme /r/ has a greater
sonority in general, and the phoneme /l/ is dark [23]. In any position, its velarized allophone is
realized.
MODIFICATIONS OF ENGLISH CONSONANTS IN COLLOQUIAL SPEECH
Before proceeding to the consideration of modifications of consonants, it seems appropriate to
consider the relationship between the concepts of “modification” and “alternation”. There are
two types of modifications: accommodation and assimilation. Accommodation tends to be
partial, while assimilation can be either partial or complete. Partial modifications can lead to
allophone alternation (partial accommodation and assimilation), and complete assimilation
leads to phonemic alternation [26]. Thus, alternations are, first and foremost, a consequence of
modifications occurring in speech.
In general, phoneme modifications stem from the dualism of the phonetic system: on the one
hand, its stability, and on the other, its flexibility, which is reflected in the phonetic structure of
the word. In other words, “the simultaneous stability and flexibility of the phonetic structure of
the word, which can be modified”[30]. The reason for the dualism of the phonetic system lies
in the interaction of phonological and physiological factors.
All languages have in common the fact that the physiological conditions of the influence of
neighboring sounds on each other are the same, although the articulatory bases formed during
the interaction of the phonological system with physiological conditions are different for
different languages. It is also common in all languages that psychologically for the speaker and
listener, the transmission and perception of the meaning of the utterance is important and not
the articulation of each individual realization of the phoneme, which is carried out
automatically. The overall sound of the word is important. Therefore, correlating phonemes can
influence each other as much as it does not interfere with the normal recognition of words in
the context. It is not surprising that the flow of speech correlates of phonemes not in a strong
phrasal position are prone to noticeable weakening and variation [5].
Consonant + vowel combinations are most common in many languages. In such combinations,
accommodation can occur: the influence of a vowel on a consonant or a consonant on a vowel
[19]. Here, we are primarily interested in the influence of vowels on consonants. As a rule, the
subsequent vowel (as well as the consonant) has a greater influence on the consonant than the
previous one, since the anticipation of articulation is more common than inertia.
There are three main accommodations:
o labialization under the influence of labial vowels
o palatalization –softening under the influence of the vowels of the front and deep back
rows of high rise (in English there is no phonemic opposition on the basis of
Page 7 of 10
511
Poladova, S. E. (2021). The Consonant System of the English Language and its Modification in Colloquial Speech. Advances in Social Sciences
Research Journal, 8(6). 505-514.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.86.10431
palatalization / non-palatalization, and therefore the phonemic factor does not impose
restrictions on the relatively weak palatalization that takes place in this position)
o velarization –additional articulation consisting in the tension of the palatine curtain of
the soft palate under the influence of the back vowels, regardless of the rise, if, of course,
there are no phonetic restrictions
Further, the influence of the preceding vowel on the consonant is similar, but manifests itself to
a much lesser extent. In the intervocal position, spirantization of occlusives occurs; most often
back-linguals with a weak occlusive. Sonantization of voiced fricative consonants can also occur
in this position.
It is also advisable to dwell on the combination “consonant + consonant”, where assimilation
can occur (the influence of a consonant on a consonant or a vowel on a vowel [19]). In
homorganic combinations of two consonants, the explosion of the first consonant can be lost,
and in combinations of occlusive heterorganic, the explosion of the first consonant can be
weakened. When combining homorganic with nasal, the oral explosion of the first is replaced
by a faucal. The combination “occlusive + fricative” can take on the character of an affricate
when the occlusive explosion is replaced by a smooth transition to the fricative. Affricates can
then pass into fricative. In the combination “fricative + fricative”, the influence of consonants
on each other is minimal, and modifications rare [2].
A common result of the mutual influence of consonants in heterorganic combinations is more
often regressive than progressive, complete or partial assimilation. By the participation of the
voice, stunning or sounding (full or partial) is possible.
The reason for the variability of phonemes can also be the position in the word or syntagma.
So, consonants standing at the absolute beginning have a greater intensity of articulation, and
at the absolute end – less. The rate of speech has an important influence on the variability of
phonemes. With an increase in the rate of speech, the effect of the law of economy of speech
efforts increases and the number of modifications can be greater than when the rate is slowed
down. There may be more examples of elliptical consonants.
Nasalization can be either one of the main articulations for occlusive sonants such as /m/, /n/
and/ŋ/, or additional for all others. L.R. Zinder has written the following about the complexity
of the nasalization effect: “Articulatory it (nasalization) consists in lowering the soft palate
when pronouncing sounds. From a physiological point of view, this will be a state of rest, while
active articulation is the raising of the soft palate ... However, from a phonetic point of view, the
active articulation will be precisely the lowering of this pronunciation organ”[31].
After considering as a whole the main possible modifications of consonant phonemes,
depending on the combinatorial-positional conditions, one should proceed to the analysis of
the main modifications of consonant phonemes in the American version of the English
language.
Page 8 of 10
512
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 8, Issue 6, June-2021
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
ASPIRATION VARIABILITY
A characteristic feature of the English pronunciation rate is the permissible variability of the
phonetic structure of the word [17]. The English pronunciation rate is quite tolerant of
quantitative and qualitative changes, the range of which is quite wide in American English.
First of all, one should start with important quantitative consonant modifications, such as
aspirate variability, which depends on combinatorial-positional conditions. The mechanism of
aspiration is well-known: according to Leidefoged’s definition, aspiration is the noise of an air
stream in the larynx at a certain position of the vocal cords: the stronger the aspiration, the
more open the vocal cords; wherein there is a delay in the phonation of the subsequent vowel
[16].
Aspiration is an integral sign of consonants /p/, /t/ and /k/. According to I.P. Susov, aspiration
in English is an allophonic trait predictable from the context. The author identifies two
positions in which the allophones of the voiceless occlusive are aspirated: at the beginning of
the stressed syllable before the vowel and the sonant [26].
E.G.Kuryatnikova has noted this variability of aspiration in ten phonetic positions:
o At the absolute beginning before vowel phonemes.
o In the intervocal position.
o In the stressed position after the fricative /s/ before vowels.
o In an unstressed position after the fricative /s/ before vowels.
o At the absolute beginning before the sonant under stress.
o Before sonants after stressed vowels.
o In combination with a sonant in a stressed non-initial syllable.
o In combination with the preceding /s/ and subsequent sonant in the stressed initial
syllable.
o In the middle position after the sonants under stress.
o In the middle position after the sonants in the unstressed position [15].
The results of Kuryatnikova’s experiment were as follows. In the first position, the consonants
have a significant degree of aspiration. However, we assume that it may also depend on the
quality of the subsequent vowel: the strongest degree of aspiration is possible before low-rise
vowels, and the weakest before the high-rise vowels /i/ and /u/. From the position of acoustic
theory of speech production, this assumption has substantial grounds, since the turbulent noise
arising during aspiration is obtained with a wider articulatory passage than in the case of high- rise vowels.
Meanwhile, it is believed that the level of intensity of English (at least in British English)
voiceless noisy before stressed narrow vowels is higher than before stressed wide vowels, with
the exception of the consonant /p/ [9].This hypothesis requires, in our opinion, verification,
since a sufficient amount of experimental data is yet to be accumulated on the subject. In his
research on English phonotactics, G. P. Torsuev has pointed out the direct dependence of the
degree of aspiration on the vowel length [27]. The problem of the longitude status of English
vowels has not received an unambiguous solution. However, the division of vowels into
systemically long and systemically short is not absolute in either BE or AE [27].
Page 9 of 10
513
Poladova, S. E. (2021). The Consonant System of the English Language and its Modification in Colloquial Speech. Advances in Social Sciences
Research Journal, 8(6). 505-514.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.86.10431
In the second position, a strong degree of aspiration is noted in the pronunciation of the
consonants /p/ and /k/, and the quality of the /t/ phoneme changes significantly. Articulatory
change is expressed in the pronunciation of this phoneme with a light and quick blow of the tip
of the tongue against the alveoli in the complete absence of aspiration. Furthermore, in the third
and fourth positions, the quantitative indicator of aspiration depends on the fact that the
combination aspirated + [s] belongs to one or different syllables. In the first case, aspiration is
absent, while in the second it is quite significant.
Similar changes occur with any noisy fricative preceding the aspirated one, but these changes
are less pronounced. The reason is that this would require a narrower passage than is necessary
for the implementation of aspiration [4]. Therefore, it is weakly expressed or not expressed at
all in the correlates /p/, /t/ and/k/ before the fricatives.
In combination with sonants, strong aspiration is observed, and the sonant is also stunned. A
special case is the combination with nasal sonants, when the explosion of a consonant aspirated
acquires the character of a faucal one. We should also mention the lateral explosion that takes
place before the sonant /1/.
Quantitative changes at a certain stage can lead to qualitative ones. As you know, plosive
consonant phonemes are most susceptible to qualitative modifications in speech. Perhaps the
phoneme /t/ is one of the phonemes that undergoes modifications to the greatest extent
[29].One of its representatives is glottalized allophone.
CONCLUSION
In colloquial speech, the boundaries of variation are so wide that at the level of colloquial
speech, free variation and alternation of consonant phonemes are allowed. Implementation
options that were previously prohibited by the norm and belonged to common parlance take
the status of combinatorial-positional allophones. Alternations that were considered abnormal
are increasingly appearing in the coherent speech of educated Americans and are recorded in
modern pronunciation dictionaries as the only variants of pronunciation. After all, it is known
that the system of oppositions that has developed at a certain stage can be shaken.
Phoneme modifications in the stream of spontaneous literary speech in colloquial style are both
linguistic and extralinguistic grounds, the difference between which is quite difficult to draw in
a clear line. Phoneme modifications that may entail neutralization of phonemic oppositions are
embedded in the phonetic system of the language itself, since the very fact of the existence of
certain oppositions should presuppose the existence of positions for their neutralization.
References
Baudouin, de Courtenay., Selected Works on General Linguistics, 1963, Vol. 1-2, Moscow, Academic Press.
Bondarko, L.V., V.I. Kuznetsov, S.B. Stepanova, Theoretical and practical problems of text transcription: Problems
of phonetics, 1993. p. 8-20.
Chistovich, L. A.,et al., Speech. Articulation and perception, 1965, Moscow, Nauka.
Fant, G., Acoustic theory of speech formation, 1964, Moscow, Academic Press.
Page 10 of 10
514
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 8, Issue 6, June-2021
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Geilman, P.I., E.I. Steriopolo, The communicative situation and variability of phonetic characteristics.
Experimental-phonetic analysis of speech, 1989, Leningrad.
Gimson, A. C., An Introduction to Pronunciation of English, 1993, Bristol.
Gleason, G., Introduction to descriptive linguistics, 1999, Moscow.
Gordina, M.V., Phonetics of the French language. 2nd edition, corrected and supplemented, 1997. St. Petersburg:
Publishing house of St. Petersburg University.
Gurtaya, V., Acoustic analysis of voiceless noisy consonants modern Latvian language in comparison with English.
Phonetics and lexicology of the English language, 1997. p. 54-72.
Jacobson, R., C. M. Fant., and M.Halle., Preliminaries to Speech Analysis. The Distinctive Features and thier
Correlates, 1969. USA. Massachusetts.
Jones, D., The Phoneme: Its Nature and Use, 1967. Cambridge.
Kenyon, J. S., American Pronunciation, 1999. Ann Arbor, Michigan: G. Wahr Publish. Co.
Kodzasov, S.V., O.V. Krivnova., Modern American Phonology, 1981. Moscow, Academic Press.
Kurdyumov S.P., E. N. Knyazeva., At the origins of the synergetic vision of the world. Self-organization and science:
the experience of philosophical comprehension, 1994. p. 162-186.
Kuryatnikova, E.G., The normative nature of assimilation in Russian and English Standards for implementation.
Varying language means, 1983. p.26-35.
Ladefoged, P. A., Course of Phonetics, 1982. Second Edition. University of California, Los Angeles.
Makarova, G.N., Variability of the graphic structure of negation in the English language. Implementation norms.
Varying language means. 1984. p. 29-41.
Martine, A., The principle of economy in phonetic changes (Problems of diachronic phonology), 1990. Moscow,
Nauka.
Maslov, Yu.S., Introduction to linguistics, 1987. Moscow, Nauka.
Pickett J. M., The Acoustics of Speech Communication. Fundamentals, Speech Perception Theory, and Technology,
1999. Boston.
Sapir, E., Selected works on linguistics and cultural studies, 1993. Moscow, Nauka.
Saussure, de. Ferdinand., General linguistics course. Works on linguistics. 1977. p. 31-286.
Shakhbagova, D. A., Phonetic system of the English language in diachrony and synchrony (based on the British,
American, Australian, Canadian versions of the English language), 1993. Moscow, Nauka.
Sokolova, M.A., et al., Theoretical phonetics of the English language, 1996. Moscow, Academic Press.
Staburova, L.G., T.I. Maistrenko., L.V. Papanova., Course of phonetics in English, 1997. St. Petersburg.
Susov, I.P., Variations on a phonetic theme. Linguistic vestnik,1999. Issue 1. p.45-57.
Torsuev, G.P., Questions of the phonetic structure of the word, 1992. Moscow, Nauka.
Vasiliev, V.V., Orthoepic commonality of the British and American variants of modern English. Abstract of thesis.
Cand. diss., 1980. Moscow.
Veyselli, F., Fundamentals of structural linguistics, 2005. I Studia pilologia, Baku.
Veyselli, F., Language, 2007. Baku, Education, NPM.
Zinder, L.R., General phonetics, 1979. Leningrad.