kazm.cdr


English  Syllabics  as  Part  
of  the  British-AAmerican  Voiceworks

Since its emergence some 20 years ago syllabics, as abranch of philology which studies the functional-
communicative potential of English syllabification, has sought
at every level ways to optimize the process of language
acquisition. The idea behind is that the English language with
its outstanding syllabic capacities and readiness to lend itself to
syllabifying processes of different kind is certainly in a class of
its own. Practically every syllable, irrespective of its inherent
characteristics, can be brought out to the utmost or, on the
contrary, become phonetically degraded all at the speaker’s
own will. It is the syllable (not the sound or phoneme) that is
most naturally isolated in the flow of speech.1

These pronouncements, which are no longer new nowadays, seem to acquire
special significance in the so-called ‘Global English’ phonetic environment. The fact is
that the mutual interference of different ‘Englishes’, and especially British and American
diatopic variants, is becoming more and more interesting and involved at present.
Moreover, it can even be used as a deliberate ploy to give a more general meaning or
purport to the utterance. Suffice it to say that BBC newscasters, commentators and
announcers whose professional qualifications are practically beyond any doubt,
alongside standard pronunciation, have recently started to demonstrate a skilful
variability of their speaking stereotypes, adapting their speech to the demands of
effective communication on the new, ‘global English’ scale.2

This means that to get a deeper insight into the hidden mechanisms of modern
English phonation, comprehensive (cognitive) approach to the  dichotomy British
English /American English is required. It should be based on a thorough study of English
syllables as the basic units of articulation and perception of speech. It should be aimed
at the intricacies of the English voice and those aspects of the two variants of English
(British and American) which facilitate the process of communication at large. We
should learn to process English speech in terms of the speaking-hearing syllable
stereotypes of the two principal diatopic variants.

Very briefly and generally, what we are after in our British-American voiceworks
is to become well equipped with the background knowledge of all those phonetic and
(more specifically) syllabic particulars, which form the core of effective communication.
Our final goal is to learn to be more selective so that we could choose and arrange
different elements of British-American English consciously both with respect to the
situation and the participants of speech intercourse. This may pave the way  for the
solution of  the most intricate and so far unresolved problem of ‘code-switching’ both in

6

Armenian  Folia  Anglistika Linguistics

Svetlana Decheva



oral and  written forms of speech.
British-American voiceworks appear to be indispensable if what we are after is the

“cognitive processing” of imaginative writing. By “cognitive processing” we mean the
ability to understand, hear and voice a piece of verbal art, in strict accordance with the
author’s intention. This can by no means be achieved without special background
knowledge of all the cultural-historical particulars of the text in question. Moreover, the
goal can hardly be attainable unless we are keenly aware of British-American syllable
stereotypes and those ‘semiologically relevant’ characteristics of one’s speaking voice in
British and American English against which everything that goes over and above the
common run of things and makes for the expressive-emotional-evaluative overtones in
these two diatopic variants  is realized.  

It should be noted here that reading American fiction, we have so far totally
disregarded the most significant starting points of its adequate interpretation. We have
not taken into account the ‘semiologically relevant’ characteristics of American speaking
voice which, without exaggeration, underlie the prosodic polyphony of imaginative
writing at large. In this paper, however, while concentrating on the peculiarities of
American speaking voice, we do it against the background of the so-called Russian-
British-American trichotomy. In other words, we pay special attention to the principal
discrepancies between the basic articulatory units of speech (or syllable stereotypes) of
Russian (as our source language) and the two diatopic variants of English as our target
language. Our task is to demonstrate how to reorient our perception and production
habits with respect to the principal Russian-British-American trichotomy since being
Russian, we are initially British English-oriented and are accustomed to assess whatever
we come across in the English language solely with respect to British English phonetics,
which  we have studied so far.

Before we proceed with our discussion, a short metalinguistic digression
concerning the phenomenon of British-American ‘syllable stereotype’ is  necessary  so
that we could show  how it helps us to read and understand different texts of verbal art
reproducing them orally (or in our inner speech) and interpreting them adequately. We
proceed from the premise that the syllable  is a dynamic concept - it is the device for
‘encoding’ and ‘decoding’ linguistic messages.3 By dynamic word  and  syllable  stereotype
we mean the process of selection and combination of sounds typical of this or that
language and used to compose words and messages. 

Otherwise stated, verbal elements are formed in the shape of syllable and word
stereotypes in accordance  with which   the standards  of the language in question have
already  been established. This makes the process of human communication, i.e. the
process of ‘encoding’ and ‘decoding’ messages, possible and operational and presupposes
that there are certain tendencies of splitting the  words into either checked  (closed)  or
free  (open)  syllables. Hence we observe a completely different distribution of
articulatory force in syllables and words, which could be described as ‘intensity index’.4
It results in a peculiar kind of pronunciation,  energetic pronunciation being  typical of the
English syllable on the whole.  

Another point to be made clear here is that in British English the syllables are mostly

7

Linguistics Armenian  Folia  Anglistika



checked, i.e. the consonant clings to the preceding vowel and cuts it at the peak of its
formation. There are two crests of articulatory force in the British English syllable (at the
beginning and at the end), and the syllable appears to be clear-cut and abrupt; it is more
free and independent than its Russian counterpart. In American English, however, the
situation is completely different. There is a general tendency towards losing the second
peak, which makes for in an altogether different distribution of articulatory energy
between vowels and consonants. 

Otherwise stated, in British English, consonants are the ‘fulcra’ of pronunciation -
they are intensified and relied upon in the process of speech production, whereas in
American English it is the vowel component, that acquires additional weight and is more
important for syllable dynamics. The consonants, on the contrary, become weak and
vague and may even be swallowed or replaced by glottal stops in the flow of speech.5

There is hardly any need to mention here that the basic principles of the American
syllable stereotype have been formed under the influence of long-term muscular
adjustments of the speaker’s larynx and supra-laryngeal vocal tract. This is what accounts
for the dynamics of American speech as opposed to that of British English, and it is the
opposition of strong and weak off-glides and the general increase or decrease in the force
of articulatory energy towards the end  that really matters here.

Thus, two different modes of developing  articulatory tension within the syllable
underlie  British and American speech.  The whole effect of closed or checked syllables,
which is typical of British English is not at all relevant in American English. Here the
main tendency is to substitute laxity for tension and weakness for strength of articulation
insofar as vowels and consonants are concerned. As for the  borders of the syllables, they
are blurred and indistinct, the general impression being of specific economy of
articulatory effort.

We set so much store by this detailed analysis  because what we are interested in is
not ‘voice’ in its purely phonetic or terminological sense. Our task is to make clear that
the question of British and American speaking voice is inextricably connected with
syllables. In other words, what we are after is ‘voice’ in itsmore general sense, when it is
used with reference to natural human speech at large. To be more exact, the word ‘voice’,
as  we use it, covers  the most important aspects of speech production.6

The contrastive study of British and American speech proves to be rather
illuminating in this respect. Our study shows that the most salient features of American
English voice can be outlined only against the background of the American syllable
stereotype and the Russian-British-American trichotomy. Let us consider them in greater
detail.

There is every reason to believe that among all the basic parameters of voice,
loudness usually comes first - it has an immediate effect on the interlocutor in the
process of communication. At the same time loudness is not so easy to pinpoint  unless
it is measured in decibels and examined with the help of special machinery. Therefore,
what we are after is not loudness as such, but the general effect of audibility and all those
phonetic means  which make  speech intelligible, coherent and easy to follow.

The matter, however, is further complicated by the fact that Russian and English are

8

Armenian  Folia  Anglistika Linguistics



characterized by different degrees of average loudness. A special research in the field has
shown that the difference between Russian and British English in this respect is quite
considerable.7 When analyzed through the prism of the opposition of the Russian
language and British-American diatopic variants, American English seems to be in
between its Russian and British counterparts. Acoustically it appears to be more audible
than British English and less audible than Russian. This (purely impressionistic) view
can be accounted for by the general tendency to dwell on the vocal element of the
syllable, which provides the necessary conditions for ‘speaking up’ both in Russian and
American English.

It is obvious, therefore,  that for the British ear American English, let alone Russian,
may sound too loud and even piercing sometimes. This does not mean, of course, that the
British variant is less intelligible than the American one - all the syllables being more
clear-cut and the strong syllable in particular being in charge of the clarity and lucidity
of exposition, the general effect of audibility is created by completely different means,
which are by no means to the detriment of comprehension.

Next come tempo  and rhythm.  As has been shown above, the  American English
syllable, more often than not, is made prominent by means of the quantitative
component, which cannot but affect the tempo  of American  speech at large. Since all the
syllables are prolonged,  the tempo of American speech is slower than  that of British
English. According to the American school of elocution, the heart of American speech is
“syllable length”,  one of the basic characteristic features of   American  rhythm, which
deserves special attention.  

The fact is that when learning to produce American speech, it is the technique of
lengthening we should try and master. That is why rhythm in American English can
hardly be described as the classical stress-timing of British English; nor is it the classical
syllable-timed rhythm which is characteristic of French but it is somewhere in between.
It is the ‘borrowing  rule’ that  makes for the effect of regularity here and one is to make
sure that  “when a long syllable is followed by a short one, the short one borrows time
from it and makes it relatively short.”8

The next parameter is pitch-mmovement    - is one of the most striking peculiarities
of American English. It has been studied by very many linguists both in this country and
abroad.9 For this research, however, the most important thing about it is the fact that our
knowledge of the peculiarities of British English tones (the way they are realized within
the intonational contour of British English) is hardly applicable to American English,
where it is practically impossible for the voice  either to fall to the bottom  or to rise
accidentally. The change in pitch is realized in steps, not in glides, which results in the
typically ‘American  monotone’,  or the general ‘levelling out’ of all the syllables: both
stressed and unstressed. 

To be more exact, the stressed syllables are pronounced on one and the same level,
whereas unstressed syllables either fall to a lower pitch or are on the same pitch as the
preceding stressed syllables. There is very little pitch movement (if any at all): steady
pitches prevail against the background of the general evening of stressed and unstressed
syllables and a more or less equal distribution of energy throughout the utterance.

9

Linguistics Armenian  Folia  Anglistika



Otherwise stated, mid level tones are primarily used in the flow of speech. As for the other
two basic varieties of tones in the English language, i.e. the rising and the falling tones,
their configuration in General American also undergoes considerable changes. In contrast
with British English wide melodic curves, the tones of American English are narrowed
and truncated. No wonder, typically British English pitches sound explosive and
manneristic to Americans, who do not see the reason why abrupt changes in the melodic
curve in alternating directions should be used so excessively. Thus, the ‘serrated’ profile
of British English is generally opposed to the ‘levelled out’ pattern  of  American
English.10

Last but by no means least comes timbre. We usually concentrate on the basic
dichotomy of two timbres - Timbre I and Timbre II. Timbre I (or  ‘serious  timbre’)  is
practically devoid of any attitudinal evaluation on the part of the speaker. Loudness,
tempo, pitch-movement and rhythm are kept within the bounds of intellective
communication. There is nothing about them  which stands over and above the common
run of things or the semiologically relevant (unmarked) properties of the British and
American speaking voice. Timbre II (or  ‘paradoxical  timbre’)  is attitudinal throughout.
It is the ability to modulate one’s voice in terms of its basic parameters, which comes here
to the fore. The thing is that being more a continuum than a divide,  the established
dichotomy of two timbres must again be analysed with respect to the principles of English
syllabics, in which all the slightest prosodic modifications which take place in the flow of
speech become quite transparent in the special treatment of separate syllables. 

To put it in a nutshell, the task of our British-American voiceworks is twofold. On
the one hand, what we certainly strive for is optimization of intellective communication
in the new global English context. On the other hand, it is philological reading proper, that
we are always after. It consists in gaining a much deeper insight into the reading of
American fiction through the prism of English syllabics. This presupposes both -
background knowledge of ‘semiologically relevant’ British-American voice qualities
conditioned by the work of the resonators, and  ability to apprehend and make special
use of those metasemiotically relevant timbral modifications which serve to convey
different purports and can be perceived only against the more ‘neutral’ and stylistically
unmarked syllable background.

This, however, is far from  being sufficient, because the basic (or the semiologically
relevant) parameters of what is generally described as the “speaking voice” of English
acquire their functional value only when they are opposed to the meaningful absence of
voice (or cessation of phonation), and the ‘speechological’ category of ‘voice vs.
absence of voice’ is revealed fully.

It does not require a close examination to see that  the cessation of phonation is
ineluctably connected with the ‘arresting’ and ‘releasing’ phases of the neighbouring
syllable; it is produced and perceived in speech only against the syllabic background.11 As
the dynamics of British and American speech presupposes an altogether different mode
of developing the  articulatory tension within the syllable, the first thing is to concentrate
on the peculiar off-glides of separate syllables, which in American English are not so
clear-cut and self-contained as in British English. Everything depends on the way syllable

10

Armenian  Folia  Anglistika Linguistics



sequences are treated, whether the syllabifying processes are made particularly
pronounced or, on the contrary, they become blurred and indistinct  due to the speaker’s
ability to cease (or interrupt) the pulmonic air stream by the accessory articulatory
movements. In view of the habitual (typical of British and American speech communities)
syllable stereotypes, the transition between the syllables are fast and abrupt in British
English and rather slow and smooth in American English. In the former case the syllables
are mostly clipped; in the latter they are drawled and lengthened.

It follows from what has just been said that when reading a text of verbal art, we
can by no means confine ourselves to the semiologically relevant syllable stereotype of
British or American English. We have to concentrate on “affective syllables”, which
goes far beyond the common run of things.12 The material of affective syllabics,
therefore, appears to be extremely interesting and illustrative in this respect. It enables us
to acquire the necessary knowledge of how different parameters of voice (that is
loudness, tempo, pitch-movement, rhythm and timbre, as well as cessation of phonation
or absence of voice) are used by the author to depict his characters and communicate his
ideas and emotions more  clearly.

Of special interest in this connection is “syllable-by-syllable” pronunciation, or
“syllabic speech”, when syllabifying processes are deliberately played upon by the
author to convey his ideas to the readers in a peculiar and vivid way. Syllabification in
this case has nothing to do with the purely graphical division of English words but it
totally depends on the author’s intention to use the graphical substance of the
phenomenon in question. For this purpose spacing, italics, bold type, hyphenation, or
combinations  of some of these may be used.

Very often, however, syllabic speech is presented by means of
hyphenation, whose signifying functions can acquire special values. When applied to
syllabic speech, the hyphen can hardly be treated as a simple  punctuation mark but is
clearly in a class of its own. This is because the hyphen is not easily susceptible of
immediate and traightforward prosodic interpretation, the way colons and commas,
dashes and brackets are usually read. As Academician L. Scherba puts  it: “The hyphen is
hieroglyphic by nature”. It requires special knowledge and proficiency to understand and
interpret it adequately, let alone produce it by means of our speaking voice.13

It should be added here that since British-American syllable stereotypes are
different, it is only natural that the basic tunes used to describe British English should
also undergo considerable changes, when used with respect to American punctuation
marks. Special research in the field has shown that the prosodic interpretation of the
British system of stops against that of American English is far from being totally
examined and expounded. Very much remains to be done if what we are after is reading
them philologically, i.e. with all the phonetic-syllabic antecedents of the phenomenon in
question being taken into account.14 In other words, to reproduce the hyphen by means
of our speaking voice, we should  be aware of the ‘global vertical context’ of the text or
the speech event in question.

The concept of ‘global vertical context’ is indissolubly connected with linguistic
erudition, which is too broad a term to be confined to background knowledge of the

11

Linguistics Armenian  Folia  Anglistika



language in question. It also presupposes some special education of cultural-historical,
social and geographical type, as well as the reader’s philological intuition, which enables
him to render all the author’s emotions and ideas contained in this or that work of verbal
art.15 This means that understanding fiction and reading texts philologically is impossible
without the permanent and painstaking process of penetrating into the author’s intention,
gaining insight into the purport of the text and  reading “between the lines”, so to speak.

Our investigation shows that as distinct from British English, syllabic pronunciation
is very widely spread in American speech in general, and American fiction in particular.
In texts of verbal art it is not infrequently endowed with special semiotic value,
signalling the author’s hidden intention and serving as a sign of his “tongue-in-cheek”
attitude to what he is saying. It usually indicates a switch into a peculiar kind of timbre,
based on the incongruity of the  prosody with the  verbal context of the utterance.

O’Henry’s manner of writing appears to be a goldmine in this respect  as the study
of syllabic pronunciation provides a clue as to what the more general (‘paradoxical’)
timbre of his works is about. It usually presupposes a contradiction between the direct
meaning of a word and its prosody. In other words, it implies enantiosemy, or the
author’s ironical (mocking) attitude to the events and characters described in the text.

This is one of O’Henry’s favourite themes, which is based on contrasting
appearance with reality and can be traced to L. Carrol’s “through the looking glass” way
of presenting things. In other words, syllable by syllable pronunciation in O’Henry’s
texts is subservient to the author’s general artistic design. It would not be an
exaggeration to say that  it is as a powerful stylistic device, which helps the author to
realize his artistic intention to the full.

To illustrate the point, let us turn to the following passage from O’Henry’s story
“Hearts and Crosses”:

The horseman stumbled into the house. Two arms fell around his neck, and someone
cried out in the voice of woman and queen alike: ‘Webb-oh, Webb!’
‘I was a skunk,’ said Webb Yeager.
‘Hush,’ said Santa, ‘did you see it?’
‘I saw it,’ said Webb.
What they meant God knows; and you shall know, if you rightly read the primer of
events.
‘Be the cattle-queen,’ said Webb; ‘and overlook it if you can. I was a mangy, sheep-
stealing coyote.’
‘Hush!’ said Santa again, laying her fingers upon his mouth. ‘There’s no queen
here. Do you know who I am? I am Santa Yeager, First Lady of the Bedchamber.
Come here.’
She dragged him from the gallery into the room to the right. There stood a cradle
with an infant in it - a red, ribald, unintelligible, babbling, beautiful infant,
sputtering at life in an unseemly manner.
‘There’s no queen on this ranch,’ said Santa again. ‘Look at the king. He’s got your
eyes, Webb. Down on your knees and look at His Highness.’

12

Armenian  Folia  Anglistika Linguistics



But jingling rowels sounded on the gallery, and Bud Turner stumbled there again
with the same query that he had brought, lacking a few days, a year ago.
‘Morning. Them beeves is just turned out on the trail. Shall I drive ‘em to Barber’s,
or-
He saw Webb and stopped, open-mouthed.
‘Ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba!’- shrieked the king in his cradle, beating the air with his fists.
‘You hear your boss, Bud,’ said Webb Yeager, with a broad grin - just as he had said
a year ago.

The whole passage is characterized by a peculiar blend of at least four voices:
Mr.Yeager, his wife, their baby and the author. This means that the reading and
understanding of the piece in question presupposes our ability to feel and interpret its
peculiar prosodic polyphony. It totally depends on the interplay of both: the narrator’s
and his characters’ voice parameters on the one hand, and the conscious cessation of
phonation on the other, which  is achieved and made operational only against the
background of English syllabification.

Let us see how the author uses different syllables as the necessary background
against which all kind of phonetic-morphological repetitions are realized. This is how
Î’Henry describes the infant:

There stood a cradle with an infant in it - a red, ribald, unintelligible, babbling,
beautiful infant, sputtering at life in an unseemly manner.

This is a wonderful example of paronymic attraction, when the words with similar
phonetic structures are brought together and played upon in the text for some special
purposes, and thus become part of affective syllables. The whole effect is based on the
repetition of the strong resonant [r] in “red-ribald”, the weak plosive [b] and the
consonant cluster [bl] in “babbling-beautiful” and “ribald-unintelligible”, the strong
sibilant [s] in “stood-sputtering” and the fricative [f] in “infant”, “life” and “beautiful”.
In all these cases the syllables are characterized either by an abrupt change in the
melodic curve or by an increase in duration and intensity of pronunciation, so that they
become extra-strong and acquire additional weight. Interestingly enough, this
description of a baby is based on different phonestemes with certain ‘meaning’ of their
own if taken in isolation. In this text, however, they acquire special connotation against
the syllabic background. Thus, the consonant cluster [sp], if taken out of this context,
will usually be associated with something wet, smooth and soft; [b] - sounds like a
sudden and strong blow; [r] - is associated with the idea of constant movement or
instability.

Reading  more deeply into the words of the author,  however,  we  realize that what
Î’Henry is after is simply to show that it is the baby  who forms the essence of matrimonial
relations. It changes peoples’ former attitudes, habits and ways of life and endows them with
new significance, new rhythms and sounds typical of an adorable child.

13

Linguistics Armenian  Folia  Anglistika



‘Ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba!’ -shrieked the king in his cradle, beating the air with his fists.

Baby talk is presented in this extract by similar, seemingly insignificant syllables
coming one by one in a row and separated from each other by means of hyphens. There
is nothing special about the phonetic structure of syllabic speech of this kind - it is more
or less universal and consists of free (or ‘open’) syllables, with the plosive (or nasal) at
the beginning and the front central vowel following it. These first sound sequences,
which babies produce when they are learning to talk, are considered to be quite
meaningless and in this sense they are not infrequently compared to elementary
articulatory drills which people practise and repeat at their phonetic classes,  imitating
the correct pronunciation of the foreign language they are trying to master.

Baby talk, however, is very special  because being rather unclear in articulatory
terms, it usually reproduces the exact rhythmical pattern of ‘adult’ speech. In other
words, syllables and rhythm naturally come first in speech acquisition. This
psycholinguistic proposition proves very useful for our analysis. It forms part and parcel
of the background knowledge of things which cognitive syllabics is after. Without it to
process this text in syllabic terms would  hardly be possible.

Thus, if we are fully aware of the basic, semiologically relevant properties of
American speaking voice, we can easily surmise that the underlying rhythm of the
syllable sequence “ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba” must be totally conditioned by the general
principles of the “borrowing rule”, which is the groundwork of the way American
syllables function  in the flow of speech. According to this rule, all the syllables must be
extra strong, because each of them is followed by a pause indicated by means of
hyphens. Otherwise stated, all the syllables are equally prominent, with the vocal or
quantitative component being the key to the effect in question.

To this we have to add that whenever we use  such a sequence, the most important
thing is to understand what changes different syllables undergo (if any); what the result
of their mutual influence or interdependence is. Clearly, in this case we have concurrent
monobeats and mutual lengthening throughout. The general impression is that of the
syllable by syllable beat, which is very much in the nature of “syllable-timing” or the so-
called ‘machine-gun’ kind of rhythm, with all the syllables being evened out and spaced
regularly.

This rhythmical pattern is prompted both by the graphical substance and our
background knowledge of the basic peculiarities of American speaking voice with its
own ‘borderline’ kind of rhythm, in a middle position between the classical stress-timing
of British English and classical syllable-timing typical of the French language.

This, however, is only the first step in our analysis, which can by no means be
sufficient if we wish to see what is there behind the conventional graphical
representation and what  the author is trying to convey. We should always bear in mind
that it is the hieroglyphic nature of the hyphen that  requires special treatment and
consideration on our part. It indicates meaning rather than prosody and signals some
special purport that the author is trying to get across. Therefore, what we have to
concentrate on, first and foremost, is the metasemiotic character of English syllables:

14

Armenian  Folia  Anglistika Linguistics



whether the mood  which is created in our inner speech when we read the passage
corresponds to the mood (or intention) of O’Henry, who seems to make rather extensive
use of spacing and hyphenation, choosing the latter  rather than any other stylistic device
to convey his attitude and emotions. 

‘Syllabic speech’ in O’Henry’s  story comes at the very end  as if the author were
playing on the reader’s literary expectations, bringing us to a conclusion for which,
apparently, we are totally unprepared. He makes special creative use of the disyllabic
word “Barber”, which is the name of the main character’s business partner, by
completely restructuring it and bringing it together with the seemingly insignificant
syllables of the baby talk “ba-ba-ba”. As a result, the latter acquires new significance
encoded in the syllables arranged  in an onomatopoeic sequence; this is no longer a
babble of an innocent child, but the final word in the family quarrel, which almost ends
in the main characters’ separation. The author’s instructive and slightly ironical voice is
superimposed on the infant’s shriek forming a kind of a new, ‘paradoxical’ timbre for the
reader to hear and reproduce adequately.16

Taking into account the peculiarities of British and American English syllable
stereotypes, rhythm and prosody,  the hyphenated syllable sequence should be read in the
following way: the overall loudness should be slightly diminished and the tempo slightly
decreased so that the duration of all the syllables (or the time-span) should approximate
the accentual pattern of the word ‘Barber’, with every second syllable in a disyllabic
sequence being pronounced a little shorter than the previous syllable. The rhythm should
be somewhere in a middle position between the monobeatic, syllable-timed
pronunciation and the trochaic (or even dactylic) kind of enunciation, which is more
typical of stress-timing. The pauses between the syllables (if at all) are obviously the
shortest among all the meaningful manifestations of “cessation of phonation” which can
take place in the flow of speech. They totally depend on the peculiar treatment of the
releasing and the arresting phases of the hyphenated syllable sequence. Thus, the
difference between the first and the second interstress intervals will be totally
conditioned by the smooth transition in the former and the internal open juncture in the
latter, where the vowel at the end of the syllable “ber” and the consonant [b] at the
beginning of “ba” appear as the arrest (or coda) of the preceding and the release (or
onset) of  the following syllable respectively.

It follows that it is impossible to read the passage philologically without the “global
vertical context” of O’Henry’s literary output at large. Our task is to learn to read
between the lines, so to speak, and decipher the author’s signs  incorporated into the text
for the careful reader to recognize and interpret appropriately. 

To conclude: British - American voiceworks seem to be crucial for foreign
philologists because they considerably broaden and deepen our understanding of the
inner mechanisms of English phonation, paving the way to the most intricate problems
of human communication both in oral and  written forms of speech.

15

Linguistics Armenian  Folia  Anglistika



Notes  and  References:

1. Here we see eye-to-eye with those scholars who consider syllables to be “the real
units of speech” and insist on their ‘Janus-faced’ nature and their special place in
linguistic hierarchy. See about it in greater detail in: Bolinger D. Aspects of
Language. New York, 1975, p.58; Lass R. An Introduction to Basic Concepts.
Cambridge, 1991, p.237; Decheva Svetlana. Cognitive Syllabics. // Folia
Anglistica. Language Structure and Variation. Moscow, 1997, N 2, p.89-107.

2. See about it, for example, Decheva S.V., Anikhovskaya T.V. BBC English as Part
of the Target-Oriented English Language Teaching. // Language Learning. Moscow,
2003, N 4, p.4 -22.

3. See about it, for example, Akhmanova O.S. Phonology, Morphonology,
Morphology. Paris, 1971, p.135.

4. See Decheva S.V. Cognitive Syllabics. // Folia Anglistica. Moscow, 1997, N 2.
5. See about it, for example, Shakhbagova D.A.. Varieties of English Pronunciation,

Moscow, 1982.
6. See Decheva S.V. The Bases of English Philology. Moscow, 2000.
7. See, for example, Davydov M.V., Yakovleva Y.V. Prosodic Images in English

Speech. Moscow, 1999. 
8. The rule in question is described in detail in Bolinger D. Two Kinds of  Vowels.

Two Kinds of Rhythm. Bloomington. Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club,
1981, p.17.  

9. See, for example,  Bolinger D. Intonation and Its Parts. California, 1986.
10. Hall R.S. Jr. Elgar and the Intonation of British English. // Intonation. 1972, p.282-285.
11. See Abercrombie D. Studies in Phonetics and Linguistics. London, 1965.
12. The  term “affective syllabics” (àôôåêòèâíàÿ ñèëëàáèêà) can be traced back to the

concept of “affective phonetics” - the third of the three phonetics academician
L. Scherba clearly distinguished. See Ùåðáà Ë.Â. Ôîíåòèêà ôðàíöóçñêîãî ÿçûêà.
Ìîñêâà, 1957.

13. See Ùåðáà Ë.Â. ßçûêîâàÿ ñèñòåìà è ðå÷åâàÿ äåÿòåëüíîñòü. Ë., 1974, ñ. 193-194.
14. See Äå÷åâà Í.Ã. Àêòóàëüíûå âîïðîñû ôèëîëîãè÷åñêîãî ÷òåíèÿ àìåðèêàíñêîé

ïðîçû. ÌÃÓ èì. Ì.Â. Ëîìîíîñîâà. Ì., 2005, 26ñ. // ÈÍÈÎÍ ÐÀÍ N 59351.
15. See Akhmanova O.S., Zadornova V.Y. The Present State of Shakespeare Translation

in the USSR. // Shakespeare Translation. Tokyo, 1975. Vol. 2, p. 150-160.
16. See Äàâûäîâ Ì.Â. Çâóêîâûå ïàðàäîêñû àíãëèéñêîãî ÿçûêà è èõ

ôóíêöèîíàëüíàÿ ñïåöèôèêà. Ìîñêâà, 1984.

16

Armenian  Folia  Anglistika Linguistics



²Ü¶ÈºðºÜÆ ì²Üβð²ð ØÆæàòܺðÀ 
´ðÆî²Ü²Î²Ü ºì ²ØºðÆÎÚ²Ü ²ðî²ê²Ü²Î²Ü 

î²ð´ºð²ÎܺðàôØ

Ðá¹í³ÍáõÙ ùÝÝíáõÙ »Ý ³Ý·É»ñ»ÝÇ í³Ýϳñ³ñ ÙÇçáóÝ»ñÁ ¨ í³Ýϳϳ-

å³ÏóáõÃÛ³Ý Ñݳñ³íáñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ ·áñͳé³Ï³Ý ¨ ѳÕáñ¹³Ïó³Ï³Ý ï»-

ë³ÝÏÛáõÝÇó, Áݹ áñáõÙ ËáëùÇ Ñáëùáõ٠ϳñ¨áñíáõÙ ¿ í³ÝÏÇ ¹»ñÁ ³ë»ÉÇùÇ

Ïá¹³íáñÙ³Ý ¨ í»ñͳÝÙ³Ý ·áñÍáõÙ:

Ðá¹í³ÍÇ Ñ³ñó³¹ñáõÙÝ»ñÁ ³é³í»É ³ñ¹Ç³Ï³Ý ÑÝã»ÕáõÃÛáõÝ »Ý ëï³-

ÝáõÙ §·Éáμ³É ³Ý·É»ñ»ÝǦ  ï³ñ³ÍÙ³Ý å³ÛÙ³ÝÝ»ñáõÙ, »ñμ ³éϳ »Ý ³Ý·É»-

ñ»ÝÇ μñÇï³Ý³Ï³Ý ¨ ³Ù»ñÇÏÛ³Ý ³ñï³ë³Ý³Ï³Ý ï³ñμ»ñ³ÏÝ»ñÇ ÷áËÝ»ñ-

ó÷³ÝóÙ³Ý ÙÇïáõÙÝ»ñ:

ö³ëï³Ï³Ý ÝÛáõÃÇ í»ñÉáõÍáõÃÛ³Ý ÑÇÙ³Ý íñ³ í»ñ ¿ ѳÝíáõÙ μñÇï³Ý³-

³Ù»ñÇÏÛ³Ý í³Ýϳñ³ñ ϳñÍñ³ïÇå»ñÇ ¹»ñÁ ·»Õ³ñí»ëï³Ï³Ý ѳÕáñ¹Ù³Ý

Ù»Ïݳμ³ÝáõÃÛ³Ý Ù»ç:

17

Linguistics Armenian  Folia  Anglistika