SWEET HENRY

(Sweet) Henry (15.9.1845, London - 30.4.1912, Oxford), English linguist. He studied at Heidelberg (1864) and Oxford (since 1869) universities, and taught phonetics at Oxford University (since 1901). Member of the Philological Society (1869-85). The founder of the English school of phoneticians. Main works in the field of phonetics, English and Germanic philology, Old English dialectology. S. made a major contribution to the development of the theory of phonology; He also worked on the typology of phonological systems of the world's languages.

Works: A history of English sounds from the earliest period, 2 ed., Oxf., 1888; A handbook of phonetics, Oxf., 1877; A short historical English grammar, Oxf., 1892; Collected papers, Oxf., 1913.

Lit.: Wrenn S. L., Henry Sweet, in the book: Portraits of linguists, v. I, Bloomington - L., is the pseudonym of the American writer W. S. Porter (William Sidney Porter). His first story, “Whistling Dick’s Christmas Gift,” was published...

Sweet(Sweet) Henry (15.9.1845, London - 30.4.1912, Oxford), English linguist. He studied at Heidelberg (1864) and Oxford (since 1869) universities, and taught phonetics at Oxford University (since 1901). Member of the Philological Society (1869-85). The founder of the English school of phoneticians. Main works in the field of phonetics, English and Germanic philology, Old English dialectology. S. made a major contribution to the development of the theory of phonology; He also worked on the typology of phonological systems of the world's languages.

Works: A history of English sounds from the earliest period, 2 ed., Oxf., 1888; A handbook of phonetics, Oxf., 1877; A short historical English grammar, Oxf., 1892; Collected papers, Oxf., 1913.

Lit.: Wrenn S. L., Henry Sweet, in the book: Portraits of linguists, v. I, Bloomington - L., Estonian poet and literary critic. He graduated from the University of Helsinki in 1910. In 1917-19 active...

Suk Vyacheslav Ivanovich
Suk Vyacheslav Ivanovich, Soviet conductor, People's Artist of the Republic (1925). In 1879 he graduated from the Prague Conservatory (class...

"In this issue (AIF) we will talk about the “direct” method, which arose on the basis of the natural method. Its difference from the latter was that its principles were justified by the then data of linguistics and psychology. It is not for nothing that among its creators were such major linguistic scientists such as V. Fiester, P. Passy, ​​G. Sweet, O. Espersen and others. The influence of these sciences, in particular psychology, is evidenced by the work of B. Eggert (1). “that its supporters demanded to directly and directly connect a word of a foreign language with a concept, bypassing the word of the native language.”

Representatives of this direction considered the main goal of teaching foreign languages ​​to be teaching practical proficiency in the target language. Initially, such “practical” mastery was identified with mastery of oral speech, which is often found today. However, representatives of the direct method also understood learning to read by it (for example, G. Sweet).

The methodological principles of teaching using the direct method were as follows.

1. The basis of learning is oral speech, since any language is by its nature sound and the leading place is occupied by sound and kinesthetic sensations (sensations of the speech apparatus), which has been proven by psychology.

2. Exclusion of the native language and translation. This position was based on the research of neogrammarians that the words of the native language do not coincide with the words of the meaning being studied, they express different concepts, etc., since each people has its own worldview, a system of concepts reflected in the language.

3. Particular importance was attached to phonetics and pronunciation, since mastering the sound side of speech is an indispensable condition for oral communication. This conclusion was made on the basis of research into the sound side of language, begun by neogrammarians. As a result, methods for staging pronunciation were developed.

4. Based on the position of Gestalt psychology that the whole is not the sum of its components, and the linguistic position on the polysemy of words, representatives of the direct method recommended studying words only in context, that is, as part of sentences.

5. This method proposed to learn grammar through induction. Based on a well-studied text, students made observations of the text and extracted rules. O. Jespersen called this “observational grammar” (2). Subsequently, these rules were brought into the system.

A somewhat different position was taken by the prominent linguist G. Sweet (3). Sharing the view of other representatives of the direct method about the practical purpose of teaching, he believed that the path to this in a school setting lies through the study of texts that reflect living spoken language - the basis for teaching oral speech.

1) texts must be varied and contain significant repetition of linguistic material, which promotes memorization;

2) G. Sweet refuses the “tourist theme” characteristic of the direct method and offers texts on a wide variety of topics;

3) at the beginning, descriptive texts are recommended - easier from the grammatical point of view, and then students should be given stories interspersed with dialogues;

4) finally, texts should be selected taking into account the gradual complication of difficulties.

The lesson using the direct method was structured as follows: the teacher named the objects in the picture and repeated them by the students, then questions and answers, descriptions of the pictures and lexical exercises. Everything ends with a retelling, a dialogue based on the material studied. If a text was used as the basis, then first the text was read three times by the teacher and the words were explained, then exercises were done, and only after that the text was read in transcription and traditional writing.

Analysis of the materials indicates that the direct method was not a homogeneous methodological direction in the West. In different authors we find techniques that differ from each other. At the same time, there are common features: rejection of the native language, attention to the sound image, inductive study of grammar, study of vocabulary in a sentence, and finally, ignoring the thinking of students during learning and relying exclusively on memory and sensory perception.

It is impossible not to mention the meritsrepresentatives of the direct method who contributed significant contribution to the methodology of teaching foreign languages.

First of all, it should be noted the attention to the sound side of the language and the development of methods for teaching pronunciation, since this was done for the first time.

The absolute merit of the representatives of the directmethod was the development of an inductive approach to teaching grammar.

First it was shown that words of different languages ​​reflect different worldviews of peoples, although the not entirely correct conclusion was made about the use of only untranslatable means of semantization.

The requirements for texts developed by G. Sweet also deserve attention. Finally, the means of semantizing vocabulary were systematized

In contrast to the direct orthodox method, widespread in the West, in our country it has acquired a slightly different form. To consider this issue we are moving on.

The direct method began more widelyspread in Russia in the early 90s XIX century. However And before I there was a lot of predicament during the world warsubmitters who recognize the old textual-translation method.

The spread of the direct method in Russia collided with the tradition of considering the positive impact of learning a foreign language on proficiency in one’s native language. Thus, K. D. Ushinsky wrote: “Here (when translating from a foreign language - A. M.) it is not only necessary to fully and deeply understand the thought being translated, not only to grasp all its shades, but also to find it in the corresponding expression in your native language. The mind, reason, imagination, memory, the gift of speech must be exercised at the same time” (4; p. 302).

F.N. Buslaev testified to the same influence: “But in order to improve their Russian syllable, students practice written translations from a foreign language” (5; p. 468).

In this regard, even among ardent supporters of the direct method we find the assumption of the native language, which is absolutely excluded in the Western version of the direct method. Thus, I. Sig, in his guide to teaching using the natural method, emphasizes the need to avoid the native language and immediately admits: “However, for educational institutions, especially crowded ones, it is necessary to write down words with Russian meaning and repeat them” ( 6; p. V).

A number of methodologists criticized the direct method for eliminating the native language at the initial stage of training. Thus, E. Bik asserted, criticizing the direct method: “I am far from rejecting the benefits of introducing students to live speech, but I cannot, however, agree with the elimination of the native language for Russians at the beginning of foreign classes language already because by conveying the meaning of a given phrase of the language being studied in our native language, we thereby develop the ability to spontaneously assimilate and thus contribute to understanding the spirit of the language, and especially turns of speech, which becomes noticeable only with the assistance of the native language" (7; p. 95).

We find similar thoughts in R. Orbinsky, A. Thomson and others. Finally, I. Baudouin-de-Courtenay advocated comparison of native and foreign languages: “Comparison of languages ​​seems to be a very beneficial means for developing students’ observation and scientific thinking by their structure" (8; p. 75).

If in pre-revolutionary Russia there were still adherents of the direct orthodox method, then in the 20s XX century, all methodists professing the direct method, and it was then dominant, finally determined the features of the use of the direct method in Russia.

Firstly, methodologists of this period are characterized by a significantly greater use of the native language as a means of semantization and control of understanding. Regarding the latter, K. A. Ganshina wrote: “Meanwhile, the benefits of translation, carried out thoughtfully, with care, after using and elaborating the text, can be very great” (9: p. 41). And such an ardent supporter of the natural method as E.I. Spendiarov recognized translations from the native language, although to a limited extent, as important for mastering grammatical structures.

Secondly, in Russian conditions comparisons with the native language were allowed. D. Shestakov, who also adhered to the direct method, insisted on this.

B Thirdly, methodologists noted that the use of the native language when studying a foreign language is used more at the initial stage, and then it is increasingly reduced.

Thus, E. A. Fechner wrote: “It is clear that the possibly limited use of the native language required by the direct method cannot begin directly with its absolute expulsion, but it must be approached gradually” (10; p. 48). Let us note that the exact opposite opinion prevailed among Western Methodists.

All the above considerations prompted the author of the article to consider this method used in Russia to be a “Russian version” of the direct method. How can we explain the appearance of such an option in our country? In our opinion, there were two reasons.

Firstly, differences in the native (Russian) and Western European languages ​​played a serious and, perhaps, the main role. The proximity of the latter to each other made it possible to build students' education without resorting to their native language. Let's compare: This is a book (a hand) and Das ist ein Buch (eine Hand ). This is impossible in a Russian audience.

Secondly, pedagogical traditions, starting with K. D. Ushinsky, also had a special influence. These features in the tradition of teaching foreign languages ​​also affected the further development of the methodology.

LITERATURE

1. Eggert V. Der psychologische Zusammenhang in der Didaktik des neusprachlichen Reformun-terricht. - Berlin, 1904.

2. Jespersen 0. How to Teach a Foreign Language. - London, 1904.

3.Sweet H. The Practical Study of Langua-ges. - Oxford, 1894.

4. Ushinsky K. D. Explanatory note to the draft training course programs in the educational society of noble maidens

and St. Petersburg Alexander School // Collection. Op. - T. 6. - M.-L., 1948.

5. Buslaev F. I. General plan and programs for teaching languages ​​and literature in women's secondary educational institutions. Teaching the native language. - M.: Education, 1992.

6.Sig I. A guide to initial teaching of the German language in secondary schools using the natural method. - M., 1893.

7. Bak E. Analytical-synthetic method of teaching foreign languages ​​// Russian School. - 1890. - No. 5.

8. Baudouin-de-Courtenay I.The importance of language as a subject of study // Russian School. - 1906. - No. 7-9.

9. Ganshina K. A. Sat. materials on methods of teaching foreign languages. - M., 1924.

10. Fechner E. A. Methods of teaching German in Russian schools. - L., 1924.

A.A. MIROLYUBOV.Moscow

Let's have fun

Assimilation

Depending on their position in a word, some sounds noticeably change their pronunciation.

Assimilation is called the qualitative assimilation of one sound to another. Assimilation exists to make it more convenient to pronounce sounds at the junction of words and in the middle of a word. In the Russian language, assimilation is mainly manifested by the loss of sounds, for example, in the words “hello” and “ladder” the highlighted sounds are not pronounced.

In English, assimilation is manifested by moving the place of formation of the barrier, i.e. consonants that are pronounced on the alveoli [s, z, n, t] before the sounds [i, p] are moved to the gap between the teeth to make it more convenient to pronounce the interdental interdental [i, p] following the alveolar ones.

For example:

If we take the so-called unit of comparison. standard pronunciation A. Language. in England, the colonies and the USA, without taking into account the peculiarities of modern dialects and adverbs of the USA, we can note: 1. the almost complete absence of “soft”, i.e. palatalized consonants, 2. the absence of muting, with rare exceptions, of final consonants; so eg head is pronounced with a final d, not t, as this combination of sounds would sound in Russian, 3. assimilation and dissimilation in A. Language. much less often than in Russian, 4. the stress in a word, just like in the Russian language, is expiratory, but unlike Russian it does not move from one syllable to another, but is attached to a specific syllable. The difference in the articulatory base and a number of phonetic skills makes it difficult to master the sound form of the English language.

English Sound Chart II

Henry Sweet

G. Sweet (Henry Sweet, 1845-1912) began to be interested in Germanic philology in his youth, and then became acquainted with Bell's Visible Speech, which aroused his interest in phonetics. He studied at Oxford and, even before completing the course, began to study the historical phonetics of the English language, then studied English dialects and the pronunciation of living European languages. He owns a number of articles on the phonetics of Danish, Russian, Portuguese, Swedish and some other languages. Later, Sweet wrote several works on the historical phonetics of the English language, at the same time he did a lot of teaching and published a number of manuals for learning English, in which his pedagogical gift was revealed. However, Sweet had a difficult character (he served as the prototype for Professor Higgins from B. Shaw's Pygmalion); he was sincere and openly expressed his opinions, often negative, without caring about the impression his statements made. Sweet's character traits prevented him from making friends and did not allow him to take a position in the academic hierarchy that was appropriate to his knowledge: he did not consider it necessary to seek patronage from the right people, which is why his two attempts to obtain a chair at Oxford failed. At the same time, Sweet's scientific achievements were highly valued in England. He was the president of the English Philological Society, he is considered the founder of the English phonetic school, the founder of English dialectology and the creator of the best (at that time) description of English pronunciation.

Sweet's main phonetic work, in which he clearly outlined his views and developed Bell's ideas regarding the classification of vowels, was published in 1877. This is a “Textbook of Phonetics” (its full title is Handbook of phonetics, including a popular exposition of spelling reform. 1877). The book, in a revised form, entitled “A Primer of Phonetics,” was published three more times, the last time in 1906, and in 1908 a description of English phonetics was published, containing a lot of information of a general phonetic nature - “Sounds of English language" (The sounds of English. An introduction to phonetics). Sweet is also the author of the entry "Phonetics" in the 1911 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica. Sweet's general approach to the basic problems of phonetics and his adherence to Bell's views on the articulatory classification of speech sounds remained constant; the changes concerned only some particulars, in connection with new information in the phonetic literature. Thus, in the latest edition of “Fundamentals of Phonetics” he took into account the data of Fietor, Sievers and Jespersen.

Sweet develops the theory of glides as transitional sounds in combinations vowel + consonant, consonant + vowel, rightly emphasizing (in the Fundamentals) that voiceless stops are acoustically pure glides, because they are heard only at the moment of transition to the vowel. According to Sweet, most consonants are essentially glides to one degree or another, and acoustically consonants are only modifiers of vowels - a thought that brings to mind the views of French authors of the 18th century.

Consonants, defined as friction sounds or a break in exhalation, are divided, as in Ellis and Bell, into voiceless and voiced, and the question of division according to strength - weakness (“hardness - softness”), discussed in the works of mainly German authors, is not even mentioned. Separate categories of consonants are defined, in the author's terms, by form (which corresponds to the method of formation) and by place (in fact, by the operating organ, see table 65); in “Fundamentals of Phonetics” the same table is presented with Bell’s transcription signs (see. table 66). Sweet has five forms of consonants: open, in which there is a passage of air (i.e. fricative), but fricative laterals constitute a special type of divided (since the air stream is divided into two parts), closed (stop non-nasal), nasal and trembling; the latter were not included in the table, perhaps because Sweet considered them intermediate between fricative and stop. Sweet's classification is generally similar to the modern one (except for the absence of tremors). The division by place (acting body) is more different from the currently accepted one and from those previously proposed by Lepsius, Brücke, and Merkel. Sweet had an inaccurate understanding of many frontal articulations and did not understand (like others) the formation of Arabic emphatic (velarized) consonants. But he correctly described the laryngeal occlusions, however, referring to Merkel and Sievers.

Following Bell, Sweet identifies mixed consonants modified by changes in the position of the tongue or lips; in essence, we are talking about consonants with additional articulations of palatalization - etc. or rounding - etc.; in “Fundamentals” such sounds are called complex. Sweet considers the concept of a syllable in connection with the division of the flow of speech, which, in his opinion, is naturally divided only into respiratory groups; syllable boundaries are less defined and can be drawn differently in different languages. The beginning of a syllable, according to Sweet, is marked by a force-impulse and is partially indicated by division into words, for example, in a name - an aim, a tall (man) - at all (times) `at all (times)". In connection with syllable division, doubled consonants are also described, during the articulation of which there is a weakening in the middle and a new dynamic impulse, while in simply long consonants the sound strength changes gradually; The author sees the same difference between the combination of a stop with a fricative and an affricate: cut short - achieve 'to achieve'.

The classical scientific grammar of G. Sweet became a unique generalization of scientific ideas about the English article characteristic of that period, and at the same time a huge step forward. As the title of the work suggests, it is an attempt to combine two approaches to the grammatical description of natural human language - logical and historical.

Sweet believes that the task of scientific grammar is to explain any linguistic phenomenon, regardless of whether it is considered correct or not. He considers the article as a kind of pronominal adjective, and the function of the definite article is opposed to the function of the indefinite article, since the latter highlights the noun in a special way, without identifying or defining it. Old English interests Sweet insofar as it provides the key to understanding the essence of articles in modern English. Sweet draws attention to the differences in the use of the Old English pronouns se, seo, pcet and the numeral an, since their meanings are partially correlated with the functions of articles in modern English.

Analyzing the article, Sweet proceeds from its grammatical functions as a noun determiner as a part of speech. Hence the primary attention to the classification of nouns, based on dividing them into proper, objective, material, abstract, collective, unique. However, this does not mean that Sweet did not study the actual functions of articles. Thus, he identifies a purely grammatical function of correlation - “reference function” - for the definite article, when a noun denotes an object or concept already mentioned earlier, and an identification function - “identifying function”, when a noun with a definite article is so easily identified by both the speaker and listener, which in its meaning is equal to a proper name.

The following are considered separately: 1) the use of the definite article to denote a whole class of objects: he looks quite the gentleman; the lion is the king of beasts; and 2) the so-called unique article. In the first case, as Sweet notes, the meaning of the is not much different from the meaning of the indefinite article.

As for the use of the definite article with some geographical names, Sweet for the first time identifies this phenomenon as a separate subject, showing that in this case the definite article is not a determiner of the noun, since it performs neither the function of correlation nor the function of identification. In this, Sweet's grammar compares favorably with other grammars, which did not single out such use of the definite article separately, but tried to consider it only as a special case of the more general use of articles.

Sweet separately considers articles that are part of related phrases such as: on land, in town, out of doors, in the country, to leave school, by taxi. He also notes constructions that allow variable use of articles: to catch cold, a state of vapor.