English

Approaches to Fast Speech Rules
Wolfgang U. Dressler, University of Vienna
From Phonologica 1972, ed. Dressler and Mares
Wilhelm Fink, 1975, pp. 219 - 234

1.1 Fast speech rules (allegro rules) are one of the most important domains of phonology for applied linguistics: apart from their significance in socio- and psycholinguistics, I am thinking especially of the teaching of foreignlanguages, where fast-speech phonology has previously been neglected to such an extent that serious communication problems arise as a consequence. This is because the allegro forms of the foreign language are not properly learned or applied or because the speaker erroneously applies allegro rules of the native language to foreign languages (cf. Dressler, 1971).

1.2 Fast speech forms are no lessimportant for the theory of phonology because they are only describable through dynamic processes and are therefore the strongest argument for the importance of process-governed phonology. In the framework of generative phonology one can clearly demonstrate which variant of the theory is to be preferred because fast speech processes are very concrete phenomena; moreover, they give information aboutwhich degree of abstraction is minimally necessary for phonological input.

Even given this importance, many questions of theory and method have barely been touched on up to now.

2.1 How many styles are there in the scale from the slowest and most careful to the fastest and most careless? In the 19th century, slow (or lento) and fast (or allegro) were distinguished, and in this articlemore careful and less careful styles are contrasted under these labels. The first generative phonologist who concerned himself with allegro style (Harris, 1969) distinguished among largo, andante, allegretto, and presto etc. (cf. Zwicky 1972:607). In a team effort on the German spoken in Vienna, we have distinguished at least ten styles (Dressler et al, 1972).

But in the end, are these discrete,sharply-defined styles, or is it simply a continuum? One could, for example, maintain that in the scale of styles from ['ange:bǝn] (/an+ge:b+en/ "to indicate") to ['aŋge(b)m̝], more and more bits of the 'n' of the prefix are steadily assimilated to the following velar. But 1) this is not the case with regard to the labial assimilation of 'n' of the infinitive ending, and 2) there is obviously adiscrete scale in communicative competence: certain phonetic allegro-outputs are too lax for formal speech situations, some lento-outputs are too stiff for informal speech situations. This competence appears to be most transparent with the beginning and end point of allegro processes ... for example, in the case of assimilations, monophthongisations, and vowel insertions, where the processeither does not apply or applies completely. Therefore, a possible phonetic continuity might be matched by phonological descreteness.



2.2 How are the different styles delimited?

2.2.1 Usually, one finds vague characterisations of speech situations, like "dictation style," "recitation style," clearly, naturally, quickly, fluently, familiarly, etc.: labels which are not intersubjectivelydefinable (e.g. Harris 1969, Zwicky, 1970; Zwicky, to appear; Hall 1946:70; Westcott, 1965:183; Dressler 1972:15; Dressler et al 1972:3ff).

2.2.2 Seemingly more exact, but instead generally all the more meaningless, are descriptions from experimental phonetics, as, for example, the direct reference to absolute speech tempo. Stetson, for example, referred to the number of syllables per second,Lindblom (1965) and Gay (1968) used a more general measure. But the absolute tempo of speech, which varies from person to person, is much less important than the degree of carefulness. Even relative deviations in tempo for a single speaker do not correlate perfectly with carefulness. For this reason, even Zwicky (1972) prefers the term 'casual speech' for the older term 'fast speech.' But of...