Composante langue orale, phonétique et phonologie
Le document sur lequel portent les questions est à la fin du document.
issue (l. 7), social (l. 33) et motion (l. 10)?
sj
soit 
j) et obligatoire dans les deux autres cas.
| mot | graphie | phonie | |
|---|---|---|---|
| issue | s+i | s+j+u | |
| social | c+i | s+j+ | |
| motion | t+i | s+j+ |
En dépit des graphies différentes la prononciation d'origine est la même, et le phénomène phonétique est le même. La palatalisation est de règle à l'inaccentuée. En revanche sous l'accent elle ne se produit pas (tune, tube, etc. avec l'exception de sure et sugar).
] / #(C)[w] — [-velar].
].
de uproar, le [i] final de angry, s'y lie par un [j] furtif.
ludicrous, exaggeration (l. 66), children (l. 47), undermining (l. 10), proposals (l. 14), surveyor (l. 25), attainable (l. 28), increased (l. 23), pharmaceutical (l. 49), affluence (l. 51).
| mot | règle accentuelle | valeur de la voyelle |
|---|---|---|
| ludicrous | règle d'accentuation des adjectifs dérivés, à accent antépénultième lorsqu'il n'y a pas d'agrégat consonantique préfinal. Le r ne compte pas comme consonne formant agrégat lorsqu'il est après une bruyante. | la voyelle écrite <u> est toujours de valeur libre sous l'accent, donc tendue [u:]. |
| exaggeration | accentuation sur -at- du fait du jeu de la terminaison contraignante i+V: -ion. Du fait qu'il y a trois syllabes avant l'accent principal, l'accent secondaire est placé, par le jeu de la règle dérivationnelle, sur -xag-, qui a l'accent principal dans le dérivant exaggerate. | avec la terminaison -ion, le i placé sous l'accent est relâché mais les autres voyelles sont tendues: <a> = [ ]. |
| children | accent sur la base; la marque du pluriel est, comme toutes les marques de flexion, accentuellement neutre: 'child -> 'children. | valeur relâchée de i alors que le singulier a la prononciation tendue devant ld, qui vaut exception à la valeur brève devant agrégat de deux consonnes. |
| undermining | accent principal sur -min-, première syllabe de la base (pseudo-lexème) et accent secondaire sur un-, première syllabe, par le jeu de la contrainte rythmique /201-/ | mining est une forme fléchie (d'où isomorphisme, neutralité accentuelle) de mine, qui suit la règle habituelle des schémas 'CVCe#. |
| proposals | pluriel du nom d'action dérivé isomorphe (accentuellement neutre) du verbe dissyllabique pseudo-préfixé propose, accentué /01/ | règle habituelle des schémas 'CVCe#. |
| surveyor | dérivé agentif isomorphe (accentuellement neutre) du verbe survey, paire alternante N/V, dont le nom est accentué en /10/ et le verbe en /01/. | digraphe ey sous l'accent |
| attainable | adjectif dérivé isomorphe (accentuellement neutre) du verbe dissyllabique pseudo-préfixé attain, accentué /01/ | Le digraphe ai sous l'accent est toujours prononcé [] |
| increased | forme fléchie de prétérite et de participe, isomorphe (accentuellement neutre) du verbe dissyllabique pseudo-préfixé increase, régulièrement accentué /01/ | Le digraphe <ea> se prononce régulièrement [ ]. |
| pharmaceutical | adjectif en -ical, terminaison contraignante exigeant l'accent sur la syllabe précédant la finale; accent secondaire sur l'initiale phar-, en vertu de la contrainte rythmique /#201-/ | Le digraphe <eu> se prononce [j]. |
| affluence | La terminaison <u> + voyelle contraint l'accent sur la syllabe qui précède | La voyelle <a> suivi de <ff>, graphie redoublée, est entravée, et a donc une prononciation relâchée. |
| transcription | explication | |
|---|---|---|
| After a lifetime |  | La finale en [] de la préposition after se lie au [] de l'article par un r de liaison. |
| for all |  | Même exigence de liaison devant le [] de all. La préposition est réduite. |
| for it |  | Même exigence de liaison devant le [] de it. La préposition n'est pas réduite, parce qu'elle régit un pronom lui-même réduit et parce qu'en outre elle a ici son sens lexical plein (for = "in favour of"). |
'PROBE THE DRUG PROFITS AND DON'T TAKE IT OUT OF MOTHERS AND CHILDREN'.
By Hugh Pilcher
TWO men who are poles apart in personality last night dominated Parliament's fiercest battle since the 1959 election: Mr. George Brown and Mr. Enoch Powell, the Health Minister.
Mr. Brown, passionate and warm-hearted, led Labour's attack on the higher health charges. Mr. Powell, white-faced and outwardly unemotional, replied with a statistical statement and ended by inciting Labour MPs to angry uproar.
One dealt with the human issue behind the Health Service; the other tried to show that the balance-sheet must always come first.
The result of the vote was not in doubt. For the Tories were massed in answer to their whips to defeat a censure motion on the Government for "undermining the Health Service" and placing heavy burdens on those least able to bear them.
Mr. Brown declared that the policy under censure was monstrous. It had offended many people far beyond the ranks of Labour supporters. The Press, many doctors and public were denouncing the proposals.
THE LETTER.
He quoted from this letter which Mr. Gaitskell had received:
"My background is a doctor of 68, who has practised medicine for 43 years, chiefly as a panel doctor.
"I am a lifelong Conservative. I am horrified and amazed by my party's proposal to prostitute the whole principle of the State service and to render that service a hardship to poor people.
"After a lifetime of helping others and healing the sick, my considered opinion is that anybody supporting the increased charges is a wicked, old fool."
Mr. Brown went on: "We are dealing with a noble edifice which needs an imaginative architect to improve it, but it has got a quantity surveyor. We have descended from the real problems to fiddling about with bills of cost.
"We believe that a comprehensive medical service, free to the patient at the point of need and with one standard for all sick people, is good and attainable. [END QUOTE]
DIFFERENT
"We remain for it. But the Tories never were."
Interrupted by angry Tories, Mr. Brown retorted: "The jackals bay when there is nothing better they can do."
He told them that their conception of social services was wholly different, fundamentally different, from that of Labour.
They would provide an ambulance service for the absolutely wretched but it would not be too comfortable nor too easy to get.
Answering jeers that it was Labour which first put a ceiling on health spending and started charges, Mr. Brown reminded the hostile Government benches that was done in 1950 because of the financial strain of the Korean war.
In fact, the Tories made it worse now for the sick and needy than Labour had to make it in 1950. And as a percentage of social service expenditure, health had fallen from 28.5 to 23.1 per cent.
Then Mr. Brown swung his attack directly to the unsmiling Mr. Powell.
He demanded that instead of taking it out of the patients Mr. Powell should take ruthless action against the drug making industry, whose profits had risen by up to 400 per cent. in the last eight years.
"Mr. Powell finds it easier to take it out of mothers, children and sick people than to take on this vast industry," Mr. Brown commented icily.
"Let us have a full inquiry into the cost of drugs and the pharmaceutical industry."
The health of children today owed much to the welfare food scheme. It was maintained during the war. Now in conditions of Tory affluence it seemed it could not be carried on.
When Mr. Brown sat down Labour M Ps cheered for a full minute and even his bitterest opponents on defence joined in.
THE CHOICE
Mr. Powell devoted half his speech to giving details of plans for improving the hospital service, on which indeed the Government is making progress.
His basic defence of the Health Service cuts was that "even after the proposed changes the net cost of the service to the Exchequer will have increased over three years by 20 per cent.
"That cannot continue without either development being limited or an adjustment being made in financing."
The Government decided to adjust the financing which Mr. Powell claimed was underpinning not undermining the service.
Answering the attack on "economic charges" for welfare foods, Mr. Powell said that all these foods would still be free in families receiving regular National Assistance grants.
Of the doubled prescription charge his argument was: "It is ludicrous exaggeration to say that by and large a 2s. charge is any more of a burden than a 1s. charge was in 1949."
'RESIGN'.
Uproar from the Labour side grew as Mr. Powell made more and more claims with which MPs disagreed.