The Language in Bridget Jones Diary - Thesis Example

?Language analysis In order to analyze the language in the movie ‘Bridget Jones’ Diary’ in terms of connected speech, three different extracted dialogues are transcribed and presented for discussion. The first involves three characters from the movie – Bridget Jones, Mark Darcy and Daniel Cleaver – the second is a conversation between Bridget and Mark, while the final extract is between Bridget and Daniel. This particular selection has been made in anticipation of determining the phonological characteristics of connected speech for each individual character. Dialogue 1: Bridget: [ma? ste? w?l ju] (i) ‘Mark stay will you?’ Mark: [n??? w? a? d??nt ???k a? w?l] (ii) ‘No. I don’t think I will.’ Daniel: [w?l l?? l?s?n d??n liv ?m ma? b?laf] (iii) ‘Well! Listen. Don’t leave on my behalf.’ [a? ???k? ?tz? ?ba?t? a?m ju? ?n? a? p?? ??s pas b?ha?nd ?s d??n? ju das] (iv) ‘I think its about time you and I put this past behind us - don’t you Darc?’ [?? lis? ste? f?? r? ?b??de? dr??k w?? mi? j? ?m br?? h?] (v) ‘At least stay for a birthday drink with me and Bridg huh.’ Mark: [ba? br???t] (vi) ‘Bye bridget’ Bridget: [mak] (vii) ‘Mark’ [wa? ?? r ? ju h??] (viii) ‘Why are you here?’ Daniel: [br?? a? ??s t?l? u wa?? j? a?m h??] (ix) ‘Bridg I just told you why I’m here.’ [wa? w?z ma? w??k? dasi h??] (x) ‘Why was Mark wanker Darcy here?’ [?? bl?di h?l we?? ? m?n?t hiz b?k] (xi) ‘Oh! Bloody hell! Wait a minute. He’s back.’ Mark: [?lra?? kliv??? r ? a?tsa?d] (xii) ‘Alright Cleaver, outside.’ Daniel: [a?m s?ri] (xiii) ‘I’m sorry?’ Mark: [a?tsa?d] (xiv) ‘Outside!’ Daniel: [??d a? br?? ma? ?jul?m p?st?lz ? ma? s?d] (xv) ‘Should I bring my dualing pistols or my sword?’ [?lra?? h?l] (xvi) ‘Alright. Hell” Mark: [a? ??d? ?v d?n ??s j??z? ?g??] (xvii) ‘I should have done this years ago.’ Daniel: [d?n w??] (xviii) ‘Done what?’ Assimilation Analysis for this dialogue will begin by considering the various simplification processes in play; wherein words are modified in accordance with their immediate environment in different ways. When modification is made in accordance with the phonetic feature or features of the immediate environment the process of simplification is considered assimilation – the alteration renders the phoneme more analogous to its surroundings. The adjustment of the final nasal /n/ in ‘on’ to the bilabial articulation of /m/ in ‘my’ [?m ma?] in line (iii) is an instance of phonemic assimilation; the phoneme /n/ becomes the phoneme /m/ and thus shares the same attributes or features as the bilabial articulation of /m/. In this case, there is a single articulation of /m/ but it is lengthened in accordance with the final /m/ of the modified ‘on’ and the following initial /m/ of ‘my’. If the sound was not lengthened it would be heard as [?m a?], which is not considered natural to a native speaker of English. In line (v) we find another such assimilation with the words ‘and Bridg’, in which case the /d/ of ‘and’ is first dropped and the alveolar nasal /n/ assimilates with the following bilabial stop /b/; thus we find [?m br??] instead of [?n br??]. Similarly, phonemic assimilation is apparent in line (xv), which shows the final phoneme velar nasal /?/ in ‘dueling’ changing to the bilabial articulation of the initial bilabial /p/ in ‘pistols’ [?jul?m p?st?lz]; the nasal /?/ therefore shares the same attributes as the bilabial articulation of /p/. In line (ix) [t?l? u] we find further evidence of assimilation; this time however, it is likely the final alveolar /d/ of ‘told’ has assimilated in anticipation of the word initial palatal approximant /j/ of ‘you’ but because ‘you’ is unstressed the phonemes /d/ and /j/ have combined (coalesced) to arrive at [t?l? u]. This would be unlikely to happen if the word ‘you’ was stressed, wherein we would probably hear [t?l? ju]. In line (xv) we find further evidence of coalescent assimilation but this time within a word rather than across boundaries. The adjective ‘dualing’ could be pronounced as [djul??] but in this instance, apart from the final velar nasal /?/ assimilating to the following bilabial /p/, the initial alveolar stop /d/ assimilates to the following palatal approximant /j/ and coalesces to arrive at /?/, as in [?jul?m]. Glottal stop Before leaving discussion on assimilation focus should move to evidence of where assimilation is prevented. In line (i) for example we find a final velar /k/ changed to a glottal stop /?/ preceding a voiceless fricative /s/ [ma? ste?] ‘Mark stay’, and again in line (x) [ma? w??k?] ‘Mark wanker’ ; this time however, the following sound is a labial-velar approximant /w/. Also evident, is the prevention of the voiceless stop /t/ assimilating with a following sound, as in line (iv) [p?? ??s] ‘put this’, line (v) [?? lis? ste?] ‘at least stay’, line (xi) [we?? ? m?n?t] ‘wait a minute’, line (xvi) [?lra?? h?l] ‘alright hell’, and line (xviii) [d?n w??] ‘done what’. Elision As native speakers of English and for ease and efficiency of tongue movement, another kind of simplification evident in the dialogue extraction is elision; wherein the change is more than modification or adjustment but is complete loss or removal of a sound or sounds. Evidence of single sound loss can be seen in line (iv) [a? ???k? ?tz? ?ba?t? a?m ju? ?n? a? p?? ??s pas b?ha?nd ?s d??n? ju das] ‘I think its about time you and I put this past behind us - don’t you Darc?’ At the boundary between the morphemes ‘about’ and ‘time’ the final voiceless alveolar /t/ of ‘about’ has elided with the initial voiceless alveolar /t/ of ‘time’ [?ba?t? a?m]. In the same example we find further elision between ‘don’t’ and ‘you’, wherein final /t/ of ‘don’t’ elides with the following /j/ of ‘you’ to become [d??n? ju]. Another example of elision can be heard in line (iii) [d??n liv] where the final alveolar /t/ of ‘don’t’ has elided with the following alveolar lateral approximant /l/ of ‘leave’. Although not part of this analysis it should be noted that the speaker of line (iii) made a slip-up when pronouncing the word ‘behalf’[b?haf] and said [b?laf]; this was probably due to the use of /l/ in ‘listen’ and ‘leave’ prior to its articulation. Still further evidence of elision within this same example to be discussed here is between the words ‘past’ and ‘behind’; in this instance the final voiceless alveolar /t/ of ‘past’ has elided with the initial voiced bilabial /b/ of ‘behind’ [pas b?ha?nd]. Usually an alveolar /t/ will elide with another voiceless phoneme, while an alveolar /d/ will elide with another voiced phoneme, so in line (iv) elision has probably occurred for ease of articulation in terms of the consonant cluster; in other words the consonant cluster has been simplified. Further evidence of single sound loss can be found in line (ix) at word boundary between ‘just’ and ‘told’ [??s t?l? u]. The final alveolar stop /t/ of the word ‘just’ and the initial alveolar stop /t/ of the word ‘told’ have elided. Evidence of elision also occurs in line (v) at word boundary between ‘least’ and ‘stay’. In this instance however, we find the final alveolar /t/ of ‘least’ eliding with the initial alveolar fricative /s/ of ‘stay’. The then final /s/ of ‘least’ remains and we hear a double /s/ as in [lis ste?]. Liaison The third kind of simplification to be discussed in relation to this dialogue is liaison, or linking, which entails the insertion of a sound for ease of pronunciation. Consider line (ii) for instance; here we find a labial-velar approximant /w/ inserted between ‘no’ and ‘I’ as in [no?? w? a?] and in line (ix) we find a palatal approximant /j/ inserted between ‘why’ and ‘I’m’ as in [wa?? j? a?m], and again in line (v) in [mi? j? ?m] ‘me and’. This occurs in connected speech to make articulation between vowels at word boundaries easier. An approximant /r/ is inserted between the words ‘are’ and ‘you’ [wa? ?? r ? ju h??] in line (viii). British speakers do not usually pronounce /r/ at the end of words, as can be seen in the same example, wherein we find ‘here’ pronounced without an /r/ because it is sentence final. The /r/ is also not pronounced when the initial sound of the following word is a consonant, as in line (xv) [p?st?lz ? ma? s?d]. When the following word starts with a vowel however, the /r/ is pronounced for ease of articulation and to link the end of one word with the start of another. Line (v) indicates further use of this linking /r/ as in [ste? f?? r? ?b??de? dr?nk] and again in line (xii) [kliv?? r ? a?tsa?d]. Weak versus strong forms On close analysis it can be determined that prepositions used within this dialogue were used in their weak and strong forms. In line (iii) for example, the preposition ‘on’ was unstressed and assimilated to the following word ‘my’ and thus weak; in line (v) the prepositions ‘for’ and ‘with’ were also used in their weak form. In line (iv) however, the preposition ‘behind’ was articulated in its strong form and was stressed for emphasis. In terms of conjunctions no strong forms were evident; in lines (iv) and (v) ‘and’ is unstressed, and in line (v) in its weak form [?n] the /n/ has even assimilated to the following bilabial /b/ in ‘Bridg’. In line (xv) the preposition ‘or’ was used in its strong form because it was used in terms of a choice being offered. The demonstrative adjective ‘this’ is evident in line (iv) and although used in its weak form is unchanged. The possessive adjective ‘my’ can be found in line (iii) which is used in its strong form for emphasis but in line (xv) it is used in its weak form on two occasions. Pronouns are mostly apparent in their weak forms but in line (viii) ‘you’ is used in its strong form for emphasis. Auxiliary verbs and modal verbs within the dialogue are all used in their weak forms. Dialogue 2 Bridget: [‘w?t ? ju ‘du? w? ?? h??] (i) ‘What are you doing here?’ Mark: [w?l a? rila?zd a?d f?g?tn s?m??m b?k h??m] (ii) ‘Well, I realised I’d forgotten something back home.’ Briget: [w? w?t? w?:z] (iii) ‘Which was?’ Mark: [w?l a? ri?la?zd z a? f?g?tn tu? w? ?m k??u g?dba?] (iv) ‘Well, I realised … I … forgotten to um .. kiss you goodbye. [dju ma?n?] (v) ‘D’you mind?’ Bridget: [h? n?? ri:li n??] (vi) ‘Er. Not really. No.’ [? s?? j?: n?? g???n tu? w? ?m?rik? ??n] (vii) ‘Uh. So you’re not going to America then?’ Mark: [n?? n?t] (viii) ‘No. Not.’ Bridget: [j? ste?? h??] (ix) ‘You’re staying here?” Mark: [s??? w? ?t w?? sim] (x) ‘So it would seem’ [fr?nz ?v j?z] (xi) ‘Friends of yours?’ Bridget: [n??? w? a?v n?v? sin ??m b?f?? r? ?n ma? la?f] (xii) ‘No. I’ve never seen them before in my life.’ Mark: [me?bi wi ??d ??s g?? w ?p ste?z f?? r ? ? m?n?t] (xiii) ‘Maybe we should just go upstairs for a minute.’ Assimilation Analysis for dialogue 2 will again begin with discussion on the simplification processes evidenced. Working logically through the dialogue the first example is found in line (ii) at word boundary between ‘something’ and ‘back’, wherein the final velar nasal /?/ of [s?m???] has assimilated in anticipation of the following bilabial stop /b/ in [b?k] and has hence been articulated as a bilabial nasal /m/, as in [s?m??m b?k]. In line (iv) the word final alveolar fricative /s/ in ‘kiss’ [k?s] has succumbed to the post-alveolar process of assimilation before the palatal approximant /j/ in [ju] to become [k?? ju] but the two sounds have further coalesced and the /j/ has been dropped. The final articulation is [k??u]. In line (viii) assimilation is evident at word boundary between ‘going’ [g????] and ‘ to’ [tu] where we find the word final velar nasal /?/ has assimilated in anticipation of the following alveolar stop /t/ to become an alveolar nasal /n/, as in [g???n tu]. It is worth noting that no assimilation of any consonants are evident at word boundary preceding a glottal fricative /h/ as in line (ii) [b?k h??m] ‘back home’ and line (ix) [ste?? h??] ‘staying here’ . Glottal stop As in dialogue 1 there are a number of glottal stops in play within dialogue 2. The first can be found in line (v) in word final and sentence final position as in [dju ma?n?] ‘do you mind’ and again at word boundary between ‘not’ [n?t] and ‘really’ [ri:li] in line (vi) wherein the word final alveolar stop /t/ has changed to a glottal stop preceding an alveolar trill /r/ to become [n?? ri:li]. In line (vii) at word boundary between ‘not’ [n?t] and ‘going’ [g???n] again the word final alveolar stop /t/ as been articulated as a glottal stop but this time preceding a velar voiced stop /g/ and is articulated as [n?? g???n]. Further use of a glottal stop can be found in line (x) at word boundary between ‘would’ [w?d] and ‘seem’ [sim]where the word final alveolar /d/ has changed to a glottal stop before the following alveolar fricative /s/ to become [w?? sim]. Elision The first evidence of elision within dialogue 2 can be found in line (ii) wherein the word ‘realized’ [ri?la?zd] has been articulated as [rila?zd]. The schwa /?/ has elided thereby deleting the second syllable and changing the usually pronounced three syllable word to two syllables. The second example of elision is also in line (ii) in the word ‘forgotten’ which is articulated as [f?g?tn] rather than [f?g?t?n]; the schwa as elided between /t/ and /n/; the same occurs in line (iv) with the word ‘forgotten’. In line (vi) we find elision with the deletion of the vowel in ‘do’ [du]; when connected with the following word ‘you’ [ju] the vowel /u/ is dropped and is articulated as [dju] ‘d’you’. In line (xiii) the final /t/ of ‘just’ [??st] has elided because of the following consonant /g/ of ‘go’ [g??]; thus weakening the consonant cluster for ease of articulation. Liaison In order to ease the link between ‘do + ing’[du ??] the speaker has inserted a voiced labial-velar approximant /w/ as in [du? w? ??]; the same sound insertion is evident in line (iv) at word boundary between ‘to’ [tu] and ‘um’ [?m] to become [tu? w? ?m], and again in line (vii) between the words ‘to’ [tu] and ‘America’ [?m?rik?] to become [tu? w? ?m?rik?]. In line (x) at word boundary between ‘so’ [s??] and ‘it’ [?t ] we see evidence again of liaison with the insertion of a voiced labial-velar approximant /w/ to arrive at [s??? w? ?t], and again in line (xii) at word boundary between ‘no’ [n??] and ‘I’ve’ [a?v] so articulation becomes [n??? w? a?v] and line (xiii) between ‘go’ [g??] and ‘up’ [?p] to become [g??? w? ?p]. Evidence of liaison with the insertion of a lingking –r can be found in line (xii) at word boundary between ‘before’ [b?f?] and ‘in’ [?n]. Although the spelling of ‘before’ involves an ‘r’ it is not usually pronounced at word final position but because the following word begins with a vowel the word final vowel /?/ of ‘before’ [b?f?] liaises with the following vowel to become [b?f?? r? ?n]. Linking –r is also evident in line (xiii) between the words ‘for’ [f?] and ‘a’ [?]; for ease of articulation between these two words an intrusive /r/ is inserted to become [f?? r ? ?]. Weak versus strong forms Dialogue 2 provides evidence of both weak forms of auxiliary verbs; in line (i) for example we find the verb ‘are’ [a] in its weak form and pronounced as a schwa [?], and in lines (vii)and (ix) it is weakened and articulated as [j?] ‘you’re’ rather than ‘you are’. In line (iv) the auxiliary verb ‘had’ [h?d] is weakened to become [a?d] ‘I’d’, and in line (xii) ‘have’ [h?v] has elided and therefore weakened to [a?v] ‘I’ve’. In line (v) the auxiliary verb ‘do’ [du] is weakened and elided with ‘you’ [ju] and articulated as ‘d’you’ [dju]. Prepositions are evident in their strong and weak forms. In lines (iv) and (vii) for example we find evidence of ‘to’ [tu] in its strong form; in line (xii) the preposition ‘before’ is articulated in its strong form, but in line (xi) the preposition ‘of’ is found in its weak form [?v], and in line (xiii) the preposition ‘for’ is also evident in its weakened form [f?]. The conjunction ‘then’ [??n], which is often pronounced in its weak form but in this dialogue it is found in its strong form at sentence final position in line (vii). Dialogue 3 Bridget: [?tz ? l?vli s?ni de? ?n w?? st?k ?n w?t??n t?li] (i) It’s a lovely sunny day and we’re stuck in watching tele. [t?? t? mi] (ii) (ii) Talk to me. Daniel: [?m ?m w?? k?n a? se?? j? a? a?m ? p?s?n ?v wa?d ?ntr?st] (iii) Um .. um… What can I say. I … I’m a person of wide interest [w?t? ??klud ?m?? ??? ???z ? n?mb?? r? ?v k?mp?t?t?f sp?tz] (iv) which include among other things a number of competitive sports. [a?m w?n?? ju br?? d??n? k?m b?twim:i? j? ?m:a? r?gbi] (v) I’m warning you Bridge. Don’t come between me and my rugby. [a?l h?v ??? b?k na? ???ks] (vi) I’ll have that back now thanks. Bridget: [? dats ? kr?k?t ? d?t? s?k?n d?v???n fime?l bask?tb?l] (vii) Or darts or cricket or Dutch second division female basketball. Daniel: [v?ti v?n ha?t] (viii) Vettie Van Height. Bridget: [a? ??s ??? f?? r? w?ns ??? wi k?d g??? w? ?we?? j? ? s?m???] (ix) I just thought for once that we could go away or something. [?n ? m?ni bre?k ? s?m???] (x) On a mini break or something. Daniel: [?lra?t ?lra?? ?? m?ni bre?k ???] (xi) Alright. Alright the mini break thing. [j? n?? br?? ju w?nt?d ? rile???n??p] (xii) You know Bridge. You wanted a relationship [wi h?v ? rile???n??p] (xiii) We have a relationship. [ju w?nt?d tu sp?n s?nde?z tug???] (xiv) You wanted to spend Sundays together. [wi sp?n s?nde?z tug???] (xv) We spend Sundays together. [na?? w? ?t ?p??z wi h?f tu g?? f:r?l?k?? ??v? h?lt?ps] (xvi) Now it appears we have to go frolicking over hilltops [?n ?:?g?n ?? kriki f? p??st? b?dz] (xvii) And shagging in creaky four poster beds. [a? kan? w?n k?n a? ha?? w? ?v? had a? tra?? j? a? d??n ???k] (xviii) I can’t win can I. How ever hard I try I don’t think [a?l ?v? bi? j? e?b?l tu kip ?p w??:?s d?spr?? r??m?nt?k ???nd?? r? ?v j?z] (xix) I’ll ever be able to keep up with this desperate romantic agenda of yours. [a?m s?ri? j? a? a? ???k ?ts ta?m f? ??s ?e?] (xx) I’m sorry. I … I think it’s time for this. There Bridget: [w?ts ??t] (xxi) What’s that? Daniel: [??p?n ?t ?n juwl fa?nd a?t] (xxii) Open it and you’ll find out. Assimilation The third and last dialogue to be analyzed involves Bridget and Daniel in a deleted scene from the movie but available on Youtube.com. Discussion will be begin with the assimilation of the alveolar nasal /n/ which in word final position often changes to the anticipated point of articulation of the following initial consonant as in line (v) at word boundary between ‘between’ [b?twin] and ‘me’ [mi], wherein /n/ assimilates to the bilabial /m/ and is articulated as [b?twim:i] and the bilabial nasal /m/ is lengthened to account for the double /m/. The same then occurs between the following two words ‘and’ [?nd] and ‘my’ [ma?] where the final velar nasal /n/ of ‘and’ (the alveolar stop /d/ has elided to leave the alveolar nasal /n/ at word boundary) assimilates to the point of articulation of the bilabial nasal /m/ in ‘my’ and is articulated as [im:a?]. Word final velar nasal /?/ is also found to assimilate to the following point of articulation in line (i); the final /?/ in ‘watching’ [w?t???] assimilates to the following alveolar stop consonant /t/ of ‘tele’ [t?li ] to become [w?t??n t?li]. In line (xvii) we also find a velar nasal /?/ assimilating to the point of articulation of the following consonant but this time the anticipated sound is preceded by a vowel; at word boundary between ‘ shagging’ [??g??] and ‘in’ [?n] to become [??g?n ?n]. In this instance however, the alveolar nasal /n/ of ‘in’ [?n] itself changes in anticipation of the following word initial velar stop /k/ of ‘creaky’ [kriki] and is articulated as [[??]. The three words spoken in isolation would therefore be [??g?? ?n kriki] but in connected speech are articulated as [??g?n ?? kriki]. Assimilation of the final alveolar nasal /n/ of ‘win’ [w?n] and the following velar stop /k/ of ‘can’ [k?n] could be expected in line (xvii) but is not evident because of a pause after win and preceding the question ‘can I’. An example of assimilation involving voicing is apparent in line (iv) at word boundary between ‘competitive’ [k?mp?t?t?v] and ‘sports’ [sp?tz]; wherein the word final voiced labio-dental fricative /v/ becomes devoiced in anticipation of the voiceless alveolar fricative /s/ to become [k?mp?t?t?f sp?tz]. Another is evident in line (xvi) between ‘have’ [h?v] and ‘to’ [tu], wherein the voiced labio-dental fricative /v/ loses voice preceding the following voiceless alveolar stop /t/ and is articulated as [h?f tu]. Glottal stop A number of instances of a word final voiceless alveolar stop /t/ becoming a glottal stop at word boundaries are evident in this dialogue. In line (ii) for instance [t?k tu] ‘talk to’ becomes [t?? tu], in line (iii) [w?t k?n] ‘what can’ becomes [w?? k?n], and in line (v) [d??nt k?m] ‘don’t come’ becomes [d??n? k?m]. Other evidence of /t/ changing to a glottal stop can be seen in lines (vi) [??? b?k] ‘that back’, (ix) [??? f?] ‘thought for’ and [??? wi] ‘that we’, (xi) [?lra?? ??] ‘alright the’, (xviii) [kan? w?n] ‘can’t win’ and (xix) [d?spr?? r??m?nt?k] ‘desperate romantic’. Elision Discussion on elision found within dialogue 3 will begin with the deletion of word final voiced and voiceless alveolar stops /d/ and /t/. In line (v) the final /d/ of ‘and’ [?nd] has elided with the following /m/ of ‘my’ [ma?], in line (vii) the final /d/ of ‘second’ [s?k?nd] has elided with the word initial /d/ of ‘division’ [d?v???n] to become [s?k?n d?v???n]. In lines (xiv) and (xv) the final /d/ of ‘spend’ [sp?nd] elides with the following /s/ of ‘Sundays’ [s?nde?z] to become [sp?n s?nde?z]. The final example of word final /d/ elision is evident in line (xxii) wherein the /d/ in ‘and ’ [?nd] has elided with the following /j/ of [juwl] ‘you’ll’ to become [?n juwl]. In line (ix) the final voiceless stop /t/ of ‘just’ [??st] has elided with the following /?/ of ‘thought’ [???] to become [??s ??t]. In line (xviii) the /t/ of ‘don t’ [d??nt] has elided with the initial /?/ of ‘think’ [???k] to become [d??n ???k]. Other evidence of elision within this dialogue can be found in line (xix) where the final voiced dental fricative /?/ of ‘with’ [w??] has elided with the word initial /?/ of ‘this’ [??s] to become [w??:?s]. Liaison In terms of liaison or insertion of a palatal approximant /j/ evidence can first be found in line (iii) between ‘say’ [se?] and ‘I’ [a?] as in [se?? j? a?]. In line (v) it is inserted for ease of articulation between ‘me’ [ mi] and ‘and’ [?n] to become [mi? j? ?m], in line (xviii) between ‘try’ [tra?] and ‘I’ [a?] to become [tra?? j? a?], in line (ix) between ‘be’ [bi] and ‘able’ [e?bl] to become [bi? j? e?bl], and between ‘away’ [?we?] and ‘or’ [?] to become [?we?? j? ?], and in line (xx) between ‘sorry’ [s?ri] and ‘I’ [a?] to render [s?ri? j? a?]. A linking voiced labial-velar approximant /w/ is evident in line (ix) between ‘go’ [g??] and ‘away’ [?we?] to become [g??? w? ?we?], in line (xvi) between ‘now’ [na?] and ‘it’ [?t] to become [na?? w? ?t], and in line (xviii) between ‘how’ [ha?] and ‘ever’ [?v?] to become [ha?? w? ?v?]. An intrusive /r/ is evident in line (iv) between ‘number’ [n?mb?] and ‘of’ [?v] to become [n?mb?? r? ?v], in line (ix) between ‘for’ [f?] and ‘once’ [w?ns], and in line (xix) between ‘agenda’ [???nd?] and ‘of’ [?v] to become [???nd?? r? ?v]. Weak versus strong forms Dialogue 3 presents examples of both weak and strong forms of pronouns. In line (xii) for example we find evidence of the pronoun ‘you’ [ju] in both its strong and weak form: [j? n?? br?? ju] ‘you know Bridge you’. The preposition ‘to’[tu] is also evident in both its strong and weak forms; in line (ii) for example it is in its weak form [[t?? t? mi] ‘talk to me’ but in line (xvi) it is found in its strong form for emphasis [h?f tu g??] ‘have to go’. The preposition ‘of’ [?v] is evident in its weak form [?v] in lines (iii), (iv) but is also found in its strong form in line (xix) because the speech is slowed down and slightly exaggerated. Conjunctions are evident in their weak and strong form; for instance in lines (i), (v), (xxii) the conjunction ‘and’ is found in its weak form and there is only one occurrence of its strong form, which is evident in line (xvii). Read More