Ania,
to czy /i/ jest na początku, końcu czy w środku slowa niczego nie zmienia.
Zawsze jest to ten sam dzwięk.
Niekoniecznie. Koncowe [i] w slowach takich jak happy, Disney obecnie wymawia sie raczej jak dlugie i:
The phonetic changes in this paper are concerned with the apparent tensing in RP in recent years of the final
vowel in words like ‘happy’ (which will be transcribed henceforth with [
I
7]). In the 1950s, [
I
7] was more open,
possibly shorter, and in general phonetically closer to [
I
] in KIT than to [i7] in FLEECE. (As in Wells, 1982,
KIT and FLEECE are used to exemplify lexical sets in /
I
/ (e.g., ‘kit’, ‘hid’, ‘rid’) and in /i7/ (e.g., ‘fleece’, ‘heed’,
‘reed’), respectively; and happY is used to denote the final vowel in the lexical set of words like ‘city’, ‘duty’,
‘happy’.) The shift of this lax vowel has taken place in RP in the latter part of the 20th Century, and may,
according to Wells (1997), be associated with the rise of Estuary English (see also Trudgill, 2001). As far as the
phonology is concerned, /i7/ and /
I
/ might well show phonetic overlap in this word-final context, because this is
an environment in which they are neutralized, i.e., in which the phonological contrast is suspended. Moreover,
the final vowel in happY is anomalous because it is the only full (non-schwa) lax vowel that can occur in final
open syllables. Perhaps its lengthening has come about by analogy to the generalization that lax vowels (other
than schwa in e.g., ‘sofa’) are phonologically excluded from word-final position in English. Yet another reason
for happY to lengthen diachronically is that, being word-final, it often occurs as the last syllable in a prosodic
phrase, which is of course a primary context for synchronic lengthening in many languages (e.g., Fletcher
(1991) for French; Jun (1995) for Korean; Ueyama (1999) and Umeda (1975) for American English)
