Contrastive Linguistics: Theories and Methods Volker Gast 1 Introduction: The subject matter of contrastive linguistics
Narrowly defined, contrastive linguistics can be regarded as a branch of comparative linguistics that is concerned with pairs of languages which are ‘socio-culturally linked’. Two languages can be said to be socio-culturally linked when (i) they are used by a considerable number of bi- or multilingual speakers, and/or (ii) a substantial amount of ‘linguistic output’ (text, discourse) is translated from one language into the other. According to this definition, contrastive linguistics deals with pairs of languages such as Spanish and Basque, but not with Latin and (the Australian language) Dyirbal, as there is no socio-cultural link between these languages. More broadly defined, the term ‘contrastive linguistics’ is also sometimes used for comparative studies of (small) groups (rather than just pairs) of languages, and does not require a socio-cultural link between the languages investigated. On this view, contrastive linguistics is a special case of linguistic typology and is distinguished from other types of typological approaches by a small sample size and a high degree of granularity. Accordingly, any pair or group of languages (even Latin and Dyirbal) can be subject to a contrastive analysis. This article is based on the (intermediate) view that contrastive linguistics invariably requires a socio-cultural link between the languages investigated, but that it is not restricted to pairwise language comparison. Even though it is not a branch of applied linguistics, contrastive linguistics thus aims to arrive at results that carry the potential of being used for practical purposes, e.g. in foreign language teaching and translation. As it provides the descriptive basis for such applications, its research programme can also be summarized as ‘comparison with a purpose’ (E. König). The ‘objective of applicability’ is also reflected in the fact that contrastive studies focus on the differences, rather than the similarities, between the languages compared. As a first approximation, the method of contrastive linguistics can be represented as in Diagram 1 (for ease of representation, the following discussion will concentrate on pairwise comparison). ‘A(Ln)’ stands for the analysis of a language Ln and ‘Ac(L1 ↔ L2)’ for the contrastive analysis of two languages L1 and L2.
analysis of single languages → contrastive analysis → A(L1) sociocultural link
application foreign language teaching translation ...
Diagram 1: Contrastive linguistics between language-particular analysis and application
The schema given in Diagram 1 will be refined below. In particular, the role of ‘bilingual linguistic output’ will be integrated into the picture. This output not only provides the empirical basis for contrastive studies but also functions as a conceptual link between the linguistic systems investigated, as it can be used to establish comparability between categories from different languages. After providing a brief historical overview of contrastive linguistics in Section 2, Section 3 will address some fundamental methodological issues, in particular the question of crosslinguistic comparability. In Sections 4 and 5, two major types of comparison will be illustrated, i.e. comparison of purely formal categories (consonants) and comparison of linguistic categories that carry meaning or function (tense). Section 6 will deal with generalizations across functional domains (Wh-question formation and relativization). Section 7 will conclude with some remarks on the empirical basis of contrastive linguistics (specialized corpora). 2 Historical remarks
The programme of contrastive linguistics was instigated by Charles Carpenter Fries from the University of Michigan in the 1940s. Fries (1945: 9) contended that “[t]he most effective materials [in foreign language teaching] are those that are based...
References: Aijmer, Karin, Bengt Altenberg and Mats Johansson (eds.) (1996). Languages in contrast. Papers from a symposium on text-based cross-linguistic studies, Lund 4-5 March 1994. Lund Studies in English 88. Lund: Lund University Press. Declerck, Renaat (2006). The grammar of the English verb phrase, Vol. 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fries, Charles Carpenter (1945). Teaching and learning English as a foreign language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Granger, Sylviane (1998). Learner English on Computer. London: Longman. Haspelmath, Martin (1993). Indefinites. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haspelmath, Martin (2008). Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Ms. Hawkins, John (1986). A comparative typology of English and German. Unifying the contrasts. London: Croom Helm.
Hawkins, John (1992). A performance approach to English/German contrasts. In In Mair, Christian and Manfred Markus (eds.), New departures in contrastive linguistics. Proceedings of the conference held at the Leopold-Franzens-University of Innsbruck, Austria, 10–12 May 1991, 115-136. Innsbruck. House, Juliane and Shoshana Blum-Kulka (eds.) (1986). Interlingual and intercultural communication: Discourse and cognition in translation and second language acquisition studies. Tübingen: Narr. Johansson, Sig (1998a). Loving and hating in English and Norwegian: A corpus-based contrastive study. In Albrechtsen, D., B. Henriksen, I.M. Mees and E. Poulsen (eds.), Perspectives on foreign and second language pedagogy. Essays presented to Kirsten Haarstrup on the occasion of her sixtieth birthday, 93-103. Odense: Odense University Press. Johansson, Stig (1998b). On the role of corpora in cross-linguistic research. In S. Johansson and S. Oksefjell (eds.), Corpora and cross-linguistic research: Theory, method, and case studies, 3-24. Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi. Johansson, Stig (2000). Contrastive linguistics and corpora. Reports from the project ‘Languages in Contrast’, University of Oslo. König, Ekkehard (1971). Adjectival constructions in English and German. Heidelberg: Groos. König, Ekkehard (1996). Kontrastive Grammatik und Typologie. In Lang, E. and G. Zifonun (eds.), Deutsch – typologisch, 31-54. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. König, Ekkehard and Volker Gast (2008). Understanding English-German Contrasts. 2nd edition (revised). Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag. Kortmann, Bernd and Paul-Georg Meyer (1992). Is English grammar more explicit than German grammar, after all? In In Mair, Christian and Manfred Markus (eds.), New departures in contrastive linguistics. Proceedings of the conference held at the Leopold-Franzens-University of Innsbruck, Austria, 10–12 May 1991, 155-166. Innsbruck. Kortmann, Bernd (1998). Kontrastive Linguistik und Fremdsprachenunterricht. In Börner, Wolfgang and Klaus Vogel (eds.), Kontrast und Äquivalenz. Beiträge zu Sprachvergleich und Übersetzung, 136-167. Tübingen: Narr. Lado, Robert (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Oleksy, Wieslaw (ed.) (1989). Contrastive pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Plank, Frans (1984). Verbs and objects in semantic agreement: Minor differences between English and German that might suggest a major one. Journal of Semantics 3: 30560. Rohdenburg, Günter (1974). Sekundäre Subjektivierungen im Englischen und Deutschen. Vergleichende Untersuchungen zur Verb- und Adjektivsyntax. Bielefeld: Cornelsen-Velhaben & Klasing. Rohdenburg, Günter (1992). Bemerkungen zu infiniten Konstruktionen im Englischen und Deutschen. In In Mair, Christian and Manfred Markus (eds.), New departures in contrastive linguistics. Proceedings of the conference held at the Leopold-FranzensUniversity of Innsbruck, Austria, 10–12 May 1991, 187-207. Innsbruck. van der Auwera, Johan and Vladimir Plungian (1998). Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2.1: 79-124. Weinreich, Uriel (1953). Languages in contact: findings and problems. The Hague: Mouton.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document