Contrastive linguistics unit 1: introduction

Contrastive Linguistics Unit 1 Introduction Contrastive Linguistics Unit 1 Introduction Assoc Prof Dr Hoang Tuyet Minh Email hoangtuyetminh71gmail com Phone 0915090670 Syllabus Number of credits 3 Class sessions 9 Testing and assessment Class attendance projection 10 % Mid term test and 15 minute group presentation 20% Final test a 15 page assignment 70% Core books Carl, J (1980) Contrastive Analysis Harlow, Essex Longman Lado, R (1957) Linguistics across Cultures University of Michigan Press,.

Contrastive Linguistics Unit 1: Introduction

Assoc Prof Dr Hoang Tuyet Minh

Email: hoangtuyetminh71@gmail.com

Phone: 0915090670

- Number of credits: 3

- Class sessions: 9

Testing and assessment:

- Class attendance/ projection 10 %

- Mid-term test and 15-minute group presentation

20%

- Final test: a 15-page assignment 70%

Core books

 Carl, J (1980). Contrastive Analysis  Harlow, Essex:

Longman.

 Lado, R (1957). Linguistics across Cultures University of

Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

 Richard, J (1984) Error Analysis Longman: London and

Contrastive linguistics (CL): what is it?

 Contrastive linguistics is the systematic comparison of two or more languages,

 with the aim of describing their similarities and differences,

 focusing, however, on differences,

 it is predominantly practical.

 The term “contrastive linguistics”

 was used for the first time by Whorf in 1941.

CL and Comparative linguistics

 comparative linguistics

 contrastive linguistics

 differences (and similarities) between two (usually) languages

Contrastive linguistics

 differences (usually) between two (usually)

languages

 basis for typological description

 mainly practical applications

 translation

 foreign language teaching and learning

 bilingual lexicography (dictionaries)

 why differences?

 it is assumed that the two languages are similar except for the points described as different

CL in linguistics

 the languages being compared can be related

 Polish and English

 or can be unrelated

 like Polish and Chinese

 can be from the same historical period

 Polish and English in the 20th c.

 or can be from different historical periods

 English and Polish from the 16th and the 20th c

CL in linguistics

 usually, however,

 CL is synchronic comparative linguistics

 without the historical dimension

 CL can be

 theoretical

 applied

Applied CL

 on the basis of the theoretical framework

 provided by theoretical CA/CS,

 gives the researcher the information necessary

 to conduct actual contrastive analyses.

The rationale for studying CL

 who:

 prospective teachers of a foreign language

CL and a FL teacher

 why:

 contrastive studies are (were) used as a means of predicting and/or

 explaining difficulties of second language learners

 with a particular mother tongue (Vietnamese)

 in learning a particular target language (English)

 however, CL does not explain all problems of foreign language students

 language awareness studies

 these belong to applied linguistics

 foreign language learnign/teaching methodology

What to compare

 microlinguistic analysis: examples

 What are the consonant phonemes in languages X and Y?

 How do they differ in inventory, realization, and distribution?

 What is the tense system of languages X and Y?

 What are the verbs of saying in languages X and Y?

What to compare

 pragmatic analysis: examples

 How is cohesion expressed in languages X and Y?

 How are the speech acts of apologizing and requesting expressed in languages X and Y?

 How are conversations opened and closed in

languages X and Y?

This course

 mainly practical

 basic theoretical notions

 a review of microlinguistic contrasts

How to compare?

 what is the basis for comparison?

 comparison of seemingly related phenomena:

 “to compare them would be tantamount to putting ton lorries and banana skins in the same class on the grounds that neither ought to be left on footpaths”

ten-(Carl James 1980,167)

How to compare?

 object A

 object B

 either have something in common

 and we can compare them

 or do not have anything in common

 and we cannot compare them

 it is arguably difficult to find objects that do not have anything in common

 but:

 God and

 pragmatic/functional equivalence, for CA of

meaning/function of texts, structure of discourse,

stylistic properties, quantitative aspects of text

Translation equivalence

 there is one big problem

 CL

 studies the systems of two languages

 translation is not about systems

 it is about texts

 this is a basic distinction in linguistics

 system and text

 langue and parole

 competence and performance

Translation equivalence

 text translation

 translation of a particular sentence depends

 on other sentences around it (context)

 on the function of the whole text

 its stylistic level

 the user of the text

 system translation

 translation of sentences without any context

 though the most probable one is used

System and text equivalence

 that is why system equivalence can be called

 correspondence

 text equivalence can be called

 equivalence

Equivalence/Tertium Comparationis

 What is, in fact, equivalence?

 we know it is based on a Tertium Comparationis

 but what use as a TC?

TC: requirements

 TC should be

 external to both languages

 a category based on one language has no counterpart

 usable

 for teachers: can be used without extensive theoretical studies

TC in lexical equivalence

concept

(word) sign- - - -referent (object)

TC in lexical equivalence

 Either referents or concepts can be treated as TCs

 We can reject referents as a TC because,

 there are no pure references,

 the very act of distinguishing a referent depends to a large degree on the relevant language

 Engl finger Pol palec

TC in lexical equivalence

 Concepts can be also rejected.

 They are not suitably external to any language

 an English word has an English meaning

 a Polish word has a Polish meaning

 They are theoretical constructs depending on a language.

 Other views.

 TC should be external to the two languages

 but it should include them

 language use?

 situation of use of both languages

 translation is used in situations when both languages are used

 "How meaning X is expressed in L1 and L2?„

 This is a question based on meaning

 This question goes from the vague notion of meaning,

 about which there is little theoretical agreement,

 goes to two unknowns:

 L1 and L2 items

 We can say that we have to do with three

unknown objects here

 This does not depend on any theoretical assumptions.

 it includes two known entities (S and X), which are used to reach the third entity (Y)

 Competent bilinguals can easily answer such questions.

 Situations are either typical of L1 or of L2,

 and linguistic expressions are included in the

situations, not vice versa

 Situations, in turn, cannot be separated from wider contexts,

 ultimately from the context of culture

 a particular lexeme (or expression, or whole

utterance) is applicable (i.e may be correctly

applied) in a certain context, situational or

or units of language and entities in, or aspects

of, the world in which the language operates

Equivalence: other types