Adam Mickiewicz Univ. in Poznan (Poland).; Center for Johnson
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 246 690 FL 014 505 AUTHOR Fisiak, Jacek, Ed.; Drozdzial, Krystyna, Ed. TITLE Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics. Volume Eighteen. INSTITUTION Adam Mickiewicz Univ. in Poznan (Poland).; Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C. PUB DATE 84 NOTE 151p.; Product of the Polish-English Contrastive Project. PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143) Collected Works General (020) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC07 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Contrastive Linguistics; English; Error Analysis (Lange'-ge); German; *Grammar; Language Research; *Lingu.,tic Theory; Polish; Portuguese; *Research Methodology; Second Language Learning; Sentence Structure; Sociolinguistics; Stress (Phonology); *Syntax; Translation; Vietnamese; Welsh IDENTIFIERS Breton ABSTRACT A collection of 14 papers in contrastive linguistics includes: "Some Comments on Language Data in Contrastive Analysis" (Ruta Nagucka); "Contrastive Sociolinguistics Reconsidered" (Karol Janicki); "Variations in Polish Nasal /e/: A Contribution to the Development of Contrastive Sociolinguistic Methodology" (Jane Johnson); "Languages in Contact and Contrastive Linguistics" (Broder Carstensen); "VSO and SVO Order in Welsh and Breton" (Rosalyn Raney); "Topical Sentence Positions in English and Polish" (Anna Duszak); "Verb Initial Constructions in Portuguese and their Counterpart Constructions in English" (Mary A. Kato); "On Some Referential Expressions in English and Polish" (Barbara Kryk); "From Temporal Adverb to Modal Particle--Some Comparative Remarks on Polish 'Czasem' ('Sometimes')" (Johan van der Auwera); "Conversational versus Conventional Implicature and Some Polarity Items in Polish and English" (Anna Charezinska); "Stress-Patterns of English Phrasal Nouns of the Type Make-Up in German" (Peter Hengstenberg); "The Translation Aspect of Phraseological Units in English and German" (Rosemarie Glaser); "On the Use of Lexical Avoidance Strategies in Foreign-Language Comunication" (Rolf Palmberg); and "Contrastive and Error Analysis: Vietnamese-German" (Heinrich Kelz). (MSE) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** FORTHCOMING PSiCL XIX acquisition of English Udo 0. H. Jung (Marburg):Contrastive patholinguistics: the grammatical morphemes by Germandyslexics in a foreign languageteaching context Marie - Louise Liebe-Harkot(Munich): Contrastive pramgatics Kay Wikberg (Tromso): Onquestions in English and Swedish Aleksander Szwedek (Bydgoszcz): Otecontrasting the aentenc,e Arm a typically Englishpreposition Hubert Cuycknes (Antwerp): At and any Iva H. Stephanides (Budapest): Acontraetive analysis of English some and their Hungarian equivalents experimental con- Wieslaw Aweclyk (Poznan):Parameters of linguistic stress: an trastive etUdy by German learners of English.A Werner Halle(Essen): The use of ergative verbs pilot aft y into interlanguage speech and omitting: A project repor Anna-Mitatenstrom (Lund): English in 3 THE POLISH-ENOLISIE CONTRASTIVE PROJECT PAPERS AND STUDIES IN CONTRASTIVE LINGUISTICS VOLUME EIGIITEEN Editor: JAC.EK FISIAK- Assistrait to the editor: KRYSTY NA DRO'l]DZ fAh Advisory Board Chairman: Nils Erik Enkvist (Abe) Vice-Chairman: A. Hood Roberts (Washington) Members W.-D. Bald (Aachen) AndrtS Jolly (Lille) Rolf Berndt (Rostock) Dieter Kastovsky (Vienna) Broder Carstenson (Padernborn) Wolfgang (Trier) S. Pit Corder (Edinburgh) Liam Mac Mathuna, (Dublin) Diimitru Chitoran (Buoharost) Lewis Mukattash (Amman) Derso (Budapest) Gerhard Nickel (Stuttgu A) Robert di Pietro (Washington) Ivan Poldauf (Praha) Stig Eliasson (Uppsala) Kari Sajavaara (Jyviiskyld) L. K. Engels (Leuven) Michael Shammed Smith (Utrecht) Rudolf Filipovi6 (Zagreb) Roland Sussex (Melbourne) Thomas Fraser (Lille) Jan Svartvik (Lund) Udo Fries (Zurich) Shivondra Kishoro Vorma (Hyderabad) Stig Johnnsson (Oslo) \Verner Winter (Kiel) POZNAN 1984 ADAM MICKIEWICZ UNIVERSITY, POZNAN. CENTER FOR APPLIED LINGUISTICS, WASHINGTON, D. C. Proof-reading: Andrzej Pietrzak Technical Michal LynoFki WYDAWNICTWO NAUKOWE UNIWEREC'TETU IM.ADAMA MICKIEWICZA W POZNANIU N-Lklad 1200+100 egs. Ark. wri. 10.60. Ark. druk.0,50. Papier druk. mat. et. kJ. III. 80 g, 70 x 100. Oddano do ea.-lards 10 XI1983 r. Podpinno do druku 27 II 1984 r. Druk ukonezoao w lutym 1984 r. 4503/9. Cona el150, DRUKARNIA UNIWERWITETU IM. ADAMAMICKIEWICZA POZNAN, UL. FREDLY 10 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS ltuta Nagucka (Cracow): Some commas on language data in Contrastive Analysis 5 Karol Janicki (Poznan): Contrastive sociolinguistics reconsidered 15 Jane Johnson (Poznan): Variations in Polish nasal 10: a contribution to the develop- ment of contrastive sociolinguistic methodology 31 Broder Caratenwn (Paderborn): Languages in contact and Contrastive Linguistics 43 Rosalyn Raney (Vienna and 13erkoloy): VSO and SVO order in Welsh and Breton 47 Anna Duszak (Warsaw): Topical sentence positions in English mut Polish.. 55 Mary A. Kato (810 Paulo): Verb initial constructions in Portuguese and th&r counter- part construction-9 in English Barbara Kryk (Poznan): On some referential expressions in English and t'olish. 81 Johan van der Auwora (Antwerp): From temporal adverb to modal particle 3cme comparative remarks on Polish "czasem" ("sometimes") 91 Anna CharQzinska (Lublin): Conversational versus conventional implicature a some polarity items in Polish and English 101 Peter Hongstenberg (Paderborn): Stress-patterns of English phrasal nouns of the type make-up in German 111 Rosemarie Gliiser (Leipzig): The translation aspect of phraseological units in English and German 123 Rolf Pahnberg (Abo): On the use of the lexical avoidance strategies in foreign-lan- guge communication 135 lleiurich Kelz (Bonn): Contrastive and error analysis: V ietnamose-German 143 sO E CO MENTS ON LANGUA(i E) ATA IN CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS R (ITN NACIUCKA. The 'Ionian Ihareraily, Cracow if the essential insights of the theory of contrastive linguisticsare to be preserved, what is badly needed is some "method" of distinguishingbetween various degrees of grammaticality and acceptability of languagematerial. Just as the native speaker has at his disposal linguistickowledgo of his language that enables hint to make judgements about thewell- or ill-form- edness of sentences, so anyone dealing with contrastivestudies should be expected to have at his disposal linguis6ie knowledge oftwo languages. This idea seems to be tmeontroversially taken for granted; however,how to measure this knowledge, judgement or intuition is not likelyto be ever formalized by a simple and reliable method. It should be emphasized that in theabsence of explicit evaluative means we have to appeal for caution in dealing withIan- page material; may main thesis is that one cannot manipulate language data ad libitum, there are certain limits beyond whichone must not go. In writing this article, I had just this point in mind. While the theory ofcontrastive linguistics finds it easy to set requirementsnecessary for a contrastive analysis (e.g. the authority of a bilingual speaker, translational competence, and the like), practice finds it hardly possible to satisfy these requirements.In other words, in it number of cases the contrastive linguists, especially those whoare theoretically minded, strangely enough tend to view the language material as of secondary importimee. Assuming a certain rule, for example, they some- times tend to construe sentenees to support a suggested thesis allowing them to be incorrect in one way or other. It seems to me that these factsare alarm- ingly frequent and obviously related with the failure togo beyond one's own intuition. In view of this rather innvelene tendency to tolerate anomalies and erroneous expressions in contrastive analyses, the obvious criteria for deciding ll whet1101' a given sentence Nis into the categoryof grammaticality or accept ability wind() be MA only the linguist'sability to understand properly the utterances lie uses, hut also his ability tocheck conivtently his linguistic knowledge by consulting the informantsand informative written sources such as dictionaries, Since someof my comments and remarks havebeen miscompre- 11(91(1(41 and misinterpreted which becameclearly evident during the dis- cussion after the presentation of ilk paper atthe 18th International Con- ference on Polish-English Contrastive Linguistics(111a).ejewko, 2-1 December 198) I .feel compelled to clarify thefollowing points in order to avoid further misunderstanding: (1) by rinrm, ornuttive,standard I mean this variety of language which is the means Of communicationof the nation as a whole, which is free from individualized variations(idiosyncratic, (ialectal, regional, pro- fessional and so on), and which does noteasily tolerate deviations, arbitrari- ness and violatioas of variouskind; (2) a nonstandard or individualizedtype of language, restricted in its scope to asocial or regional group of speakers perfeetly legitimate as long as it is treated assuch, but it should not be taken for a representative of the wholelanguage (standard type); (3) theexamples I am going to question axelacking in a general linguistic significancebecause do each of them violates some degree ofacceptability and/or grammaticality; I not share a view that anything thatis uttered and can be understoodis correct and representative of a standard varietyof the language; (4) the Polishnative speakers- informants I have consulatedhave