DOCUMENT RESUME ED 262 589 FL 015 253 AUTHOR Fisiak, Jacek, Ed. TITLE Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, Volume Fifteen. INSTITUTION Adam Mickiewicz Univ. in Poznan (Poland).; Center for Applied Linguistics, Arlington, Va. PUB DATE 82 NOTE 190p.; For other issues of this journal, see FL 015 248-256. PUB TYPE Reports - Research/Technical (143) -- Collected Works - Serials (022) JOURNAL CIT Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics; v15 1982 EDRS PRICE MF01/PC08 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Contrastive Linguistics; *Enalish; *Grammar; Language Research; *Phonology; *Polish; Research Methodology; Russian; *Sentence Structure; Speech Acts; Structural Analysis (Linguistics); Tenses (Grammar); Verbs IDENTIFIERS Danish ABSTRACT This issue of the journal includes these papers on contrastive linguistics: "Some Problems of YES-NO Answers" (Aleksander Szwedek); "Danish versus Russian. A Short Analysis of the Verb" (Christian Hougaard); "Polish SIE Constructions and Their English Counterparts" (Wojciech Kubinski); "More on the Time Reference and the Analysis of Tense" (Michael Sharwood Smith); "On Performatives" (Zenon Jaranowski); "Problems of Raised Constructions in English and Polish" (Alina Boniewicz); "Subject- and Topic-Prominence in Polish and English" (Wlodzimierz Rybarkiewicz); "Some Remarks on Multiple Negation in English and Polish" (Anna Charezinska); and "The Perception and Imitation of the British English (Phonemes- -'TH'] by Polish Speakers" (Danuta Wolf ram - Romanowska). A bibliography of English-Polish contrastive studies in Poland (Barbara Plocinska) is appended. (MSE) *********************************************************************** * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * * from the original document. * *********************************************************************** THE POLISH-ENGLISH CONTRASTIVE PROJECT PAPERS AND STUDIES IN CONTRASTIVE LINGUISTICS Cl CO VOLUME FIFTEEN Li1 CV Editor: Jacek Fisiak N Assistant to the editor: Krystyna Droidzial CM W Advisory Board Chairman: Nils Erik Enkvist (Abo) Vice-Chairman: A. Hood Roberts (Washington) Members W.-D. Bald (Aachen) Wolfgang Kiihlwein (Trior) Rolf Berndt (Rostock) Lewis Mukattash (Amman) Broder Carstenson (Padorborn) Gerhard Nickel (Stuttgart) S. Pit Corder (Edinburgh) Ivan Poldauf (Praha) Dumitru Chitoran (Bucharest) Kari Sajavanra (Jyviiskylii) Laszlo Deno (Budapest) Michael Sharwood Srnn... (Utrecht) Stig Eliasson (Uppsala) Edward Stankiowicz (Now Haven) Robort di Pietro (Washington) Roland Sussex (Melbourne) L.K. Engola (Leuven) Jan Svartvik (Lund) . Rudolf Filipovin (Zagreb) Shivendra KishoTo Vorma (Hydorabad) Stig Johansson (Oslo) Werner Winter (Kiol) U.S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY CENTER IERICI ILVhis document has been reproduced as eceivod from the person or orgaruzabon )1. R .)"\iteiriA......- originating it, U Minor changes have been mad* to improve reproducbcn quality Points of view or opinions stated in this door: TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES ment do not necessarily represent official NIE INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)," Position or policy. POZNAI 1982 ADAM MICKIEWICZ UNIVERSITY, POZNAN' A) CENTER FOR APPLIED LINGUISTICS, WASHINGTON, D. C. tO xl VI BEST COPY AVAILABLE 0. 1 ..e.1,t81'..1, 1 1 1T' 2 . 172 Proof reading: ANDRZEJ PIETEZAK Technical layout: JAMS ORZEgROWIAE WYDAWNICTWO NAUKOWN UNIWEE8YTETD DI. ADANA 311CIElEWICZA W YOZNANIU Wydanlo I. Naklad 1200+100 ezz. Ark. vryd. 12,25. Ark. druk.12. Papier druk. sat. Id. III. 80 9. 70 x 100. Oddano do akladatda 8 V 1081 r. Podpkano dodrnkn w marcu 1082 r. Druk ukodczono w mann 1982 r. 7Am. nr 327/07. N-2/78. Cena r1140, DEUEARNIA UNIWREEITETII IH. ADAMA. MICKIEWICZA rortut, UL. YEEDRY 10 "i.vA AP 3 BEST (ionAVAILABLE TABLE OF CONTENTS Alelceander Szsrodek (Bydgoszcz): Some problems of YES NO answers 5 Christian Hougaard (Copenhagen): Danish versus Russian. A short er.alysis of the verb 13. Wojciech HubinslO (Gdansk): Polish SIT constructions and their English counter Parts 56 Michael Sherwood Smith (Utrecht): More on the time reference and the analysis of tense . 67 Zenon Jamnowski (Lodi): On performatives 81J Aline Boniowioz (Poznan): Problems of raised constructions in English and Polish 95 Wlodzimierz Rybarkiewioz (Lodi): Subject- and topicprominence in Polish and English 112 Anna Charezinska (Lublin): Some remarks on multiple negation in English and Polish 121 Donuts Wolfram-Romanowska (Poznan): The perception and imitation of the British English 101 and /6/ by Polish speakers 137 BIBLIOGRAPHY Barbara Plocinsk a (Poznan): Bibliography of English- Polish contrastive studies in Poland 163. SOME PROBLEMS ors YES NO ANSWERS ALEKSANDER SZWEDEK Pedagogical UnicettilY, Bydgoszec The literature on Yes-No questions is quite abundant. Yes-No answers and the problems connected,with them have not been discussed very often. The present paper offers some observations on the responses the addressee may utter and their relevance in discourse analysis. From the point of view of the addressee and the responses he can provide, Yes-No questions and statements seem to bring about similar answers. In Yes-No questions the speaker asks whether what he is saying is acceptable to the addressee as true; in statements he proposea the addressee to believe that what he is saying is true. In both cases the addressee may agree or disagree with what the speaker suggests to accept as true, and syntactically he can do it by uttering positive or negative sentences,' as illustrated by the following examplefi: (1) Has he written a book? (2a) Yes, he has. (2b) No, he hasn't. (3) He has written a book. (4a) Yes, he has. (4b) No, he hasn't. Similarly in Polish: (5) Czy on. napisal kshlike? (Oa) Tak, napisal.2 (0) Ni e, nie napisal. 2 See E. Popo (1972) for more details on question-answer system along somewhat different lires. Polish does not use auxiliaries and do, so the lexical verb has to be repeated or loft out. It seems that sometimes the answer is correct or sounds better with the verb repeated and sometimes without it. I have not investigated the reasons of this phoneme- A. Szwedek (7) On napisal ksif04. (8a) Tak, napisal. (8b) Nie, nie napisal. However, the same system does not workwith negativo questions and state- ments, as illustrated by the examples below: (9) Hasn't he -writtena book? (10a) Yea, he has. (10b) No, he hasn't. but (11) He hasn't writtena book. (12a) Yes, he has. (12b) No, he hasn't. (12c) Yes, he hasn't. (12d) No, he has. And similarly in Polish: (13) Czy on the napisal (14a) Tak, napisal. (14b) Nie, nie napisal. (15) On nie napisal (16a) Tak, napisal. (16b) Nie, nie napisal. (16c) Tak, nie napisal. (16d) Nie, napisal. let us first examine thestatement-response situation. It isnecessary to keep in mind here that (11)may have a number of interpretations dependingon the plat© of the sentence stress. I will notgo into details here, as the phenomenon of negation association with focus hasbeen discussed among others by Saoken.- doff (1972) and Szwedok (1976). Itappears that the texts under analysis can be grouped in two-ways: (17) a, the traditional, questionvs answer distinction, b. two answers vs fouranswers distinction, i.e., on the stimulus side: positive questions negative questions vs negative atatements, positive statements The structure of theresponses, particularly to negativo statements, indicates that the addressee feels thereare two components he can agree or disagree with, i.e., (18) a. Speaker's claim abouta proposition X, b. Proposition X itself. non and am not aware of any study of this problem. Intonation,particularly sentence stress marking foou.s, is not considered in thispaper, though I realize that it may be crucial (see final paragraph of the paper). 6 1 YESNO answers In some cases this double structure is signalled by a pause between, for example, No and hi has in (12d), which shows that No and he has refer to two different elements. As indicated above, with such a complex structure the addressee has a choice of negating or confirming two elements as specified in (18). If we use T (truth, the attitude of the speaker to hisproposition)' for (18a) and S (sentence) for (18b), we may show the interaction between the speaker and the addressee in the following diagrammatic way; (19) Agreement: a. Positive: Speaker Addressee T T4 1 S1 S2 Explanatioth Speaker utters Si as true. Addressee shares T with the speaker, so he utters Si. Examples (3)(4a) b. Negative: Speaker Addressee T T Neg S, Neg S2 Explanation: Speaker utters Neg Si as true. Addressee agrees, so he utters Neg Ss. According to this formula the response should be (12c), where Yes would refer to Addressee's T (addressee agrees)°, and he hasn't to the proposition Sl.And that indeed is one of the possibilities. The other possible response (12b) is most probably a simple extension of Neg from S2 to the loft.° (20) Disagreement: a. Positive-negative: Speaker Addressee T Neg T Neg S2 ' This is in agreement with sincerity condition. Wo will assume throughout tlio paper that SI and Si refer to tlio same proposition. Cf. perhaps bettor: Right, he hasn't or So he hasn't. This is by no means exceptional or unique; of. I think he is not coming vs I don't think he is coming. 8 A. Spvedok Explanation: Speaker utters SI as true.Addressee disagrees that SI is true, and he utters Neg S. Example (3) (4b) b. Negative-positive: Speaker Addressee T Neg T 4. Neg Si S2 Explanation: Speaker utters Neg S1 as true. Addressee disagrees that Neg S1 is true, so he utters S2. Again according to this formula the response should be (12d), where No would refer to T (Addressee disagrees) and he has to S1. The other possibility, (12a), is again most probably an extension of the positive proposition he has. At this point it is probably in order to mention thatany situation of the type (21) Speaker Neg T 4. S is, of course, impossible from the point of view of the addressee. Thatmeans that even if the speaker knows that what he is saying is not true, what he is in fact communicating is 'I want youthe addressee to believe that what Iam saying is true'.