4 Corpusbased Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies.docx

4 Corpusbased Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies.docx

《4 Corpusbased Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《4 Corpusbased Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies.docx（13页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

4CorpusbasedApproachestoContrastiveLinguisticsandTranslationStudies

ContrastiveLinguisticsandCorpora

StigJohanson

Abstract

Thepaperconsidersdifferentwaysinwhichcomputercorporacanbeusedincontrastivelinguistics.ExamplesaredrawnfromstudiesbasedontheEnglish-NorwegianParallelCorpus,abidirectionaltranslationcorpusconsistingoforiginaltextsineachofthelanguagesandtheirtranslationsintotheotherlanguage.Themodelcombinesdifferenttypesofcorporawithinthesameoverallframeworkandeachtypecanbeusedtocontrolandsupplementtheother.Inthiswayitispossibletoidentifytranslationeffects,andtheobjectionswhicharegenerallyraisedtotheuseoftranslationcorporaincontrastivestudiescanbeovercome.Practicalapplicationsofcorpus-basedstudiesareconsidered,andsuggestionsaremadeforfutureworkinthearea.

1.Aim

Thehistoryoflinguisticsismarkedbyfrequentchangesintheoryandmethod.Contrastivelinguisticsisnoexception.Thispaperconsidersthemeetingofcontrastivelinguisticsandthenewapproachtothestudyoflanguagewhichisgenerallyreferredtobythetermcorpuslinguistics.

Therehasbeenatremendousgrowthinthecompilationanduseofcorpora.Thishaspartlytodowiththeincreasinginterestamonglinguistsinstudyinglanguagesinuse,ratherthanlinguisticsystemsintheabstract,butitisprimarilyconnectedwiththepossibilitiesofferedbycorporainmachine-readableform,so-calledcomputercorpora.Oneofthemostsignificantrecenttrendsisthedevelopmentofmultilingualcorporaforuseincross-linguisticresearch,boththeoreticalandapplied,whichpromisestoleadtoarevitalizationofcontrastivelinguistics.

2.Whatiscontrastivelinguistics?

Contrastivelinguisticsissystematiccomparisonoftwoormorelanguages,withtheaimofdescribingtheirsimilaritiesanddifferences.Theobjectiveofthecomparisonmayvary:

Languagecomparisonisofgreatinterestinatheoreticalaswell

asanappliedperspective.Itrevealswhatisgeneralandwhatis

languagespecificandisthereforeimportantforthestudyoftheindividuallanguagescompared.（Johansson&Hofland1994:

25）

Contrastivelinguisticsisthusnotaunifiedfieldofstudy.Thefocusmaybeongeneraloronlanguagespecificfeatures.Thestudymaybetheoretical,withoutanyimmediateapplication,oritmaybeapplied,i.e.carriedoutforaspecificpurpose.

Theterm‘contrastivelinguistics’,or‘contrastiveanalysis’,isespeciallyassociatedwithappliedcontrastivestudiesadvocatedasameansofpredictingand/orexplainingdifficultiesofsecondlanguagelearnerswithaparticularmothertongueinlearningaparticulartargetlanguage.InthePrefacetohiswell-knownbook,Lado（1957）expressestherationaleoftheapproachasfollows:

Theplanofthebookrestsontheassumptionthatwecanpredictanddescribethepatternswhichwillcausedifficultyinlearningandthosethatwillnotcausedifficulty.

Itwasthoughtthatacomparisonondifferentlevels（phonology,morphology,syntax,lexis,culture）wouldidentifypointsofdifference/difficultyandprovideresultsthatwouldbeimportantinlanguageteaching:

Themostefficientmaterialsarethosethatarebaseduponascientificdescriptionofthelanguagetobelearned,carefullycomparedwithaparalleldescriptionofthenativelanguageofthelearner.（Fries1945:

9）

Thehighhopesraisedbyappliedcontrastivelinguisticsweredashed.Thereareanumberofproblemswiththeapproach,inparticulartheproblemthatlanguagelearningcannotbeunderstoodbyapurelylinguisticstudy.Sothosewhowereconcernedwithlanguagelearninginsteadturnedtothenewdisciplinesoferroranalysis,performanceanalysisorinterlanguagestudies,andcontrastiveanalysiswererejectedbymanyasanapplieddiscipline.

Inspiteofthecriticismofappliedcontrastivelinguistics,contrastivestudieswerecontinued,andtheirscopewasbroadened.

3.Newdirections

AlthoughLado（1957）includedacomparisonofcultures,earlycontrastivestudiesfocusedonwhathasbeendescribedasmicrolinguisticcontrastiveanalysis（James1980:

61ff）:

phonology,grammar,lexis.Examplesfresearchquestions:

●WhataretheconsonantphonemesinlanguagesXandY?

howdotheydifferininventory,realization,anddistribution?

●WhatisthetensesystemoflanguagesXandY?

●WhataretheverbsofsayinginlanguagesXand？

Withthebroadeningoflinguisticstudiesingeneralinthe1970sand1980s,contrastivestudiesbecameincreasinglyconcernedwithmacrolinguisticcontrastiveanalysis（James1980:

98ff）:

textlinguistics,discourseanalysis.Examplesofresearchquestions:

●HowiscohesionexpressedinlanguagesXandY？

●HowarethespeechactsofapologizingandrequestingexpressedinlanguagesXandY?

●HowareconversationsopenedandclosedinlanguagesXand？

Whenquestionsofthiskindareraised,itbecomesincreasinglyimportanttobasethecontrastivestudyontexts.

4.Theroleofcorpora

Inthecourseoflastcoupleofdecadeswehaveseenabreakthroughintheuseofcomputercorporainlinguisticresearch.Theyareusedforawiderangeofstudiesingrammar,lexis,discourseanalysis,languagevariation,etc.theyareusedinbothsynchronicanddiachronicstudies–andincreasinglyalsoincrosslinguisticresearch.

Salkie（199）goesasfarastosay:

Parallelcorpora[i.e.multilingualcorpora]areavaluablesourceofdata;indeed,theyhavebeenaprincipalreasonfortherevivalofcontrastivelinguisticsthathastakenplaceinthe1990s.

IntherestofthispaperIwillfocusontheroleofcorporaincontrastivelinguistics.Asastarting-point,IwillusethepossibilitiesofferedbybilingualcorporaaslistedbyAijmerandAltenberg（1996:

12）:

⏹theygivenewinsightsintothelanguagescompared–insightsthatrelikelytobeunnoticedinstudiesofmonolingualcorpora;

⏹theycanbeusedforarangeofcomparativepurposesandincreaseourunderstandingoflanguage-specific,typologicalandculturaldifferences,aswellasofuniversalfeatures;

⏹theyilluminatedifferencesbetweensourcetextsandtranslations,andbetweennativeandnon-nativetexts;

⏹theycanbeusedforanumberofpracticalapplications,e.g.inlexicography,languageteaching,andtranslation.

Iwilltakeupeachofthesepointsinturn,intheorderinwhichtheyarelistedabove.Foreaseofreference,IwillrefertobilingualandmultilingualcorporaasmultilingualcorporaandtothepaperbyAijmerandAltenberg（1996）simplyasAijmer&Altenberg.

5.Analyticalcomparison

Comparisonisagoodwayofhighlightingthecharacteristicsofthethingscompared.Thisappliestolanguagecomparisonaswellasmoregenerally,anditisnotablethatthisisthefirstpointinAijmer&Altenberg’slist.VilémMathesius,founderoftheLinguisticCircleofPrague,spokeaboutanalyticalcomparison,orlinguisticcharacterology,asawayofdeterminingthecharacteristicsofeachlanguageandgainingadeeperinsightintotheirspecificfeatures（Mathesius1975）.HeuseditinhiscomparisonofthewordorderofEnglishandCzech,andthestudyhasbeenfollowedupbyJanFirbasinparticular.IntheopeningchapterofhisFunctionalSentencePerspectiveinWrittenandSpokenCommunication（1992:

3ff）,FirbascomparesanoriginaltextinFrenchwithitstranslationintoEnglish,German,andCzech,andheusesthesamesortofcomparisonlaterinthebook.Firbassays:

Thecontrastivemethodprovestobeausefulheuristictoolcapableofthrowinglightonthecharacteristicfeaturesofthelanguagescontrasted;…（Firbas1992:

13）.

ThereisnodifferenceinprinciplebetweenthecontrastivemethodofFirbasandthewayweusemultilingualcorpora,exceptthatthestudycanbeextendedbytheuseofcomputationaltechniques.Asanexample,considerJarleEbeling’sstudyofNorwegianParallelCorpus（Ebeling2000）.Ebelingstudiesthreeconstructionswhicharefoundinbothlanguages,termedfullpresentatives

（1）,barepresentatives

（2）,andhave/ha-presentatives（3）:

（1）There’salongtripaheadofus.

Detliggerenlangreiseforanoss.

（2）Alongtripisaheadofus.

Enlangreiseliggerforanoss.

（3）Wehavealongtripaheadofus.

Viharenlangreiseforanoss.

Althoughtheconstructionsaresimilarinsyntax,semantics,anddiscoursefunction,thereareimportantdifferences.Thecontrastivestudydefinesthesedifferencesandatthesametimemakesthedescriptionoftheindividuallanguagesmoreprecise.

6.Contrastivestudies

Highlightingthecharacteristicsoftheindividuallanguagesanddefiningtherelationshipbetweenlanguagesarejustdifferencesinperspective.Inacomparativestudythefocusmaybeonlanguage0specific,typologicaloruniversalfeatures,asAijmer&Altenbergsayintheirsecondpoint.HereIamparticularlyconcernedwithcontrastivestudiesfocusingonacomparisonofparisoflanguages.

Oneofthemoistseriousproblemsofcontrastivestudiesistheproblemofequivalence.Howdoweknowaboutwhattocompare?

Whatisexpressedinonelanguageby,forexample,modalauxiliariescouldbeexpressedinotherlanguagesinquitedifferentways.Inthiscaseacomparisonofmodalauxiliariesdoesnottakeusveryfar.

Mostcontrastivelinguistshaveeitherexplicitlyorimplicitlymadeuseoftranslationasameansofestablishingcross-linguisticrelationships,andinhisbookoncontrastiveanalysisCarlJamesreachestheconclusionthattranslationisthebestbasisofcomparison；

Weconcludethattranslationequivalence,ofthisratherrigorouslydefinedsort{includinginterpersonalandtextualaswellasideationalmeaning}isthebestavailableTC[tertiumcomparation