BookPDF Available

Grundlagen der Kontrastiven Linguistik in Theorie und Praxis

Authors:
Inhalt
Vorwort.................................................................................................................7
1. Einleitung.......................................................................................................... 9
2. Geschichte und Stand der KL.........................................................................13
2.1 Von der Entstehung der KL bis zu ihrem Höhepunkt...............................13
2.1.1 Die Anfänge der KL...........................................................................14
2.1.2 Kontrastivhypothese ..........................................................................18
2.1.3 Weltweite Verbreitung der KL ..........................................................22
Exkurs: Konfrontative Linguistik ...............................................................25
2.2 Vom Wendepunkt der KL bis zu ihrem Tiefpunkt ...................................27
2.2.1 Kritiken an der KL.............................................................................27
Exkurs: Rechtfertigungen der KL............................................................... 34
2.2.2 Etablierung der Fehlerlinguistik.........................................................38
2.2.3 Identitätshypothese ............................................................................43
2.3 Von der Konsolidierung der KL bis heute................................................ 47
2.3.1 Interlanguage-Hypothese und Neubewertung des Transfers .............48
2.3.2 Neuere Tendenzen der KL bis heute..................................................52
2.4 Zwischenfazit zu Kapitel 2 .......................................................................56
3. Begriffs- und Standortbestimmung der KL ....................................................59
3.1 Terminologie und Definition ....................................................................59
3.2 KL – Zweig der vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft? .............................68
3.2.1 Historisch-vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft...................................69
3.2.2 Sprachtypologie .................................................................................72
3.2.3 Areallinguistik....................................................................................76
3.2.4 KL innerhalb der vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft ...................... 79
3.3 KL – Zweig der theoretischen und/oder angewandten Linguistik?..........83
3.3.1 Theoretische und angewandte Linguistik ..........................................85
3.3.2 Inner- und außerlinguistische Ziele der KL.......................................87
3.3.3 Standort der KL innerhalb der Linguistik.......................................... 93
3.3.4 Interdisziplinäre Wechselwirkungen..................................................96
3.4 Zwischenfazit zu Kapitel 3 .....................................................................100
4. KL in der Theorie..........................................................................................103
4.1 Gegenstand..............................................................................................103
4.1.1 Standardsprachen und sprachliche Substandards.............................104
4.1.2 Sprachmittel und Sprachzwecke, Ausdruck und Inhalt ...................108
6
Inhalt
4.2 Voraussetzungen.....................................................................................115
4.2.1 Beschreiben vor Vergleichen........................................................... 115
4.2.2 Bestimmung des tertium comparationis...........................................120
4.2.3 Bestimmung einer einheitlichen theoretischen Basis.......................130
4.3 Methoden ................................................................................................133
4.3.1 Beschreibend-vergleichende vs. beschreibende und vergleichende
Methode ...........................................................................................133
4.3.2 Unidirektionale vs. adirektionale Methode......................................134
4.4 Zwischenfazit zu Kapitel 4 .....................................................................141
5. KL in der Praxis des Fremdsprachenunterrichts........................................... 143
5.1 Fremdsprachenfehler und die Rolle der KL............................................143
5.1.1 Bestimmung von Fremdsprachenfehlern.........................................144
5.1.2 Ursachen von Fremdsprachenfehlern und die Rolle der KL............146
5.1.2.1 Transfer und Interferenz............................................................147
5.1.2.2 Weitere Ursachen für Fremdsprachenfehler............................. 156
5.2 Fremdsprachenunterricht und die Rolle der KL .....................................159
5.2.1 Bisherige Methoden und die Rolle des Sprachvergleichs................159
5.2.1.1 Grammatik-Übersetzungsmethode............................................159
5.2.1.2 Direkte Methode .......................................................................161
5.2.1.3 Audiolinguale und audiovisuelle Methode...............................162
5.2.1.4 Vermittelnde Methode ..............................................................164
5.2.1.5 Kognitive Methode ...................................................................165
5.2.1.6 Kommunikative Methode .........................................................166
5.2.1.7 Interkulturelle Methode.............................................................168
5.2.1.8 Sprachvergleich in den bisherigen Methoden des FSU ............169
5.2.2 Aktuelle Methodendiskussion und die Rolle der KL....................... 170
5.2.3 Einsatz der KL im Fremdsprachenunterricht................................... 177
5.3 Zwischenfazit zu Kapitel 5 .....................................................................185
6. Fazit ..............................................................................................................187
Abbildungsverzeichnis......................................................................................193
Tabellenverzeichnis ..........................................................................................195
Literaturverzeichnis ..........................................................................................197
... Resumo: Construir possibilidades de circulação das informações é essencial para qualquer área do conhecimento e quando se trata de uma área específica da Linguística, como a Linguística Contrastiva, par de língua Português e Alemão, torna-se imprescindível para o reconhecimento e a consolidação da área. Nesse sentido, esta pesquisa se propõe a buscar a literatura produzida na área, ampliando levantamento anterior (SIPRIANO, SOUZA e PEREIRA 2021) para áreas intra-e extralinguísticas (TEKIN 2012). O intento é concentrar os dados bibliográficos em locus acessível a toda comunidade científica. ...
Article
Full-text available
Construir possibilidades de circulação das informações é essencial para qualquer áreado conhecimento e quando se trata de uma área específica da Linguística, como a LinguísticaContrastiva, par de língua Português e Alemão, torna-se imprescindível para o reconhecimento ea consolidação da área. Nesse sentido, esta pesquisa se propõe a buscar a literatura produzida naárea, ampliando levantamento anterior (SIPRIANO, SOUZA e PEREIRA 2021) para áreas intra- eextralinguísticas (TEKIN 2012). O intento é concentrar os dados bibliográficos em locus acessívela toda comunidade científica. A partir das produções encontradas, traçamos análise quantiqualitativa no que diz respeito ao número de produções, à concentração de trabalhos por área epor periódico científico. Os dados encontrados possibilitaram, ainda, uma reflexão a respeito dapolítica de classificação dos periódicos científicos e seus impactos na comunidade científica e nasociedade.
... TerComp] cecha C właściwa wyrażeniu x polegająca na tym, że (i) w kodzie L i istnieje wyrażenie używane (przynajmniej wirtualnie) w sytuacji SYT i (ii) wyrażenie x 9Jest to jedno z możliwych ujęć TerComp w badaniach przekładowych, inne omawiają np.Krzeszowski 1984, Tekin 2012: 120-130, Bralewski 2012. Sytuację za TerComp uznają również m.in.Coseriu 1970, Hernández-Sacristán 1994, Chlebda 2011, Piotrowski 2011, Bralew- ski 2012 ...
Article
Full-text available
Przedmiotem artykulu recenzyjnego jest refleksja nad ksiązką Andrzeja Boguslawskiego Podstawy kontrastywnej lingwistyki przekladowej, w ktorej podjeto probe określenia przedmiotu i zakresu badawczego lingwistyki przekladowej. Autorzy z jednej strony omawiają dośc szczegolowo treśc ksiązki, z drugiej zaś odnoszą zaprezentowaną w ksiązce koncepcje do przekladoznawstwa, wykazując podstawowe roznice. Dla przykladu zaproponowane przez autora reguly przekladowe i podkreślanie faktu, iz przedmiotem badania nie mają byc konkretne teksty, ale komponenty kodow naturalnojezykowych, uświadamia, ze mamy do czynienia z optyką jezykoznawczą, a nie przekladoznawczą, gdzie przeklad, zatem konkretny tekst, jest elementem konstytutywnym dyscypliny
Chapter
A central topic in contrastive studies of language pairs or language classes is about establishing comparability, which means focusing on similarities and differences between languages. Similarity between language pairs presupposes that equivalent structures exist between the languages under study. But what does equivalence mean? Several studies have dealt with different types of equivalence, among others semantic or pragmatic equivalence, contextual equivalence or sentential equivalence. However, with particular attention to authentic discourse, equivalence has also to be defined in statistical terms, i.e. by focusing on the frequency of structures in the language pairs. This chapter aims at revisiting the notion of equivalence with an integration of the frequency dimension in contrastive studies. It will show that frequency differences in the use of similar structures in language pairs are very much dependent on the lexicalisation preferences in these languages. With two case studies for the language pair German versus French, we will demonstrate that the lexicalisation preferences depend, on the one hand, on the categorisation of both languages either as satellite-framed (German) or verb-framed (French) languages, and on the difference between synthetic (German) versus analytic (French) languages, on the other hand. The pair of languages under study, German and French, is particularly interesting as both languages have the same socio-cultural background, even if they are not genealogically related, but they belong to different typological classes and favour different lexicalisation patterns. The two studies provide evidence for the necessity to integrate frequency dimensions and favourite lexicalisation patterns in authentic contrastive analysis.
Preprint
A central topic in contrastive studies of language pairs or language classes is about “establishing the comparability” (Gast 2012: 3; Tekin 2012: 120) which means focusing on similarities and differences between languages (König & Gast 2012). Similarity between language pairs presupposes that equivalent structures exist between the languages under study. But what does equivalence mean? Several studies have dealt with different types of equivalence, among others semantic or pragmatic equivalence (James 1983; Olesky 1983 & 1986), contextual equivalence (Halliday, McIntosh & Strevens 1964) or sentential equivalence (Krzeszowski 1990). However, with particular attention to authentic discourse, equivalence has also to be defined in statistical terms (Krzeszowski 1981), i.e. by focusing on the frequency of structures in the language pairs. My talk aims at revisiting the notion of equivalence with an integration of the frequency dimension in contrastive studies. It will show that frequency differences in the use of similar structures in language pairs are very much dependent on the lexicalization preferences in these languages. With three case studies for the language pair German vs. French, the presentation will demonstrate that the lexicalization preferences depend, on the one hand, on the categorization of both languages either as satellite-framed (= German) or verb-framed (= French) languages (Slobin 1996 & 2017; Talmy 2000), and on the difference between synthetic (= German) vs. analytical (= French) languages (Schlücker 2012; Siemund 2004), on the other hand. The pair of languages under study, German and French, is particularly interesting as both languages have the same socio-cultural background, even if they are not genealogically related (De Vogelaer, Köster & Leuschner 2020: 1), but they belong to different typological classes and favor different lexicalization patterns. The first case study deals with causal constructions with (color) adjectives (De Knop 2015), e.g. Sie ist rot vor Wut (lit. ‘She is red with anger’). Equivalent syntactic structures with a similar semantics exist in both French and German. The second study deals with so-called “verbless directives” (Jacobs 2008; De Knop & Mollica 2018), e.g. Ab ins Bett (lit. ‘Off to bed’) which are used in both languages. However, both studies show that even if similar structures exist in German and French, they are not used with the same frequency; sometimes alternative lexicalization patterns are preferred as more authentic ways of expression. The final study explores German pleonastic constructions with a directional adverb (Olsen 1996; De Knop fc. 2021), e.g. Die Mutter setzt das Kind auf das Pferd drauf (lit. ‘The mother sets the child on the horse onto’), for which there are no proper equivalents in French. The three studies provide evidence for the necessity to integrate frequency dimensions and favorite lexicalization patterns in authentic contrastive analysis.
Chapter
Full-text available
The paper presents a German-Polish translation analysis of German secondary predicates erwartungsvoll ‘expectantly’, fassungslos ‘shocked’, hilflos ‘helplessly’, ratlos ‘helplessly’, verständnislos ‘uncomprehendingly’, vorwurfsvoll ‘reproachfully’ observed in their natural contexts (the analyzed sentences were taken from a parallel corpus). On the one hand, formally they are adverbs so one could expect that their translation equivalents are adverbs too. On the other hand, secondary predication in Polish is rather typical for adjectives. The analysis shows that their translation equivalents are not only adverbs or adverbials (prepositional phrases) but also adjectives, nouns and verbs (sentences). Although linguists will see secondary predicates in opposition to adverbials (one sort of them are adverbs), among their translation equivalents there are more adverbials than adjectives. This shows that general claims about adjective nature of secondary predication depends more on the language than on the semantics of these structures.
Article
Full-text available
In diesem Beitrag werden Ergebnisse zur kontrastiven Forschung zum Coronapandemie-Wortschatz im Gegenwartsdeutschen und Gegenwartsukrainischen vorgestellt. Das Ziel dieses Beitrags besteht darin, die Wörter, die in der Corona-Zeit in Deutschland und in der Ukraine verwendet werden, zu berücksichtigen, die strukturell-semantischen Merkmale von ausgewählten Wörtern in beiden Sprachen zu beschreiben, eine konzeptuelle Analyse durchzuführen, Wortpaare kontrastiv zu untersuchen, vorhandene Äquivalenztypen festzustellen und zu beschreiben. Die Analyse stützt sich auf ein manuell zusammengestelltes Korpus zum Coronapandemie-Wortschatz (deutsch: 735 Wörter / ukrainisch: 235 Wörter), wobei festzuhalten ist, dass die Menge der Einheiten des Korpus in beiden Sprachen variiert. Die gesammelten Wörter wurden in Sachgruppen eingeteilt, die quantitativ unterschiedlich repräsentiert sind. Die strukturell-semantischen Merkmale der Wörter des Korpus wurden beschrieben. Die Wortbildungstypen in beiden Sprachen wurden präzis dargestellt. Anhand des untersuchten Materials konnte ermittelt werden, dass die Anzahl der Entlehnungen und der Neubildungen in beiden Sprachen quantitativ differiert. Konzeptuelle Metaphern und Metonymien wurden ermittelt und beschrieben. Die Kontrastierung der deutsch-ukrainischen Wortpaare aufgrund der semantischen Übereinstimmungen und Unterschiede erlaubt es, von Voll-, Teil- und Nulläquivalenz zu sprechen.
Article
Full-text available
This paper investigates the uses of Italian and Spanish restrictive focus adverbs, concentrating on the three cognates solo, solamente and soltanto / tan solo. Our aim is to highlight the discourse similarities and differences between these cognates in contemporary varieties of Italian and European Spanish through a contrastive corpus-based analysis. A further aim is to shed light on the factors that explain the differences from both an intra- and a cross-linguistic perspective. Our data is drawn from existing monolingual Italian and Spanish corpora as well as a self-assembled comparable corpus of academic texts written in Italian and Spanish.
Thesis
The thesis examines typical errors in the pronunciation of German second language (L2) Danish learners and their evaluation by native Danish speakers. The first part of the thesis investigates into typical errors in empirical L2 speech data based on a contrastive analysis of the German and Danish sound systems. In the second part of the thesis, the typical pronunciation errors are analyzed in terms of their different error gravity. Danish native speakers rated different errors in the dimensions comprehensibility, accentedness and acceptability. In the summary, the findings of both studies are discussed with regard to their relevance for Danish language teaching in schools
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.