Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-sv6ng Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-07T23:30:43.371Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Generative phonology and contrastive studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Jacek Fisiak
Jacek Fisiak*
Affiliation:
Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The development of contrastive studies (CS) in recent years, judging by the proliferation of projects and published materials, has been accompanied since the late sixties by vigorous discussions and controversies concerning the theoretical status of CS, their form and their place in both general and applied linguistics.

Many linguists and language teachers have gone so far as to reject the validity and usefulness of CS (cf. Alatis, 1968). It seems that this attitude results from a number of misunderstandings created by such factors as the peculiar methodological status of CS, the lack of a clear-cut distinction between theoretical and applied CS (Stockwell, 1968:25; Fisiak, 1971:88ff), and the lack of any precise formulation of the different aims of theoretical CS and applied CS, as well as the confusion of the relationship between CS, psycholinguistic theories of interference and errors, and the theory of second language learning (Zabrocki, 1976). Some confusion also stems from the misunderstanding of the relationship between CS and linguistic theory.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , Fall 1976 , pp. 171 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alatis, James E. (ed.) 1968 Contrastive Linguistics and Its Pedagogical Implications. Washington: Georgetown University Press. [Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, 21].Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1974 The Organization of Phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Catford, J.C. 1965 A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University Press. [Language and Language Learning, 8].Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris 1968 The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Di Pietro, R. J. 1971 Language Structures in Contrast. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Eliasson, S. 1974 Contrastive analysis of phonological rules. Reports from Uppsala University, Dept. of linguistics 3.28–34.Google Scholar
Erdmann, P. H. 1973 Patterns of stress-transfer in English and German. IRAL 11.229–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filipović, R. (ed.) 1971 Zagreb Conference on English Contrastive Projects. Zagreb: Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Fisiak, Jacek 1971 The Poznań Polish-English contrastive project. In Filipovic, , 1971: 87–96.Google Scholar
Fisiak, Jacek 1973– (editor) Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics (PSCL). 1(1973), 2(1974), 3(1975), 4(1976).Google Scholar
Fisiak, Jacek 1975 The contrastive analysis of phonological systems. KNf 22.341–51.Google Scholar
Gussmann, E. 1972 A note on phonological explanations of phonetic failings. Lubelskie Materiaty Neofilologiczne, pp. 85–96.Google Scholar
Gussmann, E. 1973 A phonology of consonantal alternations in Polish and English. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation M. Curie-Skłodowska University, Lublin.Google Scholar
Gussmann, E. 1975 How do phonological rules compare? PSCL 3.113–23.Google Scholar
Kohler, K. 1971 On the adequacy of phonological theories for contrastive studies. In Nickel, , 1971:83–8.Google Scholar
Koo, J. H. 1972 Language universals and the acquisition of an unfamiliar sound. IRAL 10.145–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marek, B. 1975 Intonation and emphasis in Polish and English. PSCL 3.159–65.Google Scholar
Nickel, G. (ed.) 1971 Papers in Contrastive Linguistics. Cambridge: The University Press.Google Scholar
Ozga, J. 1974 Stress in English and Polish––an introduction to a contrastive analysis. PSCL 2.123–35.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy 1975a Low phonetic voice assimilation with obstruents in Polish and English. PSCL 3.125–39.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy 1975b On contextual modifications of plosives. PSCL 3.141–57.Google Scholar
Schane, S. A. 1973 Generative Phonology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P. 1968 Contrastive analysis and lapsed time. In Alatis, , 1968:11–26.Google Scholar
Veith, Werner 1972 Probleme der kontrastiven Phonologie im Deutschen und Englischen. ZDL 39.147–70.Google Scholar
Wardhaugh, Ronald 1967 Three approaches to contrastive phonological analysis. CJL/RCL 13.3–14.(1967–68.Google Scholar
Zabrocki, T. 1976 On the so-called “theoretical contrastive studies.” PSCL 4.97–109.Google Scholar