Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T20:15:35.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Typology of contrastive studies: specialisation, progress and applications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2008

Katarzyna Jaszczolt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
State-of-the-Art Article
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , January 1995 , pp. 1 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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

Aarts, F. (1991). Lexicography and syntax; the state of the art in learner's dictionaries of English. In Alatis, J. E. (ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1991. Linguistics and language pedagogy: the state of the art, 567–82. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Aarts, F. & Wekker, H. (1990). Contrastive grammar: theory and practice. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Further insights into contrastive analysis, 163–76. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: O.U.P.Google Scholar
Bańczerowski, J. (1980). Some contrastive considerations about semantics in the communication process. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Theoretical issues in contrastive linguistics, 325–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Beaugrande, R. De (1980). Text, discourse, and process. Toward a multidisciplinary science of texts. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cook, V. (1988). Chomsky's Universal Grammar. An introduction. Oxford: B. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cook, V. (1993). Linguistics and second language acquisition. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B. (1993). Word-type effects in bilingual processing tasks: support for a mixed-representational system. In Schreuder, R. & Weltens, B. (eds.), The bilingual lexicon, 27–51. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Pietro, R. (1971). Language structures in contrast. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Di Pietro, R. (1974). Contrastive analysis: demise or new life? In Nickel, G. (ed.), Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquee. Third Congress, Copenhagen 1972. Proceedings, vol. 1: Applied contrastive linguistics, 69–80. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.Google Scholar
Duff, P. A. (1993). Syntax, semantics, and SLA: the convergence of possessive and existential constructions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 1, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enkvist, N. E. (1984). Contrastive linguistics and text linguistics. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Contrastive linguistics. Prospects and problems, 45–67. Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1984). Remarks on contrastive pragmatics. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Contrastive linguistics. Prospects and problems, 119–41. Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisiak, J. (1990). On the present status of some metatheoretical and theoretical issues in contrastive linguistics. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Further insights into contrastive analysis, 3–22. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fisiak, J., Lipińska-Grzegorek, M. & Zabrocki, T. (1978). An introductory English-Polish contrastive grammar. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). The act of meaning. In Alatis, J. E. (ed.), Language, communication, and social meaning. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1992, 7–21. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hartmann, R. R. K. (1980). Contrastive textology. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.Google Scholar
Hartmann, R. R. K. (1992). Lexicography, with particular reference to English learners' dictionaries. Language Teaching, 25, 3, 151–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huellen, W. & Loerscher, W. (1989). On describing and analysing foreign language classroom discourse. In Oleksy, W. (ed.), Contrastive pragmatics, 169–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1993). Inequality in language: taking for granted. In Alatis, J. E. (ed.), Language, communication, and social meaning. Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics 1992, 23–40. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
James, C. (1980). Contrastive analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
James, C. (1990). Learner language. Language Teaching, 23, 4, 205–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janicki, K. (1980). Contrastive sociolinguistics: some methodological considerations. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Theoretical issues in contrastive linguistics, 11–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Janicki, K. (1990). On the tenability of the notion ‘pragmatic equivalence’ in contrastive analysis. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Further insights into contrastive analysis, 47–54. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1922). Language, its nature, development and origin. London: George Allen and Unwin. Reprinted in 1964.Google Scholar
Johansson, S. & Dahl, E. (1982). Elicitation techniques in contrastive linguistics: adverbial positions in English and Norwegian. In Nickel, G. and Nehls, D. (eds.), Error analysis, contrastive linguistics and second language learning. Papers from the 6th International Congress of Applied Linguistics. Lund 1981, 97–121. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.Google Scholar
Kalisz, R. (1981). The pragmatics, semantics and syntax of the English sentences with indicative that complements and Polish sentences with że complements. A contrastive study. Gdańsk: Uniwersytet Gdański.Google Scholar
Kamp, H. & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Kirsner, K., Lalor, E. & Hird, K. (1993). The bilingual lexicon: exercise, meaning and morphology. In Schreuder, R. & Weltens, B. (eds.), The bilingual lexicon, 215–48. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kress, G. R. (1971). Sentence complexity in contrastive linguistics. In Nickel, G. (ed.), Papers in contrastive linguistics, 97–102. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F. (1993). Accessing conceptual representations for words in a second language. In Schreuder, R. & Weltens, B. (eds.), The bilingual lexicon, 53–81. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krzeszowski, P. T. (1984). Tertium comparationis. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Contrastive linguistics. Prospects and problems, 301–12. Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krzeszowski, T. P. (1989). Towards a typology of contrastive studies. In Oleksy, W. (ed.), Contrastive pragmatics, 55–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Krzeszowski, T. P. (1990). Contrasting languages. The scope of contrastive linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebe-Harkort, M.-L. (1989). Interactive ethnolinguistics. In Oleksy, W. (ed.), Contrastive pragmatics, 101–11. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1993). Assessment strategies for second language acquisition theories. Applied Linguistics, 14, 3, 225–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. (1990). Linguistics: theory, practice and research. In Alatis, J. E. (ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1990. Linguistics, language teaching and language acquisition: the interdependence of theory, practice and research, 11–30. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. & Anderson, J. (1989). The acquisition of grammar. In Gopnik, I. & Gopnik, M. (eds.), From models to modules: studies in cognitive science from the McGill Workshops, 3–25. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.Google Scholar
Marmaridou, S. (1990). Contrastive analysis at discourse level and the communicative teaching of languages. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Further insights into contrastive analysis, 561–71. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Meara, P. (1993). The bilingual lexicon and the teaching of vocabulary. In Schreuder, R. & Weltens, B. (eds.), The bilingual lexicon, 279–97. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, C. (1993). Attitude change and foreign language culture learning. Language Teaching, 26, 2, 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickel, G. (1971). Contrastive linguistics and foreign language teaching. In Nickel, G. (ed.), Papers in contrastive linguistics, 1–16. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Nowakowski, M. (1980). The lexicon and contrastive language studies. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Theoretical issues in contrastive linguistics, 275–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Oleksy, W. (1984). Towards pragmatic contrastive analysis. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Contrastive linguistics. Prospects and problems, 349–64. Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pordany, L. (1990). The significance of cultural contrasts in acquisition research. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Further insights into contrastive analysis, 595–604. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Riley, P. (1981). Towards a contrastive pragmalinguistics. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Contrastive linguistics and the language teacher, 121–46. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Rings, L. (1992). Authentic spoken texts as examples of language variation: grammatical, situational, and cultural teaching models. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 1, 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, G. L. (1991). Second culture acquisition. In Alatis, J. E. (ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1991. Linguistics and language pedagogy: the state of the art, 114–22. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sajavaara, K. (1981). Contrastive linguistics past and present and a communicative approach. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Contrastive linguistics and the language teacher, 33–56. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Sajavaara, K. (1984). Psycholinguistic models, second language acquisition, and contrastive analysis. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Contrastive linguistics. Prospects and problems, 379–408. Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, C. (1981). Recent developments in contrastive analysis and their relevance to language teaching. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Contrastive linguistics and the language teacher, 21–32. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. (1949 a). A study in phonetic symbolism. In Mandelbaum, D. G. (ed.), Selected writings of Edward Sapir in language, culture and personality, 61–72. Berkeley: University of California Press. First published in 1929.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. (1949 b). The psychological reality of phonemes. In Mandelbaum, D. G. (ed.), Selected writings of Edward Sapir in language, culture and personality, 46–60. Berkeley: University of California Press. First published in French in 1933.Google Scholar
Saussure, F. De (1983). Course in general linguistics, translated by Harris, R.. London: Duckworth. First published in French in 1916.Google Scholar
Schreuder, R. & Weltens, B. (eds.). (1993). The bilingual lexicon. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: C.U.P.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: the English used by teachers and pupils. London: O.U.P.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, J. G. (1993). Translating versus picture naming: similarities and differences. In Schreuder, R. & Weltens, B. (eds.), The bilingual lexicon, 83–114. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis: the sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Szwedek, A. (1984). Some problems of contrastive analysis and text linguistics. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Contrastive linguistics. Prospects and problems, 419–29. Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verheijen, R. (1990). Generalized phrase structure grammar and contrastive analysis. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Further insights into contrastive analysis, 67–84. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact. Findings and problems. Reprinted in 1963 by The Hague: Mouton. Second edition.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (1990). Discourses of enquiry and conditions of relevance. In Alatis, J. E. (ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1990. Linguistics, language teaching and language acquisition: the interdependence of theory, practice and research, 37–48. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1988). The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-cultural pragmatics: the semantics of human interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1992). Semantics, culture and cognition. Oxford: O.U.P.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, R. (1974). Some remarks on pragmatics and contrastive analysis. In Nickel, G. (ed.), Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquee. Third Congress, Copenhagen 1972. Proceedings, vol. 1: Applied contrastive linguistics, 297–307. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.Google Scholar