Contrastive analysis

Katarzyna M. Jaszczolt
Table of contents

Contrastive studies, as a method of linguistic analysis, have a long tradition dating back at least to the end of the nineteenth century, with three important landmarks: the 1920s and the 1930s in American structuralism, the Chomskyan revolution in the 1960s with the emergence of generative grammar, and the ‘post-revolutionary’ emphasis on theoretical contrastive projects which subsequently began to appear all over Europe. The latest landmark, dating back to the 1970s, is constituted by the transfer from an emphasis on grammatical competence to communicative competence as an element of sociocultural competence. Sociocultural competence incorporates grammatical as well as pragmatic issues (see Sajavaara 1981).

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.

References

Bańczerowski, J.
1980 Some contrastive considerations about semantics in the communication process. !! In Fisiak, J. (ed.): 325–345. Google Scholar
De Beaugrande, R.
1980 Text discourse, and process. Ablex. Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. & J. House & G. Kasper
1989 Cross-cultural pragmatics. Ablex. Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.
1981 Lectures on government and binding. Foris. Google Scholar
Di Pietro, R.
1971 Language structures in contrast. Newbury House. Google Scholar
Fisiak, J.
1990 On the present status of some metatheoretical and theoretical issues in contrastive linguistics. In J. Fisiak (ed.): 3–22. Google Scholar
1980 Theoretical issues in contrastive linguistics. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1981 Contrastive linguistics and the language teacher. Pergamon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fisiak, J
(ed.) 1984 Contrastive linguisticsMouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 1990 Further insights into contrastive analysisJohn Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fisiak, J. & M. Lipińska-Grzegorek
. T. Zabrocki 1978 An introductory Polish-English contrastive grammarPaństwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & R. Hasan
1976 Cohesion in English. Longman. Google Scholar
Hartmann, R. R. K.
1992 Lexicography with particular reference to English learners,’ dictionaries. Language Teaching, July: 151–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
James, C.
1980 Contrastive analysis. Longman. Google Scholar
1990 Learner language. Language Teaching, October: 205–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kalisz, R.
1981 The pragmatics semantics and syntax of the English sentences. Uniwersytet Gdański. Google Scholar
Kasper, G. & S. Blum-Kulka
1993 Interlanguage pragmatics. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Krzeszowski, T. P.
1990 Contrasting languages. Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liebe-Harkort, M-L.
1989 Interactive ethnolinguistics. In W. Oleksy (ed.): 101–111. Google Scholar
Lyons, J.
1990 Linguistics. In J. E. Alatis (ed.) GURT. 1990: 11–30. Georgetown University Press. Google Scholar
Oleksy, W.
1984 Towards pragmatic contrastive analysis. In J. Fisiak (ed.): 349–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989 Contrastive pragmatics. John Benjamins. Google Scholar
Sajavaara, K.
1981 Contrastive linguistics past and present and a communicative approach. In J. Fisiak (ed.): 33–56. Google Scholar
1984 Psycholinguistic models second language acquisition, and contrastive analysis. In J. Fisiak ed.: 379–408. ). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, J. & M. Bertuccelli Papi
1987 The pragmatic perspective. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A.
1988 The semantics of grammar. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991 Cross-cultural pragmatics. Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992 Semantics culture, and cognition. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar