Contrastive Grammar Lecture 1 PDF

**Lecture 1** **Contrastive Grammar, its Aim, Basic Notions and Methods** **Plan** 1. The concept of contrastive typology of languages. Subject, main notions and objectives of contrastive grammar. 2. Isomorphism and allomorphism in the structure of language. 3. Methods of contrastive gra...

**Lecture 1** **Contrastive Grammar, its Aim, Basic Notions and Methods** **Plan** 1. The concept of contrastive typology of languages. Subject, main notions and objectives of contrastive grammar. 2. Isomorphism and allomorphism in the structure of language. 3. Methods of contrastive grammar research. 4. History of contrastive grammar studies. 5. Synthetic and analytic languages. **1. The concept of contrastive typology of languages. Subject, main notions and objectives of contrastive grammar.** Human language, an important and perfect means of communication between people, means of interchanging thoughts, can perform all its functions, because it is a flexible system, which is at the same time so perfectly organized. As any other system, language has two sides. On the one hand, it consists of the elements: phonemes, morphemes, words, that have some material form: sounds, and on the other hand, it has a structure. The language structure is its inner organization, scheme of bonds and relations of the elements, enumerated above, which functions in the act of communication. There is an enormous number of languages in the world; some features are similar for various languages, while the others are absolutely different. There are also certain properties that are characteristic of just one language. Language as a system consists of several subsystems all based on oppositions, differences, similarities and positional values. **Typology** is a branch of linguistics aimed at classifying main significant characteristics of the language features and formulating general regularities that can be observed in different languages. It can also be defined as a science of language types and the structure of language types. Typology studies languages comparing them with the purpose of establishing both common regularities of their historical development universal regularities of positioning the elements of inner structure within the systems of different languages. Typological studies should be called comparative-typological, because comparing structures of different languages is an integral part of such linguistic studies. As any other linguistic investigation, typological studies can be both synchronic and diachronic. **Contrastive typology** aims at establishing the most general structural types of languages on the basis of their dominant or common phonological, morphological, lexical and syntactic features. Apart from this, contrastive typology may equally treat dominant or common features only, as well as divergent features only, which are found both in languages of the same structural type (synthetic, analytical, agglutinative, etc.) as well as in languages of different structural types. The term \"**grammar**\" has two meanings: 1\) a branch of linguistics that studies language structure; 2\) grammatical structure inherent in every language, i.d. laws according to which language units function. The rules controlling the way a communication system works are known as its **grammar**, and both sender and recipient need to use the same grammar if they are to understand each other. If there is no grammar, there can be no effective communication. We can see this by dipping into the vocabulary of English and trying to do without grammar. **Contrastive grammar** is a branch of contrastive linguistics that aims at establishing common and divergent as well as dominant and recessive features of the grammatical structure of the languages compared and determining their structural types on this basis. The number of languages subjected to typological contrasting at a time is not limited. Contrastive investigations may be focused on various linguistic phenomena ranging from separate signs of the phonetic/ phonological, morphological, lexical or syntactic phenomena of the languages. Contrastive grammar as a branch of linguistics employs some **terms and notions** of its own: 1\) **Absolute universals** (i.e. features which are common to any languages of the world, cf. parts of speech, parts of the sentence etc.); 2\) **Near universals**, i.e. features which are common to some languages under typological investigation; 3\) **Metalanguage**, i.e. the language in which analysis of contrasted languages is carried out; 4\) **Typologically dominant features**, i.e. features dominating in one/some/all the contrasted languages and predetermining its structural type as analytical or synthetic; cf. rigid word order, prominent role of prepositions in expressing case relations, word morphemes in expressing grammar categories, etc. in English and case, person, gender, number, tense etc. inflexions in Ukrainian; 5\) **Typologically recessive features**, i.e. features losing their former dominant role; cf. case forms in English or dual number forms of some nouns in Ukrainian; 6\) **Isomorphic features**, i.e. common features, observed in all the compared languages; cf. categories of number, person, tense, parts of speech. 7\) **Allomorphic features**, i.e. divergent features, observed in one language and missing in others; cf. analytical verb forms in English; 8\) **Typological constants**, i.e. features that are contrasted. The main typological constants of the English and Ukrainian morphology are: 1) morphemes; 2) parts of speech; 3) morphological categories of the parts of speech. The **objectives** of major contrastive typological investigations in grammar are as follows: 1. To identify and classify the main isomorphic and allomorphic grammatical features characteristic of the languages under analysis. 2. To draw from these common or divergent features respectively the isomorphic regularities and the allomorphic singularities in the grammar systems of the contrasted languages. 3. To establish on the basis of the obtained isomorphic features the typical language structures and the types of languages. 4. To establish on this basis the universal features/phenomena, which pertain to the languages under consideration. **2. Isomorphism and allomorphism in the structure of language.** In the course of the contrastive grammar we are to single out isomorphic and allomorphic features of English and Ukrainian grammatical structures. **Isomorphic features/phenomena** are common features/phenomena in languages under contrastive analysis. Isomorphic in English and Ukrainian are, for example, the categories of number, person, tense, as well as parts of speech, the existence of different types of sentences etc. **Allomorphic features/phenomena** are those observed in one language and missing in the other. Isomorphic and allomorphic features of the contrasted languages should be singled out and analyzed, which can help in translation practice and foreign language teaching. To compare the languages we should first find the elements that can be contrasted. Taking into account the fact that typological comparison is carried out not on the basis of the similarity of form or etymology, but on the basis of [functional similarity of definite phenomena] of the contrasted languages, the **first criterion** to characterize the unit of typological comparison should be the criterion of [functional similarity] of the contrasted phenomena. Thus, for instance, morphemes expressing degrees of comparison in Ukrainian **-іше** and English **--er,** number morphemes in Ukrainian **-і, -и, -а** and in English **--(e)s.** But suffixes of the feminine gender in Ukrainian (вихователька, учениця) cannot be contrasted to the corresponding English suffixes (-ess, -me, -rix, -ine, -ette) which [identify the masculine and feminine sex], not grammatical gender. The **second criterion** for the typological unit to be contrasted is its [ability] [to combine general and particular features]. It allows to make generalized conclusions as of the particular phenomena of the contrasted languages (different cases have their own features, their own semes), while they all have a common feature, they express the relation of the subject to other subjects, phenomena, processes, etc. The **third criterion**: the unit of typological comparison should include not individual words but a [class of words]. It is worth emphasizing that the general implicit and dependent grammatical meanings of the notional parts of speech in both languages coincide, which considerably facilitates their contrastive study. Besides, it is important that in the process of typological study only correlated language units and phenomena can be contrasted. It means that the units and phenomena have to be of the same status, i.e. they have to belong to a common class of units or phenomena in the languages in question. They have to occupy the same position in the language systems and consequently serve as constants for typological comparison. Numberless examples in different languages show that grammar is not indifferent to the concrete lexical meaning of words and their capacity to combine with one another in certain patterns. The use of some grammatical rules is well known to be lexically restricted. Grammar and vocabulary are organically related to each other. No part of grammar can be adequately described without reference to vocabulary. With all this, it is essential to understand what separates grammar from vocabulary, wherein lie the peculiarities of each of the two levels and their relationship in general. To ignore this is to ignore the dialectical nature of language. The fact that grammar and vocabulary are organically related to each other may be well illustrated by the development of analytical forms which are known to have originated from free syntactic groups. These consist of at least two words but actually constitute one sense-unit. Only one of the elements has lexical meaning, the other has none, and being an auxiliary word possesses only grammatical meaning. Not less characteristic are idiomatic grammatical forms of the verb, such as, for instance, *going to*-future or patterns with the verb *to get +* participle II established by long use in the language to indicate voice distinctions, *used to* + Infinitive, *would* + Infinitive for regular actions in the Past, and so on. **3. Methods of contrastive grammar research.** Contrastive typological investigations are carried out with the help of some methods. The main one is **the contrastive (comparative) method**. The principle aim of the contrastive method is to establish isomorphic and allomorphic, dominant and recessive features of the languages compared and drawing conclusions as to their structural types. Comparing is done on the basis of **deduction** and **induction**. **Inductive method** draws on the empirical facts: scientists observe the facts, make conclusions and verify these conclusions by more facts. Practically, this method needs no verification since the investigated phenomena were already proved by preceding generations of researchers. **Deductive method** presupposes making conclusions on the basis of logical calculations which suggest all theoretically admissive variants of realization of a certain feature in contrasted languages and consequently need verification. **The (ICs) immediate constituents method** is employed to contrast constituent parts of the language units. At the morphological level the ICs method helps determine morphemic structures of the words of the languages compared; ex. the nouns *in-nova-tion-s* and *пере-напр-уг-а* consist of 4 ICs. Method of oppositions is used to establish grammatical categories. **The transformational method** is more often employed than the ICs method. Also it is more helpful when identifying the nature of some language unit in a contrasted language. Its reliability is clearly proved through translation, which is always the best transformation of any language unit. The transformational method is employed: a\) to identify the nature of a language unit in the source language or in the target language; b\) to reveal the difference in the form of expression in the contrasted languages. **4. History of contrastive grammar studies.** The journey of contrastive studies, a field dedicated to systematically comparing languages to identify their structural and functional similarities and differences, boasts a rich history. **Early Inklings (17th-18th Centuries)** The quest to understand linguistic relationships can be traced back as early as the 17th and 18th centuries. Pioneering scholars like Jan Komensky and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz were intrigued by striking lexical parallels between geographically distant languages, such as Sanskrit and Ukrainian. Shared terms for fundamental concepts like family members (mother, brother, sister) sparked curiosity about potential historical connections or underlying universal cognitive structures. These early observations planted the seeds for future systematic investigations. **Formal Typological Studies Take Root (19th Century)** The 19th century witnessed the blossoming of formal typological studies, which primarily focused on morphology (word structure) as the basis for language comparison. Pioneering works by prominent figures like Friedrich Schlegel, August Schlegel, and Wilhelm von Humboldt established typological classifications based on the presence and complexity of morphemes used in word formation. These classifications categorized languages as isolating (e.g., Chinese), agglutinative (e.g., Turkic languages), inflectional (e.g., Indo-European languages), and incorporating (e.g., certain Native American languages). Additionally, Franz Bopp further refined typological analysis by incorporating the number of syllables in root morphemes as a classification criterion. **Late 19th & Early 20th Centuries** The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw a shift towards expanding the criteria used in contrastive studies. Linguists such as Heymann Steinthal and Franz Nikolaus Finck recognized the importance of incorporating syntactic features like word order and the mechanisms for expressing grammatical relations within sentences. This broader approach acknowledged that languages structure and convey meaning in diverse ways, and not just through the building blocks of words. **20th Century Paradigms** The 20th century ushered in a period of significant advancements in contrastive studies. Edward Sapir challenged the prevailing evolutionary view of language development and the limitations of earlier classifications. He proposed a novel system based on three core criteria: - The degree of cohesion between root morphemes and affixal morphemes within a word. - The degree of synthesis, which refers to the capacity of a single word to express multiple lexical and grammatical meanings (e.g., the versatility observed in inflectional languages). - The nature of the morphological processes involved in word formation (isolation, agglutination, or fusion). Sapir\'s groundbreaking work not only challenged the limitations of earlier typologies but also acknowledged languages as complex systems capable of exhibiting shared features across previously established categories. The 20th century also witnessed significant contributions from other scholars: - Joseph Greenberg\'s pioneering work on quantitative typology, which employed statistical methods to identify language universals. - The Prague School linguists\' emphasis on charactereological typology, focusing on the inherent features of a language that shape its overall structure. - The development of phonological typology by Oleksa Isačenko, which explored how languages organize and utilize sound systems. In conclusion, the field of contrastive studies has undergone a continuous process of refinement throughout history. By moving beyond the limitations of earlier morphology-centric approaches, contemporary contrastive analysis employs a multifaceted approach that considers both structural and functional aspects of language. This multifaceted approach leads to a more nuanced understanding of linguistic diversity, identification of language universals, and ultimately, informs our understanding of the human faculté de langage (faculty of language). **5. Synthetic and analytic languages.** It is a common statement that modern English is an analytical language, as distinct from modern Ukrainian, which is synthetic one. Nowadays this statement is modified, and it sounds as follows: English is "mainly analytical" and Ukrainian is "mainly synthetic". **Analytical languages** are the languages, whose grammatical and word- forming meanings are mostly expressed by analytical means (split analytical forms of the word, auxiliaries, word order). **Analysis in a language** (the word comes from Greek "dividing into parts") is a typological property, expressed in separated expression of the main (lexical) and additional (grammatical, derivational) meaning of the word. *Analytical features* of the languages are as follows: 1. morphologically indeclinable words and analytical (compound) forms and constructions; 2. comparatively few grammatical inflections (case inflections in nouns, adjectives and pronouns, and personal inflections in verbs); 3. a sparing use of sound alterations to denote grammatical forms; 4. a wide use of prepositions to denote relations between objects and to connect words in the sentence; 5. a prominent use of word order to denote grammatical relations: a more or less fixed word order. [Analytical constructions include the combination of the meaningful and auxiliary words.] According to their functions, analytical constructions can be *morphological, syntactic* and *lexical*. **Morphological** analytical constructions constitute one word-form, expressing some morphological category: tense (is reading); aspect (буду читать); voice (is done); degree of comparison (найбільш приємний) and others. **Syntactic** analytical constructions form one and the same part of the sentence. For example, a compound predicate: *He [started singing]*; an attribute: *чоловік* [ *великої волі.*] **Lexical** analytical constructions express word-forming meanings: *little house, брати участь, жінка-пілот.* As an auxiliary element within analytical constructions can be both a formal word (articles, prepositions) or a notional word with lost semantics. Analytical construction is a form of the language asymmetry. Being semantically and functionally equal to a word it has a form of a word- combination: their components can change position, include additional elements, the construction can be shortened. The boundaries between morphological, syntactic analytical constructions and two separate parts of the sentence are delicate. Thus, *буде робити* is a morphological analytical constructions*, почне робити* is a syntactic analytical constructions, while *почне робити* are two parts of the sentence. In the course of a language history some synthetic constructions are substituted by analytical ones, e.g. declension forms are replaced by prepositional-declensional and later on, by prepositional (if declension system is destroyed). On the other hand, on the basis of some analytical constructions, synthetic forms can appear. Synthetic and analytical forms can co-exist within one and the same paradigm. **Synthesis in language** is a typological property of a language system which consists in combination of several morphemes within one word. Beside morphological synthesis there exists syntactical and word-forming synthesis. The former consists in forming a part of the sentence by means of one word-form, without formal words or word order. Compare synthetic (simple) and analytical (complex) predicate, object, etc. Synthesis in word-formation consists in expressing several meanings by one word (simple, derivative or compound), whereas analytical forms express the same meanings with the help of word-combinations: *широкоплечий -- широкий в плечах, to partake -- to take part.* The history of linguistic theory presents the examples of interpreting analysis and synthesis as a reflection of the language progress. Linguists in XIX century considered synthetic languages to be more developed and perfect than analytical ones: analytical languages were formed as a result of breaking up flexion systems. At the beginning of the XX century dominated another viewpoint (O. Jespersen), according to which synthesis is more archaic form of the language than analysis, all the languages gradually go from synthesis to analysis. Nevertheless, synthesis and analysis in languages are not manifested in pure form, any language represents the combination of these two features of the language structure. In the course of a language development synthetic forms and constructions can be replaced by analytical ones, and vice versa. In different languages new analytical formations appear all the time, because combination of words is the simplest and most clearly motivated method of nomination. **References** 1\. **Pavlyuk** N. **Contrastive Grammar of English and Ukrainian**. Донецьк: ДонНУ, 2010. 197 p. 2\. Методичні вказівки до практичних (семінарських) занять з дисципліни «Порівняльна граматика англійської та української мов» для студентів ІІІ курсу галузі знань 0203 Гуманітарні науки, напряму 6.020303 Філологія з подальшим навчанням за спеціальністю 7.02030304 "Переклад" усіх форм навчання / Укл. : М. О. Кузнецова. Запоріжжя : ЗНТУ, 2014. 78 с. 3\. Contrastive Grammar: Theory and Practice: навч. посіб. / Укл.: Н. Ф. Гладуш, Н. В. Павлюк. Київ, 2019. 296 с.