{"title":"Review of Georgiafentis, Giannoulopoulou, Koloipoulou & Tsokoglou (2020): Contrastive Studies in Morphology and Syntax","authors":"Nicholas Catasso","doi":"10.1075/LIC.21003.CAT","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/LIC.21003.CAT","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43502,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contrast","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75984942","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper proposes to study the contrastive syntax of French and Chinese through the lens of syntactic mismatches, and by making use of parallel treebanks. A syntactic mismatch is the non-similarity between the syntactic structures of one linguistic unit and its translation. Syntactic mismatches are formalized using the notion of paraphrase from the Meaning-Text Theory, which allows for capturing mismatches at different levels of the linguistic description (e.g. Semantic, Deep-Syntactic, and Surface-Syntactic). In this paper, we report in details on the types of paraphrases found in the seed corpus used, demonstrating that the Deep-Syntactic paraphrases constitute the best starting point for our study. Then, we show how, starting from the seed corpus, we semi-automatically constructed a multi-layer parallel treebank with the alignment and annotation of paraphrases.
{"title":"Paraphrase and parallel treebank for the comparison of French and Chinese syntax","authors":"Rafaël Poiret, Simon Mille, Haitao Liu","doi":"10.1075/LIC.20002.POI","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/LIC.20002.POI","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This paper proposes to study the contrastive syntax of French and Chinese through the lens of syntactic mismatches, and by making use of parallel treebanks. A syntactic mismatch is the non-similarity between the syntactic structures of one linguistic unit and its translation. Syntactic mismatches are formalized using the notion of paraphrase from the Meaning-Text Theory, which allows for capturing mismatches at different levels of the linguistic description (e.g. Semantic, Deep-Syntactic, and Surface-Syntactic). In this paper, we report in details on the types of paraphrases found in the seed corpus used, demonstrating that the Deep-Syntactic paraphrases constitute the best starting point for our study. Then, we show how, starting from the seed corpus, we semi-automatically constructed a multi-layer parallel treebank with the alignment and annotation of paraphrases.","PeriodicalId":43502,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contrast","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87189572","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The aim of this paper is to explore and contrast the morphosyntactic and semantic features of two equivalent nonce echo constructions (NECs) expressing disapproval and annoyance (i.e. don’t (you) X me and ni X ni Y) in colloquial English and Spanish. A NEC is defined as a reactive clause containing duplicated words of the initiative, showing the property of nonceness, and having a communicative goal. Two types of NECs are found in both languages: an attitudinal echo construction and a referential one, the former being more idiomatic than the latter. Based on the premise that texts are necessarily dialogic, two sets of examples are obtained from English corpora (The Movie Corpus, The TV Corpus, and the Corpus of American Soap Operas); and from two Spanish corpora and a dataset (CREA, CORPES XXI, and the Dataset of Spanish Dialogic Texts Online). Findings suggest that both languages show negative and restricted syntactic templates. Variables are coinages that originate from the processes of conversion in English (e.g. don’t you John me) and gender polarity in Spanish (e.g. ni luna ni *luno). Hence, although both types of variables are morphologically novel and contextually meaningful, Spanish variables are generally ungrammatical and unlikely to exist outside the discursive frame under study.
摘要本文旨在探讨和对比英语口语和西班牙语中表达不赞成和不满的两种等价的非once回声结构(即don 't (you) X me和ni X ni Y)的形态句法和语义特征。NEC被定义为包含主动重复词的反应性子句，具有非性，并具有交际目的。在两种语言中都发现了两种类型的NECs:态度回声结构和指称回声结构，前者比后者更符合习惯。在文本必须是对话的前提下，从英语语料库(电影语料库、电视语料库和美国肥皂剧语料库)中获得两组例子;以及两个西班牙语料库和一个数据集(CREA, CORPES XXI和西班牙语对话文本在线数据集)。研究结果表明，两种语言都表现出消极和限制性的句法模板。变量是由英语中的转换过程(例如don 't you John me)和西班牙语中的性别极性(例如ni luna ni *luno)产生的新词。因此，尽管这两种类型的变量在形态上都是新颖的，并且在语境上有意义，但西班牙语变量通常是不符合语法的，不太可能存在于所研究的话语框架之外。
{"title":"On nonce echo constructions expressing disapproval and annoyance","authors":"J. A. Sánchez Fajardo","doi":"10.1075/LIC.20003.SAN","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/LIC.20003.SAN","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The aim of this paper is to explore and contrast the morphosyntactic and semantic features of two equivalent nonce echo constructions (NECs) expressing disapproval and annoyance (i.e. don’t (you) X me and ni X ni Y) in colloquial English and Spanish. A NEC is defined as a reactive clause containing duplicated words of the initiative, showing the property of nonceness, and having a communicative goal. Two types of NECs are found in both languages: an attitudinal echo construction and a referential one, the former being more idiomatic than the latter. Based on the premise that texts are necessarily dialogic, two sets of examples are obtained from English corpora (The Movie Corpus, The TV Corpus, and the Corpus of American Soap Operas); and from two Spanish corpora and a dataset (CREA, CORPES XXI, and the Dataset of Spanish Dialogic Texts Online). Findings suggest that both languages show negative and restricted syntactic templates. Variables are coinages that originate from the processes of conversion in English (e.g. don’t you John me) and gender polarity in Spanish (e.g. ni luna ni *luno). Hence, although both types of variables are morphologically novel and contextually meaningful, Spanish variables are generally ungrammatical and unlikely to exist outside the discursive frame under study.","PeriodicalId":43502,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contrast","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79567122","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This study aims to describe the melodic contours used in Spanish and English calling vocatives in order to identify cross-linguistic similarities and differences. Additionally, it also explores how the sociopragmatic factor of formality may condition contour choices in both languages. 18 speakers of Spanish and 18 speakers of English produced a total of 432 one-word vocatives in formal and informal situations. The analyses of the F contours revealed that, although Spanish and English share multiple melodies in this speech act (e.g. L+H* L%, L* H% and L+H* !H%), some tones are language-specific (e.g. L+H* HL% for Spanish). In addition, a General Linear Mixed Model confirmed that these contours are not equally attested in all contexts and that the formality of the situation can condition their use.
{"title":"Vocative melodies in Spanish and English","authors":"Sergio Robles-Puente","doi":"10.1075/lic.19023.rob","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.19023.rob","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study aims to describe the melodic contours used in Spanish and English calling vocatives in order to identify cross-linguistic similarities and differences. Additionally, it also explores how the sociopragmatic factor of formality may condition contour choices in both languages. 18 speakers of Spanish and 18 speakers of English produced a total of 432 one-word vocatives in formal and informal situations. The analyses of the F contours revealed that, although Spanish and English share multiple melodies in this speech act (e.g. L+H* L%, L* H% and L+H* !H%), some tones are language-specific (e.g. L+H* HL% for Spanish). In addition, a General Linear Mixed Model confirmed that these contours are not equally attested in all contexts and that the formality of the situation can condition their use.","PeriodicalId":43502,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contrast","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90979801","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract N‑gram analysis (popularized e.g. by Biber et al., 1999 ) has become a popular method for the identification of recurrent language patterns. Although the extraction of n‑grams from a corpus may seem straightforward, it proves to be very challenging when applied cross-linguistically (cf. e.g. Ebeling and Ebeling, 2013 ; Granger and Lefer, 2013 ; Cermakova and Chlumska, 2017 ). The major issue is that the quantities of n‑grams of a certain length in typologically different languages do not correspond. Consequently, n‑grams of a given length may function differently across languages, rendering a direct comparison inadequate. Our paper introduces a function capable of modelling the relation between the quantities of n‑grams in typologically distant languages, using the example of Czech and English (and some other language pairs). Based on our model, we can suggest what n‑gram lengths should be contrasted to better reflect the size of n‑gram inventories in each language. The correspondence may not be intuitive (e.g. a Czech 2-gram may best correspond to an English 2.5-gram), but it still provides researchers with a general guide as to what might be useful to include in their analysis (e.g. in this case 2-grams in Czech and 2- and 3-grams in English).
N图分析(如Biber等人，1999年推广)已成为识别循环语言模式的流行方法。虽然从语料库中提取n - gram似乎很简单，但当跨语言应用时，它被证明是非常具有挑战性的(参见Ebeling和Ebeling, 2013;Granger and Lefer, 2013;Cermakova and Chlumska, 2017)。主要的问题是，在不同的语言类型中，一定长度的n - gram的数量并不对应。因此，给定长度的n - gram在不同语言中的作用可能不同，这使得直接比较是不充分的。本文以捷克语和英语(以及其他一些语言对)为例，介绍了一个能够对类型学上相距较远的语言中n - gram数量之间的关系进行建模的函数。基于我们的模型，我们可以建议应该对比哪些n - gram长度，以更好地反映每种语言中n - gram库存的大小。这种对应关系可能不是直观的(例如，捷克语中的2克可能最适合英语中的2.5克)，但它仍然为研究人员提供了一个通用的指导，告诉他们在分析中可能包括哪些有用的内容(例如，在这种情况下，捷克语中的2克和英语中的2克和3克)。
{"title":"Modelling crosslinguistic n‑gram correspondence in typologically different languages","authors":"Jiří Milička, V. Cvrček, L. Lukešová","doi":"10.1075/lic.19018.mil","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.19018.mil","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract N‑gram analysis (popularized e.g. by Biber et al., 1999 ) has become a popular method for the identification of recurrent language patterns. Although the extraction of n‑grams from a corpus may seem straightforward, it proves to be very challenging when applied cross-linguistically (cf. e.g. Ebeling and Ebeling, 2013 ; Granger and Lefer, 2013 ; Cermakova and Chlumska, 2017 ). The major issue is that the quantities of n‑grams of a certain length in typologically different languages do not correspond. Consequently, n‑grams of a given length may function differently across languages, rendering a direct comparison inadequate. Our paper introduces a function capable of modelling the relation between the quantities of n‑grams in typologically distant languages, using the example of Czech and English (and some other language pairs). Based on our model, we can suggest what n‑gram lengths should be contrasted to better reflect the size of n‑gram inventories in each language. The correspondence may not be intuitive (e.g. a Czech 2-gram may best correspond to an English 2.5-gram), but it still provides researchers with a general guide as to what might be useful to include in their analysis (e.g. in this case 2-grams in Czech and 2- and 3-grams in English).","PeriodicalId":43502,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contrast","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74422945","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Based on the description of EU legislative varieties covering EU directives and their national laws of implementation in 11 languages, we are interested in the extent to which Eurolects are similar to each other, above and beyond trivial genealogical similarities. We thus utilise a variation-oriented aggregative analysis technique to address these questions: (a) What is the precise extent to which Eurolects are similar to each other? (b) Are similarities predicted by extra-linguistic affinities? (c) Do factors such as EU accession dates and language policy play a role in shaping the Eurolect clusters? Our methodology starts out from a meticulously catalogued list of corpus-based and corpus-driven lexical and grammatical features. Through the observed presence or absence of these features, we calculate in a second step the aggregate linguistic distances between all of the Eurolects. Finally, in step three, we use a well-established technique, Multidimensional Scaling, to visualize and interpret the Eurolect landscape.
{"title":"Mapping Eurolects","authors":"Laura Mori, Benedikt Szmrecsanyi","doi":"10.1075/lic.19017.mor","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.19017.mor","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Based on the description of EU legislative varieties covering EU directives and their national laws of\u0000 implementation in 11 languages, we are interested in the extent to which Eurolects are similar to each other, above and beyond\u0000 trivial genealogical similarities. We thus utilise a variation-oriented aggregative analysis technique to address these questions:\u0000 (a) What is the precise extent to which Eurolects are similar to each other? (b) Are similarities predicted by extra-linguistic\u0000 affinities? (c) Do factors such as EU accession dates and language policy play a role in shaping the Eurolect clusters? Our\u0000 methodology starts out from a meticulously catalogued list of corpus-based and corpus-driven lexical and grammatical features. Through the observed\u0000 presence or absence of these features, we calculate in a second step the aggregate linguistic distances between all of the\u0000 Eurolects. Finally, in step three, we use a well-established technique, Multidimensional Scaling, to visualize and interpret the\u0000 Eurolect landscape.","PeriodicalId":43502,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contrast","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2020-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91363554","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Hedging is a complex phenomenon with an indefinite number of potential realisations. The complexity and versatility of hedging strategies make them particularly interesting to study across languages. This contrastive study compares the realisations of the pragmatic function of hedging in everyday Norwegian and English conversations using data from four corpora of Norwegian and English informal spoken conversations (the Norwegian Speech Corpus, the Nordic Dialect Corpus, the BigBrother corpus, and the BNC2014). The results show that speakers of both languages mainly use pragmatic particles, adverbs, and first-/second-person pronouns + cognitive verbs [1/2 pers. + Cog. V] to express hedging. Furthermore, English speakers use significantly more [1/2 pers. + Cog. V] and modal verbs than Norwegian speakers, who use significantly more adjectives, prepositional phrases and clauses to hedge their utterances.
{"title":"“I guess anyone would do that wouldn’t they?”","authors":"Stine Hulleberg Johansen","doi":"10.1075/lic.19025.joh","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.19025.joh","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Hedging is a complex phenomenon with an indefinite number of potential realisations. The complexity and versatility of\u0000 hedging strategies make them particularly interesting to study across languages. This contrastive study compares the realisations of the\u0000 pragmatic function of hedging in everyday Norwegian and English conversations using data from four corpora of Norwegian and English informal\u0000 spoken conversations (the Norwegian Speech Corpus, the Nordic Dialect Corpus, the BigBrother corpus, and the BNC2014). The results show that\u0000 speakers of both languages mainly use pragmatic particles, adverbs, and first-/second-person pronouns + cognitive verbs [1/2 pers. + Cog. V]\u0000 to express hedging. Furthermore, English speakers use significantly more [1/2 pers. + Cog. V] and modal verbs than Norwegian speakers, who\u0000 use significantly more adjectives, prepositional phrases and clauses to hedge their utterances.","PeriodicalId":43502,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contrast","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2020-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80224447","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The aim of this article is to shed new light on the use and translation of English and Swedish questions in fiction by using a combination of parallel and comparable corpus data extracted from the bidirectional English-Swedish Parallel Corpus. In particular, the study examines questions containing a question mark (QMquestions) categorised into wh-interrogatives, polar interrogatives, alternative questions, tag questions (including those with invariant tags), declarative questions, wh-fragments and non-wh-fragments. The parallel analysis shows that most QMquestion types are more often translated congruently into English than into Swedish. The focus is on types with low mutual correspondence scores: fragments, tag questions and declarative questions. The comparable analyses concern both bilingual contrasts between the original texts and monolingual contrasts between the translation and original subcorpora in both languages. The bilingual analysis aligns with several preliminary findings in the parallel analysis, e.g. the favouring of tag questions and some types of wh-fragments in English. The monolingual analysis reveals both over- and underuse in translations and points to a strong effect of source-language influence.
{"title":"Questions in English and Swedish fiction texts","authors":"K. Axelsson","doi":"10.1075/lic.00017.axe","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.00017.axe","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The aim of this article is to shed new light on the use and translation of English and Swedish questions in fiction by using a combination of parallel and comparable corpus data extracted from the bidirectional English-Swedish Parallel Corpus. In particular, the study examines questions containing a question mark (QMquestions) categorised into wh-interrogatives, polar interrogatives, alternative questions, tag questions (including those with invariant tags), declarative questions, wh-fragments and non-wh-fragments. The parallel analysis shows that most QMquestion types are more often translated congruently into English than into Swedish. The focus is on types with low mutual correspondence scores: fragments, tag questions and declarative questions. The comparable analyses concern both bilingual contrasts between the original texts and monolingual contrasts between the translation and original subcorpora in both languages. The bilingual analysis aligns with several preliminary findings in the parallel analysis, e.g. the favouring of tag questions and some types of wh-fragments in English. The monolingual analysis reveals both over- and underuse in translations and points to a strong effect of source-language influence.","PeriodicalId":43502,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contrast","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2020-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90611816","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract In many languages, conjunctive adjuncts (e.g. however, therefore) are syntactically mobile. Several corpus-based contrastive studies have shown that languages differ in the positions that they tend to prefer for conjunctive adjuncts. However, the studies available have formulated general cross-linguistic differences in placement for languages as wholes, without considering the possibility that such contrasts may be influenced by register. The objective of this paper is to investigate and compare the placement patterns of English and French conjunctive adjuncts of contrast in two written registers (viz. editorials and research articles) in order to measure the impact of register variation on the differences between these two languages. The results suggest that, although register variation plays a significant role on placement within each language system, language is a better predictor of placement than register, since cross-linguistic differences in placement between English and French are stable across communicative situations. In a second stage, the results obtained in the comparable corpus study are complemented with the analysis of translation data, with a view to assessing the translators’ degree of awareness of the inherent word order preferences of the target language. The study is grounded in the framework of Systemic Functional Linguistics and relies on the notions of Theme and Rheme to describe conjunctive adjunct placement.
{"title":"Placement patterns of English and French conjunctive adjuncts of contrast","authors":"Maïté Dupont","doi":"10.1075/lic.00018.dup","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.00018.dup","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In many languages, conjunctive adjuncts (e.g. however, therefore) are syntactically mobile. Several corpus-based contrastive studies have shown that languages differ in the positions that they tend to prefer for conjunctive adjuncts. However, the studies available have formulated general cross-linguistic differences in placement for languages as wholes, without considering the possibility that such contrasts may be influenced by register. The objective of this paper is to investigate and compare the placement patterns of English and French conjunctive adjuncts of contrast in two written registers (viz. editorials and research articles) in order to measure the impact of register variation on the differences between these two languages. The results suggest that, although register variation plays a significant role on placement within each language system, language is a better predictor of placement than register, since cross-linguistic differences in placement between English and French are stable across communicative situations. In a second stage, the results obtained in the comparable corpus study are complemented with the analysis of translation data, with a view to assessing the translators’ degree of awareness of the inherent word order preferences of the target language. The study is grounded in the framework of Systemic Functional Linguistics and relies on the notions of Theme and Rheme to describe conjunctive adjunct placement.","PeriodicalId":43502,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contrast","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2020-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90778812","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article outlines the beginnings of corpus-based contrastive studies with special reference to the development of parallel corpora that took place in Scandinavia in the early 1990s under the direction of Stig Johansson. It then discusses multilingual corpus types and methodological issues of their exploration, including thetertium comparationisfor contrastive studies based on different types of corpora. Some glimpses are offered of recent developments and current trends in the field, including the widening scope of corpus-based contrastive analysis, concerning language pairs as well as the kinds of topics studied and the methods used. The paper ends by identifying and discussing some challenges for the field and indicating prospects and directions for its future.
{"title":"Corpus-based contrastive studies","authors":"H. Hasselgård","doi":"10.1075/lic.00015.has","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.00015.has","url":null,"abstract":"This article outlines the beginnings of corpus-based contrastive studies with special reference to the development of parallel corpora that took place in Scandinavia in the early 1990s under the direction of Stig Johansson. It then discusses multilingual corpus types and methodological issues of their exploration, including thetertium comparationisfor contrastive studies based on different types of corpora. Some glimpses are offered of recent developments and current trends in the field, including the widening scope of corpus-based contrastive analysis, concerning language pairs as well as the kinds of topics studied and the methods used. The paper ends by identifying and discussing some challenges for the field and indicating prospects and directions for its future.","PeriodicalId":43502,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contrast","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2020-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86461021","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：