- Home
- e-Journals
- Languages in Contrast
- Previous Issues
- Volume 15, Issue, 2015
Languages in Contrast - Volume 15, Issue 1, 2015
Volume 15, Issue 1, 2015
-
On the use of translation corpora in contrastive linguistics: A case study of impersonalization in English and German
Author(s): Volker Gastpp.: 4–33 (30)More LessThis article argues for a type of corpus-based contrastive research that is item-specific, predictive and hypothesis-driven. It reports on a programmatic study of the ways in which impersonalization is expressed in English and German. Impersonalization is taken to be epitomized by human impersonal pronouns like German man (e.g. Man lebt nur einmal ‘You/one only live(s) once’). English does not have a specialized impersonal pronoun like Germ. man and uses a variety of strategies instead. The question arises what determines the choice of a given impersonalization strategy in English. Drawing on relevant theoretical work and using data from a translation corpus (Europarl), variables potentially affecting the distribution of impersonalization strategies in English are identified, and their influence on the choice of a strategy is determined. By testing hypotheses derived from theoretical work and using multivariate quantitative methods of analysis, the study is intended to illustrate how bridges can be built between fine-grained semantic analyses, on the one hand, and more coarse-grained, but empirically valid, corpus research, on the other.
-
Asynchronous grammaticalization: V1-conditionals in present-day English and German
Author(s): Torsten Leuschner and Daan Van den Nestpp.: 34–64 (31)More LessThe present paper contrasts verb-first (V1-) conditionals in written usage in present-day English and German. Based on the hypothesis that V1-protases originated in independent interrogatives and then grammaticalized as conditional subordinate clauses in an asynchronous fashion in both languages, we use data from the British National Corpus (BNC) and the Deutsches Referenzkorpus (DeReKo) to investigate the lexical overlap of V1-protases with interrogatives and their functional overlap with ‘if-/wenn’-conditionals. The results show, inter alia, that English V1-conditionals are highly divergent from polar interrogatives and occupy a functional niche with respect to ‘if-’conditionals, with their German counterparts showing more transitional characteristics in both respects; they also suggest a special role for V1-protases with ‘should/sollte’ in expressing a subtype of neutral, rather than tentative, conditionality. Finally, prospects are discussed for future research regarding possible synchronic (i.e. discourse-functional) and diachronic (i.e. systemic) motivations for the differences and similarities observed between V1-conditionals in the two present-day languages.
-
Morphological contrasts between Modern Greek and Italian: The case of compounding
Author(s): Giannoula Giannoulopouloupp.: 65–80 (16)More LessThe aim of this paper is to discuss topics in contrastive morphology, combining the perspectives of morphological theory and contrastive linguistics. After an overview of the recent literature on contrastive morphology and the relevant ‘tertia comparationis’ in Section 2, Section 3 focuses on the main differences between compounding in Modern Greek and Italian (e.g. the position of the morphological head, the pattern stem+stem in Modern Greek vs. the pattern word+word in Italian). The diachronic dimension, the inflectional system and the role of syntax are put forward as explanatory factors for the differences between the two languages. Two recent types of compounds, [V+V] V in Modern Greek and [V+N] N in Italian, are therefore examined contrastively. The contrastive analysis of compounding is based on three types of equivalence: ‘system equivalence’, ‘rule equivalence’, and ‘morphological age equivalence’. The main conclusion is that a contrastive approach to morphology enables us to deepen our understanding of both the fundamental distinction and the fundamental interconnection between morphology and syntax.
-
Possessive / bahuvrīhi compounds in German: An analysis based on comparable compounds in Modern Greek
Author(s): Maria Koliopouloupp.: 81–101 (21)More LessThis paper deals with structural properties of German possessive compounds. Based on a comparison with compounds in Modern Greek, I argue against a general approach based exclusively on semantic criteria. Instead I distinguish between exocentric and endocentric formations in German, on the basis of specific structural criteria. In particular, I propose that compounds like Dickkopf ‘pigheaded person’ — also called bahuvrīhi or exocentric formations — are to be analysed as endocentric, right-headed compounds with a metonymical meaning. Furthermore, I propose that structures like Vierfüßer ‘quadruped’ and heißblütig ‘warm-blooded/hot-tempered’ are the real bahuvrīhi compounds in German, i.e. exocentric structures with a possessive meaning, headed by the derivational suffixes, -er or -ig.
-
A discourse-based approach to some uses of the conjunction que in Romance languages
Author(s): Teresa M. Rodríguez Ramallepp.: 125–150 (26)More LessThe present paper compares and contrasts patterns of variation exhibited by the conjunction que in Spanish, Catalan and Italian, in root sentences — such as Que te digo que me dejes en paz (‘I’m telling you to leave me in peace’) or: Que los libros que los necesito (‘As far as the books are concerned, I need them’) — and when it appears in combination with evidential and polarity adverbs — such as Naturalmente que iré contigo (‘Of course, I will go with you’) or: Sí que iré contigo (‘Yes, I will go with you’). The focus will mainly be on the independent realizations of conjunctions in Spanish, but data from Catalan and Italian will also be analyzed, in order to show that the ways of encoding the speaker’s point of view and source of information vary across different languages. My hypothesis is that the existence of structures which combine this conjunction with evidential and polarity adverbs derives from the discourse properties of these syntactic categories. The conjunction itself can be used not only to mark subordination but also as a discourse marker, enabling the speaker to recall previously shared information or knowledge.
Volumes & issues
-
Volume 25 (2025)
-
Volume 24 (2024)
-
Volume 23 (2023)
-
Volume 22 (2022)
-
Volume 21 (2021)
-
Volume 20 (2020)
-
Volume 19 (2019)
-
Volume 18 (2018)
-
Volume 17 (2017)
-
Volume 16 (2016)
-
Volume 15 (2015)
-
Volume 14 (2014)
-
Volume 13 (2013)
-
Volume 12 (2012)
-
Volume 11 (2011)
-
Volume 10 (2010)
-
Volume 9 (2009)
-
Volume 8 (2008)
-
Volume 7 (2007)
-
Volume 6 (2006)
-
Volume 5 (2004)
-
Volume 4 (2002)
-
Volume 3 (2000)
-
Volume 2 (1999)
-
Volume 1 (1998)
Most Read This Month
Article
content/journals/15699897
Journal
10
5
false
