Languages in Contrast - Volume 17, Issue 2, 2017

Canonical question tags feature prominently in spoken English, where they display great versatility. At face value they are meant to elicit a response from a co-participant in the form of (dis)agreement with the proposition to which the tag has been added. Their pragmatic scope is, however, considerably broader: they serve as politeness strategies but also emphasize the speaker’s convictions or mark accusations. Like many other languages, Dutch does not have a similar structure, which raises questions as to what devices Dutch employs to serve the same purpose as question tags. This contrastive study examines such correspondents in a parallel corpus of English novels and their Dutch translations. Three structures can be identified: pragmatic markers, clause-final parentheticals and combinations of these. The data indicate a preference for pragmatic markers (most notably hè and toch), which predominantly appear either as invariant tags or clause-medially, indicating subtle shifts in utterance interpretation.

German has a set of nouns which are derived from a combination of a preposition and the reciprocal pronoun einander ‘one another’. Compounds of this type are strikingly absent from English, although all the components that enter the German formations are available in English, as well. This paper takes a closer look at the relevant word-formation patterns, focusing on compounding and different types of conversion, also taking into account the diachrony of reciprocal pronouns (einander in German and each other/one another in English) and the role of morphological schemas. It will be argued that for explaining the lack of English nouns corresponding to the German nouns under discussion contrasts in the history and the grammar of reciprocals are less relevant than (i) the availability of well-entrenched word-formation patterns, and (ii) the more significant role of ‘syntactic conversion’ in German.

This paper investigates two emerging discourse markers based on verbs of saying in English and French – I was going to say and j’allais dire. Relying on various comparable corpora, the author shows that the markers under scrutiny have developed a similar use as “reduced parenthetical clauses” mitigating discourse. The corpus study also reveals an interesting difference, namely that I was going to say stands as a topical transition marker in some of its uses. It is thus hypothesized that the two markers do not exactly follow the same pragmaticalisation path.

This article analyses aspects of the greater use of coordination in Modern Standard Arabic as compared to English, illustrating this through Arabic>English translation. It argues that Arabic ‘favours’ coordination linguistically, textually and rhetorically, as follows: 1. The linguistic resources of Arabic favour coordination while those of English favour subordination – whether these are lexical (Arabic و wa- and ف fa- vs. English ‘and’), or semantic (the possibility of backgrounding coordinated clauses in Arabic compared to the marginality of backgrounded coordinated clauses in English); 2. Accompanying Arabic textual norms, e.g. (near-)synonym repetition and chained coordination, favour coordination while those of English favour subordination; 3. Further associated ‘rhetorical semantic’ uses of coordination are found in Arabic, e.g. hyperonym-hyponym repetition and associative repetition, which do not exist in English; 4. These extended usages further entrench coordination as a norm in Arabic as compared to English.

In this paper we introduce and outline a new research area, Applied Language Typology (ALT). ALT builds on fundamental typological findings in morphology, syntax and semantics. ALT examines the attested and potential practical consequences of these contrasts for different professional contexts of communication, such as translation, the law and second language learning and teaching. We propose three general organising principles that underlie ALT, illustrating how these principles enable us to identify exact points of language contrasts that result in significant practical difficulty, and we suggest future directions in ALT research for the benefit of academics and language practitioners.

The present paper analyzes the occurrence of indicative and subjunctive complements of the verbs comprender (Spanish) and compreender (Portuguese) in European Spanish and European Portuguese. A quantitative analysis based on 400 occurrences of the complements randomly selected from the newspaper genre shows that the indicative mood occurs more frequently than the subjunctive mood in both languages, although the subjunctive mood is more frequent in the Portuguese corpus than in the Spanish one. The analysis also shows that the occurrence of the subjunctive complement is highly restricted to contexts in which the subject of the main clause verb is either 1st person or 3rd person singular. From the theoretical perspective of Cognitive Grammar, the mood alternation is explained by the concept of dominion, i.e. the indicative complement designates an event that is located within the conceptualizer’s epistemic dominion, whereas the subjunctive complement designates an event that is located outside the conceptualizer’s dominion of effective control.