METADATA


Title: The potential of contrastive analysis in the study of discourse.

 

Vol. 10(2), 2022, pp. 66-80.

DOI: http://doi.org/10.46687/YROL6006  

 

Author: Boryana Kostova

About the author: Boryana Kostova is Senior Lecturer at the Department of Foreign Language Teaching and Post-graduate Qualification, Varna Free University, Varna, Bulgaria. She has extensive experience in teaching various ESP courses, materials design and certification of language proficiency. She is also doctoral student at the Department of English Studies, Konstantin Preslavsky University of Shumen, Bulgaria. Her research interests and publications are in the area of political discourse, academic communication and ELT.

e-mail: boryana.kostova@vfu.bg                  

ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6207-924X

 

Citation (APA style): Kostova, B. (2022). The potential of contrastive analysis in the study of discourse. Studies in Linguistics, Culture, and FLT, 10(2), 66-80. http://doi.org/10.46687/YROL6006.

 

Link: http://silc.fhn-shu.com/issues/2022-2/SILC_2022_Vol_10_Issue_2_066-080_15.pdf

 

Abstract: The article focuses on contemporary trends in contrastive studies. As a point of departure the nature, history and evolution of contrastive linguistics are examined. Contrastive linguistics is viewed in relation to other disciplines such as comparative linguistics, comparative historical linguistics, linguistic typology, theory of translation, and foreign language teaching. Any aspect of language may be covered in cross-linguistic studies which involve a systematic comparison of two or more languages both at micro-linguistic and macro-linguistic level. The current trends are identified in terms of macro-linguistic widening of contrastive analysis which is applied in studies of specialized discourses such as media, political and academic communication. The findings are based on a small-scale research of contrastive studies published in Contrastive Linguistics, the oldest international journal for contrastive linguistics. By conducting quantitative and qualitative analysis and employing a diachronic approach conclusions are drawn about the need for the contrastive approach at macro-level, the type of linguistic phenomena studied and the preferred methods of contrastive analysis within a period of forty-six years. The findings show that there is only a slight increase in macro-linguistic analyses in recent years, but contrastive analysis remains a vibrant area of research with a potential for development at discourse level in particular and implications for intercultural understanding and tolerance.

Key words: contrastive linguistics, macro-linguistic contrastive analysis, discourse

 

References:

  1. Assenova, P. (Ed.). (2009). Sapostavitelno ezikoznanie: Anotirana bibliografiya 1976-2009 [Contrastive linguistics: Annotated bibliography 1976-2009]. Sofia: Alya.
  2. Blagoeva, R. (2019). The missing links. A contrastive corpus-based study of link words in the academic writing of advanced Bulgarian learners of English. Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridski University Press.
  3. Boyadjiev, Zh. (2004). Uvod v obshtoto ezikoznanie [Introduction to general linguistics]. Sofia: Paradigma.
  4. Chudinov, A. (2006). Politicheskaya lingvistika [Political linguistics]. Moscow: Flinta, Nauka.
  5. Danchev, A. (2001). Sapostavitelno ezikoznanie: Teoriya i metodologiya [Contrastive linguistics: Theory and methodology]. Sofia: St Kliment Ohridski University Press.
  6. Hasselgǻrd, H. (2002). Contrastive analysis/ contrastive linguistics. In K. Malmkjær (Ed.), The Routledge linguistics encyclopedia (pp. 98-100). London/New York: Routledge.
  7. Ke, P. (2019). Contrastive linguistics. Springer/ Peking University Press.
  8. Krzeszowski, T. (1995). Early contrastive studies in England. Gdansk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdanskiego.
  9. Krzeszowski, T. (2011). Contrasting languages: The scope of contrastive linguistics. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110860146.
  10. Pirozhkova, I. (2016). Metodologiya i metodiki sapostavitelnova analiza politicheskih tekstov [Methodology and methods for contrastive analysis of political texts]. In A. Chudinov et al. (Eds.), Teoriya i metodika lingvisticheskova analiza politicheskova teksta [Theory and methods for linguistic analysis of political texts] (pp. 159-181). Ekaterinburg: Ural State Pedagogical University Press.
  11. Todorova, R. (2014). Ezik, kultura, reklama [Language, culture, advertising]. Shumen: Episkop Konstantin Preslavski University Press.
  12. Shamonina, G., & Kostova, B. (2013). Klyuch kam uspeha. Ezikat na akademichnata komunikatsiya [Key to success: The language of academic communication]. Varna: Chernorizets Hrabar Varna Free University Press.

List of research articles published in Contrastive Linguistics which conduct contrastive analysis at text, discourse, pragmatic and sociolinguistic level

  1. Assenova, P., & Aleksova, V. (2008). Fizicheskoto i dushevnoto sastoyanie na choveka spored nyakoi balkanski metafori [The representation of a person’s physical and mental state by some metaphors from the Balkans]. Contrastive Linguistics, XXXIII(2), 5-17.
  2. Baharev, A. (1985). Sposobai usiliniya i oslableniya otrizaniya v bolgarskom yazaike v sopostavlenie s ruskim i polskim yazaikami [Ways of negation strengthening or weakening in Bulgarian in comparison with Russian and Polish]. Contrastive Linguistics, X(1), 24-31.
  3. Blagoeva, D. (2006). Proyavi na ezikova igra v balgarskiya i ruskiya kompyutaren zhargon [Instantiations of play of words in Bulgarian and Russian computer jargon]. Contrastive Linguistics, XXXI (2), 5-13.
  4. Dimitrova, S. (1988). O nekatoraih prinzipah peredachi sobaitiy v bolgarskom tekste (v sapostavlenie s ruskim) [On some principles of representing events in Bulgarian texts (in comparison with Russian)]. Contrastive Linguistics, XIII(4-5), 21-27.
  5. Dimova, I., Grebeshkova, O., & Walker, J. (2015). Attitudes towards anglicalization in Bulgaria and France: A comparative study. Contrastive Linguistics, XL(3), 32-76.
  6. Hung, B. (1995). Oznachavane na govoreshtiya v recheviya akt (sapostavitelen analiz mezhdu balgarskiya i vietnamskiya ezik) [Marking the speaker in a speech act (contrastive analysis between Bulgarian and Vietnamese)]. Contrastive Linguistics, XX(2), 32-40.
  7. Leonidova, M. (1982). Poslovitsi i pogovorki s onomastichen component (v ruskiya, balgarskiya i nemskiya ezik) [Proverbs and sayings with an onomastic component (in Russian, Bulgarian and German)]. Contrastive Linguistics, VII(4), 13-20.
  8. Milanova, S. (2001). Ezikovi modeli za postigane na atraktivnost v cheshkata i balgarskata “zhalta presa” [Verbal models for achieving attractiveness in Czech and Bulgarian tabloids]. Contrastive Linguistics, XXVI(2), 22-32.
  9. Nitsolova, R. (2009). Sotsiolingvistichni promeni pri predavane na chuzhda rech v balgarskiya pechat prez poslednite dve desetiletiya v sapostavka s polskiya pechat [Sociolinguistic changes in representing direct speech in the Bulgarian press from the last two decades in contrast with Polish press]. Contrastive Linguistics, XXXIV(2), 5-20.
  10. Popova-Veleva, I. (2004). Polupryakata rech v italianskiya ezik (s ogled na drugi romanski ezitsi) [Semi-direct speech in Italian in comparison with other Roman languages]. Contrastive Linguistics, XXIX(3), 5-16.
  11. Popova-Veleva, I., & Drenska, M. (1998). Sapostavitelno izsledvane na polu-pryakata rech vav frenskiya i portugalskiya ezik [Contrastive study of semi-direct speech in French and Portuguese]. Contrastive Linguistics, XXIII(1-2), 7-14.
  12. Tincheva, N. (2003). Analyzing English-language and Bulgarian-language political speeches. Contrastive Linguistics, XXVIII(2), 49-59.
  13. Tkaczewski, D. (2015). Ezikovi stereotipi i polsko-cheshki i cheshko-polski aproksimati [Language stereotypes and Polish-Czech and Czech-Polish approximations]. Contrastive Linguistics, XL(2), 46-62.
  14. Todorova, R. (2014). Priyateli, priyatelstvo i semeini tsennosti v reklamata (za sblizhavaneto, spodelyaneto i oshte neshto) [Friends, friendship and family values in advertisements (regarding getting on close terms, confiding and something more]. Contrastive Linguistics, XXXIX(3), 24-38.
  15. Vasseva, I. (2004). Polupryaka rech v balgarski i ruski ezik [Semi-direct speech in Bulgarian and Russian]. Contrastive Linguistics, XXIX(3), 17-25.
  16. Vasseva, I. (2007). Natsionalno-kulturna spetsifika na verbalnoto komunikativno povedenie na balgari i rusi pri pozdravi, pozhelaniya i chestityavane [National and cultural idiosyncrasies of Bulgarians’ and Russians’ verbal communicative behavior to express greetings, wishes and congratulations]. Contrastive Linguistics, XXXII(1), 5-12.
  17. Vassileva, I. (1992). Temo-remna struktura i konektoren tip kohesiya v angliyski i balgarski nauchen tekst [Theme-rheme structure and cohesion with conjunctions in English and Bulgarian scientific texts]. Contrastive Linguistics, XVII(5), 5-12.
  18. Vassileva, I., & Sotirov, P. (1994). Typological characteristics in English and Bulgarian journalistic style. Contrastive Linguistics, XIX(6), 21-27.
  19. Yankova, D. (2005a). Tekstoobrazuvane i struktura na pravnata norma v angliyskiya i balgarskiya zakonodatelen tekst [Text formation and the structure of the legal norm in English and Bulgarian legal texts]. Contrastive Linguistics, XXX(2), 5-25.
  20. Yankova, D. (2005b). Analiz na kohesiyata na zakonodatelniya tekst v angliyski i balgarski [Analysis of cohesion in legal texts in English and Bulgarian]. Contrastive Linguistics, XXX(3), 5-22.