Practical class 1.

1. Read the text below and discuss the contrastive linguistics as a systematic
branch of linguistic science.

Contrastive Linguistics as a systematic branch of linguistic science is of fairly recent

date, though it is not the idea which is new, but rather the systematization and the
underlying principles. It is common knowledge that comparison is the basic principle in
Comparative Philology. However, the aims and methods of Comparative Philology differ
considerably from those of Contrastive Linguistics. The comparativist compares languages
in order to trace their philogenic relationships. The material he draws for comparison
consists mainly of individual sounds, sound combinations and words, the aim is to establish
family relationship. The term used to describe this field of investigation is Historical
Comparative Linguistics.
Comparison is also applied in typological classification and analysis. This comparison
classifies languages by types rather than origins and relationships. One of the purposes of
typological comparison is to arrive at language universals — those elements and processes
which, despite their surface diversity, are common to all languages.
Contrastive Linguistics attempts to find out similarities and differences in both
philogenically related and non-related languages at the present stage of development. It is
now universally recognized that Contrastive Linguistics is a field of particular interest to
translators and teachers of foreign languages.
In fact, the contrastive analysis grew as a result of practical demands of language
teaching methodology where it was empirically shown that errors which are made
recurrently by foreign language students can be often traced back to the differences in the
structure of the target language and the learner's mother tongue.
It is common knowledge that one of the major problems in learning a foreign language
is the interference caused by the difference between the learner’s mother tongue and the
target language. The contrastive analysis has a part to play in evaluation of errors, in
predicting typical errors and thus must be seen in connection with overall endeavours to
rationalize and intensify foreign language teaching.
Linguistic scholars working in the field of Applied Linguistics assume that the most
effective teaching materials are those that are based upon a scientific description of the
target language carefully compared with a parallel description of the native language of the
learner. They proceed from the assumption that the categories, elements, etc. on the
semantic as well as on the syntactic and other levels are valid for both languages, i.e. are
adopted from a universal inventory. For example, linking verbs can be found in English,
French, Ukrainian, etc. Linking verbs having the meaning "change, become" are differently
represented in each of the languages. In English, e.g., become, come, fall, get, grow, run,
turn, wax, in German — werden, in French — devenir, in Ukrainian — cmaвamu.
The task set before the linguist is to find out which semantic and syntactic features
characterize:
1) the English set of verbs (cf.: grow thin, get angry, fall ill, turn traitor, run dry, wax
eloquent);
2) the French (Ukrainian, German, etc.) set of verbs;
3) how the sets compare: e.g., the English word-groups grow thin, get angry, fall ill and the
Ukrainian verbs cxyднymu, poзcepдumucя, зaxвopimu.
The contrastive analysis can be carried out at three linguistic levels: phonology,
grammar (morphology and syntax) and lexis (vocabulary).
On the level of lexis the contrastive analysis is applied to reveal the features of
sameness and difference in lexical meanings and semantic structures of correlated words in
different languages.
It is commonly assumed by non-linguists that all languages have rocabulary systems
in which words themselves differ in sound-form but refer to reality in the same way. From
this assumption it follows that for every word in the mother tongue there is an exact
equivalent in the foreign language. It is a belief which is reinforced by small bilingual
dictionaries where single word translations are often offered. Language learning, however,
cannot be just a matter of learning to substitute a new set of labels for the familiar ones of
the mother tongue.
It should be borne in mind that, though the objective reality exists outside human
beings and irrespective of the language they speak, every language classifies this reality in
its own way by means of vocabulary units. In English, e.g., the word foot is used to denote
the extremity of the leg. In Ukrainian there is no exact equivalent for foot. The word нога
denotes the whole leg including the foot.
Classification of the real world around us provided by vocabulary units of our mother
tongue is Jeamed and assimilated together with our native language. Because we are used to
the way in which our own language structures experience, we are often inclined to think of
this as the only natural way of handling things, whereas, in fact, it is highly arbitrary. One
example is provided by the words watch and clock. It would seem natural for Ukrainian
speakers to have a single word to refer to all devices that tell us what time it is; yet in
English they are divided into two semantic classes depending on whether or not they are
customarily portable. We also find it natural that kinship terms should reflect the difference
between male and female: brother or sister, father or mother, uncle or aunt, etc. Yet in
English we fail to make this distinction in the case of cousin (e.g.: Ukr. — двоюрідний
6pam, двоюрідна cecmpa).
The contrastive analysis also brings to light what can be labelled as problem pairs,
i.e. the words that denote two entities in one language and correspond to two different words
in another language. Compare, for example, годинник in Ukrainian and clock, watch in
English, xyдожник in Ukrainian and artist, painter in English.
Each language contains words which cannot be translated directly from this language
into another. For instance, favourite examples of untranslatable German words are
gemutlich (something like 'easy-going', 'humbly pleasant', 'informal') and Schadenfreude
('pleasure over the fact that someone else has suffered a misfortune'). Traditional examples
of untranslatable English words are sophisticated and efficient. '
This is not to say that the lack of word-for-word equivalents implies also the lack of
what is denoted by these words. If this were true, we should have to conclude that speakers
of English never indulge in Schadenfreude, that there are no sophisticated Germans or there
is no efficient industry in any country outside GB or the USA.
 If we abandon the primitive notion of word-for-word equivalence, we can safely
assume, firstly, that anything which can be said in one language can be translated more or
less accurately into another; secondly, that correlated polysemantic words of different
languages are not, as a rule, co-extensive. Polysemantic words in all languages may denote
very different types of objects and, yet, all the meanings are considered by the native
speakers to be obviously logical extensions of the basic meaning. For example, to an
English-speaking person it is self-evident that one should be able to use the word head to
denote the following:

head of a person head of a match head of a bed

head of a table head of a coin head of a cane
head of an organisation

The very real danger for the Ukrainian language learner here is that (having
learned first that head is the English word which denotes a part of the body) he will
assume that it can be used in all the cases where the Ukrainian word голова is used
in Ukrainian, e.g., голова цукру ('a loaf of sugar'), міський голова ('mayor of the
city'), він хлопець з головою ('he is a bright lad'), nopuнamu в щось з головою ('to
throw oneself into smth.'), etc., but will never think of using the word head in
connection with 'a bed' or 'a coin'. Thirdly, the meaning of any word depends, to a
great extent, on the place it occupies in the set of semantically related words: its
synonyms, constituents of the lexical field the word belongs to, other members of
the word-family which the word enters, etc.

2. Answer the following questions:

 What is lexicology as a separate branch of linguistics concerned with?
 What are the subdivisions of lexicology?
 Specify the difference between historical lexicology and etymology.
 What is the theoretical and practical value of contrastive lexicology?
 Speak on the connection of lexicology and
– Phonology
– Grammar
– Semasiology
– Pragmatics
– Stylistics
– Psycholinguistics
– Sociolinguistics
– Studies of speech varieties