uccts 2008 sep nose contra en jp tp1
TRANSCRIPT
R Reitaku University
The international symposium on Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies, 25th -- 27th September 2008, Zhejiang University, China
A contrastive study of comparative constructions among English, Japanese, and Tok Pisin: by using corpora in cross-linguistic contrast
Masahiko NOSEReitaku University, JapanR Reitaku University
Advantages of contrastive study
English, Japanese, and Tok Pisin– Typologically different languages– Pedagogical/educational application– Cognitive-functional view
Comparative constructions (Stassen 1985)– Comparee (A) and Standard (B): A is bigger than B– Describing quality, quantity, or manner– Corpora in cross-linguistic contrast
2
Linguistic diversity in New Guinea
JASS 22, Workshop 2008, 13. Sep. 3WALS feature 87 Order of Adj. and Noun
Tok Pisin: English-based creole
800 native languages in Papua New Guinea
Official language in PNG (besides English & Hiri Motu)
SVO, Adj,-Noun, PrepositionNewspaper, Bible, TV and radio
Grammar is simple and primitiveIt reflects human concpetualization
4
5
Types of comparative constructions (Stassen 2005)
Europe: Particle comparative Eurasia: Locational Africa and SE Asia: Exceed PNG and Australia, South America: Conjoined
N=167
6
4 types of comparatives (Stassen 1985, Nose 2007) ▲ Locational: Japanese, Korean, Mongolian
– Tarou-wa Hanako-yori (from) se-ga takai – Tarou is taller than Hanako
■ Exceed: Chinese, Nguna, Tariana– Nasuma waia e parua liu nasuma aginau– House this big exceed house my
▲ Conjoined: Yidin, Wari’, Maori– Amon mixem na womu cwa. Om ca mixem homa ca
womum– “My cloth is a bit black, your cloth is not so black”●Particle: English, Spanish, Russian– Este lápiz es más largo que ése– This pencil is longer than it
Parallel text research
Material:– “New testament” in English, Japanese and Tok Pisin
Method:– Finding comparatives with in English text– Searching the equivalents in Japanese and Tok Pisin
Observation:– Several comparative forms: En: “superior to”,
“surpass”, etc.– Most frequent form is typical comparative.
7
Contrastive example
(8) Matthew 6:English: But after me will come one who is
more powerful [than] I. Japanese: Watashi-no atokara kuru kata-wa,
watashi-[yori] sugurete orareru.Tok Pisin: Tasol man i kam bihain long mi,
strong bilong em i [winim] strong bilong mi.
8
Results and observation: from English (N=78)
To Japanese
Locational “yori”: 51 Exceed “masaru”
(supeprior), “otoru” : 8 Lexicalized “ijou” (more
than): 6 Parameter marker
“ijou”, “motto” (more): 3 Superlative: 2 Others: 8
To Tok Pisin
Exceed “winim”: 41 Conjoined: “mobeta”, “no
gut”: 13 Particle STM “olsem”,
“long”: 12 Parameter marker “moa”,
“tumas”, “inap”,”tasol”:10 Others: 10
Functional analysis (based on Transitivity)
(16) Grammatical status of the standard
Subject: A is big and B is small. (conjoined)
Object: A surpasses B. (exceed)Oblique/locative: A-wa B-yori chiisai.
(locational) A is bigger than B. (particle)
10
Summary: comparatives in transitivity
Differences in standard marker– English: “than” (Particle)– Japanese: “yori” (Locational)– Tok Pisin: “winim” type, (Exceed)
Grammatical status of Standard– Grammaticalization process(Subject > Direct object > oblique/ Locative) (Primitive ----------------- Grammatical construction)(Tok Pisin --------------English ----/ Japanese)
11
12
ReferencesCysouw, Michael & Bernhard Wälchli. (2007) ‘Parallel texts: using translational equivalents in
linguistic typology’. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 60: 95-99.Dryer, Matthew S. 2005. Order of subject, object and verb. In: Haspelmath et al. (eds.): feature 81
in WALS: 330-333.Haspelmath, Martin & Oda Buchholz. 1998. Equative and similative constructions in the
languages of Europe. In: van der Auwera, Johan & Dónall P. Ó Baoill(eds.). Adverbial constructions in the Languages of Europe. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 277-334.
Haspelmath Martin, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard Comrie (eds.). 2005. The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: OUP.
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Cognitive foundations of grammar. New York/ Oxford: OUP.Henkelmann, Peter. (2006) ‘Constructions of equative comparison’. Sprachtypologie und
Universalienforschung (STUF) 59: 370-398.Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra Thompson. (1980) ‘Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse’. Language 56:
251-299.Mihalic, Francis. (1986) The Jacaranda Dictionary and Grammar of Melanesian Pidgin. Milton: The
Jacaranda Press/Web BooksNose, Masahiko. (2007) ‘A typological study of Standard marker in comparative and similative
constructions (in Japanese)’. Proceedings of the 134th Linguistic Society of Japan: 288-293.Stassen, Leon. 1985. Comparison and universal grammar. Oxford/ New York: Blackwell.Stassen, Leon. 2005. Comparative constructions. Haspelmath, et al. (eds.): feature 121 in WALS:
490-493.Stolz, Thomas. (2007) ‘Harry Potter meets Le petit prince – On the usefulness of parallel corpora
in crosslinguistic investigations’. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 60: 100-117.
Masahiko NOSE, [email protected]
Thank you for your attention
Tenkyu long harim tok bilong mi!
13