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, nousemasa@gmail.com

Thank you for your attention

Tenkyu long harim tok bilong mi!

13