Elements of contrastive Polish-English grammar for teachers (Didactics 2)

elective courses

Blended learning

The course aims to sensitize students to three areas of contrastive Polish-English grammar: lexico-grammar (Area 1), phonetics (Area 2), pragmatics (Area 3).

The course aims to sensitize students to three areas of contrastive Polish-English grammar: lexico-grammar (Area 1), phonetics (Area 2), pragmatics (Area 3).

Area 1 (lexico-grammar) of the course is an introduction to contrastive Polish-English syntax, from the twin perspectives of formal linguistics (the generative model) and applied language studies (with a focus on pedagogical grammar and structural transfer). Area 1 intends to show how syntax, perceived as a native speaker’s competence model contributes both to learning and to teaching the grammatical system of an L2.

A tentative selection of topics to be covered:

- an overview of similarities and differences between Polish and English grammatical systems

- major syntactic processes: passivisation, raising (he seems…, they are likely…)

- syntax vs. morphology: a contrastive account of the tense/aspect system in Polish and English, with insights from formal linguistics

- contrastive Polish-English pedagogical grammar

- syntactic interference and how to prevent it.

* * *

Area 2 (phonetics) aims to:

- sensitize students to the main features of English pronunciation;

- compare the vowel and consonant systems of English and Polish;

- compare and contrast the phonological processes found in both systems in careful and casual speech (e.g. assimilations, reductions and elisions);

- compare the suprasegmental features of the two systems with special attention afforded to word and sentence stress.

- sensitize students to common errors in pronunciation that result from language interference.

Techniques used in the course include: listening to recordings, reading texts and monitored utterances.

* * *

Area 3 is to familiarize students with the cultural differences in the way language is used in Polish/English, as well as with the concept of pragmatic competence and pragmatic competence development in L1 and L2 along with the influence of Polish L1 pragmatics on L2 English. We look at politeness in Polish and English and evaluate linguistic behavior as polite/impolite, acceptable/ unacceptable. We compare how pragmatic competence develops in L1 and L2, how the level of directness differs in L1 Polish and L1/L2 English, we look at pragmatic interference, pragmatic strategy preference in Polish and English, speech act realization, appropriateness, and cultural evaluation of linguistic behavior.

Area 3 aims to:

- sensitize students to the differences of English and Polish pragmatics

- familiarize the students with the concept and development of pragmatic competence in English and Polish

- compare and contrast the acceptability of selected pragmatic strategies in selected contexts

- compare politeness in English and Polish

- sensitize students to common errors that result from language interference.

Techniques used in Area 3 include: listening and watching audio-visual recordings, reading and analyzing texts.

Cowan, R. (2008). The teacher’s grammar of English. CUP.

DeCapua, A. (2017). Grammar for teachers. Springer Texts in Education.

Keck, C. and YouJin K, K. (2014). Pedagogical grammar. John Benjamins.

Radford, A. (2009). An Introduction to English sentence structure. CUP.

Swan, M. and Smith, B. (2002). Learner English. A teacher’s guide to interference and other problems. CUP.

* * *

Dauer, R. M. (1993). Accurate English. Prentice Hall Regents. + recordings

Ponsonby, M. (1999). How Now Brown Cow? A course in the pronunciation of English. Prentice Hall. + recordings

Michael Vaughan-Rees, M. (1994). Rhymes and rhythm. A poem-based course for English pronunciation. Macmillan. + recordings

Hewings, M. (2007) English pronunciation in use. Advanced. CUP. + recordings

* * *

Kasper, G. and Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Blackwell.

Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural pragmatics. OUP.

Ruiz de Zarobe, L., and Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (Eds.) (2012). Speech acts and politeness across languages and cultures. Peter Lang CH.

Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures. Cassell.

Taguchi, N. and Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford University Press.

Thomas, J. A. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91–112.

Ogiermann, E. and Blitvich. P. G. (Eds.) (2019). From speech acts to lay understandings of politeness: Multilingual and multicultural perspectives. CUP.

Ogiermann, E. (2009). On apologising in negative and positive politeness cultures. John Benjamins.

Zufferey, S. (2015). Acquiring pragmatics: Social and cognitive perspectives. Routledge.

Knowledge: the graduate knows and understands

SN_W3 the role of a teacher or educator in modelling attitudes and behaviour of students in relation to lexico-grammatical and pragmatic competences as well as phonetics in English;

SN_W4 standards, procedures and good practices used in pedagogical activity in relation to lexico-grammatical and pragmatic competences and phonetics in English;

Skills: the graduate can

SN_U16 use the speech apparatus in accordance with the rules of voice emission in English;

SN_U18 independently develop pedagogical knowledge and skills with the use of various sources, including foreign-language ones, and technologies in relation to lexico-grammatical and pragmatic competences as well as phonetics in English.

Social competences: the graduate is ready to

SN_K1 use universal principles and ethical standards in professional activities, guided by respect for each person;

SN_K2 build a relationship based on mutual trust between all subjects of the upbringing and education process;

SN_K5 recognize the specificity of the local environment.

Education at language level B2+.

The final grade is calculated on the basis of the final assessment:

90-100 points – 5

80-89 points – 4.5

70-79 points – 4

60-69 points – 3.5

50-59 points – 3

below 50 points – 2

The condition for obtaining a credit for the course is attendance and activity in the classes. 2 absences are allowed.