Polish-Russian Confrontative Grammar 3202-S1OGKF31o

Knowledge:
-the student knows basic terminology in the field of confrontative linguistics
-the student has a structured knowledge on disciplines of comparative linguistics
-the student knows the rules governing conducting a unilateral confrontative analysis and a bilateral confrontative analysis;
-the student is knowledgeable about the possibilities of employing the results of each type of studies in glottodidactics, bilingual lexicography and others.
-the student is knowledgeable about basic differences between phonological systems, morphological systems (with particular regard to noun and verb categories) and syntactic systems of the Polish and Russian languages.
Skills:
-the student is able to choose tertium comparationis accurately depending on a linguistic material and the objective of the confrontative study.
-the student is able to indicate basic differences between phonological, morphological and syntactic systems of the Polish and Russian languages.
-the student is able to conduct a confrontative analysis of a determined material of the Polish and Russian languages
Social competence:
-the student is able to prioritize and plan their research work
-the student is aware of their responsibility to preserve cultural heritage (linguistic tradition) of Poland and Russia

Grade based on three components
1. grade from a test
2. grade from semester thesis
3. points from activity during classes

Test contains 16 questions (open and closed), maximal number of points – 65.
less than 39 points = 2,0
39 – 43 = 3,0
44 – 48 = 3,5
49 – 54 = 4,0
55 – 59 = 4,5
60 – 65 = 5,0

Semester thesis students are writing at home. It is independent confrontative analysis of chosen lexical material (minimum 5 initial units). The analysis consists in selecting appropriate equivalents to the starting material, defining categorical or non-categorical character of interlingual equivalents, determining the prevailing relations between interlingual equivalents (identity, full or partial differences relations), and next formulate conclusions from conducted analysis.

2,0 – too few initial units or wrongly chosen equivalents or in more than half of cases wrongly defined interlingual relations.
3,0 – in few cases wrongly chosen equivalents and/or in half of the cases wrongly defined interlingual relations.
3,5 – equivalents chosen correctly, in around 30-40% wrongly defined interlingual relations, problems with defining categorical/non-categorical character of interlingual equivalents (none or few mistakes), conclusions formulated incorrectly.
4,0 – equivalents chosen correctly, in about 10-20% wrongly defined interlingual relations, problems with defining categorical/non-categorical character of interlingual equivalents (none or few mistakes), conclusions formulated correctly.
4,5 – equivalents chosen correctly, in less than 10% wrongly defined interlingual relations of interlingual equivalents or problems with defining categorical/non-categorical character of interlingual equivalents (none or few mistakes), conclusions formulated correctly, few language and/or spelling and punctuation mistakes.
5,0 – equivalents chosen correctly, interlingual relations and categorical/non-categorical character defined correctly in all interlingual equivalents, conclusions formulated correctly; few language and/or spelling and punctuation mistakes are allowed.

Final grade is arithmetic average form grades mentioned above. Grade 2,0 from any of components makes it impossible to pass the subject (until improvement). Points from activity during classes (minimum 5) are improving grade by 0,5.
Grade excellent 5! can get a student who got 5,0 from both test and thesis, got points from activity during classes and in semester thesis made an additional attempt to confront units on stylistic level.

In order to achieve effects of studying the student has to devote:
30 organized hours (1 ECTS),
approximately 15 hours to regular preparation for classes (0,5 ECTS)
approximately 15 hours to writing a term paper (0,5 ECTS).

The student has the right to 2 unexcused absences, each subsequent one requires justification. The lecturer decides on the recognition of absence.
Exceeding excused and unexcused absences by 50% of classes may be grounds to fail the course.
The conditions for passing the course on the resit exam are the same as on the ordinary of exam.

If it is not possible to conduct classroom classes, classes will be conducted using distance communication tools, most likely Google Classroom and others recommended by the University of Warsaw.

not applicable

1. Bartwicka H., Ze studiów konfrontatywno-przekładowych nad językiem polskim i rosyjskim, Warszawa 2006.
2. Bogusławski A., Problem tertium comparationis w porównaniu lingwistycznym, „Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny”, 1976, nr 3.
3. Bogusławski A., Karolak S., Gramatyka rosyjska w ujęciu funkcjonalnym, Warszawa 1973.
4. Fontański H., Rodzaje podstaw funkcjonalno-semantycznych w opisie konfrontatywnym, [w:] Semantyka w badaniach konfrontatywnych języka rosyjskiego i polskiego, pod red. M. Blicharskiego, Katowice 1980, 7-15.
5. Gak V.G., Sopostavitel’naja leksikologija, Moskva, 1977.
6. Gak V.G., O kontrastivnoj lingvistike, [w:] Novoje v zarubežnoj lingvistike, vyp. 25, Kontrastivnaja lingvistika, Moskva, 1989.
7. Gasek B., Leksiko-semantičeskaja interferencija v processe perevoda, Wrocław 2012.
8. Gramatyka konfrontatywna języka polskiego i rosyjskiego. Materiały Konferencji Naukowej, Łódź 1976.
9. Grochowski L., Interferencja językowa z psychologicznego i lingwistycznego punktu widzenia a proces nauczania języka rosyjskiego, [w:] Polska myśl glottodydaktyczna 1945-1975, pod red. F. Gruczy, Warszawa 1979.
10. Jarceva V.N., Kontrastivnaja grammatika, Moskva, 1981.
11. Kognitywne podstawy języka i językoznawstwa, pod red. E. Tabakowskiej, Kraków 2001 (rozdz. Porównywanie języków: socjologia języka, typologia języków i językoznawstwo kontrastywne).
12. Mečkovskaja N.B., Obščeje jazykoznanije. Strukturnaja i social’naja tipologija jazykov, Moskva, 2009.
13. Platkow A., Gramatyka translacyjna a gramatyka kontrastywna, [w:] Gramatyki translacyjne, pod red. J. Lukszyna, wyd. TOPOS, Warszawa 1996, 40-46.
14. Polsko-rosyjskie językoznawstwo konfrontatywne. Wybór materiałów, oprac. J. Wawrzyńczyk, Łódź 1978.
15. Problemy izučenija otnošenij ekvivalentnosti v slavjanskich jazykach, red. S. Siatkowski i T.S. Tichomirova, Moskva, 1997.
16. Semantyka w badaniach konfrontatywnych języka rosyjskiego i polskiego, pod red. M. Blicharskiego, Katowice 1980.
17. Siatkowski S., Strukturalne i uzualno-stylistyczne właściwości odpowiedników międzyjęzykowych, „Slavia Orientalis”, 1978, nr 3.
18. Siatkowski S., K probleme adekvatnosti perevoda, „Slavia Orientalis”, 1980, nr 1-2.
19. Siatkowski S., Założenia językoznawstwa konfrontatywnego, [w:] Nauczanie języka rosyjskiego a językoznawstwo i psychologia, pod red. S. Siatkowskiego, Warszawa 1976, 1986.
20. Wójcik T., Zagadnienia teoretyczne polsko-rosyjskiej gramatyki kontrastywnej, Kielce 1977.
21. Zabrocki L., Podstawowe problemy gramatyki konfrontatywnej, [w:] Polska myśl glottodydaktyczna 1945-1975, pod red. F. Gruczy, Warszawa 1979.
22. Zmarzer W., Podstawy analizy konfrontatywnej języków pokrewnych, Warszawa 1992.

Additional information (registration calendar, class conductors, localization and schedules of classes), might be available in the USOSweb system:

• Description of 3202-S1OGKF31o in USOSweb