Journal: LIDIL
Issue: New Approaches and Methodologies in Contrastive Linguistics
Call Deadline: 30-Sep-2025

(At this stage, what should be submitted is an abstract - see below)

Issue Coordinators:
Iva Novakova (Univ. Grenoble Alpes, LIDILEM, F-38000 Grenoble, France)
Merete Birkelund (Aarhus University, Danemark)

Contrastive linguistics aims to systematically, rigorously, and precisely compare linguistic phenomena from two or more languages in order to identify similarities and differences in their structure and functioning. The contrastive approach offers a necessary analytical distance (Cresseils, 1995), enabling a deeper understanding of the systems of the languages under comparison. As W. Croft (2003, p. 9) states that“The generalizations revealed by examining more than one language at a time are the only ones which can be said to hold of languages in general.”

Traditionally, during the 1950s, contrastive linguistics was widely considered a subfield of applied linguistics, primarily due to its connections with translation, language teaching, and language acquisition (Weinreich, 1953; Lado, 1957). However, this perception has evolved significantly thanks to the development of new theoretical frameworks, such as functionalist theories (Givón, 1995), cognitive approaches (Langacker, 1995), and usage-based cognitive theories (Tomasello, 2003), all of which have enriched core linguistic research in general and, contrastive studies in particular. However, unlike typology, which is especially concerned with the description of features across a wide sample of languages, contrastive analysis is generally limited to a smaller number of languages and as Celle (2006, p. 3) points out “ [i]l semble difficile détendre l’analyse (contrastive) au-delà de trois langues envisagées simultanément […] parce que l’analyse devient très lourde si l’on souhaite examiner plusieurs combinaisons.” (‘[i]t seems difficult to extend (contrastive) analysis beyond three languages simultaneously […] because the analysis becomes very complex, if multiple combinations are to be examined’). Moreover, contrastive studies allow for detailed exploration of specific linguistic phenomena, which is often not possible in large-scale typological work (Sörés, 2008, VII). A contrastive approach thus provides an effective analytical filter for examining language-specific patterns (Novakova, 2015, p. 8).

Furthermore, since the 1990s, the emergence of corpus linguistics and multilingual digital corpora has been recognized as a key driver behind the ‘revival’ of the interest in contrastive linguistics (Johansson, 2007; Xiao, 2010). While several existing works (e.g. Celle et al., 2000; Feuillet, 2006; Sörés, 2008) have addressed theoretical and methodological dimensions of contrastive linguistics, they often overlook the role of attested corpus data in cross-linguistic comparison. More recently, the international conference Linguistique contrastive: bilan et perspectives 2 (2022, University of Paris-Créteil) addressed this issue, emphasizing the importance of digital corpora for language comparison.

This special issue of the journal Lidil (https://journals.openedition.org/lidil) invites contributions on new approaches and methodologies in contrastive linguistics, particularly those based on the analysis of comparable and/or parallel corpora of various genres (e.g. literary texts, journalism, political discourse, etc.). The linguistic phenomena being compared may be studied from different perspectives (lexical, semantic, syntactic, or discursive), adopting onomasiological (from meaning to form) and/or semasiological (from form to meaning) perspectives. As Lazard (2006, p. 137) explains “[l]e point de départ est le choix d’un certain contenu sémantique qui assure l’ancrage indispensable à la confrontation des langues. Puis vient l’identification des formes qui l’expriment dans les langues de l’échantillon […]”. (‘The starting point is the selection of a specific semantic content that anchors the cross-linguistic comparison. From there, one identifies the forms through which this content is expressed in the languages in question’). Contributions may also consider the implications of using digital technologies, such as ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini or others in the domain of language comparison or in translation studies.

Additionally, current trends in contrastive linguistics increasingly turn toward the study of the relationships between language, discourse, and culture. In her 2021 monograph, P. von Münchow introduces what she calls the Contrastive Discursive Approach (CDA), which “se préoccupe de mettre au jour les représentations sociales qui circulent dans une communauté discursive sur les objets sociaux […] ainsi que les discours à tenir sur ces objets”(p. 20) (‘aims to uncover the social representations circulating within a discursive community about social objects [...], as well as the discourses generated around those objects’). As the author points out, contrastive research on discursive cultures remains relatively rare in France (ibid. p. 19). Therefore, contributions to this issue of Lidil may also explore intercultural and communicative dimensions of contrastive linguistics, e.g. through discourse analysis of culturally marked implicit meanings, idiomatic expressions, and other context-bound markers that are often resistant to translation. Thus, contrastive studies focusing on phenomena with significant sociocultural or environmental impact, drawing on corpora from advertising, journalism, political or ecological discourse (e.g. on climate change), etc. are particularly encouraged. These contributions will help expand and innovate the landscape of contrastive linguistics.

Bibliography:
CELLE, Agnès, CHUQUET, Hélène, GUILLEMIN-FLESCHER, Jacqueline, PONCHARAL, Bruno & GOURNAY, Lucie. (2000). Linguistique contrastive et traduction. Ophrys.
CELLE, Agnès. (2006). Temps et modalité. L’anglais, le français et l’allemand en contraste. Berne. Peter Lang.
CREISSELS, Denis. (1995). Éléments de syntaxe générale. Paris, Presses universitaires de France.
CROFT, William. (2003). Typology and Universals, (2nd ed.). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
FEUILLET, Jack. (2006). Introduction à la typologie linguistique. Paris, Honoré Champion.
GIVÓN, Talmy. (1995). Functionalism and grammar, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
detude/linguistique-contrastive-bilan-et-perspectives-en-2022-colloque-en-lhonneur-de-jacqueline-guillemin-flescher
JOHANSSON, Stig. (2007). Seeing through multilingual corpora : on the use of corpora in contrastive studies. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
KRAIF, Olivier. (2016). Le Lexicoscope : un outil d’extraction des séquences phraséologiques basé sur des corpus arborés. Cahiers de lexicologie, 108, p. 91-106.
LADO, Robert. (1957). Linguistics across Cultures : Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press.
LANGACKER, Ronald W. (1995). Structural syntax: the view from cognitive grammar, in Françoise, MADRAY-LESIGNE & Jeannine, RICHARD ZAPPELLE (dir), Lucien Tesnière aujourd’hui. Louvain, Peeters, p. 13-39.
LAZARD, Gilbert.(2006). La quête des invariants interlangues. La linguistique est-elle une science ? Paris, Honoré Champion.
NOVAKOVA, Iva. (2015). Syntaxe et sémantique des prédicats. Approche contrastive et fonctionnelle. Saarbrücken, Éditions universitaires européennes.
VON MÜNCHOW, Patricia. (2021). L’analyse du discours contrastive. Théorie, méthodologie, pratique. Limoges, Éditions Lambert-Lucas.
SÖRES, Anna. (2008). Typologie et linguistique contrastive. Théories et applications dans la comparaison des langues 9(1). Berne, Peter Lang.
TOMASELLO, Michael. (2003). Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge Massachusetts, London, Harvard University Press.
WEINREICH, Uriel. (1953). Languages in contact: findings and problems. New York, Linguistic Circle of New York.
XIAO, Richard. (2010). Using corpora in contrastive and translation studies. Cambridge, Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Submission Guidelines:
All submissions will be subject to double-blind peer review by an international scientific committee composed of specialists from various fields. Submissions may be accepted, accepted with revisions, or rejected.
- Submitted abstracts should not exceed 10,000 characters (including spaces) or 3 pages (including references).
- Full articles should range between 30,000 and 40,000 characters (including spaces).
- Articles may be written in French or English.
- Articles must include a consistent and up-to-date bibliography.
- Each article must include an abstract and five keywords in both French and English.
- The style sheet and instructions for authors are available at: https://journals.openedition.org/lidil/3303

Email addresses for submission:
Abstracts and articles should be sent to both of the following adresses:
[email protected]
[email protected]

Timeline:
Deadline for submission of article proposal: 30 September 2025
Feedback on article proposals: 1st November 2025
Deadline for submission of articles for selected proposals: 28 February 2026
(note: acceptance of a proposal does not guarantee acceptance of the article)
Feedback on article evaluations: 15 May 2026
Submission of final versions of articles: 30 June 2026
Publication of the issue: November 2026

Linguistic Field(s): Applied Linguistics
Computational Linguistics
Discourse Analysis
General Linguistics
Linguistic Theories