Natalia Ivanytska, Nina Ivanytska


The paper focuses on the contrastive analysis procedure from the bilateral perspective. This work is relevant due to current cross-linguistic approaches aimed at the comprehensive study of the notional words being the central ones with their ability to express a variety of categorical meanings. The verb is viewed as a central word in Ukrainian and English being of scholars’ interest for a long time. Bilateral contrastive study is believed to be an effective tool for identifying similarities and differences within the subsystems of Ukrainian and English verbs. The authors present grounds for revealing a number of benefits of comparing language units from bilateral perspective. The two-way contrastive analysis is considered to be scientifically valid when using a reasonable tertium comparationis. The latter is viewed as an objective extra-lingual basis that has a specific realisation in each language. When studying verb’s systems as complicated language items the choice of tertium comparationis turns next to a verb’s category “process”. The predominant advantage of this category is accounted for its universal, cross functional, broad-based nature. Comprising semantic and grammatical aspects, the category of “process” is believed to be a key point for building semantic and syntagmatic paradigms in the verb’s system. The study concludes that the category of “process” is qualified as generalised construct (model) comprising lexical semantics of verbs, and a set of grammatical (morphological, derivational, syntactic) categories. The realisation of verbal processing is represented by the unique combinations of forms in each of the compared languages. The specificity of the verb’s category of “process” in the compared languages reveals the hidden facts that are believed to enrich the theory of language with new generalisations.


Ukrainian and English verb’s systems; contrastive linguistics; bilateral contrastive analysis; tertium comparationis; universal verb’s category “process”

Full Text:



Aarts, B. & Meyer, C. (2006). The verb in contemporary English: theory and description. Cambridge University Press.

Amr M. El-Zawawy (2016). Studies in Contrastive Linguistics and Stylistics. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated.

Baker, M. C. (2003). Lexical categories: verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Cambridge University Press.

Defrancq, B. (2015). Contrasting contrastive approaches. Language in contrast, 15, 1 3.

Deshors, S. (2017). Zooming in on Verbs in the Progressive: A Collostructional and Correspodence Analysis Approach. Journal of International linguistics, 45 (3), 260 290.

Cambrige Dictionary on-line (n.d). Retrieved May 10, 2018 from:

Cruzo, O. & Hansen-Schirra, S. (2016). Crossroads between contrastive linguistics, translation studies and machine translation: TC3-II. Berlin: Language Science Press.

Fathy Khalifa, M. (2018). Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis, Markedness Theory, Universal Grammar and Monitor Theory and their Contributions to Second Language Learning. International Journal of Linguistics, 10, 1, 12 41.

Filipovic, L. (2017). Applying typological insights in professional practice. Language in contrast, 1, 255 278.

Halliday, M. A. K. (2002). Some aspects of systematic description and comparison in grammatical analysis. In J. Webster (Ed.), On grammar. Collected works of M. A. K. Halliday (Vol.1, pp. 121–36). London: Continuum.

Haspelmat, M. (2016). The Serial Verb Construction: Comparative Concept and Cross-linguistic Generalizations. Language and Linguistics, 17(3), 291 31.

Ivanytska, N. (2011). Diieslivni systemy v Ukrainskii ta angliiskii movach: paradygmatyka ta syntagmatyka [Verbal Systems in Ukrainian and English: paradigmatics and syntagmatics]. Vinnytsia: Nova knyha.

Ivanytska, N. (2013). Dvobichnyi zistavnyi analiz ukrainskoi ta angkiiskoi diieslivnykh system (Bilateral contrastive study of Ukrainian and English verb systems). Philology. Linguistics, 216, 40-44.

Kayne, R.S. (2010). Comparisons and contrasts (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kocherhan, M. (2006). Osnovy zistavnogo movoznavstva [Basic Contrastive Linguistics]. Kyiv: Academiia.

Koning, E. (2012). Contrastive linguistics and language comparison. Language in contrast, 2, 3 26.

Krzeszowski, T. (1991). Contrasting languages: the scope of contrastive linguistics (pp.134 137). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Levin, B. & Rappaport, M. (2005). Argument realization (pp. 278 279). Cambridge University Press.

McMillon, A. (2006). Verbs in English. Their Meaning, Behaviour and Structure (pp.123-124). Cambridge University Press.

Ogtay B. Jalilbayli (2015). Category of Tenses of Verbs in the Azerbaijanian and Japanese Languages International Journal of English Linguistics, 5, 5, 136 146.

Palmer, F. (1987). The English Verb. Second edition. London: Longman

Plungyan, V., (1998). Grammatical Categories, their Analogues and Substitutes (pp.49-50). Moscow.

Syleymanova, K. (2015). Text Forming Potentials of Verbs. International Journal of English Linguistics, 5, 153 155.

Vogel, P. & Comrie, B. (Eds.) (2000). Approaches to the typology of word classes. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, 23, 146 149.

Wen’guo, P. & Tham Wai Mu (2007). Contrastive Linguistics: History, Philosophy and Methodology. Continuum.

Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics. Oxford University Press.

Willems, D, Defrancq, B., Colleman, T., & Noel, D. (Eds.) (2003). Contrastive Analysis in Language Identifying Linguistic Units of Comparison. Palgare Macmillan. https.//



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2018 Natalia Borysivna Ivanytska, Nina Lavrentiivna Ivanytska

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

ISSN 2410-8286 (Online), ISSN 2409-3351 (Print)