UKRAINIAN AND ENGLISH VERBS: BILATERAL CONTRASTIVE CROSS-LINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVE

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.132751

Keywords:

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

Abstract

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.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Natalia Ivanytska, Vinnytsia Institute of Trade and Economics of Kyiv Natioinal University of Trade and Economics

Doctor of Science (Philology), Professor

Nina Ivanytska, Vinnytsia Mykhailo Kotsiubynskyi State Pedagogical University

Doctor of Science (Philology), Professor

References

  1. Aarts, B. & Meyer, C. (2006). The verb in contemporary English: theory and description. Cambridge University Press.
  2. Amr M. El-Zawawy (2016). Studies in Contrastive Linguistics and Stylistics. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated.
  3. Baker, M. C. (2003). Lexical categories: verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511615047
  4. Defrancq, B. (2015). Contrasting contrastive approaches. Language in contrast, 15, 1 3. https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.15.1
  5. Deshors, S. (2017). Zooming in on Verbs in the Progressive: A Collostructional and Correspodence Analysis Approach. Journal of International linguistics, 45 (3), 260 290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424217717589
  6. Cambrige Dictionary on-line (n.d). Retrieved May 10, 2018 from: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/
  7. Cruzo, O. & Hansen-Schirra, S. (2016). Crossroads between contrastive linguistics, translation studies and machine translation: TC3-II. Berlin: Language Science Press.
  8. 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. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v10i1.12479
  9. Filipovic, L. (2017). Applying typological insights in professional practice. Language in contrast, 1, 255 278. https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.17.2.05fil
  10. 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.
  11. Haspelmat, M. (2016). The Serial Verb Construction: Comparative Concept and Cross-linguistic Generalizations. Language and Linguistics, 17(3), 291 31. https://doi.org/10.1177/2397002215626895
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Kayne, R.S. (2010). Comparisons and contrasts (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  15. Kocherhan, M. (2006). Osnovy zistavnogo movoznavstva [Basic Contrastive Linguistics]. Kyiv: Academiia.
  16. Koning, E. (2012). Contrastive linguistics and language comparison. Language in contrast, 2, 3 26. https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.12.1.02kon
  17. Krzeszowski, T. (1991). Contrasting languages: the scope of contrastive linguistics (pp.134 137). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110860146
  18. Levin, B. & Rappaport, M. (2005). Argument realization (pp. 278 279). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511610479
  19. McMillon, A. (2006). Verbs in English. Their Meaning, Behaviour and Structure (pp.123-124). Cambridge University Press.
  20. Ogtay B. Jalilbayli (2015). Category of Tenses of Verbs in the Azerbaijanian and Japanese Languages International Journal of English Linguistics, 5, 5, 136 146. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v5n5p136
  21. Palmer, F. (1987). The English Verb. Second edition. London: Longman
  22. Plungyan, V., (1998). Grammatical Categories, their Analogues and Substitutes (pp.49-50). Moscow.
  23. Syleymanova, K. (2015). Text Forming Potentials of Verbs. International Journal of English Linguistics, 5, 153 155. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v5n5p153
  24. Vogel, P. & Comrie, B. (Eds.) (2000). Approaches to the typology of word classes. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, 23, 146 149. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110806120
  25. Wen’guo, P. & Tham Wai Mu (2007). Contrastive Linguistics: History, Philosophy and Methodology. Continuum. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474211802
  26. Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics. Oxford University Press.
  27. Willems, D, Defrancq, B., Colleman, T., & Noel, D. (Eds.) (2003). Contrastive Analysis in Language Identifying Linguistic Units of Comparison. Palgare Macmillan. https.//doi.org./10.1057/9780230524637

Downloads

Published

2018-06-16

How to Cite

Ivanytska, N., & Ivanytska, N. (2018). UKRAINIAN AND ENGLISH VERBS: BILATERAL CONTRASTIVE CROSS-LINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVE. Advanced Education, 5, 213–218. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.132751

Issue

2018: Issue 9

Section

Linguistics

License

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.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

    1. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  1. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).