KUIBCEKHM HAMJOHAABHH YHIBEPCHTET IMBHI TAPACA LIEBYEHKA | A. E. AEBHUBKHL MOPIBHAABHA TPAMATHKA 8 AHTAINCbKOI TA YKPAIHCBKOi MOB Tinpyuumn Sameepaaeno Mixicmepemoom ocotmu i xayru Yxpainu ax nidpyunun ana cmydenmie euuux nacwanonux saxnadio ——W itp a— lose EDP tonYAK 811.111 (aura) (075.8) BBK 81,2Anra-2873+81.2¥Kp-2973 036 i Penemnenrt " sep dion, nayx, npoop. C.Tt, Henncor skp dios. nay, npod. O.M, Crapiixona, ‘HAIUL dpiaon. Hayx, ow. 1.B. TpaMeRKo Peramendosavo do dpurcy Bueror0 pad -Kutacynaeo anfonanancee ipeepenemy wen! Tapace IeeverKa ‘5 Gepenst 2007 pory Acomuszmii, A. E. - 36 “Topinisaess rpamarnca avswiicneat ra yepalicuol wow Tapyone J RE. Aewmactt, — K: Brutapsorse-nosirparivansi erp “Kuisctss _yinepcirer”, 2008, ~ 264 c | ISBN 966-594-995.0 ee a a reece na cas Tepe ana a i a et to Regen ann eee FE a para 9 ere me a Yak 811.111(aura) (075.9) | BBK 81.2Anra-2n73081.2¥ip-2873 ISBN 966-594-095.0 A.B, Renna, 2008, fo watnconatsunlonassund yainepenver Inert Tape lenses ‘ ee Ti nincncndyuineponrer 2008 CONTENTS FOREWORD. Chapter 1 ESSENTIALS OF COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS 1.1, Typology of Languages as a Special Branch of Linguistics 1.21 History of Comparative Research in Linguists. 1.3. Basics of Comparative Reseech in Linguistic. 1.4 Pints for Discussion. 1S Literature Recommended Chapter 2 PHONETIC AND PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEMS OF ENGLISH AND UKRAINIAN, 2.1. Intoduetion to Theory of Phonetics 2.2. Articulatory Systems of English and Ukrainian 2.3. Subsidiary Vanants of English and Ukeanian Phonemes 2.4. Transitions inthe Arculation of Phonomes in Speech, 2.5, Syllable inthe Languages Compared. 2.6. Siress inthe Languages Compared 2.7. Intonation inthe Languages Compared Points for Discussion, Literature Recommended Bxecies Chapter 3 ‘MORPHOLOGICAL SYSTEMS OF ENGLISH AND UKRAINAIN. 3.1. Morphemes i English and Ukrinian 3.2. Basic Notions of Comparative Morphology 3.3. Pundamena Issues of Comparative Morphology 3.4. Pans of Speech in the Langiages Compared. Points for Discusion Literature Recommended Bercises 2 # ss 5S fa 97 98 100 101 16s, 166 161: Chapter 4 "SYNTACTIC SYSTEMS OF ENGLISH AND UKRAINIAN, 4.4, Word-Group in English and Ukrainian. 4.2 Sentence in English and Ukrainian ‘4.3. English and Ukzinian Punctuation, Points for Discession Literature Recommended. = Baecises Chapter 5 REVIEW TASKS. 5.1. Questions for SelE-Control 5.2. Tops for Reports. 5.3, ems for Term Control 5. Review Exercises 5.5, Samples of Test Cards 5.6. A Sample ofthe Computer Test Car LIST OF REFERENCE LITERATURE. 9s 195 “199 aut 215 216 239 29 240 20 245 27 249 282 FOREWORD ‘The course "Comparative Grammar of the English and Ukrainian Languages" is included in the curriculum of training translators / interpreters at Ukrainian Universities. The comparison of systems of the mother tongue and a foreign language provides deep and thorough understanding of their structures. This course is grounded upon the knowledge students obtained from Introduction to Linguistics", 'Present-day Literary Ukrainian’, “Practical Course of English". Knowledge and skills acquired in while studying those courses are applied in the process of comparing language data of English and Ukrainian. ‘Comparative Grammar of the English and Ukrainian Languages" aims at generalization, enhancement and extending the knowledge of language systems in the comparative aspect for determining their common and divergent features. Taking such features into account helps translators / interpreters avoid mistakes that can result from negative interference of the native and foreign languages. Therewith comparative method appears to be means revelation of negative interference, though also it creates scientific ground for searching the ways of preventing stich cases, ‘The objective of the course is to shape the students’ knowledge of language units (phonetic, morphological, syntactic) in the comparative aspect and to single out their isomorphic and allomorphie features, ‘The course highlights such notions and aims of Language Typology, Comparative Linguistics, followed with detailed typological analyses of phonological, morphological and syntactic systems of English and Ukrainian. Special attention is paid to history of comparative research, methodology of comparative analysis and description. The main bulk of the book deals with revealing typological features of Ukrainian and English language units. The stress is laid upon those language facts which trigger interlingual differences which emerge in the form of partial similarity of the data compared, for it is in these very cases that significant interference from the native language is observed. Covering the points of typological comparison, connected with regular difficulties which rise during studying English, ‘aims at giving future translators /Comparative Grammar of English and Ukrainisg interpreters a means for selection and organization language material to avoid negative interlingual interference. Students are supposed to get explicit information of typological characteristics of vowel and consonant systems, syllable, word stress and intonation, comparative analyses of morphemes and grammatical categories, parts of speech, principles of typology of word-groups and Sentences of different structural and communicative types, punctuation. ‘The book contains both theoretical and practical issues. Bach task of the presented theory is accompanied with points for discussion, a list of literature recommended for self-training and exercises to be done at the seminars. Tutors are advised to apply the points for discussion and exercises in class. For overall assessing the results of the students’ Success a tutor is recommended to use the tasks included in the final Section of the book (review exercises, topics for reports, questions for self- control and items for term control, samples of test cards) ‘The author would like to pay tribute to the pioneer in the comparative English and Ukrainian studies, Professor Yuri Oleksiyovych Zhluktenko, who inspired many ideas of this book; mention his friends and followers, Professors RP. Zorivehak, Dil. Kveselevych, —_L.. Ponomarenko, GP. Yatel, V.L Karaban, M.P. Kocherhan, LV. Korunets, V.M. Manakin for their ‘selfless work in carrying out and popularizing comparative research in Ukraine. | express deep and sincere gratitude to the reviewers of the book, my friends and colleagues, a US Peace Corp Volunteer Ross Stenseth (Georgetown University, USA, ESL / English teacher) who assisted in the final presentation of the book. ‘According to the present-day University curriculum "Comparative Grammar of the English and Ukrainian Languages" is to be studied by the 3+! year-students who major in translation. The course comprises nine lectures and eight seminars followed with the credit. "The author wishes future translators / interpreters every success in mastering "Comparative Grammar of the English and Ukrainian Languages” ESSENTIALS OF COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS 1.1. Typology of Languages as a Special Branch of Linguistics Language typology is a special part of linguistics dealing with the grouping the essential characteristics of the sign and defining regularities concerning a number of languages. Language typology may also be referred to as a study of types of languages and types of language structure. This branch of Linguistics does not focus on particular or Separate cases of similarity or difference in the structure of languages. Its primary objective is the study of most general phenomena, 1. e. those comprising a wide range of uniform characteristics. Attempts are being made to tackle the most significant language characteristics, which hypothetically define other aspects of language structure (e. g., accent structure of an utterance, semantic volume of a word, sentence structure), Research in the fld of typology involves data obtained from various languages while its results may be applied to all languages ‘Thus, in'a broad sense typology studies distinct features of languages, suggests their structural taxonomies, and works out language universal features. It provides explanations of language structural similarities and differences sharing the scope of goals with theoretical linguistics. As long as there is a possibility of producing typological descriptions of languages the following objectives can be achieved: registering structural similarities and differences; their interpretation; defining certain classes, Therefore in modern. linguistics systemic typology (describing and comparing separate language levels) and contentorented typology (Gesribng various content discriminating feature) are singled out inguage typology investigates not only genetically close languages but also non-related ones, i.e. similar and diferentating traits of particular languages (ike English and Ukrainian) can be studied within its framework. Comparison can be carried out on all levels of language structure (phonetic, morphologiesl, lexical and. syntectie, ParticularComparative Grammar of English and Ukranian phenomena in two or more languages can also become the focus of this Enalysis, Comparative and linguistic typologies correlate in the following ‘way: while comparative typology provides material for linguistic typology the latter suggests the means of explaining similar and different linguistic phenomena. Language system is a complex set of elements and relations between them, Language as a means of communication is based on the differences oth in the planes of expression (sounds, melody and writing) and content (lexical meaning, grammatical meaning, etc). Any language uses only several bf all possible oppositions: abrupt and non-abrupt vowels (in English), hard Gnd sof consonants (in Ukrainian), etc. Each language is marked by Constifuting (pertaining to all languages) and structural (differentiating) Characteristics. Any language involves a limited set of potential oppositions: abrupt/ non-abrupt vowels (in present-day English), hard / soft consonants {in Ukrainian). Meanwhile, systemic differences may be as follows: a) @ category peculiar to one language is nonexistent in the other , ¢. g., the lack: Gf nasal phonemes in the Ukrainian language, etc; b) the inner division of a Category may vary, e.g, the time axis in Ukrainian comprises three zones (while in English Future-in-the-Past is also distinguished; c) the categories Under comparison differ in the extent of meaning and usage, for instance, earexo =: hard, difficult. ‘The object of the Comparative Linguistic investigations is a comparison of two or more linguistic systems at the synchronous level. The main Constant of comparison is keeping to the denotative equivalence of linguistic items. The equivalence, being established on the basis of bilingual fictionaries, serves as the foundation for determining the congruence of Tinguistic items in the languages compared, The congruence is viewed as the degree of coincidence of linguistic items in the languages compared. "The primary tasks of comparative study of languages may be formulated in the following way: ’ to reveal similar and distinct phenomena in different languages; $ to define such peculiarities of every language under comparison that can be viewed out by a researcher when only one particular language is studied; * to predict and overcome negative interference of the mother tongue and a foreign language, thus creating a reliable basis for theory and practice of translation; ? to provide material for general language typology in terms of revealing universal and unique features The above tasks underlie five trends of Comparative Linguistics which according to Yu.0. Zhluktenko determine various approaches to the object of investigation, Comparative studies can cover all levels of fe Essentials of Comparative Linguistics language structure depending on the objectives and therefore can be designed in different ways. Phonemes, morphemes, lexemes and grammatical phenomena up to the textual level may constitute the object of such analysis. The goal of comparative analysis is focused either upon the description of a language or languages in the framework of general typological studies, translation or language teaching, A functional comparative analysis necessarily involving the textual level is believed to be effective for translation purposes, ‘Thus, the general target of Comparative Linguistics is to establish the most essential convergences and divergences in the languages of the world land at its levels, their classification, systematization and, as the result, the elaboration of recommendations as to the mastering of a language. 1.1.1. Aspects of Language Typology. Comparative Linguistics split ffom foreign language teaching (m V.D. Arakin’s view), These two disciplines are tightly connected. Ch. James considers that the theory of translation, the. methodology of foreign language teaching, and comparative linguistics ere inmeparably cemnected and represent three Givistons of one more general type of knowledge ‘A Bulgarian Linguist P. Pethow divides typology into: 1) comparative and historic linguistics that fe concerned with related languages. and problems of language genealogy, 2) comparative transferology, onicted to teaching foreign languages, 2) comparative transmitting studies closely felated to the theory of translation; 4) aerial linguistics which investigates language contacts on a ceriain termtory (c.g Balkan language union) and their influence upon the bilingism of the members of one language Community, 5) language typology 6) comparative ypology/ lingusties Language as system is tacitonally supposed to crmbrace the folowing main leds: phorologcal, morphological lescal end. eyntactc, ‘The comparative analysis of languages at those levels within’ Comparative Linguistic research ia grounded upon. two independent approaches: 1) microtnguiste comparative analysis, aiming at investigating the levels of phonology, grammar and lexicon, and 2) macrolnguste’ comparative tnalyss intending a complex stacy atthe textual level 1.1.2, Typology and Other Branches of Science. Comparative Linguistics has close ties with all branches of Linguistics (Phonetics, Lexicology and Grammar), that are reflected in particular, specific inguel form of languages under comparison. Besides, linguistic typology is closely connected with general linguistics and its branches.(Comparative Grammar of English and Ukreinian Moreover, Comparative Linguistics interacts a number of non- Linguist elds: psychology, pedagogy, ethnology, geography and cultural sneice Paychology and pedagogy are essential for the process of teaching @ foreign language that is why Comparative Linguistics i directly connected with them Excipuonally important are the relations of Comparative Linguistics with ethnology and cultural studies. R. Lado proved that. connotation Tiethents of altare can be compared with language components in form, Stemning and. distnbution. We may also speak of close ties. between Comparative Lingustes und the theory of cross-cultural communication Since cach language phenomenon is marked by the asymmetry of form find meaning analogous tothe one revealed in a language sign. Since "Comparaive. Linguiniearepsters. asi tendencieg in he development of languages, geographical data, the histories of culture an SSpartte tions seem to be eracal for this branch of linguistics. This Simrvach ade us to comparing languages in the light of extemal spenetis (eg Sociolinguisties) with respect to the spheres of usage ie aetoring 19 the schemes of diferent langoage functioning in society and their interaction both on some territory and in the couree of historical Uselopment in the hstorcal aspect, external Linguistics is connected sith the process. of language dilfeentiation and integration, which is Undoubtedly of great interest to Comparative Linguistic research ‘the uchisersents of computer programming, cybernetics and computer engineering have bren intensively used for processing. the data of the catiparative analysis primary for the purpose of eating rtf languages. 1.1.3. Basic Notions of Language Typology. The terms most widely applied in Comparative Linguistic research are the following: Tanguage Universais, ‘They are linguistic phenomena used to characterise all languages existing on the Globe on all levels taking into Consideration their systems and structures, According to the statistical prineiple universals are classified into unrestricted (absolute) and Festricted (relative or near-universals). Besides, languages may possess lunigue features, e. & the final position of prepositions in present-day English special questions (What do you depend upon?) ‘Rs for the analysed linguistic unite there exist phonetic, morphological, lexical and syntactic universals, The universal phonetic phenomenon is that all languages possess vowels and consonants; as for morphology a) in most languages words are structured into morphemes; b) morphemes function a8 full and auxiliary elements; lexis gyi all languages vocabulary exists as a system of semantic fields; by all languages are characterized by polysemy, synonymy, homonymy Jo. Bases of Comparative Linguistic and antonymy; as for syntax ~ all languages possess distribution of the Subject, the Predicate and the secondary elements (SVO) in the sentence. ‘The feature characteristic ofall languages under all conditions is called a universal one. The theory of language universals focuses on characteristics inherent to all languages of the world, common properties of language structures. Here we deal not so much with the universal patterns of thinking but with language universals instilled in language forms that could only correlate with the categories of thinking. The idea of language uuniversals emerged in ancient grammars, Universal grammars created by F,Sancez, A. Amaud and K. Lancelot also follow this trend. These works pointed out some language universals. Gloss-semantics could be regarded as a modern universal grammar. Universals comprise phenomena determined by the nature of language, i.e. essential features, for instance, sound character of language, syllables, the category of tense that is present in each language, proper and common nouns. Such universals are treated as complete or absolute. The other kind of universals known as implicational is based on the acknowledged connection and mutual determination of language phenomena (e. g. isolating languages are devoid of inflection forms); diachronic universals are common patterns of language development; semantic universals express common extra-lingual content in language forms (process, objective categories, etc) that actually divide language system and communicative use. According to B.A. Serebrennikov, absolute and semantic universals are ‘identified as universal phenomena while the implicational, diachronic and other types connected with similar processes leading to similar results in languages are described as language universals, ALL. Zelenetsky argues that inductive universals are generalized sets of facts registered in many languages that theoretically allow exceptions while deductive universals should be inherent to all languages. J. Greenberg states that incomplete universals are statistical, i, e inherent to all languages of the world. In 1961 G. Greenberg, Ch. Osgood and G. Jenkins started a discussion of universals issues that resulted into the Memorandum of language universals which were organized in the following groups: 1) deductive {compulsory for all languages) ~ inductive (existing in all known languages); 2) absolute (complete) — statistical {incomplete}; 3) simple (presence / absence) ~ complex (depending on others); 4) synchronic ~ diachronic. ‘The statement of universal features of the languages prompted V.N. Bazylev's idea of the existence of a common human language that inradiates its fundamental properties onto each specific language. This, common human language is treated as an invariant with a set of deep characteristics while specific languages are regarded as its manifestations, aL(Comparative Grammar of English and Ukrainian, V.V. Vinogradov suggested the term @ unique feature ("unicalia’) for characteristics typical of specific languages. They are typical of one language only - like placing a preposition in the final position in the English interrogative structures (Where do you come from”). Certain properties may be treated as intermediate, i.e. between universal and unique. This phenomenon occurs in definite language groups. Depending upon their expansion they are called dominants or Tecessives allowing gradation of language properties according to the degree of dominance. In V.V. Vinogradov's opinion, typology in a narrow sense focuses on intermediate properties — more general than unique ‘ones yet less general than universals. Classifying languages typologically (which is indeed the primary goal of typology) becomes possible due to both universal and specific features. ‘Typologically dominant features arc the phenomena registered very often at a certain language level. Thus analytical connection in English land synthetical connection in Ukrainian word groups are typological dominant features of these languages on the syntactic level. ‘Typologically recessive features are those phenomena, which lose their former dominant roles: the dual number in Ukrainian, the case in Modern English. While comparing the languages we single out their isomorphic (common) and allomorphle (divergent) features. ‘Metalanguage. To compare languages one needs to have a special instrument which is represented cither: 1) by means of any natural languages; 2) a linguistic category (e. g., gender, voice, person); 3) any postulate of General linguistics (e. g,, polysemy, semantic field). ‘The etalon language is a hypothetical language created by linguists for the sake of contrasting languages, ‘A world language ~ & language spread throughout the whole world and understood by many people. Greek, Latin used to perform this function in different periods of human history. Now Latin continues to be the language of the Catholic Church and medicine; the basis for many intemational words “words that are used in all the most widespread languages of the world. ‘At present English and French are used for international communication in different spheres. English, French, Russian, Chinese, Arabic and Spanish are official languages of the United Nations Organization because they: 1) represent big nations; 2) give access to great cultural heritage; 3) play an important role in world politics. "At the end of the XIX century artificial languages were coined to perform international functions ~ Esperanto, Interlingua, Ido, Novial. The development of world artificial languages goes back to the ideas of E. Kant. The attempts for creating artificial languages have failed 32 2 Essentials of Comparative Linguistics because such languages: 1) were not natural; 2) had no spoken norm; 3) lacked emotional colouring, ‘Type denotes a generalized form or features characteristic of a number of languages: e.g in syntactic typology they differentiate between several language types according to their basic word order. Thus, because of the position of the Subject (S), Predicate (V) and the secondary sentence elements (0) there are SOV, SVO, OVS, OSV, VOS and VSO types: e. g. English and Ukrainian belong to the SVO type, while Turkish represents the SOV type. ‘The term "type’ is defined ag a generalized form, a variety of objects and phenomena. Hence, Typology is a classification or analysis of objects based on similarity of their indications, In Linguistics the term "type" is, used in two meanings: 1) in a narrow sense - a type of language expression ~ a form of a universal or common language phenomenon (articulation types of words, word combinations and sentences, etc); 2) in a broad sense ~ a language type — a complex of generalized peculiarities of language groups as a whole. Thus, in the first case, some fypes of language expression are manifested in the languages ‘under comparison. In the second case, the compared languages affiliation to certain language types is registered. There are no dramatic differences between the languages in this plane except for the analytical nature of English and German, synthetic nature of Russian and Ukrainian. ‘Thus, a language iype is firstly a set of essential peculiarities of language structure; secondly, it involves certain patterns common for the structure of various languages, Structural regularities may be connected with the grammatical form, the ways of explicating syntactic relations and phonological peculiarities. ‘According to V.D. Arakin, language type is a specific structure of the language system or several language systems when a certain feature of the structure presupposes other characteristics or its / their absence. ‘A language presents a type of oral communication shared and understood by the members of a group of people whether large or small ‘There are small communities, for instance, in North and South America, where a language is limited to a few hundred speakers, and is said to be dying, Conversely, there are huge territories, for instance, in Australia, Canada or the USA, where a single language predominates. Language and nationality are sometimes but not always associated. And within a single well-organized national state there may exist more than one language enjoying official recognition, as do French, German and Italian in Switzerland, or Flemish and French in Belgium. For a linguist, then, national boundaries are not always of primary importance in classifying his, material, Besides, it is not easy to draw precise distinctions between languages, whether or not they are associated with separate nations. There isa clear political boundary, but the linguistic boundary is far less distinct 33)smmnat of English and Uke Comperati Within atervtory that fs unified both politically and inguistically there can loo be cons, We all know that inlet exist with national pan aso it is iffieutt to draw precise boundaries and. 10 eee between local dialects, on the one hand, and_national iscr ate her (American English, Canadian English, Australian ee orn im Aust, German. in Switzerland, German in ree ur But onve me vecogrned such ngulstic unites, we begin © Case thea opeter in famien Such Brouping is eared ost according Foe eee isiatien: phonological, morphological and lexical. On the 1 a iy ceeuraing, similarities, of various kinds, kinship is asi ot Ear g simply that the languages concerned! must have ae eat a breviously existing single speech community. So the develope oot Mami” ia used as the “branching off of separate eee set Met the main, trunk However, f-one remembers that ange pation i a complex social phenomenon and not a biological aa cree tor of family relationships can be used safely enough, Fearne approach, towards defining the language. type Ce Reng, Gpology canbe: 1) formal or graphic and semantic {ated te thee les lang 2 onl pene Pe ei ee tacis and lexical regarding the levels of the language Sytner socal aed on pid of he oy / hey Sear uae? i) aualtauve and quanttative (based on diferences in of he ae UO Re) tbscearal (anguage and functional fpeech) that difer indata analysis aspects Gitncataly iti important for Comparative Linguistics to define Lae et don in various taxonomies suggested by the specialists in thetiol haga petgy The tice jpomary casiatons sre ne ealopical, morphological and syntactical TE eeiyisal claceYfieation, was, designed regnding language erga eat acta tear spect divsion, Languages are classified into sea ae ees, Ural Turki, Akalan, Australian ete) A Burlak ae oeeroct raggestspltaing them into 1 bigger macro-faralies yet ar thet une satus and relational es. These macro families see tt nenostatic (indo European, Uralian, Alian, Kartveian, Tieton, Dravidian familie); Ato-Asian (Old Egplan and is seeeiana) “Shine-Caucasian (Shino-Tibetan, North Caucasian, Seca Amerindian (North and Central American native population teria a esnian (South Affean), Nie-Seharan (Saharan, Central See ee Gonge-Cordethanian.(Cordothanian, Niger-Congoh,_Indo- aaaee Halancw Guinean, Western Papuan, Andamanian ete. Several aac oct of taxonomies set (Baoque, Cimmerian, Nbehean, Pro- are Jes languages of Burope). Families in thelr (urn are subdivided pe Baral of Commpertive Linger into groups. Thus, the Indo-European family comprises Slavic, Germanic, Romance, Baltic, Celtic, Indo-Aryan, Iranian, Tocharian and other groups. Armenian, Greek and Albanian are’ somewhat outstanding. Baltic, Slavic and Albanian have some things in common with Indo-Iranian languages whereas the Romance Languages manifest features pertaining to Celtic and Germanic languages. ‘The Indo-European Family. Most of the territory of Europe and some parts of Asia are occupied today by the languages of the Indo-European Group, which drew the attention of F. Bopp, R. Rask, J. Grimm. In very ancient times an offshoot of the group was attested in India and Persia. These languages were originally so similar that they are frequently designated by a single term, Indo-Iranian. The Iranian branch, originally preserved in Avestan & Persian, later became diversified. Today the chief Iranian dialect is Farsi, The Indie branch was first normalized in Sanskrit. The Ancient Indian language has produced many dialectal descendants, distributed over a wide area of modern India. One of the closest affiliates of ancient Indian is a pair of modern North Central European languages, Lithuanian and Latvian. These two are designated by the term Baltic and they form a separate group by themselves, though they occupy a relatively limited geographical area. ‘The neighbouring Slavic group is on the contrary widely extended over Eastern Europe and into Asia. It may be subdivided into three sub- groups: Western (Polish, Czech and Slovak), Southern (represented by Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian) and Eastern {including Russian and the closely allied Ukrainian and Byelorussian), Indo-Iranian, Baltic and Slavic languages are known as "satem" languages because a number of words in them have hissing or sibilant consonants like s, whereas obviously cognate words in other groups show an original sound i: 100 - satem (Old Persian), emo (Ukrainian), sto (Polish), szimtas (Lithuanian); whereas Latin has centum, Greek’ has kkaton, Old Irish ~ ccd. The reason for it is in the change of the front [kl], which in other languages became back. Returning to the survey of the major groups, we should mention the Hellenic group. It includes Greek, which played a leading role for political & cultural reasons in ancient times. A second major group, the Italic, emerged somewhat later and is represented by Latin, which was learned not only as a native language, but also as a second language by the inhabitants of provinces conquered by Romans. Thus two types of differentiation arose. The main one was the contrast between “Classical” and "popular’ Latin, observable in ancient Rome itself. The second differentiation was due to the contact of Latin with various language types in the course of centuries of native a3.Comperaive Grammar of English and Ukrainian languages in provinces extending from Britain to Africa and Minor Asia ra nsyeciie areas it yave rise to & number of subgroups including some re aees ride spread languages, such as Spanish, French, Portuguese, Tlian, Romanian known as the Romance languages. “ihe Roman Empire succumbed to a series of attacks by outsiders who noutly spoke very closely related languages. The Huns, led by Attila were seetcebton. Al the other languages were collectively designated as Geretal Germanic. We are greatly assisted in envisaging the nature of Plmitive Germanic by the existence of the fourth-century Biblical transletion into Goth, a language now extinct. “The languages of the Germanic group occupy today a considerable territory. They may be for convenience divided into Scandinavian & non- Snilavian, Seandinavian, or North Germanic, is by far the most aeeie atl conservative in matier of vocabulary. Outside Seandinevia, Gamanic languages ave spoken in England, Belgium, the Netherlands, SGiuerlands Germany, Austria anid South AMfica, They are commonly Feferred to as West Germanic Stil another group, the Celtic, was at one time an important member of te Indo-European family. twas spoken on the terniories extending fous present-day Slovakia through Austria, Southern Germany, Northern Tap. trance and the British foes, Its traces are to be found in Minor Rai Today the survivals of Celtic are prealy restricted. They fall into two {uBigroups. One of them exists on the West Coast of Ireland and in the Nankcen'ightands of Scotland. The second exists in Wales and in the French province of Brittany. Shona Living languages there aze two isolated ones: Albanian and Arena, which eeery belong to the Indo-European group; though both eS haan subjected to thany alien influences which somewhat obscure dei Aitiaton, Old Armenian attested in early religious writings, The Guvetopment of consonants in Armenian shows @ curious parallels, with {it Raown us in early Germanic. Albanian is attested only since eatly Iodcen dines and because ofits complex ingredients and moi character rogas one of the last European languages to be correctly classified. Both ‘ibantan& Armenian are, i tracitions terminology, satem languages ‘Language families, ao conceived in. the linguistic historical study, should’ not be confused with quite separate classifications of languages tyrreference to the predominast features of grammatical siracture, Such Ghssifications pie rise to what i called typological classes of languages. language groupe are also divided into subgroups, fr instance, the Slavic group spite into. Southern Slavic’ (Bulgarian, Serbian,” Croatian, Meckdontan, Slovenian), Westem Slavic (Polish, C2ech, Slovak, Sorbian, Kashubian)” and. Basten Slavic (Russian, Ukrainian, Byelorussian) ps Essentials of Comparative Linguistics subgroups, and Germanic — into Western Germanic (English, German, Dutch, Friesian, Afrikaans, Yiddish), Northern Germanic (Norwegian, ‘Swedish, Danish, Icelandic, Faeroes), and Eastern Germanic (Gothic) ones. ‘They descend from the common parent language. As for Modern Ukrainian it may be stated that it has passed three stages on its way from the proto- Indo-European language: Common Indo-European, Common Slavic, Old Russian. In their turn, Northern Germanic languages formed a separate group. LP. Sussov believes that Western Germanic and Eastern Germanic Ianguages originated due to the areal factors. In general, Germanic languages are marked by dynamic word stress on the root ‘syllable, extensive use of ablaut in word formation and transformation, differentiation of strong and weak adjective declensions, analytic tendencies. For Slavic languages the following features are typical: hard, soft, semi-soft, voiced and voiceless consonants, soft sibilants and affricatives; the spread of palatalization; the loss of dual; emergence of pronominal adjectives; differentiation of the infinitive and Present tense stems, ‘According to A. Meillet, "To state that this particular language belongs (to this or that language group - A. L)... it is necessary and sufficient, first, to identify in it a number of peculiarities which could not be explained if this language were not a form (of a language of this family)... and secondly, to explain how, in general if not in detail, the structure of the language under consideration correlates with the structure which had their common parent language”. F. von Schlegel, W. Steinthal, F. Bopp, F.F. Fortunatov and others made ‘quite successful attempts at creating @ morphological classification of languages on the basis of their structural similarity. Thus, J. Greenberg, wrote, "One of the steps that should be taken by any science if it wants to clearly comprehend the potential possibilities of its own scientific method, consists in making their comparison and classification and not being restricted to simple description of the objects under study’. He continued, “If comparison of languages in the genetic field lets us define the classes of languages, then there are language families in common sense, then doesn't’ typological (morphological - A. L.) classification give such possibility? Of course it does, but in contrast to genealogical classification ... it is conditional meaning that is based on the chosen criterion or a number of criteria, it leads to different results. ‘The beginnings of the morphological taxonomy can be traced back to the first half of the XX® century. In this classification, affinity of languages does not matter while similarity of their morphological Peculiarities, i, e. word structural types turn out to be of importance. aComparative Grammar of English and Ukrainian wn, the following types of languages are According to this crite distinguished 1} wolating languages (amorphous, rootisolating) are characterized by a tulge numberof twocyllable words, absence of inflections, strict word Grdct"wordcform interdependence within a sentence, indistinelly marked Gheciton of ‘otonel and form elements, poorly. developed. word formation (Chinese, Vietnamese, eth inflectional lnguages (fusional) are marked by vast inlexion; one and the same inflewien embodies diferent grammatical indices while one tnd the same meaning is expressed by diferent inlexions (Russian, English, “Unrainien, German, Czech, Polish, Old” Greck, Latin, efuatan, Byelorussian, Old Slavic, eth these languages are known fr Fhoneueally unmotivated root” transformations, phonetically and Prmnanticaly unmotivated declension and conjugation types S) pulysthetc languages incorporating) have Tong sentence-words forthe predicate verb normally includes other sentence members IRvolving morphephonemic changes in the stem; grammatical meanings wre eificated within the word structure comprising, long morphemic eects that are atthe same time predictive and communicative; they see Gith a subject root and end in a predicate root Keeping the eeeindary sentence members within their structure (Eskimo, Caucasian ianguages, some native American and Paleoastan languages} Fmepnative languages, possess a. well developed system of infos and word-forming afies, ie. alises have only one meaning Riul‘ate added ‘recy to the root (Ugro-Finnic languages, Georgian, steanece “Turkic languages, Banta, etc); they. lack phonetically casnuvaied allomorphism: conjugation and declension ae uniform; tneaningfal gradation i absent, Sy intonectonal languages (Arablc, Hebrew) have transfixes that split roots Por ‘all that, these types are not monolithic. For instance, inflectional languages “are further divided into. synthetic (Russian, Ukrainian, Sycorsssian, Turkish, Bantu) and analydcal (English, German, Tibetan) Synthese languages are those where grammatical meaning is fused with ieuieal one within'a word (grammatical meaning is expressed by infections find formbuilding affixes, or sound interchange), Analytical languages are Characterized y the tendency towards separate (analytical) expression of fexical and grammatical meaning (lexical meaning is expressed by Independent meaningful words whe grammatical meaning i explicate by form words, word order and intonation However this classification cannot be considered rather distinct for every langage has traits of other types, while their type aation is defined om pe Essentials of. ative Linguistics the basis of the traits prevailing over the others, for instance, English has a number of egglutinative (affixes) and introflectional (transfixes) traits, ‘These problems stimulated the emergence of new approaches. E. Sapir succeeded in improving and detailing the prior taxonomy. He suggested a multi-step (hierarchical) classification based on the way. various morphemes - root, derivational, cross-relational (combination of a lexical meaning and relational semantics within one word) ~ are expressed in languages of various types. Therefore he divided languages according to “synthesis technique’ and “synthesis degree" and, considering the first prevailing criterion, spoke of isolating languages (those with pattern free combining elements within a word), agglutinating languages (with a rather tight connection of elements within a word and no root morpheme's transformations), fusional (with fixed connection, outer flexion, affixes merging with the root), symbolic (with internal inflexion, involving vowels and consonants’ transformations. According to the second criterion (the degree of lexical and grammatical meanings’ merging within one word-form) analytical (English, French), synthetic (Old Indo-European) and polysynthetic (synthetic to the utmost degree, e.g, North American Indians’ tongues) were identified. Thus E. Sapir defined such basic language types as: 1) simple purely relational languages in which syntactic relations are explicated without the use of affixes (Tibetan, Evian, Chinese); 2) complex purely relational languages with plain syntactic relations yet involving root morpheme transformations by means of affixes or some ‘other internal changes (Polynesian languages); 3) simple mixed relational languages in which grammatical relations are expressed with inflexions and affixes as well as in the pure form (French, Bantu); 4) complex mixed relational languages that change the meaning of the root by means of affixation or internal transformations (Latin, English) E, Sapir's taxonomy is flexible enough that allows considering degrees of some characteristic manifestation in certain languages. It also triggered the idea of creating language typological passports. In meeting the requirements of open-ended creativity imposed on language by human beings, grammatical structure has things in common to all known languages, particularly at the deeper levels of grammar. All known languages have words or word-like elements combined into sentences; all known languages distinguish noun-like and verb-like sentence components; and all known languages have the means of embedding or subordinating one sentence within another as an included clause (e. g., “the sun set” and "we returned home" = ‘When the sun set we returned home"; “Joan was playing tennis" and "Joan twisted her 25