Typological Characteristics of Functional Words Eng vs.

Ukr
Functionals
English
The Preposition
The Conjunction
The Particle
The Article

Ukrainian
The Preposition
The Conjunction
The Particle
Modal words and modal phrases
The Interjection

Modal Words (MW) and Phrases/Modals

characterized by their meaning of subjective modality (expressing the speaker’s judgement
concerning the action / event or object in the utterance / sentence)
shades of certainty;
degrees of probability;
shades of desirability;
doubt, uncertainty (coinciding in form with the MW denoting probability)

Modals with the Shades of Certainty

Certainly, of course, surely, no doubt, assuredly, indeed, undoubtedly, really
Певне, напевне, звичай но, безсумнівно, безперечно, безумовно, зрозуміло, правда

Modals with the Degrees of Probability

Maybe, perhaps, possibly, probably
Може, можливо, мабуть, й мовірно, видно, здається

Modals withthe Shades of Desirability

Fortunately, unfortunately
На щастя, на жаль, шкода

Modals withDoubt, Uncertainty

Maybe, perhaps, probably
Може, можливо, мабуть
 Several Other Parenthetic Words and Phrases (1)
Point to:
a) the authorship of the idea / assertion:
(Eng.) they say, as reported, in my view, to my mind, I think
(Ukr.) кажуть, як повідомляють, на мою думку, як говориться
b) words and phrases expressing an estimation of the expressed idea:
(Eng.) shortly speaking, generally speaking, in a word
(Ukr.) коротко кажучи, відверто кажучи, одним словом
с) words pointing to the order or succession of ideas expressed in the sentence:
(Eng.) firstly, secondly, on the contrary
(Ukr.) по-перше, по-друге, навпаки

Modals Origin
different parts of speech or phrases acquiring some modal meaning in the sentence:
a) adverbs:
really, probably, fortunately; справді, очевидно, дій сно;
b) nouns with or without prepositions (mainly in Ukr.):
in one’s view, in one’s opinion, to one’s judgement; сором, страх, на мою думку, на мій погляд;
c) verbal phrases and sentences:
it seems, you see; здається, бачите, як бачите, кажуть;
d) statives (in Ukr.): чутно, видно

Modals Position in the Sentence

Occupy any position in both languages:
Perhaps he will come. He will, perhaps, come. He will come, perhaps.
Можливо, він прий де. Він, можливо, прий де. Він прий де, можливо.
Used as elliptical answers to some utterances:
Maybe we better go out… and send them home? – Maybe we better, – Tad said.
«Може, краще вий демо і розженемо їх по домівках?» – «Може й так», – сказав Тед.

Typological Characteristics of Prepositions (isomorphic morphological structure)

English
(isomorphic morphological structure)
English Ukrainian

Simple: at, in, on, of etc. Прості: в, з, о, під тощо

Compound: inside, into, within, throughout etc. Складні: із-за, з-понад, посеред, задля тощо
Derivative: along, below, outside etc. Похідні: внаслідок, завдяки, поверх тощо
Composite: by means of, owing to, on account of etc. Складені: в справі, поруч з, в межах тощо
 Prepositions Common Formation
FROM:
a) nouns:
beside, in front of, in accordance;
внаслідок, у зв'язку з , слідом за, коло, кругом;
b) verbals:
owing to, concerning, including;
включаючи, завдяки, зважаючи;
c) adverbs:
along, before, down, among;
близько, довкола, ззаду, обабіч, серед

Lexical-Grammatical Meaning of Prepositions

ISOMORPHIC
Temporal: before noon, after that, during the war, since Monday, until he came; до обіду, після того,
під час вій ни, від понеділка, доки він не прий де;
Local: along the road, across the street, among the books, in front of me; вздовж дороги, через
вулицю, серед книжок, переді мною;
Causal: because of that, in view of all this; через те що, з погляду на це,
Pervasive: He poured water all over me – з голови до ніг;
Concessive: despite his expectations – всупереч й ого очікуванням.

Syntactic Relations Expressed by Prepositions

1. Agentive relations.
2. Objective relations.
3. Attributive relations.
4. Various adverbial relations: a) temporal, b) local, c) of direction, d) of manner or comparison, e) of
attendant circumstances, f) of cause, g) of concession, h) of possession.
5. Various other relations as: a) of resemblance, b) of subordination, c) dissociation.

Allomorphic Syntactic Functions of Prepositions

(Eng.) linking: a book of my brother; toys for the child;
grammaticalized prepositions: of (Gen.), to (Dat.), for (Dat.), by (Instr.), with (Instr.) – written by him.
(Ukr.) governing nouns, pronouns, numerals, substantivized adjectives, nominal word-groups: праця в
садку, лист від нього тощо;
linking: їхати в таксі, ходити без кольє тощо.

Common Syntactic Functions of Prepositional Phrases

Subject

Predicative

Attribute

Adverbial modifier
 Typology of Conjunctions
Functional words realizing the connection of homogeneous parts in coordinate word-groups and
sentences or linking subordinate clauses in composite sentences
Isomorphic structure:
a) simple: and, but, if, that; і / й , бо, ні;
b) derivative / compound: although, unless, because; або, проте, якщо;
c) composite: as if, in order that; так що, для того щоб.
Use:
a) non-repeated:(both): and, but; а, але, що;
b) repeated (Ukr.): ні – ні, чи – чи, не то – не то;
c) correlative (Eng.): neither… nor, no sooner… than; не стільки – скільки.

Syntactic Functions of Conjunctions

2 isomorphic groups: coordinating conjunctions - subordinating conjunctions

Subclasses of Coordinating Conjunctions

1) copulative,

2) disjunctive,

3) adversative,

4) resultative,

5) (Eng.) the causal conjunction for

Subordinating Conjunctions
Isomorphic nature of conjunctions introducing adverbial clauses:
1) of time,
2) of place and direction,
3) of cause or reason,
4) of condition,
5) of purpose,
6) of result,
7) of concession,
8) of comparison
Typological Characteristics of Particles
Unchangeable words
Specify some component in a phrase or the whole phrase
Do not express any syntactic relations
Emphasize
Restrict
Make negative the meaning of the units they specify by giving some additional shade
(emotional, evaluative etc.) to their meaning / sense
Express an attitudinal relation to action, state or the whole message / or to reality
Express subjective modality
 Morphological Structure of Particles
Simple: all, else, even, just, too, yet, not; а, і / й , так, ну, не, ж, еге тощо.
Derivative: alone, merely, scarcely, simply; нум, нумо, було, просто, все, воно, собі, та, те, це, оце, а,
чи.
Compound: almost, also; невже, якраз.

Isomorphic Homonymy of Particles

With adverbs: exactly, precisely, never; просто, лиш, там, ще, вже;
With adjectives (Eng.): even, right, just;
With pronouns: all, either, все, воно, собі, те, то;
With conjunctions (very few in Eng.): а, і, та, чи;
With articles (Eng. only): the more, the better; the longer, the better.

Semantic Groups of Particles

Of emphatic precision: absolutely, exactly, precisely, right; точно, справді, просто, прямо тощо.
Demonstrative: here, there; ось, от, це, оце, онде, ген, воно.
Affirmative: well, now, yes; так, гаразд, еге, еге ж, атож.
Intensifying: all, but, just, even, simply, yet, still; і, й , та, таки, аж, навіть, вже, ж, бо, же тощо.
Negative / form-building: not, never, no; не, ні, ані.
Interrogative: well, really, no, why, why not; га, ну, невже, хіба, та ну, що за.
Connecting / linking: also, too; тож, також, теж, до того ж, ще й .

Discrete Groups of Particles

Quantitative: almost, approximately; май же, приблизно, близько, мало не, трохи не, чи не, ледве
не.
Emphasizing / singling out: even, only, more; навіть, тільки, лише, лиш, хоч, хоча б, аж, же / ж, все,
собі, таки.
Word-Forming Particles
(Eng.) else-, not-, -not, no-, more-, -most, al-: elsewhere, notwithstanding, forget-me-not, nothingness,
moreover, almost, although etc.
(Ukr.) -будь, -небудь, казна-, хтозна-, -сь, аби-, де-, не-, ні-, би-, б-, -же-, -ж: хто-небудь, декуди, де-
небудь, який сь, мовби, ніби, начеб, щоб, ніколи, недбальство, ніде, ніщо, казнащо, немов, адже,
отже, також, теж, ніж тощо.

Functions of Form-Building Particles

(Eng.) An infinitival identifier: to ask, to be reading.
A representation specifier: he’ll come if asked to.
A specifier of degree: the larger pat, he’s the quickest, more quickly.
A negator of a word or a phrase: cannot; not he; certainly not; no reading practice.
(Ukr.) A wider range of use
 SYNTAX
BASIC SYNTACTIC NOTIONS
OUTLINE
1) General Characteristics of Syntax
2) Kinds of Syntactic Theories
- Transformational-Generative Grammar
- Constructional Syntax
- Communicative Syntax
- Pragmatic Approach
- Textlinguistics
- Discourse Analysis
3) Basic Syntactic Notions
General Characteristics of Syntax
The grammatical structure of language comprises two major parts:
- Morphology and
- Syntax
The two areas are obviously interdependent and together they constitute the study of Grammar

Morphology deals with paradigmatic and syntagmatic properties of morphological units –

morphemes and words.
It is concerned with the internal structure of words and their relationship to other words and word
forms within the paradigm.
It studies morphological categories and their realization.

SYNTAX - Originates from the Greek words:syn (“co-” / “together”) plus taxis (“sequence, order,
arrangement”) - Is the branch of Grammar dealing with the ways in which words are arranged to
show connections of meaning within a sentence

General Characteristics of Syntax

Syntax deals with the way words are combined.
Concerned with the external functions of words and their relationship to other words within the
linearly ordered units – word-groups, sentences and texts.
Studies the way in which the units and their meanings are combined.
Also deals with peculiarities of syntactic units, their behaviour in different contexts.

Syntactic units may be analysed from different points of view.

Accordingly, different syntactic theories exist.

 Kinds of Syntactic Theories
- Transformational-Generative Grammar

- Constructional Syntax

- Communicative Syntax

- Pragmatic Approach

- Textlinguistics

- Discourse Analysis

Transformational-Generative Grammar
The Transformational Grammar was first suggested by American scholar Zelling Harris as a
method of analyzing sentences and was later elaborated by another American scholar Noam
Chomsky as a synthetic method of ‘generating’ (constructing) sentences.
The main point of the Transformational-Generative Grammar is that the endless variety of
sentences in a language can be reduced to a finite number of kernels by means of
transformations.
These kernels serve the basis for generating sentences by means of syntactic processes.
Transformational-Generative Grammar
Different language analysts recognize the existence of different number of kernels (from 3 to 39).
The following 6 kernels are commonly associated with the English language:
(1) NV – John sings.
(2) NVAdj – John is happy.
(3) NVN – John is a man.
(4) NVN – John hit the man.
(5) NVNN – John gave the man a book.
(6) NVPrepN – The book is on the table.
It should be noted that (3) differs from (4) because the former admits no passive transformation.

Transformational-Generative Grammar
Transformational method proves useful for analysing sentences from the point of their deep
structure:
Flying planes can be dangerous.
This sentence is ambiguous, two senses can be distinguished:
a) the action of flying planes can be dangerous,
b) the planes that fly can be dangerous.
Therefore it can be reduced to the following kernels:
a) Planes can be dangerous b) Planes can be dangerous
X (people) fly planes Planes fly

Constructional Syntax
Constructional analysis of syntactic units was initiated by Prof. G.Pocheptsov in his book published
in Kyiv in 1971.
Deals with the constructional significance/ insignificance of a part of the sentence for the
whole syntactic unit.
Based on the obligatory or optional environment of syntactic elements.
For example, the element him in the sentence
I saw him there yesterday
is constructionally significant because it is impossible to omit it.
At the same time the elements there and yesterday are constructionally insignificant – they can
be omitted without destroying the whole structure.

Communicative Syntax
Primarily concerned with the analysis of utterances from the point of their communicative
value and informative structure.
Deals with the actual division of the utterance – the theme and rheme analysis.
Both the theme and the rheme constitute the informative structure of utterances.
The theme is something that is known already while the rheme represents some new information.
Depending on the contextual informative value any sentence element can act as the theme or the
rheme:
Who is at home? – John is at home. Where is John? – John is at home.

Pragmatic Approach
Pragmatic approach to the study of syntactic units can briefly be described as the study of the way
language is used in particular contexts to achieve particular goals.
Speech Act Theory was first introduced by John Austin. The notion of a speech act presupposes
that an utterance can be said with different intentions or purposes and therefore can influence the
speaker and situation in different ways: I just state the fact
I want you to do something about it
(close the window);
It’s cold here I’m threatening you;
I’m seeking for an excuse for not doing something;
I want you to feel guilty of it;
etc.
Textlinguistics

studies

- the text as a syntactic unit,

- its main features and peculiarities,

- different ways of its analysis

Discourse Analysis

focuses on the study of language use with reference to the social and psychological factors
that influence communication

Basic Syntactic Notions

The syntactic language level can be described with the help of special linguistic terms and notions:
syntactic unit,
syntactic form,
syntactic meaning,
syntactic function,
syntactic position, and
syntactic relations
Syntactic Unit

is always a combination that has at least two constituents.

The basic syntactic units are:

- a word-group,

- a clause,

- a sentence, and

– a text.
Their main features are:
a) they are hierarchical units – the units of a lower level serve the building material for the units
of a higher level;
b) as all language units the syntactic units are of two-fold nature:

Syntactic Unit
they are of communicative and non-communicative nature:
– word-groups and clauses are of non-communicative nature
– while sentences and texts are of communicative nature

Syntactic Meaning
is the way in which separate word meanings are combined to produce meaningful word-groups and
sentences. E.g.: Green ideas sleep furiously.
This sentence is quite correct grammatically. However it makes no sense as it lacks syntactic
meaning.
 Syntactic Form

may be described as the distributional formula of the unit (pattern):

John hits the ball

N1 + V + N2

Syntactic Function
is the function of a unit on the basis of which it is included to a larger unit: in the word-group a
smart student the word ‘smart’ is in subordinate attributive relations to the head element.
In traditional terms it is used to denote syntactic function of a unit within the sentence (subject,
predicate, etc.).

Syntactic Position
is the position of an element.
The order of constituents in syntactic units is of principal importance in analytical languages.
The syntactic position of an element may determine its relationship with the other elements of the
same unit: his broad back, a back district, to go back, to back smb.

Syntactic Relations

are syntagmatic relations observed between syntactic units.

They can be of three types – coordination, subordination and predication.

Coordination
(SR1) – syntagmatic relations of independence.
SR1 can be observed on the phrase, sentence and text levels.
Coordination may be symmetric and asymmetric.
Symmetric coordination is characterized by complete interchangeability of its elements – pens and
pencils.
Asymmetric coordination occurs when the position of elements is fixed: ladies and gentlemen.
Forms of connection within SR1 may be:
- copulative (you and me),
- disjunctive (you or me),
- adversative (strict but just) and
- causative-consecutive (sentence and text level only).

Subordination
(SR2) – syntagmatic relations of dependence.
SR2 are established between the constituents of different linguistic rank.
They are observed on the phrase and sentence level.
Subordination may be of three different kinds:
– adverbial (to speak slowly),
– objective (to see a house) and
– attributive (a beautiful flower).
Forms of subordination may also be different :
– agreement (this book – these books),
– government (help us),
– adjournment (the use of modifying particles just, only, even, etc.) and
– enclosure (the use of modal words and their equivalents really, after all, etc.)
–
Predication
(SR3) – syntagmatic relations of interdependence.
Predication may be of two kinds – primary (sentence level) and secondary (phrase level).
Primary predication is observed between the subject and the predicate of the sentence while
secondary predication is observed between non-finite forms of the verb and nominal elements
within the sentence.
Secondary predication serves the basis for gerundial, infinitive and participial word-groups
(predicative complexes). 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Typology of the Syntactic Systems
OUTLINE

1.Syntactic Processes, Their Types and Ways of Realization

2.Syntactic Relations and Ways of Their Realization

3. Syntactic Connections

4. Types of Word-Groups in English and Ukrainian

SYNTACTIC CONSTANTS

syntactic processes syntactic relations syntactic connections in word-groups and sentences

SYNTACTIC UNITS

word-groups sentences supersyntactic units

Typological Contrasting
possible due to:
 Allomorphic Features

ISOMORPHIC + ALLOMORPHICFEATURES

characterize all syntactic constants

SYNTACTIC PROCESSES
find their realization ONLY in word-groups and sentences!
The realization of these processes in English and Ukrainian syntaxemes may be achieved both
by isomorphic and allomorphic ways and means.
SYNTACTIC PROCESSES
1. External syntactic processes:
1.1. Extension:
a) Apposition
b) Detachment
c) Specification
1.2. Expansion
2. Internal syntactic processes:
2.1. Elliptical omission / reduction
2.2. Representation (substitution)
2.3. Contamination
2.4. Compression
 EXTENSION
achieved through adding subordinate components to an element that is the head/ nucleus, i.e.
subordinating in the syntaxeme
may be achieved both by syndetic, i.e. explicit, synthetic or analytical means, or asyndetically (which is
more often in English)
Naturally realized in smaller and larger syntactic units – word-groups and sentences.
WGs consist of two or more notional words connected by isomorphic or allomorphic grammatical
means and expressing some sense.
unextended extended
(2 notional words) (more than 2 notional words)

EXTENSION
Unextended:
E.g.: syntactically free:
this book – these books, to see somebody – to see him;
books for reading, library books, worth reading,
red from excitement, to read much/well, etc.
E.g.: stable / phraseological:
to throw light, to set free, to make steps, etc.
Extended:
E.g.: to go to work every day; not to know what to do; strike the iron while it is hot, etc.

EXTENSION
Extended may be the subject, the simple and compound predicates, objects with attributive adjuncts,
adverbial modifiers.
The extended subject:
Her dark short hair was neat and glossy.
Її чорні коротенькі коси були гладенькі й лиснючі.
Their mother is one of the village girls.
Їхньою матір'ю є одна з цих сільських дівчат.

a) APPOSITION
An external syntactic transformation may equally be achieved via parenthetic and inserted words,
word-groups or sentences that are incorporated into the structure of a syntactic unit by addition or
insertion.
E.g.:
A woman doctor – жінка-лікар
Shevchenko the poet – Шевченко-поет
He would, of course, say nothing. –
Він, звичайно / зазвичай, нічого не відповів.
E.g.:
That evening after supper – her father had a taste for Middle East food – Mary slipped out into the
garden in great agitation. –
Того вечора по вечері (а її батько добре розумівся на смакових якостях близькосхідних страв)
вона вибігла страшенно збуджена в сад.

b) DETACHMENT
A common way of external syntactic extension that is presumably of isomorphic nature in most
languages
E.g.:
They're (Negroes) just like children just as easy-going, and always singing and laughing ... (a detached
attribute) –
Таж вони просто як діти – такі ж – добродушні і завжди то співають, то сміються собі...
And you know, he had this old coloured nurse, this regular old nigger mammy and he just simply
loves her. (a detached apposition) –
І знаєте, у нього навіть нянькою була стара негритянка, справжнісінька негритоска мемі, і
він просто любить її.

c) SPECIFICATION
a way of syntactic extension in English and Ukrainian achieved via a syntactic element/part of the
sentence usually modified by one or more other complementing elements of the same nature and
syntactic function
E.g.:
"I'm not very tall, just average.” –
Я не дуже висока, якраз середня.
"She's got heaps of drink there – whisky, cherry brandy, etc." –
“У неї там багато різних напоїв: віскі, черрі-бренді, тощо”.

EXPANSION
a syntactic process equally aimed at enlarging the content of word-groups and sentences in either of
the contrasted languages (a coordinate joining of syntactically equal in rank components, usually
achieved by way of addition – strings of components function as homogeneous parts of the sentence)
E.g.:
The police, the fishmonger, boys going to school, dozens of people waved to him.
Hercule Poirot rose, crossed to the writing-table, wrote out a cheque – and handed it to the other man
Long, long, afterwards I found the arrow still unbroken.

ELLIPTICAL OMISSION
Omitted may be in a two-member sentence only one or both principal parts of the sentence.
E.g.:
When did you get in? –
Yesterday morning.
Ти коли прибув сюди? –
Вчора ввечері.
What do you want from me? –
Everything.
Що ти хочеш від мене? –
Все.

E.g.:
Do you think I’m a selfish brute? – Of course not, Frank, you know I don’t.
Ти що, вважаєш мене грубою егоїсткою? – Звичайно ні, Франку, ти ж знаєш, що не вважаю.
Can you believe me? – Sure I can.
Ти можеш мені повірити? – Безперечно, можу. / Звичайно, можу…

REPRESENTATION
a particular process of syntactic substitution alien to the Ukrainian language;
represents a kind of reduction in which the component of a syntaxeme is used to present the content
of the whole syntactic unit, which remains in the preceding syntaxeme but its meaning is implicitly
represented by some element.
E.g.:
"I don't know if he's hungry, but I am.”
“He thought of making another phone call, but he realized that he was afraid to.”
“I am a fool to tell you anything.” – “You’d be a bigger fool not to.”

CONTAMINATION
another internal process in which two syntaxemes merge into one predicative unit as in the following
sentence
E.g.:
The moon rose red. ( The moon rose + it was red. )
Наталка прибігла сердита, задихана. (Наталка прибігла + (Наталка) була сердита +
(Наталка) була задихана.)

COMPRESSION
a syntactic process closely connected with reduction and with the secondary predication complex, but
it exists only in English
most often observed in English with the Nominative Absolute Participial Constructions, which are
usually transformed in speech
E,g.:
He stood beside me in silence, his candle in his hand
(his candle being or having been in his hand)

SYNTACTIC RELATIONS

4 types:
predicative objective attributive adverbial
 PREDICATIVE RELATIONS
primary

secondary
PRIMARY PREDICATION
finds its realization between the subject and predicate in any two-member sentence of any
paradigmatic form or structural type
E.g.:
"I never said I was a beauty”, he laughed.
Я ніколи не казав, що я є красенем, - сказав, усміхнувшись, він.

SECONDARY PREDICATIVE RELATIONS

formed in English by verbals in connection with other nominal parts of speech;
formed by the so-called
infinitival,
participial and
gerundial complexes,
which function as various parts of the sentence.

COMPLEX SUBJECT
E.g.: You seem not to have caught my idea.
Ти, здається, не зовсім зрозумів, що я хочу сказати / мою думку.
The operation is expected to start in 48 hours.
Очікується, що (антитерористична) операція почнеться за 48 годин.

COMPLEX PREDICATVE

E.g.: That is for you to decide, is it not?

COMPLEX OBJECT

E.g.: He stood by the creek and heard it ripple over the stones.

Він стояв біля струмка і чув як він (струмок) хлюпоче по камінцях.

COMPLEX ATTRIBUTE

E.g.: There is nothing for us to change at present, you see.

ADVERBIAL RELATIONS created in: coordinate word-groups \subordinate word-groups

ADVERBIAL RELATIONS IN COORDINATE WORD-GROUPS

substantival: adverbial:
 ADVERBIAL RELATIONS IN SUBORDINATE WORD-GROUPS

substantival

verbal

adverbial
WORD-GROUPS
consist of 2 or more grammatically connected notional parts of speech expressing some content
may be:
syntactically free combinations of words
idiomatically bound
STRUCTURAL FORMS OF WG

simple / elemental

complicated
TYPES OF SYNTACTIC CONNECTION
Synthetic (predominates in Ukr):
agreement (гарна дівчина; these books)
government(читати книжку; see him)
Analytical (predominates in Eng – syndetic and asyndetic):
Prepositional government: look at the boy, go by plane, history of France;
Adjoinment (word order): take a book, see a man, rather doubtful, a cage bird, a bird cage, Kyiv street
traffic regulation rules;
Enclosure: the I-am–sorry response
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

THE SENTENCE
OUTLINE
1. The definition of the sentence and its distinctive features

2. Aspects of the sentence: formal, semantic, functional

3. The structural classification of English sentences

SENTENCE DEFINITION
connected with many lingual and extra lingual aspects – logical, psychological and philosophical
Acc. to academician G.Pocheptsov, the sentence is:
- the central syntactic construction
- used as the minimal communicative unit
- has its primary predication,
- actualises a definite structural scheme and
- possesses definite intonation characteristics
 SENTENCE DEFINITION
G.Pocheptsov’s definition works only in case we do not take into account the difference between
the sentence and the utterance.
The distinction between the sentence and the utterance is of fundamental importance because
the sentence is an abstract theoretical entity defined within the theory of grammar while the
utterance is the actual use of the sentence.
In other words, the sentence is a unit of language while the utterance is a unit of speech.

O.I. Morozova associates the sentence with the onion.

The sentence onion suggests the image of a hard core and many ‘grounding’ layers around it.
The outermost layer (1) represents the speaker’s attitude to the event described (modality).
The next layer (2) represents the speaker’s objective evaluation of the event described (mood).
SENTENCE DEFINITION
The next one (3) pertains to the speaker's perspective of viewing the situation described in the
sentence (voice).
Layer (4) relates to the moment the event occurs (tense).
Layer (5) represents the time at which this event is situated in relation to the speech act time or other
events (perfective aspect / retrospect).
The innermost layer (6) concerns the internal progression of the event (progressive aspect /
development).
The core of the sentence onion (7) is formed by the subject-relational categories of the verb (person
and number).
ESSENTIAL FEATURES
The most essential features of the sentence as a linguistic unit are:
a) its structural characteristics – subject-predicate relations (primary predication), and
b) its semantic characteristics – it refers to some fact in the objective reality.
SENTENCE REPRESENTATION
The sentence is represented in the language through a conceptual reality:
1) conceptual reality + objective reality + lingual representation
2) proposition + objective situation + predicative unit
SENTENCE DEFINITION
We may define the proposition as the main predicative form of thought.
Basic predicative meanings of the typical English sentence are expressed by the finite verb that is
immediately connected with the subject of the sentence (primary predication).
To sum it up, the sentence is a syntactic level unit, it is a predicative language unit which is a
lingual representation of predicative thought (proposition).
APPROACHES
There are different approaches to the structural study of the sentence.
a)Principal and secondary parts of the sentence
b)Immediate constituents of the sentence = IC analysis
 THE SENTENCE STRUCTURE
To grasp the real structure of the English sentence, one must understand not only words that occur
but also the principles of their arrangement.
Each language has its own way of structural grouping.
English has dichotomous phrase structure, which means that the phrase in English can always be
divided into two elements (constituents) until we get down to the single word.
All groups of words are arranged in levels.
The name given by linguists to these different levels of relationship is immediate constituents.

THE SENTENCE STRUCTURE

One way of analyzing a sentence is to cut it to its immediate constituents, that is, to single out
different levels of meaning:
E.g.: The old man saw a black dog there.
(S = NP + VP = Det + NP + VP + D)
THE SENTENCE STRUCTURE
It is obvious that dividing a sentence into ICs does not provide much information. Nevertheless, it can
sometimes prove useful if we want to account for the ambiguity of certain constructions.
A classic example is the phrase old men and women which can be interpreted in two different ways.
Ambiguity of this kind is referred to as syntactic ambiguity.

By providing IC analysis we can make the two meanings clear:

old // men and women old men and // women

THE SENTENCE STRUCTURE

c)Oppositional analysis.
The oppositional method in syntax means correlating different sentence types: they possess common
features and differential features.
Differential features serve the basis for analysis.
E.g. two member sentence :: one member sentence
John worked:: John! Work!
Or: I speak English :: I don’t speak English.

d)Constructional analysis.
According to the constructional approach, not only the subject and the predicate but also all the
necessary constituents of primary predication constitute the main parts because they are
constructionally significant.
Therefore, the secondary parts of the sentence are sometimes as necessary and important as the
main ones. If we omit the object and the adverbial modifier in the following sentences they will
become grammatically and semantically unmarked:
Bill closed the door;
She behaved well.
 THE SENTENCE STRUCTURE
The structural sentence types are formed on the basis of kernels (basic structures).
Three main types of propositional kernels may be distinguished: N V, N is A, N is N. However, if
we take into account the valent properties of the verbs (their obligatory valency) the group will
become larger (8 kernels),
e.g. N1 V N2 N3: John gave Ann the book,
N1 V N2: I see a house.
The kernel sentences form the basis for syntactic derivation.
Syntactic derivation lies in producing more complex sentences
SYNTACTIC PROCESSES
Syntactic processes may be internal and external.
Internal syntactic processes involve no changes in the structure of the parts of the sentence. They
occur within one and the same part of the sentence (subject, etc.).
External syntactic processes are those that cause new relations within a syntactic unit and lead to
appearance of a new part of the sentence.

The internal syntactic processes are:

Expansion: The phone was ringing and ringing
Compression: They were laughing and singing
Complication (a synt. unit becomes complicated):
I have seen it – I could have seen it
Contamination (two parts of the sentence are joined together – e.g. double predicate): The moon
rose red
Replacement – the use of the words that have a generalized meaning: one, do, etc.: I’d like to
take this one.
Representation – a part of the syntactic unit represents the whole syntactic unit:
Would you like to come along? I’d love to.
Ellipsis – Where are you going? To the movies.

The external syntactic processes are:

Extension - a nice dress – a nice cotton dress.
Ajoinment - the use of specifying words, most often particles: He did it – Only he did it.
Enclosure – inserting modal words and other discourse markers: after all, anyway, naturally, etc.

STRUCTURAL CLASSIFICATION
English sentences are classified on the structural basis in agreement with their semantic
features (otherwise it would be just artificial pseudo-scholarship): sentences proper and quasi-
sentences.
Since predicativity is the main distinctive feature of the sentence, it would be logical to use it as
the basis for a most general structural classification of sentences.

SENTENCES PROPER
Subdivided into:

Declarative: e.g. John smiled;

Interrogative: e.g. Did John smile?;

Optative: e.g. If John smiled!;

Imperative: e.g. Say 'Cheese'!

QUASI-SENTENCES
Sentences proper (further on just sentences) are characterized by predicativity, while quasi-
sentences are not.
They serve to express:
Address – vocative, e.g. John!,
Emotion – interjective, e.g. Oh! or
establishing or terminating speech contact – metacommunicative, e.g. Good day!.

DECLARATIVE / INTERROGATIVE
Sentences are subdivided into declarative, interrogative, optative, and imperative on
heterogeneous grounds.
Declarative and interrogative sentences differ in their informational aspect: the former provide
information, and the latter call for information.
Declarative sentences vary in the amount of information they carry. For example, the sentence I
am asking that because I want to know as an answer to the question Why are you asking that?
repeats the predicate of the preceding sentence thus providing redundant information.

DECLARATIVE
Declarative sentences can be positive or negative, i.e. they affirm or negate the predicative link
between the subject and the predicate.
The term positive is preferable to the traditionally used term affirmative, otherwise we would have
to qualify the sentence Do you know him? as an "affirmative interrogative sentence"
as opposed to the "negative-interrogative" sentence Don't you know him?

NEGATIVE
A sentence is called negative only if negation concerns the predication (the so-called "general
negation"),
e.g. You don't understand him at all.
Particular negation can refer to any member of the sentence except the predicate,
e.g. Not a person could be seen around.
Positive and negative sentences make an opposition
 (POSITIVE :: NEGATIVE),
where negation is the marked member.

INTERROGATIVE
Interrogative sentences, in their turn, are not "pure questions": they do convey some positive
information, which is called the presupposition of the question.
For example, the question Why are you asking that? has a presupposition You are asking that;
the question Why have you murdered your wife? has a presupposition You have murdered your
wife.
Interrogative sentences demonstrate a great variety of grammatical meanings and forms as well as
of pragmatic functions.
Due to that, only a few of their most general formal and semantic features can serve as a basis for
setting them apart:
a specific interrogative intonation contour;
the inverted order of words;
interrogative pronouns;
the content (information gap in the knowledge of the subject about the denotatum).

INTERROGATIVE TYPES
There are two main types of interrogative sentences –
general questions and
special questions,
– which differ in their formal and semantic features:

Alternative questions do not form a special type of questions. Alternativity can be brought both into
general and special questions, e.g. Is it Peter or John? Who(m) do you like better, Peter or John?
Disjunctive (=tag) questions are a variety of general questions.

OPTATIVE / IMPERATIVE
Optative and imperative sentences deal with the volitional (волюнтативне) attitude of the speaker
to a certain event
The desire of the subject of optative sentences remains unrealized, while imperative sentence
are aimed at its realization.

QUASI-SENTENCES
Quasi-sentences are called sentences due to their:
ability to substitute a sentence (take its position in a speech chain);
discreteness;
intonation properties.
On the other hand, they cannot be said to have a full sentential status since they can be embedded
into a sentence as syntagmatically dependent elements. Hence they:
- do not have a nominative meaning (just evaluative);
- are context dependent, e.g. John! (amazement, indignation, approval, reproof);

QUASI-SENTENCES
- are easily substituted by non-verbal signals, e.g. John! Attracting attention: punch in the ribs,
tap on the shoulder, clearing one's throat; Well done! Yak! Good bye! Hi!
- can be combined, e.g. Oh, John! Hello Cliff!
- can be emotionally coloured (become exclamatory).
Exclamation is not a structural element of a sentence, it is optional. Yet certain types of quasi-
sentences demonstrate a tendency to being exclamatory (conventionality of the exclamation
mark), e.g. Dear sir! (Cf. Здравствуй, Аня!).

INFORMATIVE STRUCTURE OF THE UTTERANCE

The utterance as opposed to the sentence is the unit of speech.
The main categories of the utterance from the point of view of its informative structure are considered
to be the theme and the rheme.
They are the main components of the Functional Sentence Perspective (FSP) – actual division of the
sentence (most language analysts stick to the term “sentence” but actually they mean “utterance”).

WORD ORDER
In English, there is a “standard” word order of
Subject + Verb + Object: The cat ate the rat – here we have a standard structure (N1 + V + N2).
However, there are numerous other ways in which the semantic content of the sentence can be
expressed:
The rat was eaten by the cat.
It was the cat that ate the rat.
It was the rat that the cat ate.
What the cat did was ate the rat.
The cat, it ate the rat.

THE RHEME MARKING DEVICES

Position in the sentence. As a rule new information in English generally comes last: The cat ate the
rat.
Intonation.
The use of the indefinite article. However, sometimes it is impossible (as in 1): A gentleman is
waiting for you.
The use of ‘there is’, ‘there are’. There is a cat in the room.
The use of special devices, like ‘as for’, ‘but for’, etc.: As for him, I don’t know.
Inverted word order: Here comes the sun.
The use of emphatic constructions: It was the cat that ate the rat.
 TWO RHEMES
However, sometimes the most important information is not expressed formally: The cat ate the rat
after all.
The rheme here is ‘the rat’.
At the same time there is very important information which is hidden or implicit: the cat was not
supposed to do it, or – it was hard for the cat to catch the rat, or – the cat is a vegetarian (this
hidden information will depend on the context or situation).
In other words, we may say that this sentence contains two informative centres, or two rhemes –
explicit and implicit.
 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

COMPLEX AND COMPOUND SENTENCES

OUTLINE
1. The Principles of Subordination

2. Subject, Predicative, Object clauses

3. “Descriptive” Attributive and “Restrictive” Attributive Clauses

4. Four Groups of Adverbial Clauses

5. The Characteristics of Compound Sentences

6. “Leading” and “Sequential” Clauses of Compound Sentences

 THE PRINCIPLES OF SUBORDINATION

The complex sentence is a polypredicative construction built up on the principle of
subordination.
It is derived from two or more base sentences one of which performs the role of a matrix in relation
to the others, the insert sentences.
The complex sentence of minimal composition includes two clauses – a principal one and a
subordinate one.
The subordinate clause is joined to the principal clause either by a subordinating connector
(subordinate), or, with some types of clauses, asyndetically.

 THE PRINCIPLES OF SUBORDINATION

Moyra left the room. > (I do remember quite well) that Moyra left the room. > (He went on
with his story) after Moyra left the room. > (Fred remained in his place) though Moyra left the
room. > (The party was spoilt) because Moyra left the room. > (It was a surprise to us all) that
Moyra left the room...
The minimal, two-clause complex sentence is the main volume type of complex sentences.
It is the most important type, first, in terms of frequency; second, in terms of its paradigmatic
status.

SUBJECT, PREDICATIVE, OBJECT CLAUSES

Clauses of primary nominal positions - subject, predicative, object - are interchangeable with
one another in easy reshufflings of sentence constituents.
Cf.: What you saw at the exhibition is just what I want to know. – a subject clause >
What I want to know is just what you saw at the exhibition. – a predicative clause >
I just want to know what you saw at the exhibition. – an object clause

THE SUBJECT CLAUSE

The subject clause, in accordance with its functional position, regularly expresses the theme at
the upper level of the actual division of the complex sentence.
The thematic property of the clause is well exposed in its characteristic uses with passive
constructions, as well as constructions in which the voice opposition is neutralized.
E.g.: Why he rejected the offer has never been accounted for. What small reputation the town does
possess derives from two things.

THE PREDICATIVE CLAUSE

The predicative clause, in conformity with the predicative position as such, performs the function
of the nominal part of the predicate, i.e. the part adjoining the link-verb.
The link verb is mostly expressed by the pure link be, not infrequently we find here also the specifying
links seem and look; the use of other specifying links is occasional.
E.g.: The trouble is that I don't know Fanny personally.
The question is why the decision on the suggested innovation is still delayed.
The difficulty seems how we shall get in touch with the chief before the conference.
After all those years of travelling abroad, John has become what you would call a man of will and
experience.

The predicative clause introduced by the conjunctions as if / as though has an adverbial force,
which is easily shown by contrast:
She looks as though she has never met him. >
She behaves as though she has never met him.

The predicative clause in a minimal complex sentence regularly expresses its rheme.
Therefore there is an essential informative difference between the two functional uses of a
categorially similar nominal clause: that of the predicative and that of the subject.
Cf.:
The impression is that he is quite competent.
That he is quite competent is the impression.

The second sentence (of an occasional status, with a sentences-stress on the link-verb), as different
from the first, suggests an implication of a situational antithesis: the impression may be called in
question, or it may be contrasted against another trait of the person not so agreeable as the one
mentioned, etc.

THE OBJECT CLAUSE

The third type of clauses considered under the heading of clauses of primary nominal positions are
object clauses.
The object clause denotes an object-situation of the process expressed by the verbal
constituent of the principal clause.
The object position is a strong substantive position in the sentence. In terms of clausal relations it
means that the substantivizing force of the genuine object-clause derivation is a strongly
pronounced nominal clause-type derivation.

This is revealed, in particular, by the fact that object clauses can be introduced not only non-
prepositionally, but also, if not so freely, prepositionally.
Cf.: They will accept with grace whatever he may offer.
She stared at what seemed a faded photo of Uncle Jo taken half a century before.
I am simply puzzled by what you are telling me about the Car fairs.

The semantic content of the object clause discriminates three types of backgrounds:
first, an immediately substantive background;
second, an adverbial background;
third, an uncharacterized background of general event.
This differentiation depends on the functional status of the clause-connector, that is on the sentence-
part role it performs in the clause.
Cf.: We couldn't decide whom we should address.
The friends couldn't decide where they should spend their vacation.

The object clause in the first of the cited sentences is of a substantive background (We should
address - whom), whereas the object clause in the second sentence is of adverbial-local
background (They should spend their vacation - where).
The first object clause in the above two sentences is of substantive background, while the second
one is of an adverbial -causal background.

Object clauses of general event background are introduced by conjunctions:

Now he could prove that the many years he had spent away from home had not been in vain.
The considered background features of subordinate clauses, certainly, refer to their inner status
and therefore concern all the nominal clauses, not only object ones.
But with object clauses they are of especial contrastive prominence, which is due to immediate
dependence of the object clause on the valency of the introducing (subordinating) verb.

THE ATTRIBUTIVE CLAUSE

Subordinate clauses of secondary nominal positions include attributive clauses of various
syntactic functions. They fall into two major classes: "descriptive" attributive clauses and
"restrictive" ("limiting") attributive clauses.
The descriptive attributive clause exposes some characteristic of the antecedent (i.e., its
substantive referent) as such, while the restrictive attributive clause performs a purely identifying
role, singling out the referent of the antecedent in the given situation.
 DECRIPTIVE ATTRIBUTIVE
Descriptive clauses, in their turn, distinguish two major subtypes: first, "ordinary" descriptive
clauses; second, "continuative" descriptive clauses.
The ordinary descriptive attributive clause expresses various situational qualifications of nounal
antecedents. The qualifications may present a constant situational feature or a temporary
situational feature of different contextual relations and implications.
Cf.: It gave me a strange sensation to see a lit up window in a big house that was not lived in.
He wore a blue shirt the collar of which was open at the throat.
They were playing such a game as could only puzzle us.

CONTINUATIVE ATTRIBUTIVE
The continuative attributive clause presents a situation on an «equal domination basis with its
principal clause, and so is attributive only in form, but not in meaning. It expresses a new
predicative event (connected with the antecedent) which somehow continues the chain of
situations reflected by the sentence as a whole.
Cf.: In turn, the girls came singly before Brett, who frowned, blinked, bit his pencil, and
scratched his head with it, getting no help from me audience, who applauded each girl
impartially and hooted at every swim suit, as if they could hot see hundreds any day round the
swimming pool (M. Dickens).

FOUR GROUPS OF ADVERBIAL CLAUSES

The whole system of adverbial clauses is to be divided into four groups.
The first group includes clauses of time and clauses of place. Their common semantic basis is to
be defined as "localization" - respectively, temporal and spatial.
Both types of clauses are subject to two major subdivisions, one concerning the local
identification, the other concerning the range of functions. 

The second group of adverbial clauses includes clauses of manner and comparison.
The common semantic basis of their functions can be defined as "qualification ", since they
give a qualification to the action or event rendered by the principal clause.
The identification of these clauses can be achieved by applying the traditional question-transformation
test of the how-type, with the corresponding variations of specifying character.
Cf.: He spent the Saturday night as was his want. > How did he spend the Saturday night?
You talk to people as if they were a group. > How do you talk to people?
I planned to give my mother a length of silk for a dress, as thick and heavy as it was possible to buy.
> How thick and heavy the length of silk was intended to be?
All the adverbial qualification clauses are to be divided into "factual" and "speculative", depending on
the real or unreal prepositional event described by them.

The third and most numerous group of adverbial clauses includes "classical" clauses of different
circumstantial semantics, i.e. semantics connected with the meaning of the principal
clause by various circumstantial associations; here belong clauses оf attendant event,
condition, cause, reason, result (consequence), concession, purpose.
Thus, the common semantic basis of all these clauses can be defined as "circumstance".
The whole group should be divided into two subgroups:
- the first being composed by clauses of "attendant circumstance";
- the second, by clauses of "Immediate circumstance".

The fourth group of adverbial clauses is formed by parenthetical or insertive constructions.

Parenthetical clauses, as has been stated elsewhere, are joined to the principal clause on a
looser basis than the other adverbial clauses; still, they do form with the principal clause a
syntactic sentential unity, which is easily proved by the procedure of diagnostic elimination.
Cf.: Jack has called here twice this morning, if I am not mistaken. > Jack has called here twice
this morning.

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF COMPOUND SENTENCES

The compound sentence is a composite sentence built on the principle of coordination.
Coordination, the same as subordination, can be expressed either syndetically or asyndetically.
The main semantic relations between the clauses connected coordinatively are copulative,
adversative, disjunctive, causal, consequential, resultative.
Similar semantic types of relations are to be found between independent, separate sentences forming
a continual text.
Some subordinate clauses of a complex sentence can also be separated in the text, thus being
changed into specific independent sentences.
Cf:. Suddenly Laura paused as if she was arrested by something invisible from here. >
Suddenly Laura paused. As if she was arrested by something invisible from here.

“LEADING” AND “SEQUENTIAL” CLAUSES

The compound sentence is derived from two or more base sentences which, are
connected on the principle of coordination either synthetically or asyndetically.
The base sentences joined into one compound sentence lose their independent status and
become coordinate clauses - parts of a composite unity:
the first clause is "leading" (the "leader" clause),
the successive clauses are "sequential".

CONNECTORS
The coordinating connectors, or coordinators, are divided into conjunctions proper and semi-
functional clausal connectors of adverbial character.
The main coordinating conjunctions, both simple and discontinuous, are:
and, but, or, nor, neither, for, either ... or, neither ... nor, etc.
The main adverbial coordinators are:
then, yet, so, thus, consequently, nevertheless, however, etc.

ADVERBIAL COORDINATORS
The adverbial coordinators, unlike pure conjunctions, as a rule can shift their position in
the sentence (the exceptions are the connectors yet and so).
Cf.: Mrs. Dyre stepped into the room, however the host took no notice of it. > Mrs. Dyre stepped
into the room, the host, however, took no notice of it.
______________________________________________________________________________
TYPOLOGY OF THE MAIN PARTS OF THE SENTENCE

Traditional Subdivision
Isomorphic functional meaning and lexico-grammatical nature of all parts of the sentence for both
languages
a) the main parts (the subject and the predicate – interdependent, bearing predication)
b) the secondary parts (the object, the attribute, different adverbial modifiers – dependent on the
subject, on the predicate or on one another part of the sentence)
Example
Everyone knows his own business best.
Everyone knows – the primary predication (S – P) word-group
Knows < his own business – the predicate-object word-group
His own > business – the attributive word-group
Knows < best – the predicate-adverbial modifier word-group

Isomorphic Features of the Structure of the Parts of the Sentence

1) simple (a single-word – synthetic or analytical)
2) extended / expanded (a subordinate / a co-ordinate word-groups)
3) complex (a secondary predication construction / word-group / a regular clause)

A Regular Clause Example

What you told me is a lie. That / it is a lie.

Те, що ти казав мені, – брехня. Те /це є брехня.

THE SUBJECT
Structural Forms of the Subject :Isomorphic and allomorphic features
Some ways of expressing the subject found only in English:
1) the Indefinite Pronouns (one, you, they)
2) the Impersonal or Anticipatory / Introductory Pronoun (it)
3) the Formal / Introductory Pronoun (there)
4) the Infinitival Secondary Predication For-phrase
5) the Subjective with the Infinitive / Participle Construction Forming
6) the Gerundial Construction

The Semantic Functions of the Subject (common)

1) the agent of the action in relation to the predicate
2) the patient of the action expressed by the predicate
3) the experiencer of an action in relation to the predicate
4) the recipient of an action in relation to the predicate
5) the instrument in relation to the predicate
6) the eventive function of the subject in relation to the action expressed by the predicate

Typological Characteristics of the Predicate (structure)

1) simple verbal
2) simple nominal
3) phraseological
4) compound verbal modal
5) compound verbal aspective
6) compound nominal
7)compound nominal double
8) mixed (table 27 – p. 351)
Noun Predicative (p. 350)
A Pronoun
A Numeral
An Adjective
An Infinitive
A Participle
A Gerund (absent in Ukrainian)
A Stative
An Adverb

___________________________________________________________________________
TYPOLOGY OF THE SECONDARY ARTS OF THE SENTENCE

WAYS OF JOINING ADJUNCTS AND COMPLEMENTS

Three main ways of joining the adverbial and nominal adjuncts (and complements) with their subordinating
Nuclei in English and Ukrainian languages:
1) analytical (syndetic and asyndetic);
2) analytic and synthetic;
3) synthetic.
E.g.: The next morning cigarette smoke blew past my window (V.S. Pritchett).
She was silent for a moment (Cusack).
“Come and ask me about it tomorrow” (Kipling).

ENGLISH
The analytical way of connection: next morning, cigarette smoke, blew past my window, ask me about it,
ask me tomorrow.
The one word-group is co-ordinate by its structural form: come and ask.

UKRAINIAN
Predominant in all subordinate word-groups are synthetic as well as analytical and synthetic, i.e.
combined ways of joining componential parts: наступного ранку (syntactic agreement), димок від
сигарет (synthetic and analytical connections/joining, i.e. prepositional government), запитай мене
(synthetic connection/government in both languages), запитай взавтра (asyndetic connection,
adjoinment) in both contrasted languages

NOTE
The form of the adjoined component in Ukrainian may be synthetically marked.
The lexico-grammatic (and semantic) nature of adverbial complements in both languages is mostly
identical.
Of isomorphic nature in both languages are also homogeneous adjuncts.
Ukrainian attributive adjuncts mostly agree with the head noun in number, case and gender.
Appositional adjuncts in English and Ukrainian specify/identify, explain or make more vivid and
expressive the head component.
English appositional adjuncts may often be joined by means of prepositions.

The Detached Secondary Parts of the Sentence

Isomorphic in English and Ukrainian, like in all other Indo-European languages, is also the existence of
detached secondary parts of the sentence, which may be unextended or extended. Their position in
the sentence is not always fixed and they have a loose connection with their head components.

THE DETACHED ATTRIBUTE

This part of the sentence may refer in English and Ukrainian to nouns and to pronouns, usually
expressing in both contrasted languages some additional adverbial meaning (cause, condition,
comparison, concession, time, etc.)
Very white, he turned back to the balcony (Galsworthy) –
Зовсім блідий, він повернувся назад на балкон.

THE DETACHED APPOSITION

Detached appositions identify or explain the head component which may be a noun or a pronoun.
Minna found the house, a pretty little cottage, set back from street. – Мінна знайшла будинок,
невеличкий гарненький котедж, захований подалі від вулиці.

Detached apposition in Ukrainian may often be joined with the subordinating part/noun with the help
of the conjunctions: або, чи, тобто, як, and by specifying words as як от, а саме, особливо, навіть,
переважно, родом, на ймення, на прізвище, etc.
The English specifiers are semantically similar: quite, almost, namely, by name, etc.

THE DETACHED OBJECT

This detached part of the sentence is mostly expressed by prepositional nouns or pronouns, the main
prepositions in English being: except/except for, with the exception of, which lexically correspond to
the Ukrainian prepositions крім/окрім, опріч, за винятком, замість.

Anybody else, except Ackly, would've taken the goddam hint Будь-хто, крім Еклі, зрозумів би
проклятий натяк.

Except for the handwriting, there wasn't the slightest trace of femininity. Ніщо, крім почерку, не
виказувало, що автор – жінка (Wilson)
 THE DETACHED ADVERBIAL COMPLEMENTS
Way of Expressing:
Local. I was sitting at a box table writing letters, in a tent near the beach at Buna (F. Hardy) – Я сидів
за ящиком-столом (у шатрі коло пляжу в Буні) й писав листи.
Temporal. Up to a year ago, Richard Abernethie's will was very simple (Christie) – Заповіт Річарда
Абернеті ще десь рік тому був дуже простий .
Manner. Slowly, very slowly, she went (Galsworthy) – Повільно, дуже повільно й шла вона.
Cause/Reason. For some reason, she seemed to hate first base... “Because of my age, – I could not be
persecuted”. (Vonnegut) 3 якихось причин, як видно, вона не вподобала першу базу... “Через моє
неповноліття... мене не змогли судити”.
Condition. If necessary, she must see Mr. Bridgenorth. (Galsworthy) "Dead, he would have been safe".
(Vonnegut) Якщо треба, вона муситиме зай ти до Бріджнорта. "Мертвий – він був би у повній
безпеці»...
Measure and Degree. “He realized that much, no more (F. Hardy) It (car) was coming fast, more than
fifty miles an hour... (Caldwell) – Це ще він розумів, але не більше. Автомобіль їхав швидко,
більш ніж п'ятдесят миль за годину...
Concession. It was a fine calm day, though very cold... (Bronte) With all her faults, there was nobody
like Edee... (Priestley) Був гарний спокій ний день, хоч і дуже холодний... Попри всі її недоліки,
жодна інша не могла зрівнятися з Еді...

HOMOGENEOUS PARTS OF THE SENTENCE

actually not only of identical functions, but also of identical structure and nomenclature.
may be in the sentence:
1. Co-ordinate Subjects (extended or unextended):
Fields, trees, hedges streamed by (Mansfield)
There were only two small rooms, a tiny kitchen and a lean... (Maugham)
Пролітали поля, дерева, живо-плоти.
Дві кімнатки, малесенька кухня та прибудова – ото було й усе...

2. Co-ordinate Predicates. May also be simple, expanded or extended by their structure. Eg: In his
small room Martin lived, slept, studied, wrote and kept house. (London) – У своїй кімнатці Мартін
жив, спав, студіював, писав і господарював.

3. Co-ordinate Objects. May be expressed by different parts of speech functioning as nominals.

Homogeneous objects may also be extended or expanded and prepositional: ...I remember Tegumai
Bopsulai, and Taffinwai Metallumai and Теshumai Tewindrow, her Mummy, and all the days gone by
(Kipling)
Я пам'ятаю Тегумая Бопсулая і Таффінваю Металумаю, і Тешумаю Тевіндрову, її матір, і всі
минулі літа.
4. Co-ordinate Attributes. Isomorphism in the functioning of homogeneous attributive adjuncts
manifests itself in the distribution (preposed or postposed) and in structural forms (extended,
unextended, prepositional) of this part of the sentence.

GRAMMATICALLY INDEPENDENT ELEMENTS IN THE SENTENCE

Independent elements in English and Ukrainian are represented by:
interjections,
words/phrases of direct address,
parenthetic words and
inserted words or sentences.
Elements of Direct Address / Прямі звертання
“Tom!” – No answer (Twain) “Well, Miss Phillips, fat coming off nicely?” “Томе!” – Ані звука. “Ну як, міс
Філіпс, жирок потрошку сходить?”

Parenthetic and Inserted Elements of the Sentence / Вставні та вставлені елементи речення
Ex. : certainly, maybe, most likely, in all probability, безсумнівно, можна сказати, є надія, як
здається, треба гадати.
 Parenthetic words/phrases help convey indirectly the speaker's attitude toward some fact, event or
information: in my/his opinion, they say, to my judgement, I should say/should think. на мою/його
думку, кажуть/як кажуть, я б сказав, смію сказати/гадати.

NON-SEGMENTABLE SENTENCES IN ENGLISH AND UKRAINIAN

Nonsegmentable sentences in English and Ukrainian include:
affirmative,
negative,
declarative,
interrogative, and
incentive.
Affirmative non-segmentable sentences in the contrasted languages serve to express the
approval of the content in the antecedent sentence:“Has she three children then?” – “Yes.”
(Maugham). – “У неї, отже, троє дітей?” – “Так”.  
Negative non-segmentable sentences. An ordinary /non-emphatic negation is usually expressed
in English through the pronominal particle "no" and in Ukrainian – through the particle "ні": "What'd
he cop, malaria?" – “No.” (F. Hardy "Що він підхопив – малярію?" – “Ні”.  
Interrogative non-segmentable sentences are formed by the particle "yes " (less often "no") and
some interjections: "I got a cable this morning from my wife." – "Yes?" "Мені телефонувала
сьогодні вранці дружина.“– "Так?"

ELEMENTS OF DIRECT ADDRESS IN ENGLISH AND UKRAINIAN

Direct address in the contrasted languages may have the structure of a word, a word-group or a
sentence.
Direct address is used in both contrasted languages, with the aim of drawing attention of the reader
or listener to some information, object or person. E.g.: Men of England, heirs of glory.

The expression of direct address in Ukrainian may sometimes be only partial. It happens, when the
addressee noun is indeclinable in Ukrainian: E.g.: "Are you married, Mr. Poirot?" (Christie) "Ви
одружений, пане Пуаро?“

Direct addresses are often used in both languages to convey modality and emotions: disgust,
dissatisfaction, joy, sorrow, fright, prohibition and others.

E.g.: "Thanks, Mike, thanks!" "Дякую, Майку, дякую!" "Oh, Guy, don't blame me. It really is not my fault."
"Ой, Гаю, не вини мене. Тут я і справді не винна."