angl

CONCLUSION

Contrastive linguistics attracts attention of linguists around the world, since its value is not purely theoretical, but serves as a basis for the practical application of the linguistic science.

The birth of contrastive language studies was caused by the need to study foreign languages, which is of topical character nowadays. One of the factors creating obstacles for the successful acquisition of a foreign language is the negative influence of the native tongue (also called native language interference). This influence can be removed by contrastive analysis of the native tongue (the source language) and the foreign language being acquired (the target language).

The results of contrastive linguistics (in particular contrastive grammar) can be applied for the development of the methodology of foreign language teaching. Nationally targeted methodology, which is based on the results of the contrastive language study, creates a lot of advantages for the learning process, namely: provides increasing of effectiveness and intensifying of the learning process, gives the possibility to widen the learning material, its quicker and deeper comprehension, lessens the factor of native language interference, increases the level of language culture awareness. The contrastive aspect provides as well the possibility to determine the study direction of the language material presentation: from the form to the content (in case of analogies in presenting phenomena, easy for acquisition), or from the content to the form (in case of analogies absence and presence of differences, creating difficulties for a certain national group of language learners).

Contrastive linguistics is of practical value for translation studies. Results of contrastive analysis of the lexical, grammatical and stylistic systems of two languages facilitate the work of a translator, giving the possibility to observe all the inadequacies on different language levels and the possible ways of their rendering.

Contrastive linguistics contributes greatly to the theory of language typology. Due to the observation of similarities and differences in languages we can speak about the initiation of their

291

typological classification, its aim nowadays being the establishing of language types on the basis of their structure specific features that is taking into account characteristics reflecting the most important features of a language structure.

As a result of languages contrasting scholars came to reveal language universals (features or phenomena available in all or the majority of languages of the world). Therefore, nowadays the contrastive analysis continues, on one hand, to supply the facts for the universology, being, on the other hand, the instrument, which enables the discovery of new universals without the necessity to study all languages of the world for this purpose.

Contrastive linguistics yields valuable results for the lexicography. The contrastive analysis of language systems is substantial for the translation dictionary compiling. The lexicographic work upon the bilingual types of dictionaries is, in fact, language contrasting.

The present period of language studies witnesses the intensification in the research of national language pictures of the world. This research has become possible due to the contrastive language studies, since the peculiarities of the language conceptualization by means of each separate language can be revealed, first of all, through language contrasting.

Therefore, the results of contrastive analysis have the practical application in all the mentioned cases, when a researcher or a learner deals with the cross-language information recoding.

The practical value of contrastive linguistics is constantly increasing. It is widening the sphere of its application, which is connected with the growing role of the cross-language and crosscultural communication in all its forms (internationalization of European education standards, the increase in effectiveness of foreign language teaching, as well as in demands to translation quality in different spheres of activity). Contrastive linguistics is changing with the shift of linguistics interests towards the sphere of language usage; with the appearance of corpus linguistics and development of applied/computer linguistics, which present researchers with the possibilities of language data analysis.

292

REFERENCES

1.>`_cfk D DhgljZklb\guc ZgZeba Gh\h_ \ aZjm[_`ghc ebg]\bklbd_ – F – <ui XXV DhgljZklb\gZy ebg]\bklbdZ – K –306.

2./jfhe_gdh K Y ;b[bd K I Lh^hj H = MdjZ€gkvdZ fh\Z Dhjhldbc lemfZqgbc keh\gbd e•g]\•klbqgbo l_jf•g•\ – D Eb[•^v 2001. – k

3.@emdl_gdh X H DhgljZklb\gbc ZgZe•a yd ijbchf fh\gh]h ^hke•^`_ggy GZjbkb a dhgljZklb\gh€ e•g]\•klbdb – D GZmdh\Z ^mfdZ – 1979. – K –11.

4.@emdl_gdh X H H g_dhlhjuo \hijhkZo dhgljZklb\gh]h ZgZebaZ yaudh\ <_klgbd D=M – 1978. – JhfZgh-]_jfZgkdZy

nbeheh]by – ‹ 12.

@emdl_gdh X H Ihj•\gyevgZ ]jZfZlbdZ Zg]e•ckvdh€ lZ mdjZ€gkvdh€ fh\ Ihk•[ – D JZ^ygkvdZ rdheZ – k

6.@emdl_gdh X H ;m[ebd < G DhgljZklb\gZ e•g]\•klbdZ Ijh[e_fb • i_jki_dlb\b Fh\hagZ\kl\h – 1976. – ‹ – K –15.

7.Am[dh\ F = MdjZ€gkvdZ fh\Z mg•\_jkZevgbc ^h\•^gbd – OZjd•\ RdheZ – k

8.Bevbr ; : Kljhc kh\j_f_ggh]h Zg]ebckdh]h yaudZ

(B.Ilyish. The Structure of Modern English). – E.: Ijhk\_s_gb_, 1971. – 366 k.

9.DZjZfbr_\Z 1 > Kljmdlmjg• lZ nmgdp•hgZevg• hkh[eb- \hkl• \lhjbggh€ ij_^bdZp•€ \ kmqZkg•c Zg]e•ckvd•c fh\• ^hk\•^ nhjfZevgh-]jZfZlbqgh]h fh^_ex\Zggy :\lhj_n ^bk « dZg^

n•ehe gZmd Db€\ gZp e•g]\•klbqgbc mg-l – D –k

Dhjmg_pv 1 < Ihj•\gyevgZ lbiheh]•y Zg]e•ckvdh€ lZ mdjZ€gkvdh€ fh\ GZ\q ihk•[gbd – <•ggbpy Gh\Z dgb]Z –

k

11.Dhq_j]Zg F I Hkgh\b a•klZ\gh]h fh\hagZ\kl\Z I•^- jmqgbd – D :dZ^_f•y – k

12.G_fa_j M Ijh[e_fu b i_jki_dlb\u dhgljZklb\ghc ebg]\bklbdb Gh\h_ \ aZjm[_`ghc ebg]\bklbd_ – F – <ui XXV DhgljZklb\gZy ebg]\bklbdZ – K –143.

293

13. Gbd_ev = DhgljZklb\gZy ebg]\bklbdZ b h[mq_gb_ bghkljZgguf yaudZf Gh\h_ \ aZjm[_`ghc ebg]\bklbd_ – F 1989. – <ui XXV DhgljZklb\gZy ebg]\bklbdZ – K -365.

Ihj•\gyevg• ^hke•^`_ggy a ]jZfZlbdb Zg]e•ckvdh€ mdjZ€gkvdh€ jhk•ckvdh€ fh\ <•^i j_^ X H @emdl_gdh – D

GZmdh\Z ^mfdZ – k

15.KmqZkgZ mdjZ€gkvdZ fh\Z I•^jmqgbd / AZ j_^ H > Ih- ghfZj_\Z – D Eb[•^v – k

16.L_jeZd A MdjZ€gkvdZ fh\Z A[•jgbd \ijZ\ •a kbglZdkbkm lZ imgdlmZp•€ – Ev\•\ K\•l – 224 k

17.Mjhd MdjZ€gkvdh€ – GZmdh\h-im[e•pbklbqgbc `mjgZe –

2005. – ‹ –4.

18.Mjhd MdjZ€gkvdh€ – GZmdh\h-im[e•pbklbqgbc `mjgZe –

2005. – ‹ –6.

19.Mjhd MdjZ€gkvdh€ – GZmdh\h-im[e•pbklbqgbc `mjgZe –

2005. – ‹ –10.

20.Mjhd MdjZ€gkvdh€ – GZmdh\h-im[e•pbklbqgbc `mjgZe –

2005. – ‹ –12.

21.Mjhd MdjZ€gkvdh€ – GZmdh\h-im[e•pbklbqgbc `mjgZe –

2006. – ‹ –6.

22.Mjhd MdjZ€gkvdh€ – GZmdh\h-im[e•pbklbqgbc `mjgZe –

2007. – ‹ –3.

23.Mjhd MdjZ€gkvdh€ – GZmdh\h-im[e•pbklbqgbc `mjgZe –

2007. – ‹ –10.

24.OZcfh\bq ; K Jh]h\kdZy ; B L_hj_lbq_kdZy ]jZffZ- lbdZ Zg]ebckdh]h yaudZ – F <ukrZy rdheZ – 298 k

25.Rl_jg_fZgg J jmd b dhee_dlb\ Z\lhjh\ <\_^_gb_ \ dhgljZklb\gmx ebg]\bklbdm Gh\h_ \ aZjm[_`ghc ebg]\bklbd_

–F – <ui XXV DhgljZklb\gZy ebg]\bklbdZ – K –

150.

26.Conrad Susan, Biber Douglas, Leech Geoffrey. Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English. – Longman, Pearson Education Limited, 2003. – 487 p.

27.Conrad Susan, Biber Douglas, Leech Geoffrey. Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Workbook. – Longman, Pearson Education Limited, 2003. – 140 p.

294

FURTHER SUGGESTED READINGS

Main suggested readings:

1.;eho F Y L_hj_lbq_kdZy ]jZffZlbdZ Zg]ebckdh]h yaudZ Mq_[ – 3-_ ba^ bkij – F <ukrZy rdheZ – k

2.<boh\Zg_pv 1 J =jZfZlbdZ mdjZ€gkvdh€ fh\b KbglZdkbk I•^jmq – D Eb[•^v – k

3.=Zgbq > 1 He•cgbd 1 K Keh\gbd e•g]\•klbqgbo l_jf•g•\

–D <bsZ rdheZ, =he \b^-\h – k

@emdl_gdh X H DhgljZklb\gbc ZgZe•a yd ijbchf fh\gh]h ^hke•^`_ggy GZjbkb a dhgljZklb\gh€ e•g]\•klbdb – D

GZmdh\Z ^mfdZ – 1979. – K –11.

@emdl_gdh X H H g_dhlhjuo \hijhkZo dhgljZklb\gh]h ZgZebaZ yaudh\ <_klgbd D=M – 1978. – JhfZgh-]_jfZgkdZy

nbeheh]by – ‹ 12.

6. @emdl_gdh X H Ihj•\gyevgZ ]jZfZlbdZ Zg]e•ckvdh€ lZ mdjZ€gkvdh€ fh\ Ihk•[gbd. – D JZ^ygkvdZ rdheZ – k

@emdl_gdh X H ;m[ebd < G DhgljZklb\gZ e•g]\•klbdZ Ijh[e_fb • i_jki_dlb\b Fh\hagZ\kl\h – 1976. – ‹ – K -15.

8. AZ]g•ldh : I L_hj_lbqgZ ]jZfZlbdZ mdjZ€gkvdh€ fh\b KbglZdkbk – >hg_pvd >hgGM – k

9 AZ]g•ldh : I L_hj•y kmqZkgh]h kbglZdkbkm Fhgh]jZn•y <b^ -l} \bijZ\e • ^hi – >hg_pvd >hGM – k

10 Bevbr ; : Kljhc kh\j_f_ggh]h Zg]ebckdh]h yaudZ

(B.Ilyish. The Structure of Modern English). – E.: Ijhk\_s_gb_, 1971. – 366 k.

11. Dhjmg_pv 1.<. Ihj•\gyevgZ lbiheh]•y Zg]e•ckvdh€ lZ mdjZ- €gkvdh€ fh\. GZ\qZevgbc ihk•[gbd (Korunets’ I.V. Contrastive Typology of the English and Ukrainian languages). – <•ggbpy: Gh\Z dgb]Z, 2003. – 464 k.

12 Dhq_j]Zg F I Hkgh\b a•klZ\gh]h fh\hagZ\kl\Z I•^- jmqgbd – D :dZ^_f•y – k

13 Ihj•\gyevg• ^hke•^`_ggy a ]jZfZlbdb Zg]e•ckvdh€ mdjZ- €gkvdh€ jhk•ckvdh€ fh\ <•^i j_^ X H @emdl_gdh – D GZmdh\Z ^mfdZ – k

295

14 KmqZkgZ mdjZ€gkvdZ fh\Z I•^jmqgbd / AZ j_^ H > Ih- ghfZj_\Z – D Eb[•^v – k

15 OZcfh\bq ; K Jh]h\kdZy ; B L_hj_lbq_kdZy ]jZffZ- lbdZ Zg]ebckdh]h yaudZ – F <ukrZy rdheZ – k

16.Biber D., Conrad S., Leech G. Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English. – Pearson Education Limited, 2003. – 487 p.

17.Greenbaum S., Quirk R. A Student’s Grammar of the English Language. – L.: Harlow: Longman, 1991. – 490 p.

296

Additional suggested readings:

1.:ofZgh\Z H K Keh\Zjv ebg]\bklbq_kdbo l_jfbgh\ – F Kh\_lkdZy wgpbdehi_^by – k

2.;Zjom^Zjh\ E K KljmdlmjZ ijhklh]h ij_^eh`_gby kh\j_f_ggh]h Zg]ebckdh]h yaudZ – F <ukrZy rdheZ –

k

3.;eho F Y L_hj_lbq_kdb_ hkgh\u ]jZffZlbdb Mq_[

ihkh[ – F <ukrZy rdheZ – k

>`_cfk D DhgljZklb\guc ZgZeba Gh\h_ \ aZjm[_`ghc ebg]\bklbd_ – F – <ui XXV DhgljZklb\gZy ebg]\bk-

lbdZ – K –306.

5.B\Zgh\Z B I ;mjeZdh\Z < < Ihq_iph\ = = L_hj_lb- q_kdZy ]jZffZlbdZ kh\j_f_ggh]h Zg]ebckdh]h yaudZ Mq_[gbd. – F <ukrZy rdheZ – k

6.B\Zgh\Z E I F_lh^u ebg]\bklbq_kdbo bkke_^h\Zgbc Mq_[. ihkh[b_. – D 1K>H – k

7.DZk_\bq < ; We_f_glu h[s_c ebg]\bklbdb – F GZmdZ

1977. – k

8.Dhq_j]Zg F I AZ]Zevg_ fh\hagZ\kl\h I•^jmq – D <b^ p_glj ³:dZ^_f•y´ – k

9.Dhq_j]bgZ < : KbglZdkbk Mq_[ ihkh[ ih dmjkm ³<\_^_gb_ \ yaudhagZgb_´ – F Ba^-\h Fhkd mg-lZ –

k

FZgZdbg < G KhihklZ\bl_evgZy e_dkbdheh]by – D

AgZggy – k

11. Fhjhoh\kdZy W Y Hkgh\u l_hj_lbq_kdhc ]jZffZlbdb Zg]ebckdh]h yaudZ Mq_[ ihkh[ – D <bsZ rdheZ – k 12 G_fa_j M Ijh[e_fu b i_jki_dlb\u dhgljZklb\ghc ebg]\bklbdb Gh\h_ \ aZjm[_`ghc ebg]\bklbd_ – F –

<ui XXV DhgljZklb\gZy ebg]\bklbdZ – K –143.

13 Gbd_ev = DhgljZklb\gZy ebg]\bklbdZ b h[mq_gb_ bgh- kljZgguf yaudZf Gh\h_ \ aZjm[_`ghc ebg]\bklbd_ – F – <ui XXV DhgljZklb\gZy ebg]\bklbdZ – K –365.

297

14.JZ}\kvdZ G F Present-day English Syntax >KbglZdkbk kmqZkgh€ Zg]e•ckvdh€ fh\b I•^jmq@ – D <bsZ rdheZ –

k

15.KZahgh\Z G F D \hijhkm l_hjbb ij_^eh`_gby GZ fZl_jbZe_ kh\j_f_ggh]h Zg]ebckdh]h b mdjZbgkdh]h yaudh\ –

D <bsZ rdheZ – k

K_e•\Zgh\Z H H KmqZkgZ e•g]\•klbdZ l_jf•gheh]•qgZ _gpbdehi_^•y – IhelZ\Z >h\d•eey-D – k

17.Kfbjgbpdbc : B KbglZdkbk Zg]ebckdh]h yaudZ – F Ba^-\h ebl-ju gZ bghklj yaudZo – k

18.Khkxj N_j^•gZg^ ^_ Dmjk aZ]Zevgh€ e•g]\•klbdb I_j a nj : Dhjg•cqmd D Lbs_gdh – D Hkgh\b – k

19.Kljmdlmjguc kbglZdkbk Zg]ebckdh]h yaudZ Ihkh[ ih l_hj ]jZffZlbd_ Ih^ j_^ ijhn E E Bhnbd – E Ba^-\h E_gbg]j mg-lZ – k

20.L_gv_j E Hkgh\u kljmdlmjgh]h kbglZdkbkZ I_j k nj

B F ;h]mkeZ\kdh]h b ^j <klmi kl >K -@ h[s j_^ < = =ZdZ – F Ijh]j_kk – k

21.L_hj_lbq_kdZy ]jZffZlbdZ Zg]ebckdh]h yaudZ Mq_[ ihkh[ K I ;ZeZrh\Z H B ;jh^h\bq < < ;mjeZdh\Z b ^j Hl\ j_^ < < ;mjeZdh\Z – E Ba^-\h E_gbg]j mg-lZ –

k

22.Rl_jg 1 ; <b[jZg• lhi•db lZ e_dkbdhg kmqZkgh€ e•g]\•k- lbdb ?gpbdehi_^bqgbc keh\gbd ^ey nZo•\p•\ a l_hj_lbqgbo ]mfZg•lZjgbo ^bkpbie•g – D :jl?D – k

23 Rl_jg_fZgg J jmd b dhee_dlb\ Z\lhjh\ <\_^_gb_ \ dhgljZklb\gmx ebg]\bklbdm Gh\h_ \ aZjm[_`ghc ebg]\bklbd_ – F – <ui XXV DhgljZklb\gZy ebg]\bklbdZ – K –150.

24.Carter R., McCarthy M. Cambridge Grammar of English. A Comprehensive Guide. Spoken and Written English Grammar and Usage. – Cambridge University Press, 2007. – 973 p.

25.Chomsky N. Syntactic Structures / with an introd. by D.W.Lightfoot. – 2-d ed. – Berlin; N.Y.: Mouton de Gruyter, 2002. – 117 p.

26.Collins Cobuild English Grammar. – L.: Harper Collins Publishers, 1992. – 486 p.

298

27.Crystal D. An Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Language and Languages. – Oxford: Blackwell Reference, 1993. – 428 p.

28.Crystal D. The Penguin Dictionary of Language. – L.: Penguin books, 1999. – 390 p.

29.Kobrina N.A., Korneyeva E.A. An Outline of Modern English Syntax. – M.: Higher School Publishing House, 1965. – 210 p.

30.Leech G., Svartvic J. A Communicative Grammar of English. – L.-N.Y.: Longman, 1994. – 423 p.

31. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English / D. Biber, S. Johansson, G. Leech and others. – L.: Longman, 1999. – 1204 p.

32. Swan M. Practical English Usage. – Oxford: Oxford Un-ty Press, 1996. – 654 p.

299

G:<Q:EVG? <B>:GGY

DZjZfbr_\Z 1jbgZ >Zf•j•\gZ

DHGLJ:KLB<G: =J:F:LBD: :G=E1CKVDH2 L: MDJ:2GKVDH2 FH<

J_^Zdlhj HdkZgZ Q_jgb]_\bq

L_og•qgbc j_^Zdlhj E•e•y KZeZf•g

Dhfi¶xl_jg_ \_jklZggy He_gb DZlZqbgh€

Om^h`gbd-^baZcg_j MeygZ D_e_fZg

A^Zgh m \b^Z\gbpl\h 18.11.2 I•^ibkZgh ^h ^jmdm 20.12.2008. NhjfZl 60× IZi•j hnk_lgbc >jmd hnk_lgbc

Mfh\g ^jmd Zjd 18,8 H[e -\b^ Zjd 14,7. GZdeZ^ 200 ijbf AZf 901.

<b^Z\gbpl\h GZp•hgZevgh]h mg•\_jkbl_lm ³Ev\•\kvdZ ihe•l_og•dZ´

J_}kljZp•cg_ k\•^hpl\h k_j•€ >D ‹ \•^ j

Ihe•]jZn•qgbc p_glj <b^Z\gbpl\Z GZp•hgZevgh]h mg•\_jkbl_lm ³Ev\•\kvdZ ihe•l_og•dZ´

\me N Dhe_kkb Ev\•\

300