Composite sentence ae a polypredicative construction in English and Ukrainian

Contents

INTRODUCTION

The sentence is the central object of study in syntax. It can be defined as the immediate integral unit of speech built up by words according to a definite syntactic pattern and distinguished by a contextually relevant communicative purpose.

The composite sentence, as different from the simple sentence, is formed by two or more predicative lines. Being a polypredicative construction, it expresses a complicated act of thought, i.e. an act of mental activity which falls into two or more intellectual efforts closely combined with one another. In terms of situations and events this means that the composite sentence reflects two or more elementary situational events viewed as making up a unity; the constitutive connections of the events are expressed by the constitutive connections of the predicative lines of the sentence, i.e. by the sentential polypredication.

As we see, the composite sentence in its quality of a structural unit of language is indispensable for language by its own purely semantic merits, let alone its terseness, as well as intellectual elegance of expression.

Each predicative unit in a composite sentence makes up a clause in it, so that a clause as part of a composite sentence corresponds to a separate sentence as part of a contextual sequence.

The object of our research is tha composite sentence.

The subject under analysis is the types of grammatical ties between clauses in English and Ukrainian composite centences.

The methodological bases of research are universal principles of scientific character and objectivity. In research an author used on structurally comparative, system analytical, problem chronologic and scientific methods, such as a method of logic analysis, classification, generalization and method of comparable analysis.

1. Composite sentence ae a polypredicative construction in English and Ukrainian

Сomposite sentences differ from simple sentences by the number of predicative lines represented: simple sentences are monopredicative syntactic constructions, formed by only one predicative line, while composite sentences are polypredicative syntactic constructions, formed by two or more predicative lines, each with a subject and a predicate of its own. This means, that the composite sentence reflects two or more situations or events making up a unity.

E.g.: When I sat down to dinner I looked for an opportunity to slip in casually the information that I had by accident run across the Driffields; but news travelled fast in Blackstable (S. Maugham).

The cited composite sentence includes four clauses which are related to one another on different semantic grounds. The sentences underlying the clauses are the following [1, p. 145]: I sat down to dinner. I looked for an opportunity to slip in casually the information. I had by accident run across the Driffields. News travelled fast in Blackstable.

The correspondence of a predicative clause to a separate sentence is self-evident. On the other hand, the correspondence of a composite sentence to a genuine, logically connected sequence of simple sentences (underlying its clauses) is not evident at all; moreover, such kind of correspondence is in fact not obligatory, which is the very cause of the existence of the composite sentence in a language. Indeed, in the given example the independent sentences reconstructed from the predicative clauses do not make up any coherently presented situational unity; they are just so many utterances each expressing an event of self-sufficient significance.

By way of rearrangement and the use of semantic connectors we may make them into a more or less explanatory situational sequence, but the exposition of the genuine logic of events, i.e. their presentation as natural parts of a unity, achieved by the composite sentence will not be, and is not to be replaced in principle. Cf.:

I ran by accident across the Driffields. At some time later on I sat down to dinner. While participating in the general conversation, I looked for an opportunity to slip in casually the information about my meeting them. But news travelled fast in Blackstable.

The logical difference between the given composite sentence and its contextually coherent de-compositional presentation is, that whereas the composite sentence exposes as its logical centre, i.e. the core of its purpose of communication, the intention of the speaker to inform his table-companions of a certain fact (which turns out to be already known to them), the sentential sequence expresses the events in their natural temporal succession, which actually destroys the original purpose of communication [8, p. 201].

Any formation of a sentential sequence more equivalent to the given composite sentence by its semantic status than the one shown above has to be expanded by additional elucidative prop-utterances with back-references; and all the same, the resulting contextual string, if it is intended as a real informational substitute for the initial composite, will hardly be effected without the help of some kind of essentially composite sentence constructions included in it (let the reader himself try to construct an equivalent textual sequence meeting the described semantic requirements).

The means of combining clauses into a polypredicative sentence are divided into syndetic, i. e. conjunctional, and asyndetic, i. e. non-conjunctional. The great controversy going on among linguists about this division concerns the status of syndeton and asyndeton versus coordination and subordination. Namely, the question under consideration is whether or not syndeton and asyndeton equally express the two types of syntactic relations between clauses in a composite sentence [3, p. 242].

According to the traditional view, all composite sentences are to be classed into compound sentences (coordinating their clauses) and complex sentences (subordinating their clauses), syndetic or asyndetic types of clause connection being specifically displayed with both classes. However, this view has of late been subjected to energetic criticism; the new thesis formulated by its critics is as follows: the «formal» division of clause connection based on the choice of connective means should be placed higher in the hierarchy than the «semantic» division of clause connection based on the criterion of syntactic rank. That is, on the higher level of classification all the composite sentences should be divided into syndetic and asyndetic, while on the lower level the syndetic composite sentences (and only these) should be divided into compound and complex ones in accord with the types of the connective words used. The cited principle was put forward by N. S. Pospelov as part of his syntactic analysis of Ukrainian, and it was further developed by some other linguists [11, p. 203].

But the new approach to coordination and subordination has not been left unchallenged. In particular, B. A. Ilyish with his characteristic discretion in formulating final decisions has pointed out serious flaws in the non-traditional reasoning resulting first of all from mixing up strictly grammatical criteria of classification with general semantic considerations.

Indeed, if we compare the following asyndetic composite sentences with their compound syndetic counterparts on the basis of paradigmatic approach, we shall immediately expose unquestionable equality in their semantico-syntactic status. E. g.:

My uncle was going to refuse, but we didn't understand why.→ My uncle was going to refuse, we didn't understand why. She hesitated a moment, and then she answered him. → She hesitated a moment, then she answered him.

The equality of the compound status of both types of sentences is emphatically endorsed when compared with the corresponding complex sentences in transformational constructional paradigmatics. Cf.:

... → We didn't understand why my uncle was going to refuse. ... → After she hesitated a moment she answered him.

On the other hand, bearing in mind the in-positional nature of a subordinate clause expounded above, it would be altogether irrational to deny a subordinate status to the asyndetic attributive, objective or predicative clauses of the commonest order. Cf.: They've given me a position I could never have got without them. → They've given me a position which I could never have got without them. We saw at once it was all wrong. → We saw at once that it was all wrong The fact is he did accept the invitation. → The fact is that he did accept the invitation.

Now, one might say, as is done in some older grammatical treatises, that the asyndetic introduction of a subordinate clause amounts to the omission of the conjunctive word joining it to the principal clause. However, in the light of the above paradigmatic considerations, the invalidity of this statement in the context of the discussion appears to be quite obvious: as regards the «omission» or «non-omission» of the conjunctive introducer the compound asyndetic sentence should be treated on an equal basis with the complex asyndetic sentence. In other words, if we defend the idea of the omission of the conjunction with asyndetic subordinate clauses, we must apply this principle also to asyndetic coordinate clauses.

But the idea of the omission of the conjunction expounded in its purest, classical form has already been demonstrated in linguistics as fallacious, since asyndetic connection of clauses is indisputably characterised by its own functional value; it is this specific value that vindicates and supports the very existence of asyndetic polypredication in the system of language.

Moreover, many true functions of asyndetic polypredication in distinction to the functions of syndetic polypredication were aptly disclosed in the course of investigations conducted by the scholars who sought to refute the adequacy of coordinate or subordinate interpretation of clausal asyndeton. So, the linguistic effort of these scholars, though not convincing in terms of classification, has, on the whole, not been in vain; in the long run, it has contributed to the deeper insight into the nature of the composite sentence as a polypredicative combination of words [2, p. 234].

Besides the classical types of coordination and subordination of clauses, we find another case of the construction of composite sentence, namely, when the connection between the clauses combined in a polypredicative unit is expressly loose, placing the sequential clause in a syntactically detached position. In this loosely connected composite, the sequential clause information is presented rather as an afterthought, an idea that has come to the mind of the speaker after the completion of the foregoing utterance, which latter, by this new utterance-forming effort, is forcibly made into the clausal fore-part of a composite sentence.

This kind of syntactic connection, the traces of which we saw when treating the syntagmatic bonds of the word, comes under the heading of cumulation. Its formal sign is often the tone of sentential completion followed by a shorter pause than an inter-sentential one, which intonational complex is represented in writing by a semi-final punctuation mark, such as a semicolon, a dash, sometimes a series of periods. Cf.: It was just the time that my aunt and uncle would be coming home from their daily walk down the town and I did not like to run the risk of being seen with people whom they would not at all approve of; so I asked them to go on first, as they would go more quickly than I (S. Maugham).

Cumulation as here presented forms a type of syntactic connection intermediary between clausal connection and sentential connection. Thus, the very composite sentence (loose composite) formed by it is in fact a unit intermediary between one polypredicative sentence and a group of separate sentences making up a contextual sequence [6, p. 48].

There is good reason to interpret different parenthetical clauses as specific cumulative constructions, because the basic semantico-syntactic principle of joining them to the initially planned sentence is the same, i. e. presenting them as a detached communication, here – of an introductory or commenting-deviational nature. E.g.: He was sent for very suddenly this morning, as I have told you already, and he only gave me the barest details before his horse was saddled and he was gone (D. du Maurier). Unprecedented in scale and lavishly financed (£ 100,000 was collected in 1843 and 9,000,000 leaflets distributed) this agitation had all the advantages that the railways, cheap newspapers and the penny post could give (A. L. Morton).

If this interpretation is accepted, then the whole domain of cumulation should be divided into two parts: first, the continuative cumulation, placing the cumulated clause in post-position to the expanded predicative construction; second, the» parenthetical cumulation, placing the cumulated clause in inter-position to the expanded predicative construction.

The inter-position may be made even into a pre-position as its minor particular case (here belong mostly constructions introduced by the conjunction as: as we have seen, as I have said, etc.). This paradox is easily explained by the type of relation between the clauses: the parenthetical clause (i. e. parenthetically cumulated) only gives a background to the essential information of the expanded original clause. And, which is very important, it can shift its position in the sentence without causing any change in the information rendered by the utterance as a whole. Cf. [5, p. 156]:

He was sent for very suddenly this morning, as I have told you already. → He was sent for, as I have told you already, very suddenly this morning. → As I have told you already, he was sent for very suddenly this morning.

In the composite sentences hitherto surveyed the constitutive predicative lines are expressed separately and explicitly: the described sentence types are formed by minimum two clauses each having a subject and a predicate of „its own. Alongside of these «completely» composite sentences, there exist constructions in which one explicit predicative line is combined with another one, the latter being not explicitly or completely expressed. To such constructions belong, for instance, sentences with homogeneous predicates, as wall as sentences with verbid complexes. Cf.: Philip ignored the question and remained silent. I have never before heard her sing. She followed him in, bending her head under the low door.

That the cited utterances do not represent classical, explicitly constructed composite sentence-models admits of no argument. At the same time, as we pointed out elsewhere, they cannot be analysed as genuine simple sentences, because they contain not one, but more than one predicative lines, though presented in fusion with one another. This can be demonstrated by explanatory expanding transformations. Cf.: ... → Philip ignored the question, (and) he remained silent. ... → I have never before heard how she sings. ... → As she followed him in, she bent her head under the low door.

The performed test clearly shows that the sentences in question are derived each from two base sentences, so that the systemic status of the resulting constructions is in fact intermediary between the simple sentence and the composite sentence. Therefore these predicative constructions should by right be analysed under the heading of semi-composite sentences [3, p. 241].

It is easy to see that functionally semi-composite sentences are directly opposed to composite-cumulative sentences: while the latter are over-expanded, the former are under-expanded, i. e. they are concisely deployed. The result of the predicative blend is terseness of expression, which makes semi-composite constructions of especial preference in colloquial speech.

2. Typology of the composite sentence in the contrasted languages

A composite sentence in English and Ukrainian, like in all other languages, contains two or more primary predication centres mostly represented by as many corresponding clauses. The structural types of the composite sentence are identified on the ground of the syntactic reflection (and connection) of its predicate parts which are not always distinctly identified.

Thus, common in the syntactic systems of English and Ukrainian are sentences that are semantically intermediate between simple extended on the one hand and composite sentences on the other. These are the so-called semi-compound and semi-complex sentences [10, p. 219].

For example, the sentence «One does not give up a god easily and so with White Fang.» (London) can not be treated as a simple extended one. Neither can it be identified as a composite sentence since the second part in it (and «so with White Fang») contains no subject and no predicate and wholly depends on the predicative centre of the first clause. Though the implicitly perceivable subject is the demonstrative pronoun «it» which logically requires the predicate verb «be». Cf. One does not give up a god easily, and so (it is/or was) with White Fang.

Similarly with English extended sentences containing the secondary predication constructions or complexes, as they are traditionally called, that represent semi-complex sentences as well. They mostly correspond to Ukrainian complex sentences. Cf. White Fang felt fear mounting in him again. (London) Белозубец ощутил, что ним «овладевает страх» (the construction «fear mounting in him» becomes an object clause: White Fang felt /how?/that fear was mounting in him) [9, p. 301].

Present-day Ukrainian has only some similar constructions of this nature. Cf.

1)Він застав двері закритими. == Він застав двері(вони були) закритими. 2) Санітари знайшли солдата пораненим. == ... (він був) поранений.

The absence of almost all the secondary predication constructions in Ukrainian makes it impossible to obtain direct correlative transforms of some simple and composite sentences. Hence, English compound sentences may have complex sentences for their equivalents in Ukrainian.

He leaned far out of the window and he saw the first light spread. (Galsworthy). Він висунувся далеко з вікна й побачив, що починають пробиватися перші промені.

Because of the objective with the infinitive construction in the second/succeeding English clause of the compound sentence above the Ukrainian equivalent of it can be only an object subordinate clause.

There are, however, many common features in the system of the composite sentence of English and Ukrainian. One of them is the semantic ambiguity of some compound sentences that have the implicit meaning of complex sentences, which will be exemplified on the forthcoming pages.

For example, the compound sentence «It (the play) stinks, but I'm Benedict Arnold» (Salinger) has an implicit concessive meaning of «Though the play stinks, I'm Benedict Arnold» (i. e., I'll act the part of Benedict Arnold in it).

Similarly in Ukrainian: «П єса дуже погана, але ж я граю Бенедикта Арнольда», і. е. Не зважаючи на те, що п єса дуже погана ,я погодився грати в ній головну роль».

The two main types of the connection of clauses in a composite sentence, as has been stated above, are subordination and coordination. By coordination the clauses are arranged as units of syntactically equal rank, i. с equipotently; by subordination, as units of unequal rank, one being categorially dominated by the other. In terms of the positional structure of the sentence it means that by subordination one of the clauses (subordinate) is placed in a notional position of the other (principal). This latter characteristic has an essential semantic implication clarifying the difference between the two types of polypredication in question.

As a matter of fact, a subordinate clause, however important the information rendered by it might be for the whole communication, presents it as naturally supplementing the information of the principal clause, i.e. as something completely premeditated and prepared even before its explicit expression in the utterance. This is of especial importance for post-positional subordinate clauses of circumstantial semantic nature. Such clauses may often shift their position without a change in semantico-syntactic status. Cf. [11, p. 210]:

I could not help blushing with embarrassment when I looked at him. → When I looked at him I could not help blushing with embarrassment. The board accepted the decision, though it didn't quite meet their plans. → Though the decision didn't quite meet their plans, the board accepted it.

The same criterion is valid for subordinate clauses with a fixed position in the sentence. To prove the subordinate quality of the clause in the light of this consideration, we have to place it in isolation – and see that the isolation is semantically false. E.g.:

But all the books were so neatly arranged, they were so clean, that I had the impression they were very seldom read.→ *But all the books were so neatly arranged, they were so clean. That I had the impression they were very seldom read. I fancy that life is more amusing now than it was forty years ago. → *I fancy that life is more amusing now. Than it was forty years ago.

As for coordinated clauses, their equality in rank is expressed above all in each sequential clause explicitly corresponding to a new effort of thought, without an obligatory feature of premeditation. In accord with the said quality, a sequential clause in a compound sentence refers to the whole of the leading clause, whereas a subordinate clause in a complex sentence, as a rule, refers to one notional constituent (expressed by a word or a phrase) in a principal clause.

It is due to these facts that the position of a coordinate clause is rigidly fixed in all cases, which can be used as one of the criteria of coordination in distinction to subordination. Another probe of rank equality of clauses in coordination is a potential possibility for any •coordinate sequential clause to take either the copulative conjunction and or the adversative conjunction but as introducers. Cf.:

That sort of game gave me horrors, so I never could play it. → That sort of game gave me horrors, and I never could play it. The excuse was plausible, only it was not good enough for us. → The excuse was plausible, but it was not good enough for us [7, p. 217].

Nevertheless there is much common in the nature and structure of the composite sentence in the syntactic systems of English and Ukrainian. Isomorphism is observed first of all in the nomenclature of the Major Syntax units represented by the compound and complex sentences.

3. Types of grammatical ties between clauses in English and Ukrainian composite sentences

Isomorphism and allomorphism in the system of composite sentences find their expression first and foremost in the realisation of the syntactic connection of their componental parts, i. e. clauses. As to the isomorphic types of composite sentences, they are amply represented in both contrasted languages in the following three varieties [4, p. 221]: 1) the polycomponental compound sentences; 2) the polycomponental complex sentences; 3) the compound extended sentences; 4) the complex-compound and 5) the compound-complex sentences.

Each of these common varieties of the composite sentence may have either a syndetic or asyndetic way of joining their clauses. Of typological relevance are found to be the following three most often observed common forms of realisation of subordinate dependence [4, c. 108]:

a) the consecutive form of dependence as in the following complex-compound sentence: 1 am sure < I don't know < whether or not it is true < that all advertising writers and newspaper men want to do other kinds of writing, + but Ed did all right. (Anderson) The structural pattern of this sentence in both languages reveals a consecutive connection between their sub-clauses: Smatr < Sobj < Sobj < Sobj + co-cjS but Sco-ordinate [8, p. 234].

Here each succeeding clause in the complex part of the sentence is subordinate to the preceding clause. Hence, the form of dependence is lineal or direct: Smatr < S1 < S2 + co-cjS. Consequently, the clauses are in the first, in the second, third, etc. degree of subordination. The sub-clauses with a lineal/consecutive dependence may also be of different types as in the following polycomponental complex sentence: The young man was leaning against the mantelshelf... with that strange expression < that one sees on the faces of those < who are absorbed by a play < when some great artist is acting. (Wilde) An identical consecutive dependence of clauses (супідрядність) can also be observed in Ukrainian: Тільки з переказів сухий гомін доходить, <що копали цей колодязь колись чумаки, <чиї дороги пролягли в цих сивих степах.

Similarly in the compound-complex sentence, where there may be a non-lineal and lineal form of dependence between the clauses. Cf. «It was said < that you could always find a way... < for the production of a play, + but when you came down to business < you discovered < that the main condition was < that the leading part should be played by some pretty lady < in whom he was interested.» (Maugham) The form of dependence between the sub-clauses in both parts of this compound-complex sentence is identical in English and in its Ukrainian equivalent: Smatr < Ssubj co-cj but Sadv < Smatr < Sobj < Spre-dic N < Sattriburive.

The existence of different forms or rather directions of dependence can be best observed in polycomponental complex sentences with homogeneous clauses, whose number may range from two to several [2, p. 271].

Isomorphic in English and Ukrainian and presumably in other Indo-European languages are the following patterns of composite sentences:

 A.Jan asked nurse Duggin every day < 1) when she came, < 2) < whether the doctor had sent any word. (Cusack) Джейн питала медсестру Даґґін щодня; <1)коли вона приходила, < 2) чи лікар нічого не переказував.

В. Other judgements were 1) < that the lectures were of no importance; 2) < that nobody took them; < 3) that they don't matter; < 4) that you can take them < 5) if you like; < 6) that they do you no harm. (Leacock)

This complex sentence has a structurally equivalent pattern with six homogeneous predicative clauses in Ukrainian too.Інші сюжети були: 1)що лекції не мають жодного значення, 2)що на них ніхто не ходить, 3)що їх ніхто не бере серйозно до уваги, 4)що їх хто хоче, той відвідує, 5) що відвідування їх не шкодить нічийому здоров’ю.

b) Isomorphic in the contrasted languages are also polycomponental complex sentences with an inverted order of their clauses. Thus, in the affirmative complex sentence below the matrix clause follows the attributive sub-clause: The moment < 1) that he heard Mr. Golspie's visitor going < 2) he would rush out, tell Mr. Golspie < 3) she was there, and thus see her again. (Priestley)

Similarly in Ukrainian: Тієї ж миті, <1), коли він зачував кроки відвідувача з кабінету містера Голспі<2) вин вибігав, доповідав Голспі<3) що вона ще там і знову повертався до неї [9, p. 308].

The structural pattern of this sentence in both contrasted languages has an identical form: namely: NP < Sattr < Smatr. < Sobj + co-cj + predic. construction.

Such homogeneous sub-clauses are mostly used in the polycompo-nental complex sentence where they are joined to the matrix clause in English syndetically or asyndetically, the former way being more frequently observed than the latter.

a) Practically allomorphic for the Ukrainian syntactic system is the existence of polycomponental composite sentences with the tagged/concluding disjunctive clauses. Cf. I think < you told < you were in the services, didn't you? (Cusack) The interrogative tag-clause «didn't you?» refers to the objective sub-clause «you told,» which is clearly reflected in the structural pattern of this polycomponental sentence [6, p. 69].

Its structural equivalent in Ukrainian is a two-componental complex sentence with tag-words (так? правда?) or tag-phrases (чи не так? правда ж?) instead of the subordinate clause which is in the English original.

Cf. I think < you < told < you were in the services, didn't you? (Cusack)

Мені здається, <ти казав, < щоти служив у війську, чи не так?

A specific feature of such sentences in Ukrainian, however, is their possible «inverted» / transformed structure with the tag-words/phrase in the initial position which is impossible in English – Правда ж ти казав, здається, що (ти) служив у війську ? [1, p. 277].

These were only the main and therefore far from all the isomor-phic and allomorphic features characterising the types and paradigmatic classes of these syntactic level units in present-day English in comparison to the corresponding Ukrainian composite sentences of these types.

Generally isomorphic in both languages are also the main features pertaining to the highest language units which are to be partly contrasted.

CONCLUSIONS

Each predicative unit in a composite sentence forms a clause. A clause as a part of a composite sentence corresponds to a separate sentence, but a composite sentence is not at all equivalent to a sequence of the simple sentences underlying its clauses. The purpose of communication in the composite sentence above is the presentation of a certain topic; this is lost in the transformation of the sentence into a sequence of simple sentences.

We found out that there are two principal types of composite sentences: complex and compound. In compound sentences, the clauses are connected on the basis of coordinative connections (parataxis); by coordination the clauses are arranged as units of syntactically equal rank, i.e. equipotently. In complex sentences, the clauses are united on the basis of subordinative connections (hypotaxis); by subordination the clauses are arranged as units of syntactically unequal rank, one of which dominates another.

The connections between the clauses in a composite sentence may be effected syndetically, i.e. by means of special connecting words, conjunctions and other conjunctional words or word-combinations, or asyndetically, i.e. without any conjunctional words used.

Thus, composite sentences as polypredicative constructions exist in the two type varieties as regards the degree of their predicative explicitness: first, composite sentences of complete composition; second, composite sentences of concise composition. Each of these types is distinguished by its own functional specification, occupies a permanent place in the syntactic system of language and so deserves a separate consideration in a grammatical description.

A composite sentence in English and Ukrainian, like in all other languages, contains two or more primary predication centres mostly represented by as many corresponding clauses. The structural types of the composite sentence are identified on the ground of the syntactic reflection (and connection) of its predicate parts which are not always distinctly identified.

Thus, common in the syntactic systems of English and Ukrainian are sentences that are semantically intermediate between simple extended on the one hand and composite sentences on the other. These are the so-called semi-compound and semi-complex sentences.

Nevertheless there is much common in the nature and structure of the composite sentence in the syntactic systems of English and Ukrainian. Isomorphism is observed first of all in the nomenclature of the Major Syntax units represented by the compound and complex sentences.

We came to the conclusion, that isomorphism and allomorphism in the system of composite sentences find their expression first and foremost in the realisation of the syntactic connection of their componental parts, i. e. clauses.

As to the isomorphic types of composite sentences, they are amply represented in both contrasted languages in the following three varieties: 1) the polycomponen tal compound sentences; 2) the polycomponental complex sentences; 3) the compound extended sentences; 4) the complex-compound and 5) the compound-complex sentences.

LITERATURE

1. Blokh M.Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar. – M., 1994. – 381 p.
2. Bryant M.A. Functional English Grammar. – N.Y., 1995. – 390 р.
3. Ganshina M.A. Vasilevskaya N.M. English Grammar. – M., 1994. – 340 p.
4. Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G., Svartvik J. A Grammar of Contemporary English. – Lоndоn, 1992. – 365 р.
5. Жлуктенко Ю.О. Порівняльна граматика англійської та української мов. – К., 1960. – 160 с.
6. Корунець І.В. Порівняльна типологія англійської та української мов. – Вінниця: Нова Книга, 2003. – 464 с.
7. Порівняльні дослідження з граматики англійської, української, російської мов: 36. статей АН УРСР, і-ту мовознавства ім. О.О. Потебні / Відп. ред. Ю.А. Жлуктенко. – К.: Наук. думка, 1981. – 356 с.
8. Широкова А.В. Сравнительная типология разноструктурных языков. – М.: Добросвет, 2000. – 301 с.