Ii. Basic concepts of contrastive linguistics

Agglutinative type is characterized with the bound cases of agreement between the linguistic elements and monosyllabism. Instead of agreement we may observe here the combination of the elements according to adjoining type. These features are very distinctly are manifested in modern English, cf.: in all cases of relationships the two members of a structure retain their zero indexes – nice boy/ girl/ /cat/ boys / girls/ cats – adjoining, and only in a very few cases as these boys but this boy - partial agreement. Moreover, the word-stock of this language predominantly consists of the monosyllabic words which, in their linguistic status are determined as the root-morphemes – morphological level, and lexical units – lexicological level. Here seems quite reasonable to regard Modern English as language the grammatical tendency of which is analytical. In Ukrainian or Russian we also may see the monosyllabic words but the matter lies in a developed system of case inflections what is categorially not characteristic of the present-day English.
Inflected type is strictly discriminated from other types with the clearly expressed agreement of the components within a structure. The categories of gender, number, case and determination in languages of this type are presented explicitly. Agreement as the type of syntagmatic connection presupposes at least two morphemes structure, i.e. root-morpheme + affixed morpheme, as in Russian or Ukrainian вод + а, сел + о.
In isolating typeof a language instead of agreement as the type of a syntagmatic connection we may distinguish adjoining, rigid word order in a sentence structure, the presence of prepositions and various particles to express relationships of the words in a sentence.
For polysynthetic (incorporative) type of a language the presence of word-sentences or nominalized complexes is very characteristic (see above).
The concept of metalanguage and its role in the contrastive
study of languages
Contrastive typology is a branch of linguistics which aims at establishing the most general common and divergent as well as dominant and recessive features of the languages compared and determining their structural types on this basis. The number of languages subjected to typological contrasting at a time is not limited.
Contrastive typological investigation may be focused on phonetic/phonological, morphological, lexical or syntactic phenomena of the languages.
Contrastive typology of the English and Ukrainian morphology compares morphological systems of the English and Ukrainian languages Contrastive typology as a branch of linguistics employs some terms and notions of its own. The principal are as follows:
1. Absolute universals (абсолютні/повні універсала) i.e. features or phenomena of a language level pertaining to any language of the world (cf. vowels and consonants, word stress and utterance stress, intonation sentences, parts of the sentence, parts of speech, etc.).
2. Near universals (неповні/часткові універсалії) i.e. features or phenomena common in many or some languages under typological investigation.
3. Metalanguage (метамова), as has been mentioned already, is the language in which the actual presentation/analysis of different features/phenomena of the contrasted languages is carried out.
4. Typologically dominant features (типологічні домінанти) are features or phenomena dominating at a language level or in the structure of the contrasted languages. Dominant in present-day English are known to be analytical means: rigid word order in word-groups and sentences, the prominent role of prepositions and placement as means of connection and expression of case relations and syntactic functions (cf. books for my friend, books to my friends, books by my friends; a nice flower-nice flowers, Peter came - Mary came), etc. The change of placement of the part of the sentence may completely change its sense. Cf. The hunter killed the hare - The hare killed the hunter. In Ukrainian the change of placement of the main parts of the sentence usually does not change the meaning of the sentence, as in this same sentence: Мисливець застрілив зайця or: Зайця застрілив мисливець.
5. Typologically recessive features/phenomena (типологічнo рецесивні, втрачаючі колишню активну роль) are those losing their former dominant role as, for instance, case forms in English or the dual number forms of some nouns in present-day Ukrainian.
6. Isomorphic features/phenomena (ізоморфні риси/явища) are common features/phenomena in languages under Contrastive analysis. Isomorphic in English and Ukrainian is, for example, the existence of consonants and vowels, assimilation, and the categories of number, person, tense, as well as parts of speech, the existence of sentences, etc.
7. Allomorphic features/phenomena (аломорфні риси/явища) are observed in one language and missing in the other. For example: palatalisation of practically all consonants or the dual number in Ukrainian, the gerund or the diphthongs and analytical verb forms in English, which are missing (allomorphic) in Ukrainian.
8. The etalon language is a hypothetic language created by typologists for the sake of contrasting any languages. This "language" is supposed to contain exhaustive quantitative and qualitative data or characteristics concerning all existing language units and phenomena. For example, the quantity and quality of sounds (vowels, consonants) and syllables, morphemes, parts of speech and their morphological categories, the correlation of the means of grammatical connection, etc.
In logic and linguistics, a metalanguage is a language used to describe another language, often called the object language. Expressions in a metalanguage are often distinguished from those in the object language by the use of italics, quotation marks, or writing on a separate line.The structure of sentences and phrases in a metalanguage can be described by a metasyntax. There are a variety of recognized metalanguages, including embedded, ordered, and nested (or hierarchical) metalanguages.
Embedded
An embedded metalanguage is a language formally, naturally and firmly fixed in an object language. This idea is found in Douglas Hofstadter's book, Gödel, Escher, Bach, in a discussion of the relationship between formal languages and number theory: "... it is in the nature of any formalization of number theory that its metalanguage is embedded within it."
It occurs in natural, or informal, languages, as well—such as in English, where words such as noun, verb, or even word describe features and concepts pertaining to the English language itself.
Ordered
An ordered metalanguage is analogous to an ordered logic. An example of an ordered metalanguage is the construction of one metalanguage to discuss an object language, followed by the creation of another metalanguage to discuss the first, etc.
Nested
A nested (or hierarchical) metalanguage is similar to an ordered metalanguage in that each level represents a greater degree of abstraction. However, a nested metalanguage differs from an ordered one in that each level includes the one below.
The paradigmatic example of a nested metalanguage comes from the Linnean taxonomic system in biology. Each level in the system incorporates the one below it. The language used to discuss genus is also used to discuss species; the one used to discuss orders is also used to discuss genera, etc., up to kingdoms.
Natural language combines nested and ordered metalanguages. In a natural language there is an infinite regress of metalanguages, each with more specialized vocabulary and simpler syntax. Designating the language now as L 0 {\displaystyle L_{0}} the grammar of the language is a discourse in the metalanguage L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} which is a sublanguage nested within L 0 {\displaystyle L_{0}}

• 
  The grammar of L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}}, which has the form of a factual description, is a discourse in the metametalanguage L 2 {\displaystyle L_{2}}, which is also a sublanguage of L 0 {\displaystyle L_{0}}
  
• 
  The grammar of L 2 {\displaystyle L_{2}}, which has the form of a theory describing the syntactic structure of such factual descriptions, is stated in the metametametalanguage L 3 {\displaystyle L_{3}}, which likewise is a sublanguage of L 0 {\displaystyle L_{0}}
  
• 
  The grammar of L 3 {\displaystyle L_{3}} has the form of a metatheory describing the syntactic structure of theories stated in L 2 {\displaystyle L_{2}} L 4 {\displaystyle L_{4}} and succeeding metalanguages have the same grammar as L 3 {\displaystyle L_{3}}, differing only in reference.
  

Since all of these metalanguages are sublanguages ofL 0 {\displaystyle L_{0}}, L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} is a nested metalanguage, but L 2 {\displaystyle L_{2}} and sequel are ordered metalanguages. Since all these metalanguages are sublanguages of L 0 {\displaystyle L_{0}} they are all embedded languages with respect to the language as a whole.
Metalanguages of formal systems all resolve ultimately to natural language, the 'common parlance' in which mathematicians and logicians converse to define their terms and operations and 'read out' their formulae.
Language Universals
Structural typological research makes it possible to establish some traits that are universal, unique and special. The languages of the world present us with a vast array of structural similarities and differences/ One way of answering this question is to adopt a historical persrective, investigating the origins of language and pointing to the importance of linguistic change/ An alternative approach is to make a detailed description of the similarities or differences, regardless of their historical antecedents, and proceed from there to generalize about the structure and function of human language. There are two main ways of approaching the similarities and differences of language structures: If we look for the structural features that all or most languages have in common, so we are searching for the languge universals; If we focus our attention on the features that differentiate the languages so we are involving ourselves in language typology. In principle, the two approaches are complementary (going together), but sometimes they are associated with different theoretical conceptions of the nature of linguistic enquiry.
As has been mentioned above the notion of language universals is closely connected with the process of unification of linguistic facts with a process of establishing common features between the systems of different languages.
With the process of generalisation of linguistic phenomenon the investigations or language universals began at the end of 1950 s The main event in this field is the international conference held in April, 1961 in New-York.
At this conference a report called “Memorandum” concerning the language universals was presented by the American linguists J. Greenburg, Ch. Ostgood and J. Genkins. In the former Soviet Union B.A. Uspensky published his monographic research “Структурная типология язика” (1965).
In 1966 there appeared J. Greenberg’s book “Language universals with special references to feature hierarchies”.
These works were followed by a number of other research works published as articles and special volumes.
According to the “Memorandum” language universals are by their nature summary statements about characteristics or tendencies shared by all human speakers. As such they constitute the most general laws of a science of linguistics. Language universals study the universal features in the systems of different languages of the world. They find similarities which are typical of the absolute or overwhelming majority of languages.
Types of universals are as follows: 1. Definitional universals, 2. empirical universals.
Definitional universals are connected with the fact which the speaker possesses and uses his extrapolation. It means that linguistic phenomenon exists in the system of those languages which the scholar does not know.
E.g. Indo-European languages have the opposition of the vowels and consonants. This phenomenon may be considered to be systems of other languages of the world.
Empirical universals are connected with the mental or imaginary experience that is a definite linguistic feature may exist in all languages, secondly he or she does not know if this or that feature exists in all languages. E.g. composition may exist in all languages in spite of their morphological structure.
Unrestricted universals
According to this type of universals linguistic supposition of hypotheses is not restricted. E.g. all languages have vowels or for all languages the numbers of phonemes is not fewer than 10 or more than 70 or every language has at least 2 vowels. The universalist ideal is to be able to make short and interseting statements that hold, without exeption, for all languages. In practice, very few such statements can be made; short ones often seem to state the obvious (e.g.: All languages have vowels); and the interesting ones often seem to require considerable technical qualification.
Most of the time, in fact it is clear that absoluta (or exeptionless) universals do not exist. As a result, many lanuists look instead for trends or tendencies across languages - ‘relative’ universals - which can be givenstatistical expression. For example, in over 99% of languages whose word order has been studied, grammatical subjects precede objects. And in a phonological study of over 300 languages less than 3% have no nasal consonant. Linguistic features that are ststistically dominant in this way are often referred to as ‘unmarked’, and grammar that incorporates norms of this kind is knownas a ‘core grammar’.
Substantive
Substantive universals comprise the set of categories that is needed in order to analyse a language, such as ‘noun’, ‘quesyion’, ‘first- person’, ‘antonym’ and ‘vowel’. Do all languages have nouns and vowels? The answer seems to be ‘yes’. But certain categories often thought of as universal turn out not to be so: not all languages have case endings, prepositions or future tenses, for example, there are certain surprising limitations or the range of vowels and consonants that typically occur. Analytical considerations must also be born in mind. Do all languages have words? The answer depends on how the concept of ‘word’ is defined.
Formal
Formal universals are a set of abstract conditions that govern the way in which a language analysis can be made - the factors that have to be written into a grammar, if it is to account sucsessfully for the way sentences work in a language. For examp;e, because all languages make statements and ask related questions (such as ‘The car is ready vs Is the car ready? some means has to be found to show the relationship between such pairs. Most grammars derive question structures by some kind of transformation. (In the above example move the verb to the beginning of the sentence.) It is claimed that such transformations are necessary in order to carry out the analysis of these (and other kinds of ) structures, as Chomskyan theory does, then they would be proposed as formal universals. Other cases include the kinds of rules used in grammar or the different levels recognized by a theory.
Implicational
Implicational universals always take the fom ‘If X, then Y’, their intention being to find constant relationships between two or more properties of the language. For example, three of the universals proposed in a list of 45 by the American linguist Joseph Greenberg are as follows:
Universal: With overwelming more-than-chance frequency, languages with dominant order VSO have the adjective after the noun.
Universal: If either the subject or object noun agrees with the verb in gender, then, the adjectivenalways agrees with the noun in gender.
Universal: If a language has gender categories in the noun, it has gender categories in the pronoun.
As is suggested by the phraising, implicational statements have a statistical basis and for this reason are sometimes referred to as ‘ststistical’ universals.