= 161. 2*362 (075. 8) К211 ббк [81. 2-2 Англ + 81. 2-2 Укр] я 73

42
43

language with the aim to reveal its peculiarities on the background of common features {зктавний метод - сукупшстъ npuuojuie docnidofcenHH i onucy моей шляхом и системного поргвняння з тшою мовою з метою выявления и специфти на фот стльних рис) [11; 77].
The method of contrastive analysis is directed first of all towards revealing the differences between the two or the larger number of languages (the unique features - унжалп) though it does not ignore common features of the contrasted languages. It is as if the reverse side of the comparative-historic method: the comparative-historic method has as its aim to establish the correspondences between the contrasted languages; the method of contrastive analysis, in its turn, searches, first of all, for the differences. This method can be applied to any languages irrespective of their genealogical, typological or areal origin for the analysis of the correlation of their structural elements and the structure all together mainly on the synchronic level of analysis taking into consideration all factors of their interaction, interpenetration and mutual influence on all language levels [11; 78].
The effectiveness of the contrastive analysis method depends on the appropriateness of its usage, that is what is contrasted and in what way it is contrasted. Depending on the direction of analysis, according to R.Shternemann [25], there can be distinguished one-sided and two-sided (many-sided) contrastive analysis (односторонние та двостороннш зютавний анализ).
According to the one-sided approach the initial point of research is one of contrasted languages. Cross-language comparison is carried out in the direction "the initial language / or the source language - the target language" (вихщна мова - цтьова мова). The source language performs the role of the system of correlated notions for the target language description. Such an approach reveals the meanings of lexical and grammatical phenomena of the source language that are reflected on the level of meanings of the target language and comprise those means of the target language which it has for rendering meanings of the source language. First of all, the structure of the meaning of a certain unit in a source language is determined, that is the semasiological analysis is carried out, later on
this unit is projected on the amount of the meanings of the target language. For example, German wenn - English 1) when (temporal meaning) and 2) if, in case (conditional meaning).
The one-sided approach is very similar to the way of two-language or bilingual dictionaries compiling: for the word of the source language is accomplished with the equivalent correlative units of the target language. The results of the one-sided analysis are not reversible (результата одностороннього аналтзу не е оборот­нями)). If we try to "reverse" the one-sided procedure, we will have quite other results [11; 79].
According to the two-sided (or many-sided) approach the basis for comparison is the "third member" (tertium comparationis) - a certain extra-linguistic notion, a phenomenon which does not belong to any of contrasted languages, but is deductively formed by a meta­language; and the ways by which it is expressed in contrasted languages are researched. The value of the two-sided approach is in the fact that it gives the possibility to reveal all language means to express something [11; 80].
For example, if the researcher is interested in the way the future action is expressed in English and in Ukrainian, he/she will find out that in Ukrainian there is only one future tense "майбутнш час" where is in English we have 4 future tenses (Future Simple, Future Continuous, Future Perfect and Future Perfect Continuous) and besides two present tenses (Present Simple and Present Continuous) also have the ability to express a certain future meaning. Therefore, the two-sided approach gives the possibility to give a thorough description of a researched phenomenon. Since lexical and grammatical units are mostly polysemantic, this approach takes into consideration only those meanings which correspond to the basis of comparison. Thus studying the tense forms expressing the future meaning, we take into account only the "future meaning" of present tenses and not their "present meanings".
The two approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. The advantage of the one-sided approach is in the fact that it can be used without taking into account meta-language, and the drawback is that the comparison can be carried out only in one direction (the reflection of the second language in the mirror of the first language).