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

44
45

The advantage of the two-sided approach is that two languages are treated as equal, whereas the disadvantage is that the comparison relies on meta-language which does not exist for the time being (there are different suggestions concerning it).
The differentiation between the one-sided and two-sided approach is close to the difference between semasiologic and onomasiologic approaches. According to the semasiologic approach facts are considered from the form to their content, and according to the onomasiologic - from the content to the form [11; 81].
11. The problem of the language-etalon for comparison (tertium comparationis)
The effectiveness of the contrastive analysis depends on the well-chosen etalon (the basis for comparison, the common denominator), on the basis of which the realization of certain characteristic feature is defined. That is why researchers dealing with contrastive studies believe that for this a special meta-language is necessary. Meta-language as a rule does not resemble any real language system but embodies a certain ideal type, serving as an instrument for comparison of real language systems. Such a meta­language should possess the names of all units and characteristics of languages - the objects of research (it should possess the universal characteristics of all languages), and be suitable for comparison of all languages. Ideally the meta-language should be universal to compare the systems of different languages (known and unknown). The concrete existing languages are viewed as the outcome of the language-etalon. The characteristic of a certain language lies in pointing to the way of transferring to it from the language-etalon. The comparison of languages with the unique language-etalon would positively influence the research results - it would give the possibility to achieve homogeneous results, which would easily undergo the contrastive analysis. In such a case a set of differences from the language-etalon would make a specific characteristic of a researched language. Nevertheless, such a language has not been constructed yet.
For example, by contrasting English and Ukrainian languages one can take as a basis either of them. Contrastive description will
46
и greatly at this. If one takes the English language as a basic one, ihfii il is important to clarify what means are used in the Ukrainian I.menage to render the meaning of English articles. If one relies on the t Ikrninian language, then it is necessary to find out in what way the
I ni'lisli language renders the meanings of Ukrainian aspect verb
i is. Therefore, comparison with some language, which is
■ nnvcntionally taken as a language-etalon, does not have an absolute
llitracter and yields relative results, which not always become the i liable basis for conclusions. Though, exactly by using the native l mi'iiage as a basis for comparison (that is the language-etalon) with a (foreign language one can easily and fully reveal contrasts (ellomorphic features), but in such a way one cannot build the
II ilectics of the common, different and unique as well as one cannot
ImiiIiI a similar description of the language under research. In many
INes such a language-etalon will not have names for the characteristic i iiiиes of the language under study (the category of li iiniteness/indefiniteness of the English language cannot be !■ л ubcd via the system of the Ukrainian language, in its turn, the itcgory of aspect of the Ukrainian language - via the system of the i m-.lish language [11; 81-82].
Л synonymic term tertium comparationis ("мова-еталон" -
11" iiii член пор1вняння" або основа з1ставлення) is often used in
11ii meaning of the "language-etalon". The terms mentioned are
broader since they comprise not only a natural or an artificially
I 11 noted language, but also narrower, more concrete objects as a
iii; lor comparison, for example, some notional category (causality,
ssivity, modality, definiteness, etc.). Very often and not quite
Directly they are called the language-etalon, nevertheless they are not
и language, but only the basis for comparison, the third member, the
"■■поп on the basis of which ways of its expression in the contrasted
languages are revealed. In such cases one should use the terms the
/>./v/v for comparison or tertium comparationis.
Asa tertium comparationis in language contrasting one can use
nitrate concepts (such research is widely practised), propositions
inantic invariants common for all the members of modal and
■ nnicative paradigms of sentences and their derivative
instructions), models of situations and coherent texts, taking into
47

account the ethnic-cultural peculiarities of contrasted languages, social, age, situational correlation of the participants of a communicative act.
Therefore, as a basis for comparison one can use various means: a specifically constructed artificial language, or a symbolic language, consisting of general artificial rule; a certain separate language with a well-developed system; a certain system; linguistic (grammatical, semantic, etc.) category; certain differential characteristics; a certain grammatical rule; a certain semantic field; phonetic, morphological, syntactic and other models; a certain method; the interlingua by translation; the typological category, etc [11; 84-85].