2А. Paradigmatic relation of grammatical units

Units grammar stand to each other in two different kinds of relations; paradigmatic and syntagmatic. Paradigmatic relations are associative. This means that they unite similar units on one paradigmatic axis to form a paradigm or set in which units relate to each other by association with some distinctive feature (DP) of case, or category, or kind of relationship common to all members of such a paradigmatic set. E.g.: grammatical (form-building) morphemes of case (where they exist), tense, person-number form a paradigm the members of which are associated on the ground of the grammatical category (or DP) of case, tense, etc. Accordingly, grammars that carry a certain grammatical information are united in a paradigm on the basis of some category or DP. E.g.: grammars (filled with linguistic material): 1) (I) am speaking, (he) is speaking, etc. or 2) speak-spoke- will speak -would speak are similar units with a common general categorical meaning that brings them together into a paradigm in which there us some ground for comparison common to all its members; thus in (I) this common ground is grammatical meaning0' duration (the distinction lies in the person); in (2) it is the general meaning of tense (time) that unites the four grammars.

The units compared belong to the same rank and they cannot be put together on a syntagmatic chain to form a communicative entity (such a sentence, as I am speaking, he is speaking, they are speaking … would be nonsensical)

Words united in one part of speech also stand to each other in relations as they are similar units (all nouns put together, verbs, etc.) having a common general grammatical meaning (of substance, action etc.). Paradigmatic relations are associative because they are based on an identical grammatical meaning of the units Since meaning is embodied in a certain form, a paradigm may be marked by form-building (morpheme) alternations.

In as much as grammatical meaning cannot be directly observed, it can be reached at only through the close .study of the interrelations among grammatical units, since the abstract grammatical meaning is always relational.

Associative paradigmatic relations are clearly cut with morphological units represented by one and the same part of speech. Morphological units are by nature paradigmatic; therefore, with them paradigmatic analyses comes first. The paradigmatics of morphological units (morphemes, grammars, and parts of speech) constitutes the frame-work of a language, reflects, both in form and meaning, the properties inherent in that particular language, composes what may he called the morphological system of the. language.

Matters are made more complicated with the establishment of paradigmatic relations among syntactic units which consist of no less than two words (with a few exceptions of clipped constructions and sentence members). They are syntagmatic by nature, since they represent a linear structure. With them syntagmatic analysis comes the first, the more so that different syntactic combinations and structures are but abstract models which have to be singled out on the basis of a preliminary syntagmatic analysis of linear structures existing in that particular language.

The paradigmatics of syntactic units presents generalizations of types of groups and sentences into a set of patterns and communication types, and relations existing among them. Thus, paradigmatics of syntactic units is the modeling of syntactic structures relations in a language.