Active and passive constructions in the language practice of philology students of universities of Ukraine
Authors:   National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, Lavrinets Оlena 
Published: October 2024

Traditionally, the paradigm of passive constructions includes sentences with passive verbs ending in –ся, predicative participles ending in –ний and -тий, and forms ending in –но and –то. The central place in the passive paradigm of East Slavic languages, including Ukrainian, is occupied by sentences with verbs ending in –ся. According to the newest approach, the passive paradigm has been adjusted: sentences with passive verbs ending in -ся have found themselves on the extreme periphery of the syntactic system of the Ukrainian literary language, and they are recognized as not characteristic of it. The active/passive opposition can be formed only by transitive verbs, the passive correlates of which are predicative passive participles and forms ending in -но and –то. The language practice of the younger generation of philologists, in particular students, whose thorough professional training should include familiarization with the traditional and newest approaches to the scope of the passive paradigm, requires special study. The survey shows that active constructions (two-part and one-part indefinite-personal sentences) dominate in the choice of philology students, and almost half of the respondents consciously prefer them, which demonstrates their awareness of the current trend of returning active constructions to the book syntax of the Ukrainian language. According to the survey results, the paradigm of passive constructions is three-component and has the following hierarchy: the core is formed by sentences with predicative participles ending in -ний and -тий, and the periphery is formed by sentences with forms ending in -но and -то and sentences with passive verbs ending in –ся. The respondents’ choice of two-part sentences with predicative passive participles is sometimes due to their structural and semantic differences from one-part sentences with forms ending in –но and –то. However, the preference for two-part passive clauses over one-part passive clauses mostly depends on the preferences of speakers and represents the continuation of the tradition of using syntactic models common to Russian and Ukrainian, which is followed by most authors of scientific and educational literature, whose writing style is also imitated by philology students. In the language practice of philology students, one-part sentences with forms ending in –но and –то have not yet taken a nuclear position as a specific semantic and grammatical phenomenon of the Ukrainian language. At the same time, the very low percentage of respondents (up to 12 %) who chose these constructions with the subject of action suggests that they are aware of the non-normativity of the three-component construction with the forms ending in –но and –то. The peripherality of sentences with passive verbs ending in –ся in the choice of philology students demonstrates their focus on the current actualization of specific syntactic constructions of the Ukrainian literary language. We see the prospect of the study in the questionnaire survey of students of non-philology, which will make it possible to trace the trends in the functioning of active and passive constructions in the modern usage of students in general and students of non-philology in particular, as well as to assess the process of restoring the identity of the Ukrainian book language through the use of syntactic constructions that are organic to it. Keywords: language practice (usus, language use), questionnaire, active construction, passive construction, passive paradigm, passive verbs on -ся, predicative participles on -ний, -тий, forms on ‑нo, -тo.