Traditional grammar studies the sentence from the point of view of its syntactic structure: the sentence was approached as a string of certain parts fulfilling the corresponding syntactic functions. As for paradigmatic relations which are inseparable from syntagmatic relations, they were explicitly (детально) revealed only as part of morphological descriptions because up to recent times, the                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               idea of the sentence model with its functional variants was not developed. Moreover, some representatives of early modern linguistics, among them F. de Saussure, specially noted that it was quite natural for morphology to develop paradigmatic observations, while syntax “by its very essence” should concern itself with the linear connections of words.

In contemporary modern linguistic paradigmatic structure of lingual connections and dependencies has penetrated into the would-be “purely syntagmatic” sphere of the sentence. The paradigmatic approach to this element of rendering communicative information, as we have mentioned before, marked a new stage in the development of the science of language, indeed, it is nothing else than paradigmatic approach that has provided a comprehensive theoretical ground for treating the sentence not only as a ready unit of speech, but also and above all as a meaningful lingual unit existing in a pattern form.

Paradigmatics finds its essential expression in a system of oppositions making the corresponding meaningful (functional) categories. Syntactic oppositions are realized by correlated sentence patterns, the observable relations between which can be described as “transformations”, i.e. as transitions from one pattern of certain notional parts to another pattern of the same notional parts. These transitions, being oppositional, at the same time disclose derivational connections of sentence patterns. In other words, some of the patterns are to be approached as base patterns, while others, as their transforms.

For instance, a question can be described as transformationally produced from a statement; a negation can be presented as transformationally produced from an affirmation:

You are fond of sports- Are you fond of sports?

You are fond of sports- You are not fond of sports.

(Affirmative statement presents a positive expression of a fact in its purest form, maximally free of the speaker’s connotative appraisals)

Similarly, a composite sentence, for still more evident reasons, is to be presented as derived from two or more simple sentences.

He turned to the waiter + Waiter stood in the door

He turned to the waiter who stood in the door.

These transitional relations are implicitly inherent in the syntagmatic classificational study of sentences. But modern theory, exposing them explicitly, has made a cardinal step forward in so far as it has interpreted them as regular derivation stages comparable to categorical form-making processes in morphology and word-building. And it is on these lines that the initial, basic element of syntactic derivation has been found, i.e. a syntactic unit serving as a “sentence-root” and providing an objective ground for identifying syntactic categorical oppositions. This element is known by different names, such as “the basic syntactic pattern”, “the structural sentence scheme”, “the elementary sentence model”, “the base sentence”, though as the handiest (удобный) in linguistic use should be considered the “kernel( зерно , ядро ) sentence” due to its terminological flexibility combined with a natural individualizing force.

The difference is, that the pattern of the kernel sentence is interpreted as forming the base of a paradigmatic derivation in the corresponding sentence pattern series.

Thus, syntactic derivation should not be understood as an immediate change of one sentence into another one; a pronounced or written sentence is a finished utterance that thereby cannot undergo any changes. Syntactic derivation is to be understood as paradigmatic production of more complex pattern constructions out of kernel pattern constructions as their structural bases. The description of this production may be more detailed and less detailed, i.e. it can be effected in more generalized and less generalized terms, depending on the aim of the scholar.

The derivation of genuine sentences lying on the “surface” of speech out of kernel sentences lying in the “deep base” of speech can be analyzed as a process falling into sets of elementary transformational steps or procedures. These procedures make up six major classes:

1. Morphological arrangement (расположение)

2. Functional expansion (расширение)

3. Substitution (замещение)

4. Deletion (устранение)

5. Positional arrangement

6. Intonational arrangement

The derivational procedures applied to the kernel sentence introduce it into two types of derivational relations in the sentential paradigmatic system: first, the “constructional” relations; second, the “predicative” relations.

As a part of the constructional system of syntactic paradigmatics, kernel sentences, as well as other, expanded base-sentences undergo derivational changes into clauses and phrases.

The transformation of a base sentence into a clause can be called “clausalization”.

They arrived and they relieved me of my fears (- I was relieved of my fears).

The transformation of a base sentence into a phrase can be called “phrasalization”. By phrasalization a sentence is transformed into a nominal phrase.

As part of the predicative system of syntactic paradigmatics, kernel sentences, as well as expanded base-sentences, undergo such structural modifications as immediately express the predicative functions of the sentence, i.e. the functions relating the nominative meanings of the sentence to reality.

I have met the man – I have not met the man – I have never met the man.