This paper focuses on sentence structure and word order in English and Russian languages in relation to Linguistic Relativity, a hypothesis that suggests, the way we perceive and categorize reality is partly determined by the language we speak. The cognitive view of sentence construction principles provides a key insight into the analysis of differences between English and Russian sentence construction principles and how it affects the preferences of communication strategies of each language.
The purpose of the study is to analyze the sentence structure in English and Russian languages, identify the differences in sentence construction principles between these two languages and its effect on the communication strategies preferred by speakers of each language respectively.

This paper focuses on sentence structure and word order in English and Russian languages in relation to Linguistic Relativity, a hypothesis that suggests, the way we perceive and categorize reality is partly determined by the language we speak. The cognitive view of sentence construction principles provides a key insight into the analysis of differences between English and Russian sentence construction principles and how it affects the preferences of communication strategies of each language.
The purpose of the study is to analyze the sentence structure in English and Russian languages, identify the differences in sentence construction principles between these two languages and its effect on the communication strategies preferred by speakers of each language respectively.

REFERENCES
Bailyn, J. 1995. A configurational approach to Russian ‘free’ word order. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University. Retrieved April, 11, from http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/Clubs/nels/jbailyn/woSPB.pdf
Baker, M. (1995). Corpora in Translation Studies: an Overview and some Suggestions for Future Research. Target, 7(2), 223-243. Retrieved March 25, 2013, http://benjamins.com/#catalog/journals/target.7.2.03bak/details
Boroditsky, L. (1998). Evidence for metaphoric representation: Understanding time. In K. Holyoak, D. Gentner, & B. Kokinov (Eds.), Advances in analogy research: Integration of theory and data from the cognitive, computational, and neural sciences. Sofia, Bulgaria: New Bulgarian Univ. Press.
Boroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75(1), 1–28.
Chen, S. (2010). Linguistic relativity revisited. 年跨文化研究國際研討. 會論文集.輔仁大學.
Comrie, Bernard. (1987). Russian. In Bernard Comrie (ed.). The World’s Major Languages. London & Sydney: Croom Helm. Retrieved April, 25, from http://mahdi9647.persiangig.com/E-Books/The_World__039_s_Major_Languages__2nd_edition.pdf
Ebeling, J. (1998). Contrastive Linguistics, Translation, and Parallel Corpora. Meta: Translators' Journal, 43(4), 602-615. Retrieved March 25, 2013, from http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/1998/v43/n4/002692ar.pdf
Elllingsworth, H.W. (1992). The shadow of Benjamin Lee Whorf: Continuing issues in linguistic relativism. Intercultural Communication Studies, 2(2), 1-18.
Feagin, R.J., Orum, M.A., & Sioberg, G. (1991). A case for the case study. UNC Press.
Gasparov, B.M. (1987). Ustnaja rec, kak semioticeskij ob’ekt. Semantika nominacii I semiotika ustnoj reci. Acta et Commentationes Universitatis Tartuensis 442. Tartu. 63-112. Retrieved, April, 25, from http://www.lomonosov-fund.ru/enc/ru/encyclopedia:0132718
Gast, V. (forthcoming). Contrastive analysis: Theories and methods. In Kortmann, B. and J. Kabatek (eds.), Dictionaries of Linguistics and Communication Science: Linguistic theory and methodology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. . Retrieved March, 14, from http://www.personal.uni-jena.de/~mu65qev/papdf/contr_ling_meth.pdf
Gumperz, J. J., & Levinson, S. C. (Eds). (1996). Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved March, 14, http://anthro.ucsd.edu/~jhaviland/LanguageCulture/READINGS/RethinkLingRelIntro.pdf
Heider, E. R., & Olivier, D. C. (1972). The structure of the color space in naming and memory for two languages. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 337-354.
Heine, B. (1997). Cognitive foundations of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Humbodlt, W. (1988). On language: The diversity of human language structure and its influence on the mental development of mankind. (T. P. Heath, Trans). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1836)
Hunt, E., & Agnoli, F. (1991). The Whorfian hypothesis: A cognitive psychology perspective. Psychological Review, 98, 377–389.
Imai, M., & Gentner, D. (1993). Linguistic relativity vs. universal ontology: Cross-linguistic studies of the object/substance distinction. In J. Beals (Ed.), The proceedings of the 29th Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 171-186). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Imai, M., & Gentner, D. (1997). A cross-linguistic study of early word meaning: universal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition, 62, 169-200.
Imai, M., & Mazuka, R. (2003). Reevaluating linguistic relativity: Language-specific categories and the role of universal ontological knowledge in the construal of individuation. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds), Language in mind. (pp. 427-464). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Isurin, L. (2005). Cross linguistic transfer in word order: Evidence from L1 forgetting and L2 acquisition. In J. Cohen & K. McAlista (Eds.), ISB4: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Bilingualism, pp. 1115-1130. Somerville, MA: Cascadilia Press.
Johnson, K. (2004). In search of the English middle field. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Johansson, S. & Hofland, K. (1994). Towards an English-Norwegian parallel corpus. In U. Fries, G. Tottie, and P. Schneider (Eds.), Creating and using english language corpora (pp. 25-37). Amsterdam.
Kallestinova, E. (2007). Aspects of word order in Russian. Doctoral dissertation, Iowa University. Retrieved March, 01, from http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/165
Kroeger, P. (2004). Analyzing syntax: a lexical-functional approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Krylova, O.A. & S.A. Khavronina. (1986). Por’adok slov v russkom jazike. Moskva: Russkij jazik. Retrieved March, 01, from http://bibliosrv.spmu.runnet.ru/
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 202-51). Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2002). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar (2nd ed.). Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Levinson, S. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslinguistic evidence. In P. Bloom & M. Peterson (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 109–169). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lucy, J. A. (1992). Language diversity and thought: A reformulation of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lucy, J. A. (1996). The scope of linguistic relativity: An analysis and review of empirical research. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 37-69). New York: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved March, 16, from http://www.linguisticanthropology.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/1996-Lucy-ScopeofLinguisticRelativity.pdf
Lucy, J. A. (1997). Linguistic relativity. Annual Review of Anthropology, 2, 291-312. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.26.1.291
Lucy, J. A. (2004). Language, Culture, and Mind in Comparative Perspective. In M. Archard and S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, Culture, and Mind (pp. 257-283). Stanford, Calif.: Center for the study of Language and Information Publications.
Masuda, T., & Nisbett, R. E. (2001). Attending holistically vs. analytically: Comparing the context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81, 922-934.
Miller, P. (1992). Clitics and constituents in Phrase Structure Grammar. Garland, New York. Retrieved March, 14, from http://stl.recherche.univ-lille3.fr/sitespersonnels/miller/Introduction.pdf
Rodionova E.V. (2001). Word order and information structure in Russian syntax. M.A. thesis, Univ. of North Dakota. Retrieved March, 30, from http://arts-sciences.und.edu/summer-institute-of-linguistics/theses/2001-rodionova-elena.cfm
Slobin, D. (1996). From ‘‘thought and language’’ to ‘‘thinking for speaking.’’ In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press. Retrieved March, 14, from http://ihd.berkeley.edu/Slobin-Language%20&%20Cognition/(1996)%20Slobin%20-%20From%20thought%20and%20language%20to%20thinking%20for%20speaking.pdf
Schmied, J. and Schaffler, H. (1996). Approaching Translationese through Parallel and Translation Corpora. In Percy, C.E., C.F. Meyer and I. Lancaster (Eds.), Synchronic Corpus Linguistics. Papers from the Sixteenth International Conference on English Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 16) (pp. 41-56). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Retrived March 25, 2013, from http://130.203.133.150/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.11.1316
Sjoberg, G., Williams, N.,Vaughan, T., & Sjoberg, A. (1991). The case study approach in social research. In Feagin, J., Orum, A., & Sjoberg, G. (Eds.), (1991). A case for case study (pp. 27-79). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Smith, J.R., Quirk, C., and Toutanova, K. (2010). Extracting parallel sentences from comparable corpora using document level alignment. In proceedings of the human language technologies: The 11th annual conference of the North American chapter of the ACL (HLT-NAACL 2010) (pp. 403–411). Los Angeles. Retrived March 25, 2013, from http://aclweb.org/anthology/N/N10/N10-1063.pdf
Stake, E.R. (2000). The art of case study research. (7th ed.). Calif.: Sage.
Tardif, T. (1996). Nouns are not always learned before verbs, but why? Evidence from Mandarin Chinese. Developmental Psychology, 32(3), 492–504.
Traugott, E. (1978). On the expression of spatiotemporal relations in language. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of human language: Word structure (Vol. 3, pp. 369–400). Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.