The Common Features of Transitivity Systems in English and Myanmar

Lai Yee Win

doi:doi:10.11648/j.cls.20230903.12

| Peer-Reviewed

The Common Features of Transitivity Systems in English and Myanmar

Lai Yee Win

Published in Communication and Linguistics Studies (Volume 9, Issue 3)

Received: 7 August 2023 Accepted: 21 August 2023 Published: 31 August 2023

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

In transitivity studies, the current existing problem of adopting different upward approaches to the description of the experiential metafunction has resulted in the abortive discourse analysis of texts. This study, therefore, attempts to observe the common features of English and Myanmar transitivity systems from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). It is found that: English and Myanmar transitivity systems share five common features: richness, hierarchicalness, flexibleness, metaphoricalness, and abstractness. With respect to the feature of richness, the two transitivity systems can construe the experience of the physical, social, mental and abstract world by a variety of different process types and participant roles. In terms of the feature of hierarchicalness, all the different processes of the two languages are categorized into superordinate, basic and subordinate level processes. With respect to the feature of flexibleness, in English and Myanmar transitivity configurations, process types can change from one type to another depending on context, background knowledge, life experience, etc. even though they construe the same domain of world experience. With respect to the feature of metaphoricalness, when the congruent form is reworded into metaphorical form, the process, participant roles and circumstances may change in English and Myanmar transitivity configurations. Regarding the feature of abstractness, each level of process differs from one another in terms of the degree of abstractness, that is, English and Myanmar transitivity systems are relatively similar in the identification of superordinate and basic level processes, whereas their transitivity configurations which are subordinate to basic level processes vary greatly between the two languages. This study helps to deepen the understanding of the nature of the two languages. It also makes an important contribution to the further study of comparing the transitivity configurations of transitivity systems in English and Myanmar and their realizations.

Published in	Communication and Linguistics Studies (Volume 9, Issue 3)
DOI	10.11648/j.cls.20230903.12
Page(s)	54-75
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Systemic Functional Linguistics, Common Features, Transitivity Systems, English, Myanmar

References

[1]	Achard, M. (1998). Representation of Cognitive Structures: Syntax and Semantics of French Sentential Complements. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[2]	Al-Janabi, M. K. H. (2013). Transitivity Analysis in English and Arabic Short Narrative Texts: A Contrastive Study. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337544166 (accessed 31 March 2022).
[3]	Boas, F. (1940). Race, Language and Culture. New York: The Macmillan Company.
[4]	Barsalou, L. W. (2005). Abstraction as Dynamic Interpretation in Perceptual Symbol Systems. In L. Gershkoff-Stowe and D. H. Rakison (eds.), Building Object Categories in Developmental Time. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 389-431.
[5]	Bartley, L. V. (2018). Putting Transitivity to the Test: A Review of the Sydney and Cardiff models. Functional Linguistics 5 (4): 1-21.
[6]	Bhita, S. (2018). A Comparative Study of Verbs in English and Burmese Languages. MA Thesis. Bangkok: Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University.
[7]	Bloor, T., and M. Bloor (1995). The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan Approach. London: Arnold.
[8]	Bridges, J. E. (1915). Burmese Grammar. Rangoon: British Burma Press.
[9]	Butler, C. S. (2003). Structure and Function: A Guide to Three Major Structural-functional Theories. Part 1: Approaches to the Simplex Clause. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[10]	Butler, C. S. (2013). Systemic Functional Linguistics, Cognitive Linguistics and Psycholinguistics. Functions of Language 20 (2): 185-218.
[11]	Caffarel, A. (2004). Metafunctional Profile of the Grammar of French. In A. Caffarel, J. R. Martin and C. M. I. M. Matthiessen (eds.), Language Typology: A Functional Perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 77–138.
[12]	Caffarel, A., J. R. Martin, and C. M. I. M. Matthiessen (eds.) (2004). Language Typology: A Functional Perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
[13]	Dang, T. C. N. (2015). An Investigation into Linguistic Features of Material Processes in “Perfect Spy” by Larry Berman Versus its Vietnamese Translational Version by Do Hung. Da Nang, MA Thesis. The University of Danang.
[14]	Davidse, K. (1992). Transitivity/Ergativity: the Janus-headed Grammar of Actions and Events. In Martin Davies and Louise Ravelli (eds.), Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and Practice. London/New York: Pinter, 105-135.
[15]	Eggins, S. (1994). An Introduction into Systemic Functional Linguistics. London and New York: Continuum.
[16]	Ei Ei Soe Min and Y. Matsumura (2019). Transitivity Parameters and the Transitivity Preference in Myanmar Language Compared to Japanese and English. International Journal of Languages, Literature and Linguistics 5 (2): 97-102.
[17]	Evans, V. and M. Green (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
[18]	Fawcett, R. P. (1980). Cognitive Linguistics and Social Interaction: Towards an Integrated Model of a Systemic Functional Grammar and the Other Components of a Communicating Mind. Heidelberg: Groos.
[19]	Fawcett, R. P. (1987). The Semantics of Clause and Verb for Relational Processes in English. In M. A. K. Halliday and R. P. Fawcett (eds.), New Developments in Systemic Linguistics: Theory and Description. London: Printer, 130–183.
[20]	Fawcett, R. P. (2000). A Theory of Syntax for Systemic Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
[21]	Fawcett, R. P. (2010). How to Analyze Participant Roles and so Processes in English. University of Science and Technology Bannu: Handbook.
[22]	Fawcett, R. P. (2011). Problems and Solutions in Identifying Processes and Participant Roles in Discourse Analysis, Part 1: Introduction to a Systematic Procedure for Identifying Processes and Participant Roles. In G. Huang and C. Chang (ed.), Annual Review of Functional Linguistics Volume 3. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 33–86.
[23]	Fawcett, R. P. (forthcoming). The Functional Semantics Handbook: Analyzing English at the Level of Meaning. London: Equinox.
[24]	Fawcett, R. P., and A. Schultz (2010). Adding Participant Roles to the Analysis of Texts. Presented at Workshop at the First Summer School on Systemic Functional Linguistics. Cardiff University.
[25]	Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays by Clifford Geertz. London: Hutchinson.
[26]	Givon, T. (1991). Isomorphism in the Grammatical Code: Cognitive and Biological Considerations. Studies in Language 15 (1): 85-114.
[27]	Haggerty, S. (2014). ‘Merely for Money’? Business Culture in the British Atlantic, 1750-1815. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
[28]	Halliday, M. A. K. (1961). Categories of the Theory of Grammar. Word 17: 241–292.
[29]	Halliday, M. A. K. (1964/1976). English system networks. In G. R. Kress (ed.), System and Function in Language: Selected Papers by M. A. K. Halliday. London: Oxford University Press, 101–135.
[30]	Halliday, M. A. K. (1966/2002). Some Notes on “Deep” Grammar. In J. Webster (ed.), On Grammar: Volume 1 in the Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday. London: Continuum, 106-117.
[31]	Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English: Part 1. Journal of Linguistics 3 (1): 37–81.
[32]	Halliday, M. A. K. (1968). Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English: Part 3. Journal of Linguistics 4 (2): 179–215.
[33]	Halliday, M. A. K. (1969/2003). A Brief Sketch of Systemic Grammar. In J. Webster (ed.). On Language and Linguistics: Volume 3 in the Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday. London: Continuum, 180-184.
[34]	Halliday, M. A. K. (1970). Language Structure and Language function. In J. Lyons (ed.). New Horizons in Linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 140-165.
[35]	Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold.
[36]	Halliday, M. A. K. (1977). Text as Semantic Choice in Social Contexts. In T. Van Dijik, and J. Petofi, (eds.), Grammars and Descriptions. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 176-255.
[37]	Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (1st edn.). London: Arnold.
[38]	Halliday, M. A. K. (1994/2000). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd edn.). London: Arnold.
[39]	Halliday, M. A. K. (2002). On Grammar. In J. Webster (ed.), Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, Volume 1. London: Continuum/Beijing: Peking University Press, 173-195.
[40]	Halliday, M. A. K. and C. M. I. M. Matthiessen (1999). Construing Experience Through Meaning: A Language-based Approach to Cognition. London: Continuum.
[41]	Halliday, M. A. K. and C. M. I. M. Matthiessen (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd edn.). London: Arnold.
[42]	Halliday, M. A. K. and C. M. I. M. Matthiessen (2014). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th edn.). London: Routledge.
[43]	Halliday, M. A. K. and E. McDonald (2004). Metafunctional Proﬁle of the Grammar of Chinese. In A. Caffarel, J. R. Martin and C. M. I. M. Matthiessen (eds.), Language Typology: A Functional Perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 305–396.
[44]	He, W. (2022). Categorization of Experience of the World and Construction of Transitivity System of Chinese. Word 68 (3): 317-347.
[45]	He, W., J. Zhang, J. Zhang and P. Jia (2015). Yingyu gongneng jufa fenxi [Functional Syntactic Analysis of English]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[46]	He, W., L. Wang, F. Geng and X. Guo (Forthcoming). Yinghan gongneng yufa duibi yanjiu [Contrastive Study of Functional Grammar of English and Chinese]. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.
[47]	He, W., R. Zhang, X. Dan, F. Zhang, and R. Wei (2017). Yingyu gongneng yuyi fenxi. [Functional Semantic Analysis of English]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[48]	Hemingway, E. (1995). The Old Man and the Sea. New York: Scribner.
[49]	Hnin Lai Yee (2020). Reflection on Myanmar Culture through Transitivity Analysis of the Character “Mai Sein” in the Short Story “The Shinlaung’s Father” by Khin Myo Chit. https://meral.edu.mm/records/6647 (accessed 31 March 2022).
[50]	Holme, R. (2003). Grammatical Metaphor as a Cognitive Construct. In A. Simon-Vandenbergen, M. Taverniers and L. J. Ravelli (eds.), Grammatical Metaphor: Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 391-415.
[51]	Hopper, P. J. and S. A. Thompson (1980). Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language Society of America 56 (2): 251-299.
[52]	Hopple, P. (2005). Topicalisation in Burmese Expository Discourse. In J. Watkins (ed). Studies in Burmese Linguistics. Australia: Pacific Linguistics, 163-184.
[53]	Htin Lin (1999). Paletaye:than [The Pearl]. Yangon: Pan Shwe Pyi Press.
[54]	Hu, Z., Y. Zhu, D. Zhang and Z. Li (2005). A Survey of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Beijing: Peking University Press.
[55]	Humboldt, W. V. (1988). On Language: The Diversity of Human Language Structure and its Influence on the Mental Development of Mankind (translated by P. Heath, with an introduction by H. Aarsleff). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[56]	Jenny, M. and San San Hnin Tun (2016). Burmese: A Comprehensive Grammar. London and New York: Routledge.
[57]	Jespersen, O. (1924). The Philosophy of Grammar. London: George Allen and Unwin.
[58]	Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
[59]	Journal Kyaw Ma Ma Lay (1957). Thuema [She]. Yangon: Shwe Lin Yone.
[60]	Kaffashi, M., H. Gowhary, A. Jamalinesari and A. Azizifar (2015). A Contrastive Study of Relational Attributive Clauses in Narrative Texts in English and Persian based on Halliday (2004). Social and Behavioral Sciences 192: 156-165.
[61]	Kalupahana, D. J. (1986). Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii.
[62]	Kouhestani, M. and A. Golfam (2016). Subject Salience in SOV and SVO Word Orders as a Result of Agent Animacy. XLinguae Journal 9 (2): 37-46.
[63]	Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor and Culture. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica 2 (2): 197-220.
[64]	Kress, G. R. (ed.) (1976). Halliday: System and Function in Language. London: Oxford University Press.
[65]	Kuo, M. and Lai, C. (2006). Linguistics across Cultures: The Impact of Culture on Second Language Learning. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED496079.pdf (accessed 19 May 2022).
[66]	Lae Twin Thar Saw Chit (2004). Kyanoramonnzonnkyanor [The person I hate most is me]. http://www.myanmarbookshop.com/MyanmarBooks/BookDetails/19951 (accessed 31 March 2022).
[67]	Lai Yee Win (2021). Construction of the Transitivity System of Myanmar. Journal of World Languages 7 (1): 156–198.
[68]	Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[69]	Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. (1980/2003). Metaphors We Live By (3rd edn.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[70]	Langacker, R. W. (1990). Settings, Participants, and Grammatical Relations. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), Meanings and Prototypes: Studies on Linguistic Categorization. London: Routledge, 213-238.
[71]	Langacker, R. W. (1991). Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[72]	Langacker, R. W. (1991/2004). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Volume II: Descriptive Application. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press/Beijing: Peking University Press.
[73]	Langacker, R. W. (2000). Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[74]	Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Linguistics: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[75]	Lavid, J. and J. Arus (2002). Nuclear Transitivity in English and Spanish: A Contrastive Functional Study. Languages in Contrast 4 (1): 75-103.
[76]	Lonsdale, A. W. (1899). Burmese Grammar and Grammatical Analysis. Rangoon: British Burma Press.
[77]	Martin, J. R. (2004). Metafunctional Profile of the Grammar of Tagalog. In A. Caffarel, J. R. Martin and C. M. I. M. Matthiessen (eds.), Language Typology: A Functional Perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 255–304.
[78]	Martin, J. R., C. M. I. M. Matthiessen and C. Painter (1997). Working with Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
[79]	Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1995). Lexicogrammatical Cartography: English systems. Tokyo: International Language Sciences Publishers.
[80]	Maung Htin Aung. (1962). Burmese Law Tales. London: Oxford University Press.
[81]	Min Thit and Thant Zin Win (2019). Bagandaytha yuenetsako gabaamwayahnitsayinn winkhwintyabarga nainngantgonmyintmarrlarpyee khayeethwarrlokengannle myinttetlarnainmyephyit [Experts rally for Bagan’s inclusion in World Heritage List]. Myanmaalinn [Myanma Alinn Daily]. https://www.burmalibrary.org/sites/burmalibrary.org/files/obl/mal_27.5.19.pdf (accessed 31 March 2022).
[82]	Mohammed. A. A. (2020). The Impact of Culture on English Language Learning. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature 7 (8): 21-27.
[83]	Mole, J. (2001). The Business Culture of Great Britain. International Area Review 4 (1): 15-28.
[84]	Myanmar Organization (2018). Myanmar Grammar. Yangon: Myanmar.
[85]	Myint Soe (1999). A Grammar of Burmese. PhD Dissertation. Oregon: University of Oregon.
[86]	Neale, A. C. (2002). More Delicate Transitivity: Extending the Process Type System Networks for English to Include Full Semantic Classifications. PhD Dissertation. Cardiff: Cardiff University.
[87]	Neale, A. C. (2006). Matching Corpus Data and System Networks. In G. Thompson and S. Hunston (eds.), System and Corpus: Exploring Connections. London: Equinox, 143–163.
[88]	Nisbett, R. E. and Miyamoto, Y. (2005). The Influence of Culture: Holistic Versus Analytic Perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9 (10): 467-473.
[89]	Phan, H. V. and T. T. T. Nguyen (2015). A Study of Typology of Behavioral Clauses in English and Vietnamese in the Light of Functional Grammar. International Journal of Language and Linguistics 3 (6): 347-352.
[90]	Prakasam, V. (2004). Metafunctional Proﬁle of the Grammar of Telugu. In A. Caffarel, J. R. Martin and C. M. I. M. Matthiessen (eds.), Language Typology: A Functional Perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 433–478.
[91]	Procter, P. (1978). Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (6th edn.). Harlow: Longman.
[92]	Rice, S. 1987. Toward a Cognitive Model of Transitivity. PhD. Dissertation. San Diego, CA: University of California at San Diego.
[93]	Rose, D. (2004). Metafunctional Proﬁle of the Grammar of Pitjantjatjara. In A. Caffarel, J. R. Martin and C. M. I. M. Matthiessen (eds.), Language Typology: A Functional Perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 479–536.
[94]	San San Hnin Tun (2006). Discourse Marking in Burmese and English: A Corpus-based Approach. PhD Dissertation. Nottingham: University of Nottingham.
[95]	Sapir, E. (1949). Culture, Language, and Personality, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
[96]	Sarangi, S. (2009). Culture. In G. Senft, J. Östman and J. Verschueren (eds.), Culture and Language Use. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 81–104.
[97]	Science Mg Wa. (1998). Mitharrsuletywaye:sinwithtutomyarr [Family selected novellas]. Yangon: Than Lwin Oo Press.
[98]	Sharifian, F. (ed.) (2015). The Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture. London and New York: Routledge.
[99]	Soe Soe Naing (2019). Pyethuepyetharrmyarri ayayachinnthe adika [The qualification of the People is main]. Myanmaalinn [Myanma Alinn Daily]. https://www.burmalibrary.org/sites/burmalibrary.org/files/obl/mal_14.3.19.pdf. (accessed 31 March 2022).
[100]	Steinbeck, J. (1945). The Pearl. New York: The Viking Press.
[101]	Steiner, E. and E. Teich (2004). Metafunctional Proﬁle of the Grammar of German. In A. Caffarel, J. R. Martin and C. M. I. M. Matthiessen (eds.), Language Typology: A Functional Perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 139–184.
[102]	Stockwell, R. and D. Minkova (2001). English Words: History and Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[103]	Sun, Y. and Y. Zhao (2012). A Comparison of Transitivity System in English and Chinese. Cross-Cultural Communication 8 (4): 75-80.
[104]	Tai, J. H. Y. (1989). Toward a Cognition-based Functional Grammar of Chinese. In J. H. Y. Tai and F. F. S. Hsueh (eds.), Functionalism and Chinese Grammar. South Orange, NJ: Chinese Language Teachers Association, 187-226.
[105]	Talmy, L. (1975). Figure and Ground in Complex Sentences. In C. C. H. Thompson and G. Thurgood (eds.), Proceedings of the First Annual Meetings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. California: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 419-430.
[106]	Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics Volume I: Concept Structuring Systems. MA Thesis. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
[107]	Teruya, K. (2004). Metafunctional Proﬁle of the Grammar of Japanese. In A. Caffarel, J. R. Martin and C. M. I. M. Matthiessen (eds.), Language Typology: A Functional Perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 185–254.
[108]	Teruya, K. (2007). A Systemic Functional Grammar of Japanese Volume 1 and 2. London: Continuum.
[109]	Thadinnsin. (2019a). Nainngandori atainbinkhanpokego doraunsannsukye hnit (khunhnase) pyayt paotamyoetharrnayt (akyo)akhannanarrthot tetyaukmeintkhunnpyawkyarr [State Counsellor attends event to mark Pa-O National Day in Nay Pyi Taw]. Myanmaalinn [Myanma Alinn Daily]. https://www.burmalibrary.org/sites/burmalibrary.org/files/obl/mal_14.3.19.pdf. (accessed 31 March 2022).
[110]	Thadinnsin. (2019b). Nainngandoriatainbinkhanpokego doraunsannsukye minnbue: nayyauncheswanninthonn datarrpaye:setyonsemangeinnphwintpwe akhannanarr tetyauk [State Counsellor launches first phase of solar power project in Minbu]. Myanmaalinn [Myanma Alinn Daily]. https://www.burmalibrary.org/sites/burmalibrary.org/files/obl/mal_28.6.19.pdf. (accessed 31 March 2022).
[111]	Thadinnsin. (2021). Khayeethwarrlokengann pyanlephwintphyoetoetetlarbarga pyethuemyarri luehmuseebwarrbawa phwintphyoetoetetlarnain [If tourism develops again, the socio-economic life of the People can develop]. Myanmaalinn [Myanma Alinn Daily]. https://www.burmalibrary.org/sites/burmalibrary.org/files/obl/mal_15.5.21.pdf. (accessed 31 March 2022)..
[112]	Thadinnsin. (2022). Khunhnasetlaye:hnitmyaunt lutlatyaye:naytahteinnahmat arrgazarrpyainbwemyarr setletkyinnpa: [Sports activities to commemorate 74th Anniversary of Independence Day continue]. Myanma Alinn Daily. https://www.burmalibrary.org/sites/burmalibrary.org/files/obl/mal_4.1.22.pdf. (accessed 31 March 2022)..
[113]	Thai, M. D. (2004). Metafunctional Proﬁle of the Grammar of Vietnamese. In A. Caffarel, J. R. Martin and C. M. I. M. Matthiessen (eds.), Language Typology: A Functional Perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 397–432.
[114]	Thet Ni. (2019). Cultural Awareness through Animal Proverbs in English and Myanmar. World Journal of Research and Review 9 (2): 10-12.
[115]	Thompson, G. (2004/2008). Introducing Functional Grammar (2nd edn.). London: Hodder Arnold/Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[116]	TÚ, N. P. C. (2011). An Investigation into Linguistic Features of Participants in the Processes in English and Vietnamese from the Functional Grammar Aspect. MA Thesis. Da Nang: The University of Danang.
[117]	Ungerer, F. and H. J. Schmid. (1996). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Longman.
[118]	Ungerer, F. and H. J. Schmid. (2006). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics (2nd edn.). London: Longman.
[119]	Vittrant, A. and J. Watkins (ed.) (2019). The Mainland Southeast Asia Linguistic Area. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
[120]	Wang, L. (2021). A Comparative Study of Transitivity Systems and their Realizations Across Languages: With Special Reference to Chinese, Hindi, Arabic and Greek. PhD Dissertation. Beijing: Beijing Foreign Studies University.
[121]	Wei, R. (2019). A Systemic Functional Framework of International Ecological Discourse Analysis. PhD Dissertation. Beijing: University of Science and Technology Beijing.
[122]	Whorf, B. L. (1941). Language and Logic. In J. B. Carroll (ed.) (1956). Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
[123]	Wierzbicka, A. (1979) Ethnosyntax and the Philosophy of Grammar. Studies in Language 3 (3): 313–83.
[124]	Wierzbicka, A. (1997). Understanding Cultures Through their Key Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[125]	Zhang, L. (2014). Influence of Christianity on English. https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/14629.pdf (accessed 14 May 2022).

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Lai Yee Win. (2023). The Common Features of Transitivity Systems in English and Myanmar. Communication and Linguistics Studies, 9(3), 54-75. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20230903.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Lai Yee Win. The Common Features of Transitivity Systems in English and Myanmar. Commun. Linguist. Stud. 2023, 9(3), 54-75. doi: 10.11648/j.cls.20230903.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Lai Yee Win. The Common Features of Transitivity Systems in English and Myanmar. Commun Linguist Stud. 2023;9(3):54-75. doi: 10.11648/j.cls.20230903.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.cls.20230903.12,
  author = {Lai Yee Win},
  title = {The Common Features of Transitivity Systems in English and Myanmar},
  journal = {Communication and Linguistics Studies},
  volume = {9},
  number = {3},
  pages = {54-75},
  doi = {10.11648/j.cls.20230903.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20230903.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.cls.20230903.12},
  abstract = {In transitivity studies, the current existing problem of adopting different upward approaches to the description of the experiential metafunction has resulted in the abortive discourse analysis of texts. This study, therefore, attempts to observe the common features of English and Myanmar transitivity systems from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). It is found that: English and Myanmar transitivity systems share five common features: richness, hierarchicalness, flexibleness, metaphoricalness, and abstractness. With respect to the feature of richness, the two transitivity systems can construe the experience of the physical, social, mental and abstract world by a variety of different process types and participant roles. In terms of the feature of hierarchicalness, all the different processes of the two languages are categorized into superordinate, basic and subordinate level processes. With respect to the feature of flexibleness, in English and Myanmar transitivity configurations, process types can change from one type to another depending on context, background knowledge, life experience, etc. even though they construe the same domain of world experience. With respect to the feature of metaphoricalness, when the congruent form is reworded into metaphorical form, the process, participant roles and circumstances may change in English and Myanmar transitivity configurations. Regarding the feature of abstractness, each level of process differs from one another in terms of the degree of abstractness, that is, English and Myanmar transitivity systems are relatively similar in the identification of superordinate and basic level processes, whereas their transitivity configurations which are subordinate to basic level processes vary greatly between the two languages. This study helps to deepen the understanding of the nature of the two languages. It also makes an important contribution to the further study of comparing the transitivity configurations of transitivity systems in English and Myanmar and their realizations.},
 year = {2023}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - The Common Features of Transitivity Systems in English and Myanmar
AU  - Lai Yee Win
Y1  - 2023/08/31
PY  - 2023
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20230903.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.cls.20230903.12
T2  - Communication and Linguistics Studies
JF  - Communication and Linguistics Studies
JO  - Communication and Linguistics Studies
SP  - 54
EP  - 75
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2380-2529
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20230903.12
AB  - In transitivity studies, the current existing problem of adopting different upward approaches to the description of the experiential metafunction has resulted in the abortive discourse analysis of texts. This study, therefore, attempts to observe the common features of English and Myanmar transitivity systems from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). It is found that: English and Myanmar transitivity systems share five common features: richness, hierarchicalness, flexibleness, metaphoricalness, and abstractness. With respect to the feature of richness, the two transitivity systems can construe the experience of the physical, social, mental and abstract world by a variety of different process types and participant roles. In terms of the feature of hierarchicalness, all the different processes of the two languages are categorized into superordinate, basic and subordinate level processes. With respect to the feature of flexibleness, in English and Myanmar transitivity configurations, process types can change from one type to another depending on context, background knowledge, life experience, etc. even though they construe the same domain of world experience. With respect to the feature of metaphoricalness, when the congruent form is reworded into metaphorical form, the process, participant roles and circumstances may change in English and Myanmar transitivity configurations. Regarding the feature of abstractness, each level of process differs from one another in terms of the degree of abstractness, that is, English and Myanmar transitivity systems are relatively similar in the identification of superordinate and basic level processes, whereas their transitivity configurations which are subordinate to basic level processes vary greatly between the two languages. This study helps to deepen the understanding of the nature of the two languages. It also makes an important contribution to the further study of comparing the transitivity configurations of transitivity systems in English and Myanmar and their realizations.
VL  - 9
IS  - 3
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Lai Yee Win

English for Academic Purposes Program, British University College, Yangon, Myanmar

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Lai Yee Win. (2023). The Common Features of Transitivity Systems in English and Myanmar. Communication and Linguistics Studies, 9(3), 54-75. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20230903.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Lai Yee Win. The Common Features of Transitivity Systems in English and Myanmar. Commun. Linguist. Stud. 2023, 9(3), 54-75. doi: 10.11648/j.cls.20230903.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Lai Yee Win. The Common Features of Transitivity Systems in English and Myanmar. Commun Linguist Stud. 2023;9(3):54-75. doi: 10.11648/j.cls.20230903.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.cls.20230903.12,
  author = {Lai Yee Win},
  title = {The Common Features of Transitivity Systems in English and Myanmar},
  journal = {Communication and Linguistics Studies},
  volume = {9},
  number = {3},
  pages = {54-75},
  doi = {10.11648/j.cls.20230903.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20230903.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.cls.20230903.12},
  abstract = {In transitivity studies, the current existing problem of adopting different upward approaches to the description of the experiential metafunction has resulted in the abortive discourse analysis of texts. This study, therefore, attempts to observe the common features of English and Myanmar transitivity systems from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). It is found that: English and Myanmar transitivity systems share five common features: richness, hierarchicalness, flexibleness, metaphoricalness, and abstractness. With respect to the feature of richness, the two transitivity systems can construe the experience of the physical, social, mental and abstract world by a variety of different process types and participant roles. In terms of the feature of hierarchicalness, all the different processes of the two languages are categorized into superordinate, basic and subordinate level processes. With respect to the feature of flexibleness, in English and Myanmar transitivity configurations, process types can change from one type to another depending on context, background knowledge, life experience, etc. even though they construe the same domain of world experience. With respect to the feature of metaphoricalness, when the congruent form is reworded into metaphorical form, the process, participant roles and circumstances may change in English and Myanmar transitivity configurations. Regarding the feature of abstractness, each level of process differs from one another in terms of the degree of abstractness, that is, English and Myanmar transitivity systems are relatively similar in the identification of superordinate and basic level processes, whereas their transitivity configurations which are subordinate to basic level processes vary greatly between the two languages. This study helps to deepen the understanding of the nature of the two languages. It also makes an important contribution to the further study of comparing the transitivity configurations of transitivity systems in English and Myanmar and their realizations.},
 year = {2023}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - The Common Features of Transitivity Systems in English and Myanmar
AU  - Lai Yee Win
Y1  - 2023/08/31
PY  - 2023
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20230903.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.cls.20230903.12
T2  - Communication and Linguistics Studies
JF  - Communication and Linguistics Studies
JO  - Communication and Linguistics Studies
SP  - 54
EP  - 75
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2380-2529
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20230903.12
AB  - In transitivity studies, the current existing problem of adopting different upward approaches to the description of the experiential metafunction has resulted in the abortive discourse analysis of texts. This study, therefore, attempts to observe the common features of English and Myanmar transitivity systems from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). It is found that: English and Myanmar transitivity systems share five common features: richness, hierarchicalness, flexibleness, metaphoricalness, and abstractness. With respect to the feature of richness, the two transitivity systems can construe the experience of the physical, social, mental and abstract world by a variety of different process types and participant roles. In terms of the feature of hierarchicalness, all the different processes of the two languages are categorized into superordinate, basic and subordinate level processes. With respect to the feature of flexibleness, in English and Myanmar transitivity configurations, process types can change from one type to another depending on context, background knowledge, life experience, etc. even though they construe the same domain of world experience. With respect to the feature of metaphoricalness, when the congruent form is reworded into metaphorical form, the process, participant roles and circumstances may change in English and Myanmar transitivity configurations. Regarding the feature of abstractness, each level of process differs from one another in terms of the degree of abstractness, that is, English and Myanmar transitivity systems are relatively similar in the identification of superordinate and basic level processes, whereas their transitivity configurations which are subordinate to basic level processes vary greatly between the two languages. This study helps to deepen the understanding of the nature of the two languages. It also makes an important contribution to the further study of comparing the transitivity configurations of transitivity systems in English and Myanmar and their realizations.
VL  - 9
IS  - 3
ER  -

Copy | Download