A contrastive study of the English and Myanmar configurations of process, participants, and circumstances from the systemic functional perspective

Authors

  • Lai Yee Win British University College

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12928/notion.v6i1.9121

Keywords:

Systemic Functional Linguistics, Contrastive study, Transitivity configurations, English, Myanmar

Abstract

This study seeks to explore the similarities and distinctions inherent in the transitivity configurations of English and Myanmar from the Systemic Functional perspective. The investigation reveals that both languages share a commonality in comprising three fundamental elements: process, participant roles, and circumstantial elements. However, their degree of integration between processes and participants is comparatively limited. Salient distinguishing features emerge in terms of the sequencing of transitivity elements, their ellipsis, and salience. In English transitivity configurations, processes typically manifest after the first or second participant role, or both. In instances involving an empty Subject (It/There), the process immediately ensues. Additionally, the positional relations between processes and participant roles are more numerous. Circumstantial elements conventionally find placement at the clause's outset, between the first participant role and process, between the process and second participant role, or at the clause's conclusion. Ellipsis of participant roles may occur sporadically. Conversely, Myanmar transitivity configurations exhibit participant roles at the clause's beginning, with processes commonly positioned at the clause's culmination. The positional relations between processes and participant roles are less frequent. Circumstantial elements are conventionally situated at the clause's outset, between participant roles, or preceding the process. While ellipsis of processes is infrequent, ellipsis of participant roles transpires more frequently. These findings significantly contribute to the ongoing comparative analysis of transitivity configurations across languages, especially in the context of Myanmar and other global languages.

References

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).

Bhita, S. (2018). A Comparative Study of Verbs in English and Burmese Languages. MA Thesis. Bangkok: Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Fawcett, R. P. (forthcoming). The Functional Semantics Handbook: Analyzing English at the Level of Meaning. London: Equinox.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (1st edn.). London: Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994/2000). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd edn.). London: Arnold.

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.

He, W. (2022). Categorization of Experience of the World and Construction of Transitivity System of Chinese. Word 68(3): 317-347.

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.

Htin Lin (1999). Paletaye:than [The Pearl]. Yangon: Pan Shwe Pyi Press.

Journal Kyaw Ma Ma Lay (1957). Thuema [She]. Yangon: Shwe Lin Yone.

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).

Lai Yee Win (2021). Construction of the Transitivity System of Myanmar. Journal of World Languages 7(1): 156–198.

Lavid, J. and J. Arus (2002). Nuclear Transitivity in English and Spanish: A Contrastive Functional Study. Languages in Contrast 4(1): 75-103.

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.

Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1995). Lexicogrammatical Cartography: English systems. Tokyo: International Language Sciences Publishers.

Maung Htin Aung. (1962). Burmese Law Tales. London: Oxford University Press.

Myanmar Organization (2018). Myanmar Grammar. Yangon: Myanmar.

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.

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.

San San Hnin Tun (2006). Discourse Marking in Burmese and English: A Corpus-based Approach. PhD Dissertation. Nottingham: University of Nottingham.

Science Mg Wa. (1998). Mitharrsuletywaye:sinwithtutomyarr [Family selected novellas]. Yangon: Than Lwin Oo Press.

Steinbeck, J. (1945). The Pearl. New York: The Viking Press.

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.

Sun, Y. and Y. Zhao (2012). A Comparison of Transitivity System in English and Chinese. Cross-Cultural Communication 8(4): 75-80.

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.

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.

Thompson, G. (2004/2008). Introducing Functional Grammar (2nd edn.). London: Hodder Arnold/Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

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.

Downloads

Published

2024-05-18