The preliminary title of the proposed research project is “A contrastive study of transitivity and intransitivity in formal and colloquial Arabic and English”. The final title of the research project is not carved in stone and will likely be subject to change, if some nuanced corrections are suggested.
Background
In the languages that are widely spoken in the world today, all verbs can be categorized as transitive, intransitive or ambitransitive. Historically, linguists have understood transitivity as a “transfer of energy from one entity to another” (Hoche, 2009, p. 148). It appears from this definition that transitive verbs presume the transfer of energy from an agent to a patient, while intransitive verbs do not usually involve any transfer of energy. Ambitransitive verbs, respectively, can involve or not involve the transfer of energy from an agent to a patient, depending on its functions in each particular sentence. It is important that verbs in Arabic and English languages express either transitivity or intransitivity, depending on the context of the speech or a written piece. To better understand the notion of transitivity, it would be useful to look at Payne’s (1997) explanation:
A transitive verb is one that describes a relation between two participants such that one of the two participants acts toward or upon the other. An intransitive verb is one that describes a property, state, or situation involving only one participant (p. 171).
Simply put, intransitivity means that the doer of the action does not need anything to complete the action. Transitivity implies that the doer of the action needs one or more patients or subjects to complete a meaningful action. The tendency to regard verb transitivity as a transfer of energy lost its appeal sometime in the past, with linguists extending the concept to include any construction with an agent, a patient and an argument linking them. For linguists, the properties of verb transition can vary depending on the number of arguments, the form of the arguments and other related aspects. For functional-typological linguists, constructions can be highly transitive and less transitive, with Hopper and Thompson (1980) developing a 10-item scale to gauge transitivity intensity of a particular text. Payne (1997) adds, in an important aside, that a careful researcher would distinguish grammatical transitivity from semantic transitivity. The proposed research project will also do this.
The importance of transitivity cannot be overestimated. Hopper and Thompson (1980), for example, argue that transitivity is a “crucial relationship in language, having a number of universally predictable consequences in grammar” (p. 251). It is not surprising then that verb transitivity is well researched. Among the most recent treatises on transitivity are Naess’ (2007) Prototypical Transitivity, Perez’s (2007) Transitivity in Translating: The Interdependence of Texture and Context, Lavidas’ (2009) Transitivity Alterations in Diachrony: Changes in Argument Structure and Voice Morphology, and Brandt and Garcia’s (2010) Transitivity: Form, Meaning, Acquisition, and Processing. These and many other less extensive works explore different facets of verbs transitivity – including grammatical relations, case, etc. – from the perspectives of systemic-functional grammar, cognitive grammar, theoretic and typological syntax-semantics research as well as myriad other frameworks, paradigms and approaches. These researchers focus mostly on transitivity in the English language, but also explain that transitivity in English shares some features with transitivity in other languages (Perez, 2007).
A common thread from the consulted research suggests that transitivity has a variety of qualities in the English language. For example, intransitive verbs cannot be used in passive voice in the English language. Likewise, intransitive verbs in English are often followed by prepositional phrases to add meaning to the sentence, but this does not make them transitive. Additionally, ambitransitive verbs can be transitive or intransitive with the same meaning, like in this example: “The window opened” (intransitive) and “I opened the window” (transitive). Yet other ambitransitive verbs can be transitive or intransitive with a completely different meaning, as evinced from these examples: “Terry is sitting at a table” (intransitive) and “Terry is sitting an examination”; “Terry spotted a bear” (transitive) and “Terry spotted for me in the gym” (intransitive). Likewise, it is known that transitivity has a variety of qualities and serves a variety of purposes in the Arabic language as well. On the face of things, transitivity in Arabic is designed to perform roughly the same functions as it does in English. Just as in English, verbs can be transitive, intransitive and ambitransitive in Arabic. Likewise, just as in English, Arabic transitive and intransitive verbs can be followed by prepositions.
Based on the preliminary findings, it seems safe to assume that transitivity has the same fundamental underpinnings in both Arabic and English. However, a more scrupulous analysis shows that transitivity has also different features in English and Arabic. For example, whereas changing intransitive to transitive is rare in English, it is very common in Arabic. It is known at this stage of research that intransitive verbs cannot be used in English passive voice, while the same is not necessarily true of the Arabic language. Likewise, it is known that all Arabic phrasal verbs are transitive, whereas phrasal verbs in English can be both transitive and intransitive. Danks (2011) maintains that Arabic is typologically a “nominative-accusative alignment language, in which both the single argument of an intransitive verb and the agent of a transitive verb are in the nominative case, while the patient of a transitive verb is distinguished by the accusative case” (p. 103). Yet, the differences in verb transitivity between the two languages are not explained sufficiently in the existing research.
Judging by the highest standards, there is a paucity of contrastive research between transitivity in English and Arabic. Comparative studies of English and Arabic gained traction in the linguistic quarters sometime in the mid-20th century, shortly after the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis was developed. Since the late 1950s, there has been a cascade of studies aiming to compare and contrast the two languages. For example, Khalil (1989) compares the use of the passive voice in Arabic and English. Hamdallah (1998) and Homeidi (2000) offer their contrastive analyses of relative clause in English and Arabic. Sultan (2000), for his part, compares the two languages in terms of metadiscourse. Salim (2013) has compared the two languages in terms of noun morphology. Overall, Mukattash (2001) has counted over 70 comparative studies in his systemic review of literature on the subject. Since that time, a number of other contrastive studies has been produced and published. Yet, most of these are repetitive in major grammatical categories. The researchers have focused primarily on articles in Arabic and English, passive voice in Arabic and English, negative in Arabic and English. Even though has been significant interest to verbs, it has been limited largely to student theses and dissertations, which touch on verb transitivity only indirectly. The comparative studies of transitivity in Arabic and English languages are rare. The only investigation that could be located in the Internet is Al-Shujairi’s (2015) 15-page comparative study. This investigation, however, offers only a superficial overview of transitivity in Arabic and English. Hence, the need for a comprehensive study that would analyse different aspects of the use of transitivity and intransitivity in Arabic and English is critical. Using the studies and treatises identified earlier in the text as well as referencing other relevant sources, the proposed research project will fill the lacunae in the existing research.
Research Questions
Given the problem as it is described in the previous sections, the overarching purpose of the proposed research project is straightforward: to compare and contrast the features of transitivity and intransitivity in formal and colloquial Arabic and English. Hence, the overriding research question will be: how do differences in Arabic and English transitivity manifest themselves in the two languages, with separate emphasis on formal and colloquial language? Guided by this overarching research question, the author of the proposed research project will seek to answer the following sub-questions:
What are the similarities in the use of transitivity and intransitivity in Arabic and English?
What are the differences in the use of transitivity and intransitivity in Arabic and English?
How do the two languages differ in terms of ambitransitivity?
How does the style of language impact transitivity in both English and Arabic?
How does the use of transitivity differ in formal and colloquial contexts in both languages?
What practical implications the differences in the use of transitivity can have?
The identified research sub-questions are original in that they have not been answered adequately before. They are designed in such a way as to close the current gap in knowledge. Based on the identified sub-questions, it is possible to advance several hypotheses. Thus, it is conjectured that:
Both Arabic and English use transitive verbs more often than they use intransitive verbs;
Ambitransitivity is more prevalent in Arabic;
Arabic, overall, is more highly transitive than English;
Transitivity is more typical of colloquial language in both Arabic and English.
Answering the identified research questions and testing the advanced hypotheses will demand rigorous data collection and data analysis procedures. Yet, the task would also be impossible without a sound underlying theoretical framework. Thus, in addition to the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, the proposed research project could employ several auxiliary theoretical frameworks. For example, Chomsky’s theory of universal grammar could be instrumental in analysing the features of transitivity shared by Arabic and English (Cook & Newson, 2007). Additionally, it would be useful to apply Hopper and Thompson’s theoretical approach to transitivity, which postulates that transitivity is not an “absolute, all-or-nothing phenomenon”, but rather a “graduation of more or less” that can come in different degrees (Hoche, 2009, p. 148). Combining the most pertinent aspects of these theories could yield positive results, thereby strengthening the design of the proposed research project.
Data and Data Analysis
Based on the assumption that transitivity is common both in Arabic and English, the proposed research project will proceed with data collection and analysis. The background information will be collected through the perusal of relevant secondary literature. Yet, because secondary literature pertaining to the identified research questions is insufficient, the bulk of data will need to be collected through primary research. The process of primary data collection will consist of two parts: analysing scholarly texts and analysing colloquial speech. For the first part of the data collection process, the researcher will select five recent English and five Arabic books written by native speakers in five different areas of study: astronomy, biology, medicine, political science and physics. Books meeting the criteria will be then scrutinized and the located verbs will be analysed in terms of transitivity. It is expected that the findings will be substantial enough to make generalizations about the use of transitivity in formal language both in English and Arabic.
For the second part of the data collection process, the researcher will consistently record conversations among native speakers of English and Arabic in such situations as classroom discussions, meetings of friends, family powwows, etc. To analyse the transcribed recordings, the coding scheme of transitivity parameters advanced by Hopper and Thompson in their pioneering 1980 study will be used. The researcher will then use special-purpose software, such as SPSS, to analyse and tabulate the intensity of transitivity parameters in both languages and the frequency of one-participant and two-participant clauses. This will ensure, among other things, the comparability of the research findings for each language. Additionally, to ascertain whether the results are statistically significant, the researcher will employ the Chi Square Goodness-of-Fit statistical procedure.
On the basis of these separate comparisons, it will be possible to make inferences about the prevalence and role of transitivity in Arabic and English formal and colloquial language. Undoubtedly, there will be no problem with collecting as much data as will be necessary for the purposes of the proposed research project. Yet, the data collection and, especially, analysis process will be long and laborious.
As to the ethical concerns, the researcher will take precautions to avoid violation of the study participants’ ethical rights. Their anonymity, confidentiality and other ethical rights will be maintained. Yet, it is expected that ethical concerns might still arise in the process of collecting data for the colloquial part of research. Indeed, to ensure rigorous results, the researcher will not tell the subjects that they are being recorded. To overcome these concerns, the author of the proposed research project will obtain the consent of the subjects after the recording process. Conversations with those individuals who will refuse to participate in the study will be immediately deleted. Other than that, however, no ethical concerns are expected to arise.
Compatibility with Departmental Research Interests
The Department of Language and Linguistics at Essex University is concerned, among other things, with on-going research into the nature of grammatical theory, including the components of morphology, syntax and semantics. The proposed research project can contribute to the efforts of the department, as it is related to all three aforementioned components. Although verb transitivity is primarily a matter of morphology, it is also closely intertwined with syntax and semantics.
In conducting the proposed research project, I would be blessed by the supervision of John Smith. I believe that the research project I have proposed meets the interests of Mr Smith just fine. Verb transitivity relates to syntax and semantics in ways that do not need to be explained. Also, I believe that the experience Mr Smith has gained over his years of work in various theoretical frameworks on different languages could help him navigate me through this compelling research project.
References
Al-Shujairi, Y. (2015). Transitivity and intransitivity in English and Arabic: A comparative
study. International Journal of Linguistics, 7(6), 38-52.
Brandt, P., & Garcia, M. (2010). Transitivity: Form, meaning, acquisition, and processing.
Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.
Cook, V., & Newson, M. (2007). Chomsky’s universal grammar: An introduction. Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Danks, W. (2011). The Arabic verb: Form and meaning in the towel-lengthening patterns.
Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.
Hoche, S. (2009). Cognate object constructions in English: A cognitive-linguistic analysis.
Tubingen, Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Hamdallah, R. (1998). A contrastive analysis of English and Arabic in relativization. PSiCL,
34, 141-152.
Homeidi, M. (2000). A syntactic contrastive analysis of the relative clause in Arabic and
English in the GB with reference to translation. PSiCL, 36, 95-110.
Hopper, P., & Thompson, S. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2),
251-299.
Khalil, A. (1989). The passive voice in English and classical Arabic: Formation, type and
function. Bethlehem University Press, 7, 7-38.
Kharma, N. (1983). A contrastive analysis of the use of verb forms in English and Arabic.
Heidelberg, Germany: Julius Groos Verlag.
Lavidas, N. (2009). Transitivity alternations in diachrony: Changes in argument structure
and voice morphology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Mukattash, L. (2001). Some remarks on Arabic-English contrastive studies. PSiCL, 37, 115
126.
Naess, A. (2007). Prototypical transitivity. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins
Publishing.
Payne, T. (1997). Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Perez, m. (2007). Transitivity in translating: The interdependence of texture and context.
Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Salim, J. (2013). A contrastive study of English-Arabic noun morphology. International
Sultan, H. (2000). A contrastive study of metadiscourse in English and Arabic linguistics
research articles. Acta Linguistica, 1, 28-41.
