Download 2. Language as `an integral part of human cognition`

TRANSITIVE AND INTRANSITIVE CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE
ENGLISH PRESENT PROGRESSIVE
MIROSLAVA TSVETKOVA
KONSTANTİN PRESLAVSKY UNİVERSİTY, SHUMEN, BULGARİA
[email protected]
Abstract: The paper is a continuation of the author’s cognitive model of the English present progressive
construction. What is expected is making children use grammar cognitively to address their purposes.
The part-part relation of the model expresses the understanding that the construction as a unity of
form and meaning is specific in each part. There’s something that cannot be understood in the symbolic
expression of the structures SV, SVO, SVOO and so on, in which V is the common element. Thus the
transitive and intransitive constructions of the English present progressive are discussed separately from
each other as the surface syntactic structure is determinant. The paper aims at presenting transitive
constructions containing a single verb with its subject and object arguments only, although of course
‘transitive’ can also refer to multi-verb utterances or those with passive argument structure but they are
not the object of this study.
The paper focuses on the constructions from a syntactic perspective. In constructions that share
the same syntactic attribute (pattern), that of SVO, the subject is followed by a verb, which is in turn
followed by an object. Even if sentences differ in the semantic attribute of the object (a patient, a result of
the action or an existing entity), the cognitive model can also be applied.
Keywords: young learners, grammar, the English present progressive, transitive and intransitive
constructions.
1. INTRODUCTION
The paper is a continuation of the cognitive model of the English present progressive
construction (Tsvetkova 2010). It focuses on the inductive approach of teaching grammar to young
learners i.e. it is more learner centred and the rule is inferred through some form of guided discovery.
The non-linguistic knowledge is the ‘skeleton’ of the model and it is the only significant predictor of
the construction. I have provided some background information so that the learning could be situated
within a contextual framework and the ideas could be easily adapted to suit the needs of the learners.
What is expected is making children use grammar cognitively to address their purposes.
2. LANGUAGE AS ‘AN INTEGRAL PART OF HUMAN COGNITION’
The word grammar is the term that evokes rather negative images such as rules. In its broadest
sense grammar includes different levels of language structure (phonology, morphology, syntax and
semantics) and is viewed as dependent upon the meanings a structure is carrying, not just the rules.
And in this sense grammar is considered to be an integral part of language and its mechanisms.
Teaching grammar includes not only learning the rules, but learning how to manipulate the features
used by English speakers, to express certain meanings and relationships. If we want to communicate,
we have to be able to produce the language in a way it can be understood.
Learning a second language is viewed as a complex process of implicit, mainly unconscious
acquisition by the exposure to the target language, and explicit, conscious learning in formal
conditions. While learning by the exposure to the language the attention is drawn primarily to the
practical use of the acquired structures and not to the study of the language as a system. Experience
has shown that there is a negative correlation between the acquired knowledge and the strategies of
formal learning, because the structures learnt by heart, to be evaluated, just to satisfy the teacher’s
demands and expectations, are easily forgotten.
The theoretical assumptions and conceptual tools are grounded on the framework of
Cognitive Grammar (Langacker 1987, 1991) as well as Construction Grammar (Goldberg
1995).
As Astrid De Wit and Frank Brisard (2014) point out, in Cognitive Grammar, all linguistic
structures, patterns and restrictions are considered meaningful. In fact, Cognitive Grammar posits only
three basic kinds of structure: phonological and semantic structures, and symbolic links between them
(Langacker 1987: 328-368). This symbolic characterization holds for all linguistic structures, whether
they are lexical or grammatical (Langacker 1987: 76-96). Even the most general syntactic
constructions have corresponding general rules of semantic interpretation (they are symbolic units).
Accordingly, a grammatical construction such as the English present progressive can be fully
characterized in terms of a particular semantic structure that is conventionally associated with a
specific morphological structure (be + -ing).
According to Langacker (1987: 12), language forms “an integral part of human cognition”,
which entails that there is no principled, rigid distinction between general cognitive processes and
linguistic ability.
The model concerns lexical, morphological and syntactic mechanisms as identical while
all symbols and categories of symbols are defined from the point of view of their
communicative functions. It postulates the sequence of linguistic symbols with common
cognitive processes and categories instead of specific entities and operations and grammar is
derives from them.
The part-part relation of the model shares the understanding that the construction as a unity of
form and meaning is specific in each part. There is something that cannot be understood in the
symbolic expression of the structures SV, SVO, SVOO and so on, in which V is the common element.
Thus the intransitive and transitive constructions are discussed separately from each other as the
surface syntactic structure is determinant.
A considerable number of aspectual and temporal usage types have been associated with the
English progressive. An idea that goes back to at least Jespersen (1931) is that the progressive creates
a temporal frame encompassing a given reference point (Leech 2004: 21-23).
Unlike adults, children are not self-motivated to learn English, their world is their daily games
and teachers should capitalize their curiosity, the desire to play and explore. Teaching must be planned
in such a way that learning becomes an interesting, at times even entertaining process. Developing
such interest will lead children to a spontaneous use of language forms. The teacher’s participation in
games and activities helps children to overcome any inhibitions they may have.
Constructions are limited with respect to the types of verbs with which it can occur. Teaching the
construction of present progressive in English, verbs are introduced in the following sequence (Hello
3rd grade):
1. intransitive verbs (swim, sit, run, sleep, snow, ski, come);
2. transitive verbs without an object (eat (an apple), play (basketball), read (a book), and
3. transitive verbs with an object (wear ski boots, throw snowballs).
Some special questions (What is she reading?) can also direct the attention to the use of
transitive verbs.
The intransitive construction expresses the close relation between the Subject and the Verb.
Instead of S-V different symbolic representation is used to express this dependency: respectively Sbj
or IntrSbj and the very construction The cat is jumping is marked IntrSbj–IntrV. The juxtaposition
between the construction of present simple and the one of present progressive The cat jumps - The cat
is jumping is introduced later together with the construction of present simple. Both of them describe
one and the same situation but with a different aspectual meaning. The present progressive
construction precedes it cognitively. It is grounded on its temporal and spatial features connected with
‘now’ and ‘here’.
Starting with the present progressive construction used with intransitive verbs – the cat is
walking on a hard surface leaving no traces behind the way the intransitive verbs have no objects.
Grammatical features are practised, but without any linguistic explanation.
She is singing.
Fig. 1. A model of the English present progressive construction with intransitive verbs.
Transitive verbs are verbs that take an object, thus passing the action onto someone or
something and only those sentences with transitive verbs can be transformed into a passive
construction:
John is writing a letter > The letter is being written by John.
But transitive verbs can be used without an object as well:
Can the boy write?
In other cases they can take two objects, a direct and an indirect object or two direct objects:
Bob is giving John a pen.
I.O. D.O.
Bob struck John a heavy blow.
D.O.
D.O.
Intransitive verbs cannot take objects so the action cannot pass from the subject:
The train has arrived.
There are verbs in English that can be both transitive and intransitive in one and the same case.
This is a language phenomenon which is typical for Bulgarian too, Трамваят спира and Ватманът
спира трамвая.
Though theoretically the difference between these two types of vebs is clear enough, their use is
not always easy to differentiate. In some languages verbs that take prepositional or dative objects are
intransitive. In English, however, there are two reasons that is not true. The preposition in English is
added to the verb, not to the object, and is not separated from it.
The picture I am looking at./ Something to look at.
Another reason is that the prepositional object can become a subject in a passive construction so
that the direction of the action can change.
He is pointed at by everyone.
So verbs like to point at, to look at etc. take a direct object and they are transitive.
Some types of object omission does not make the type of the verb clear enough either. One of
them is the anaphora.
When the verb is combined with an auxiliary or modal verb, the auxiliary/modal can also
substitute both the main verb and the object.
Are you writing a letter? — I am.
Have you posted your letter? — I have.
May I have this?— You may.
If for any reason the main verb is used, then it cannot be used without an object.
Why don’t you take off your coat? — I don’t want to.
Do you like peaches? — I don’t like them unless they’re ripe.
Do you see that tree? — I see it rather dimly, I think.
The reason for the relation between the verb and the object in English, which doesn’t allow their
omission, as in other relations, is the fact that the easy way transitive verbs become intransitive
requires the object is determined in a way in order to point out the verb is used in a transitive meaning.
If in the latter example, the verb see is used without an object, its meaning will change (I understand).
Another case of omitting the object is in phrases in which it is known from the context.
I wrote to him last week but he hasn’t answered (the letter).
This will answer very well (the purpose).
Tom plays well (tennis, the piano).
In this way the meaning of the object gradually fades away and the verb turns into intransitive.
He hung up (the telephone).
He proposed to her (marriage).
Shut up (your mouth)!
Exceptions:
His son takes after him.
We saw him make up to us (his way).
A third case of object omission is not the reason it is apparent but because the meaning of the
action is not so important. If we add an object in I am reading, we will focus on the object. Of course
there are exception of this rule as well, to break requires an object to make the meaning clearer, but in
His voice broke./ The sea broke on the rocks./ The cup broke in his hands another type of intransitivity
exists which is not an object of this study.
So if there is no object though the verb is transitive, the model with intransitive verbs can be
used. In any case the cognitive model can be applied.
Later on, when using the cognitive model with transitive verbs, the object is visualised as the
traces the cat leaves behind. The object makes the meaning of the sentence clearer as the traces show
the way the cat has passed. Concerning the transitive constructions, both prototypical and nonprototypical (resultative and relational) types are rendered. But the paper aims at presenting transitive
constructions containing a single verb with its subject and object arguments only, although of course
‘transitive’ can also refer to multi-verb utterances or those with passive argument structure.
She is writing a letter.
Fig. 2. A model of the English present progressive construction with transitive verbs.
The transitive construction expresses the subject-verb-direct object relation (TrSbj–TrV–TrObj).
It is based on previously produced SV or VO combinations. The suggestion is that children’s complex
utterances are built up from earlier uses of the same lexical items.
The analysis of errors committed by Bulgarian young learners of English as a foreign language in
the acquisition of the transitive and intransitive constructions of present progressive offers great
insights into learners’ difficulties in acquiring target language rules. Other researchers, Dr. Edhah and
N. Khazaa (2009) for example, have also studied these errors. I uphold the notion that the learners’
confusion with the combination of auxiliary and main verbs need to be sufficiently dealt with, on the
one hand. The learners’ failure to grasp the significance of the auxiliary verb be seems to be the main
error resulting in the learners’ repeated use of the erroneous combinations. The influence of the native
language – the auxiliary does not exist in Bulgarian – is one of the reasons and the intralingual
confusion involved in the use of the verb forms can be minimised only if learners are able to
comprehend the contextual information provided in the items given, or more specifically, the
situations in which the grammatical form is expected to be used. The visualisation of the model makes
the “connection” between the subject and the auxiliary verb clear enough. Though it is a small part of
the cat the neck is very important the way the auxiliary in the construction plays that important part;
even in questions it is the only marker that is inverted and in negative sentences it is again the
auxiliary the negative particle ‘not’ is attached to.
Citing the same researchers, on the other hand, the learners’ failure to use the auxiliary verbs in
combination with the inflectional suffixes of the main verbs has been identified as a factor causing
errors as well. While the subjects’ inability to relate some verb forms to temporal and frequency
adverbials may be ascribed to intralingual interference, which is associated with developmental
sequence and general learning strategies, it is interesting to note that interference causing a large
portion of the errors may be both intralingual and interlingual in nature. On the basis of the data
elicited, it is recommended that both finite and non-finite verbs should be explained in relation to one
another in the syntactic, semantic and morphological aspects. Cognitive and memory-related learning
strategies are also recommended to enhance the learning of the present progressive in relation to other
verb forms and their associated semantic functions.
The difference between the intransitive and transitive constructions of the English present
progressive comes from the object. But though the constructions are hard enough for Bulgarian young
learners, they make no mistakes when using the object in the constructions. It is just added after the
form of present progressive. It is important to mention that the interlingual influence is a factor for the
correct use of the construction too.
3. CONCLUSION
To find an interesting way to teach English grammar to young learners is the aim I followed.
Using entities they know from the non-linguistic world and applying them into linguistics is a step
forward. Although they are different types, transitive and intransitive constructions can both be used
according to the author’s cognitive model for acquiring the English present progressive. The model
demonstrated that visual input has a rapid effect on language interpretation tasks.
REFERENCES
De Wit, Astrid and Frank Brisard (2014). A Cognitive Grammar Account of the Semantics of the English
Present Progressive. Journal of Linguistics 50 (01), 49-90.
Dr. Edhah and N. Khazaa (2009). Analysing Errors in learning the Present Continuous Tense: Associating
Interference with Strategy of Instructions. Journal of College of Education for Women 20 (3).
http://www.iasj.net/iasj?func=fulltext&aId=2060 (достъп на 03.07.2014)
Goldberg, Adele (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Jespersen, Otto (1931). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles 4. London: Allen & Unwin.
Koleva, E., N. Georgieva (2004). Hello! English for the 3rd Grade. Prosveta – Sofia. Sofia.
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, vol.1.
Leech, Geoffrey (2004). Meaning and the English Verb. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Tsvetkova, Miroslava (2010). Can Cognitive functional Approach foster young learners’ foreign language
acquisition? In: Language, cognition, communication. Konstantin Preslavski University Press, Shumen.