An Investigation into the Motivating Factors Underlying Similarities and Differences in the Transitivity Systems, Configurations, and Realizations of English and Myanmar

Lai Yee Win

doi:doi:10.11648/j.cls.20261201.12

Research Article |

| Peer-Reviewed

An Investigation into the Motivating Factors Underlying Similarities and Differences in the Transitivity Systems, Configurations, and Realizations of English and Myanmar

Lai Yee Win^*

Published in Communication and Linguistics Studies (Volume 12, Issue 1)

Received: 21 November 2025 Accepted: 9 December 2025 Published: 19 March 2026

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Lai Yee Win (2021) examined the transitivity systems of English and Myanmar using Halliday’s transitivity theory and He’s (2022) model of the Chinese transitivity system. This study, grounded in the Systemic Functional perspective, aimed to aid English and Myanmar language learners by exploring the meaning potential of both languages to facilitate effective mutual communication. The research highlights how cognition, thinking, and cultural influences shape the unique features of English and Myanmar transitivity systems. For English, its distinctive characteristics stem from Roman culture, analytic thinking, and cognitive principles like subject salience and figure-to-background cognition. In contrast, Myanmar’s unique features are rooted in Buddhist culture, holistic and spatial thinking, and cognitive patterns like background-to-figure cognition and the natural sequence principle. These cognitive, cultural, and thinking modes contribute to the differences in the configuration and realization of transitivity elements between the two languages. The study underscores the importance of understanding these influences to bridge linguistic and cultural gaps, enhance language learning, and promote smoother communication. By exploring the motivations behind the similarities and differences in English and Myanmar transitivity systems, this research provides valuable insights into the interplay of language, cognition, and culture. It also paves the way for further comparative studies of Myanmar and other languages, deepening the understanding of linguistic systems across cultural contexts.

Published in	Communication and Linguistics Studies (Volume 12, Issue 1)
DOI	10.11648/j.cls.20261201.12
Page(s)	8-22
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), 2026. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Motivations, Similarities, Differences, English, Myanmar, Transitivity Systems, Configurations, Realizations

References

[1]	Barsalou, L. W. Abstraction as Dynamic Interpretation in Perceptual Symbol Systems. In L. Gershkoff-Stowe and D. H. Rakison (eds.), Building Object Categories in Developmental Time. 2005, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 389-431.
[2]	Butler, C. S. Systemic Functional Linguistics, Cognitive Linguistics and Psycholinguistics. Functions of Language. 2013, 20(2), 185-218. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.20.2.03
[3]	Comrie, B. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology (2nd ed.). 1989, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[4]	Dixon, R. M. W. Ergativity. 1994, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[5]	Dryer, M. S., & Haspelmath, M. (Eds.). The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. 2013, Retrieved from https://wals.info
[6]	Evans, V. and M. Green. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. 2006, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
[7]	Givon, T. Isomorphism in the Grammatical Code: Cognitive and Biological Considerations. Studies in Language. 1991, 15(1), 85-114. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.15.1.04
[8]	Gleason, H. A. An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics. 1961, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
[9]	Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (1st edn.). 1985, London: Arnold.
[10]	Halliday, M. A. K. and C. M. I. M. Matthiessen. Construing Experience Through Meaning: A Language-based Approach to Cognition. 1999, London: Continuum.
[11]	Halliday, M. A. K. and C. M. I. M. Matthiessen. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th edn.). 2014, London: Routledge.
[12]	He, W. Categorization of Experience of the World and Construction of Transitivity System of Chinese. Word. 2022, 68(3), 317-347. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.2021.2003540
[13]	Holme, R. Grammatical Metaphor as a Cognitive Construct. In A. Simon-Vandenbergen, M. Taverniers and L. J. Ravelli (eds.), Grammatical Metaphor: Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics. 2003, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 391-415.
[14]	Hopper, P. J. and S. A. Thompson. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language Society of America. 1980, 56(2), 251-299. https://doi.org/10.2307/413757
[15]	Hopple, P. Topicalisation in Burmese Expository Discourse. In J. Watkins (ed). Studies in Burmese Linguistics. 2005, Australia: Pacific Linguistics, 163-184.
[16]	Htin Lin. Paletaye: than [The Pearl]. 2017, Yangon: Pan Shwe Pyi Press.
[17]	Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. 2002, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[18]	Humboldt, W. V. 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). 1988, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[19]	Jenny, M. Causative constructions in Burmese. In Malchukov, A., & Comrie, B. (Eds.), Studies in causative constructions (pp. 235–254). 2019, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[20]	Johnson, M. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. 1987, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
[21]	Journal Kyaw Ma Ma Lay. Thuema [She]. 1957, Yangon: Shwe Lin Yone.
[22]	Kalupahana, D. J. Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism. 1986, Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii.
[23]	Kouhestani, M. and A. Golfam. Subject Salience in SOV and SVO Word Orders as a Result of Agent Animacy. XLinguae Journal. 2016, 9(2), 37-46. https://doi.org/10.18355/XL.2016.09.02
[24]	Lae Twin Thar Saw Chit. Kyanoramonnzonnkyanor [The person I hate most is me]. 2004, http://www.myanmarbookshop.com/MyanmarBooks/BookDetails/19951 (accessed 31 March 2022).
[25]	Lai Yee Win. Construction of the Transitivity System of Myanmar. Journal of World Languages. 2021, 7(1), 1-43. https://doi.org/10.1515/jwl-2021-0008
[26]	Lakoff, G. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. 1987, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[27]	Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. Metaphors We Live By (3rd edn.). 1980/2003, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[28]	Langacker, R. W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Volume I: Theoretical Prerequisites. 1987, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
[29]	Langacker, R. W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Volume II: Descriptive Application. 1991/2004, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press/Beijing: Peking University Press.
[30]	Mohammed. A. A. The Impact of Culture on English Language Learning. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature. 2020, 7(8), 21-27. https://doi.org/10.20431/2347-3134.0801003
[31]	Nisbett, R. E. and Miyamoto, Y. The Influence of Culture: Holistic Versus Analytic Perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2005, 9(10), 467-473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.004
[32]	Okell, J. A reference grammar of colloquial Burmese. 1969, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[33]	Sapir, E. Culture, Language, and Personality. 1949, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
[34]	Science Mg Wa. Mitharrsuletywaye: sinwithtutomyarr [Family selected novellas]. 1998, Yangon: Than Lwin Oo Press.
[35]	Stockwell, R. and D. Minkova. English Words: History and Structure. 2001, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[36]	Tai, J. H. Y. Toward a Cognition-based Functional Grammar of Chinese. In J. H. Y. Tai and F. F. S. Hsueh (eds.), Functionalism and Chinese Grammar. 1989, South Orange, NJ: Chinese Language Teachers Association, 187-226.
[37]	Talmy, L. 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. 1975, California: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 419-430.
[38]	Thompson, G. Introducing Functional Grammar (2nd edn.). 2004/2008, London: Hodder Arnold/Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[39]	Ungerer, F. and H. J. Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. 1996, London: Longman.
[40]	Vittrant, A. and J. Watkins (ed.). The Mainland Southeast Asia Linguistic Area. 2019, Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
[41]	Wang, L. A Comparative Study of Transitivity Systems and their Realizations Across Languages: With Special Reference to Chinese, Hindi, Arabic and Greek. PhD Dissertation. 2021, Beijing: Beijing Foreign Studies University.
[42]	Whorf, B. L. Language and Logic. In J. B. Carroll (ed.) (1956). Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. 1941, Cambridge: The MIT Press.
[43]	Wierzbicka, A. Understanding Cultures Through their Key Words. 1997, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Win, L. Y. (2026). An Investigation into the Motivating Factors Underlying Similarities and Differences in the Transitivity Systems, Configurations, and Realizations of English and Myanmar. Communication and Linguistics Studies, 12(1), 8-22. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20261201.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Win, L. Y. An Investigation into the Motivating Factors Underlying Similarities and Differences in the Transitivity Systems, Configurations, and Realizations of English and Myanmar. Commun. Linguist. Stud. 2026, 12(1), 8-22. doi: 10.11648/j.cls.20261201.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Win LY. An Investigation into the Motivating Factors Underlying Similarities and Differences in the Transitivity Systems, Configurations, and Realizations of English and Myanmar. Commun Linguist Stud. 2026;12(1):8-22. doi: 10.11648/j.cls.20261201.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.cls.20261201.12,
  author = {Lai Yee Win},
  title = {An Investigation into the Motivating Factors Underlying Similarities and Differences in the Transitivity Systems, Configurations, and Realizations of English and Myanmar},
  journal = {Communication and Linguistics Studies},
  volume = {12},
  number = {1},
  pages = {8-22},
  doi = {10.11648/j.cls.20261201.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20261201.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.cls.20261201.12},
  abstract = {Lai Yee Win (2021) examined the transitivity systems of English and Myanmar using Halliday’s transitivity theory and He’s (2022) model of the Chinese transitivity system. This study, grounded in the Systemic Functional perspective, aimed to aid English and Myanmar language learners by exploring the meaning potential of both languages to facilitate effective mutual communication. The research highlights how cognition, thinking, and cultural influences shape the unique features of English and Myanmar transitivity systems. For English, its distinctive characteristics stem from Roman culture, analytic thinking, and cognitive principles like subject salience and figure-to-background cognition. In contrast, Myanmar’s unique features are rooted in Buddhist culture, holistic and spatial thinking, and cognitive patterns like background-to-figure cognition and the natural sequence principle. These cognitive, cultural, and thinking modes contribute to the differences in the configuration and realization of transitivity elements between the two languages. The study underscores the importance of understanding these influences to bridge linguistic and cultural gaps, enhance language learning, and promote smoother communication. By exploring the motivations behind the similarities and differences in English and Myanmar transitivity systems, this research provides valuable insights into the interplay of language, cognition, and culture. It also paves the way for further comparative studies of Myanmar and other languages, deepening the understanding of linguistic systems across cultural contexts.},
 year = {2026}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - An Investigation into the Motivating Factors Underlying Similarities and Differences in the Transitivity Systems, Configurations, and Realizations of English and Myanmar
AU  - Lai Yee Win
Y1  - 2026/03/19
PY  - 2026
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20261201.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.cls.20261201.12
T2  - Communication and Linguistics Studies
JF  - Communication and Linguistics Studies
JO  - Communication and Linguistics Studies
SP  - 8
EP  - 22
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2380-2529
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20261201.12
AB  - Lai Yee Win (2021) examined the transitivity systems of English and Myanmar using Halliday’s transitivity theory and He’s (2022) model of the Chinese transitivity system. This study, grounded in the Systemic Functional perspective, aimed to aid English and Myanmar language learners by exploring the meaning potential of both languages to facilitate effective mutual communication. The research highlights how cognition, thinking, and cultural influences shape the unique features of English and Myanmar transitivity systems. For English, its distinctive characteristics stem from Roman culture, analytic thinking, and cognitive principles like subject salience and figure-to-background cognition. In contrast, Myanmar’s unique features are rooted in Buddhist culture, holistic and spatial thinking, and cognitive patterns like background-to-figure cognition and the natural sequence principle. These cognitive, cultural, and thinking modes contribute to the differences in the configuration and realization of transitivity elements between the two languages. The study underscores the importance of understanding these influences to bridge linguistic and cultural gaps, enhance language learning, and promote smoother communication. By exploring the motivations behind the similarities and differences in English and Myanmar transitivity systems, this research provides valuable insights into the interplay of language, cognition, and culture. It also paves the way for further comparative studies of Myanmar and other languages, deepening the understanding of linguistic systems across cultural contexts.
VL  - 12
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Lai Yee Win

Department of English, Guarantee International College, Yangon, Myanmar

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0611-1081

Download PDF

Submit an Article

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Win, L. Y. (2026). An Investigation into the Motivating Factors Underlying Similarities and Differences in the Transitivity Systems, Configurations, and Realizations of English and Myanmar. Communication and Linguistics Studies, 12(1), 8-22. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20261201.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Win, L. Y. An Investigation into the Motivating Factors Underlying Similarities and Differences in the Transitivity Systems, Configurations, and Realizations of English and Myanmar. Commun. Linguist. Stud. 2026, 12(1), 8-22. doi: 10.11648/j.cls.20261201.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Win LY. An Investigation into the Motivating Factors Underlying Similarities and Differences in the Transitivity Systems, Configurations, and Realizations of English and Myanmar. Commun Linguist Stud. 2026;12(1):8-22. doi: 10.11648/j.cls.20261201.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.cls.20261201.12,
  author = {Lai Yee Win},
  title = {An Investigation into the Motivating Factors Underlying Similarities and Differences in the Transitivity Systems, Configurations, and Realizations of English and Myanmar},
  journal = {Communication and Linguistics Studies},
  volume = {12},
  number = {1},
  pages = {8-22},
  doi = {10.11648/j.cls.20261201.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20261201.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.cls.20261201.12},
  abstract = {Lai Yee Win (2021) examined the transitivity systems of English and Myanmar using Halliday’s transitivity theory and He’s (2022) model of the Chinese transitivity system. This study, grounded in the Systemic Functional perspective, aimed to aid English and Myanmar language learners by exploring the meaning potential of both languages to facilitate effective mutual communication. The research highlights how cognition, thinking, and cultural influences shape the unique features of English and Myanmar transitivity systems. For English, its distinctive characteristics stem from Roman culture, analytic thinking, and cognitive principles like subject salience and figure-to-background cognition. In contrast, Myanmar’s unique features are rooted in Buddhist culture, holistic and spatial thinking, and cognitive patterns like background-to-figure cognition and the natural sequence principle. These cognitive, cultural, and thinking modes contribute to the differences in the configuration and realization of transitivity elements between the two languages. The study underscores the importance of understanding these influences to bridge linguistic and cultural gaps, enhance language learning, and promote smoother communication. By exploring the motivations behind the similarities and differences in English and Myanmar transitivity systems, this research provides valuable insights into the interplay of language, cognition, and culture. It also paves the way for further comparative studies of Myanmar and other languages, deepening the understanding of linguistic systems across cultural contexts.},
 year = {2026}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - An Investigation into the Motivating Factors Underlying Similarities and Differences in the Transitivity Systems, Configurations, and Realizations of English and Myanmar
AU  - Lai Yee Win
Y1  - 2026/03/19
PY  - 2026
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20261201.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.cls.20261201.12
T2  - Communication and Linguistics Studies
JF  - Communication and Linguistics Studies
JO  - Communication and Linguistics Studies
SP  - 8
EP  - 22
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2380-2529
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20261201.12
AB  - Lai Yee Win (2021) examined the transitivity systems of English and Myanmar using Halliday’s transitivity theory and He’s (2022) model of the Chinese transitivity system. This study, grounded in the Systemic Functional perspective, aimed to aid English and Myanmar language learners by exploring the meaning potential of both languages to facilitate effective mutual communication. The research highlights how cognition, thinking, and cultural influences shape the unique features of English and Myanmar transitivity systems. For English, its distinctive characteristics stem from Roman culture, analytic thinking, and cognitive principles like subject salience and figure-to-background cognition. In contrast, Myanmar’s unique features are rooted in Buddhist culture, holistic and spatial thinking, and cognitive patterns like background-to-figure cognition and the natural sequence principle. These cognitive, cultural, and thinking modes contribute to the differences in the configuration and realization of transitivity elements between the two languages. The study underscores the importance of understanding these influences to bridge linguistic and cultural gaps, enhance language learning, and promote smoother communication. By exploring the motivations behind the similarities and differences in English and Myanmar transitivity systems, this research provides valuable insights into the interplay of language, cognition, and culture. It also paves the way for further comparative studies of Myanmar and other languages, deepening the understanding of linguistic systems across cultural contexts.
VL  - 12
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download