Authors

  • Shakhlo Khalilova
  • Rushana Kadirova

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.71337/inlibrary.uz.ijai.106423

Abstract

The two types of nominalizations differ in various ways. One important distinction can be made by noting the type of verb found m the two nominalizations. The verb in a subject nominalization is intransitive while object nominalizations generally take transitive verbs.

 

 

background image

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23

American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 05,2025

Journal:

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai

page 1486

STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF TRANSITIVE AND INTRANSITIVE VERBS

Scientific adviser:

Shakhlo Khalilova

Student:

Rushana Kadirova

Abstract:

The two types of nominalizations differ in various ways. One important distinction

can be made by noting the type of verb found m the two nominalizations. The verb in a subject

nominalization is intransitive while object nominalizations generally take transitive verbs.

Key words:

nominalizations, transitive verbs, intransitive verbs, requirement, information,

object

Polzella and Rohrman (1970) and Rohrman (1970) have shown that transitive verbs are

more difficult to recall than intransitive verbs. Rohrman (1970) suggests that the recall of

nominalizations is influenced by verb transitivity. Specifically, he hypothesizes that the

underlying structure of transitive verbs requires that the verb take an object. When transitive

verbs are stored m memory, Ss may make covert object responses to meet this structural

requirement. Intransitive verbs do not take an object. Therefore, intransitive verbs are seen as

psychologically simpler units than transitive verbs since less information needs to be retained

when intransitive verbs are stored in memory.

An interesting feature of this hypothesis is that recall differences which are solely a

function of verb transitivity should be eliminated when the verbs are paired with object words.

If intransitive verbs are psychologically simpler than transitive verbs because the underlying

structural properties of the latter require an object response, then forcing Ss to make object

responses to both types of verbs should eliminate the intransitive verb recall advantage. Pairing

these verbs with words that do not function as objects should have no effect on the intransitive

verb recall advantage since the underlying properties of the two verb types do not restrict their

relationship to other grammatical classes of words. Notice that these predictions are based on an

analysis of the underlying structural properties of transitive and intransitive verbs.

When these verbs are used in nominalizations, the effects of the underlying structural

properties may interact with surface structure cues and semantic features of the nominalizations

(Rohrman, 1970). However, it should be possible to demonstrate the effects of the underlying

structure m the absence of these other factors. Polzella and Rohrman (1970) have already

shown that effects of transitive and intransitive verbs in isolation do not depend on the syntactic

cues provided by the "ing" endings of the verbs in their gerundive form. The present experiment

was designed to investigate the effects of the underlying structural properties of transitive and

intransitive verbs, in the absence of semantic and surface structure cues, on recall of structurally

organized units. If Rohrman's hypothesis is correct, verb transitivity should interact with the

structure of the units to be recalled. The Ss in the present experiment were asked to memorize

pairs of items consisting of either a transitive or an intransitive verb paired with a CVC trigram.

The trigram either preceded or followed the verb. In order to eliminate surface structure cues,

the verbs were in the Infinitive form and the trigrams were not marked plural. To reduce or

eliminate semantic features of the pairs of items, CVC trigrams were used in place of real

words. It was hypothesized that trigram position would interact with verb transitivity. To the

extent that the pairs of items are processed as linguistic units, trigram placement should create

different linguistic structures. When trigrams follow the verbs, the objective organization


background image

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23

American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 05,2025

Journal:

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai

page 1487

resembles the underlying structural organization of subject and object nominalizations. When

the trigrams precede the verbs, the objective structure resembles a number of different

underlying structures, none of which is restricted by verb transitivity. I f trigram placement does

affect linguistic processing of the items, then recall of intransitive verb items should be superior

to recall of transitive verb items when the trigrams precede the verbs. When the trigrams follow

the verbs, recall differences between transitive and intransitive verb items should be eliminated.

Trigram meaningfulness was orthogonally varied along with the other factors in this experiment.

I t was hypothesized that the high

meaningful trigrams might be more likely to serve as grammatical terms than low meaningful

trigrams. I f there is an interaction between verb type or trigram placement and meaningfulness,

it would suggest that linguistic structure is not independent of semantic features of the items.

METHOD. Ninety-four general psychology subjects fulfilling a course requirement

served as Ss They were tested eight groups with 11 to 13 Ss each. One S was discarded for

failure to follow instructions. Five Ss were selected at random and discarded to achieve an

equal number of Ss in each group The remaining 88 Ss were distributed equally among the four

between-group treatment conditions. The mean length and mean frequency of the two lists of

verbs were closely matched. The mean association values for the verbs in the two lists did not

differ significantly from each other (Polzella & Rohrman, 1970). The 14 trigrams were obtained

from Archer (1960) Half of the tngrams were high association value CVCs and half were low

association value CVCs The trlgram-verb pairs were typed on 2 × 2 in slides. On half of the

slides, the trlgrams preceded the verbs (Pre condition). Trlgrams followed the verbs on the

remaining slides (Post condition) The stimulus pairs were presented on a screen with a Kodak

Carousel slide projector.

Design and Procedure. There were four between-group treatment conditions

in th~s experiment. Subjects saw either transitive or intransitive verbs paired with trigrams

which either preceded or followed the verbs The same trigrams were used m both positions and

with both verb types. Meaningfulness of the trigrams was a withln-Ss factor. The Ss were given

five study-test trials with written free recall on each trial. There was a 4-sec presentation

duration and a .45-sec rater-item interval There was a 2-rain recall period The Ss wrote their

responses in a five-page answer booklet. The instructions read to the Ss emphasized that they

were to learn the trigrams -verb paxrs.

In order to evaluate the possible relationship of response term integration to the

treatment conditions, partial responses were examined. A partial response was defined as recall

of an incomplete pair or a pair in which one of the members was incorrect. When a verb

response was made without the appropriate trigram, meaningfulness was scored with reference

to the correct trigram. Table 1 shows mean partial response scores for Verb Type, Trigrams

Position, Meaningfulness, and Trials. Partial responding was apparently unrelated to

performance on this task. Inspection of Figure 1 shows that over trials transitive verbs were

more difficult to recall than intransitive verbs when the verbs were paired with trigrams in the

Pre position.

DISCUSSION. The results of the present experiment clearly support the hypothesis that

the underlying structure of transitive and intransitive verbs affects recall. The results of

previous research designed to investigate the nature of verb transitivity provided only indirect

support What was missing in the earher research was a convincing demonstration of the effects

of the structural features of transitive and intransitive verbs (Rohrman, 1970; Polzella &

Rohrman, 1970). These effects have been demonstrated in the present experiment. Rohrman


background image

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23

American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 05,2025

Journal:

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai

page 1488

(1970) and Polzella and Rohrman (1970) have hypothesized that certain lexical features of the

base structure of transitive and intransitive verbs have psychological implications. These

implications are related to differences in the lexical entries for the two verb types. The lexical

entry for transitive verbs generally includes specification of a noun phrase following the verb.

The lexical entry for intransitive verbs does not include specification of a noun phrase. This

distinction is thought to be psychologically compelling. When Ss see transitive verbs presented

in isolation, the Ss make implicit noun responses to satisfy the lexical requirements of the verbs.

Since the lexical entry for intransitive verbs does not include a noun phrase, implicit noun

responses to these verbs are not required.

REFERENCES:

1.

GLANZER, M. Grammatical category' A rote learning and word association analysis.

Journal of Verbal Learmng and Verbal Behamor, 1962, 1, 31-41.

2.

KANUNGO, R. N. Learning of content, function, and nonsense words: An extensmn of

Glanzer's experiment. Journal of VerbaI Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1969, 8, 262-265.

3.

POLZELLA, D. J., & ROHRMAN, N. L. Psychological aspects of transitive verbs. Journal

of Verbal Learnmg and Verbal Behavior, 1970, 9, 537-540

4.

ROHRMAN, N L. The role of syntactic structure in the recall of English nominalizatlons

Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavtor, 1968, 7, 904-912

5.

ROHRMAN, N. L More on the recall of nominalizations. Journal of Verbal Learmng and

Verbal Behavior, 1970, 9, 534-536. (Received January 15, 1971)

6.

Jalilovna, K. S. (2022). Common Similarities and Differences of Uzbek and English Fairy

Tales. European Journal of Innovation in Nonformal Education, 2(1), 366-369.

7.

Khalilova, S. (2022). PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS OF GLOBALIZATION. Gospodarka i

Innowacje., 28, 6-11.

8.

Jalilovna, K. S. (2022). COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF UZBEK AND ENGLISH

FAIRY TALES. IJTIMOIY FANLARDA INNOVASIYA ONLAYN ILMIY JURNALI,

80-83.

9.

Jalilovna, K. S. (2022, February). A CASE STUDY ON VOCABULARY LEARNING

THROUGH READING FAIRY TALES. In E-Conference Globe (pp. 5-6).

References

GLANZER, M. Grammatical category' A rote learning and word association analysis. Journal of Verbal Learmng and Verbal Behamor, 1962, 1, 31-41.

KANUNGO, R. N. Learning of content, function, and nonsense words: An extensmn of Glanzer's experiment. Journal of VerbaI Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1969, 8, 262-265.

POLZELLA, D. J., & ROHRMAN, N. L. Psychological aspects of transitive verbs. Journal of Verbal Learnmg and Verbal Behavior, 1970, 9, 537-540

ROHRMAN, N L. The role of syntactic structure in the recall of English nominalizatlons Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavtor, 1968, 7, 904-912

ROHRMAN, N. L More on the recall of nominalizations. Journal of Verbal Learmng and Verbal Behavior, 1970, 9, 534-536. (Received January 15, 1971)

Jalilovna, K. S. (2022). Common Similarities and Differences of Uzbek and English Fairy Tales. European Journal of Innovation in Nonformal Education, 2(1), 366-369.

Khalilova, S. (2022). PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS OF GLOBALIZATION. Gospodarka i Innowacje., 28, 6-11.

Jalilovna, K. S. (2022). COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF UZBEK AND ENGLISH FAIRY TALES. IJTIMOIY FANLARDA INNOVASIYA ONLAYN ILMIY JURNALI, 80-83.

Jalilovna, K. S. (2022, February). A CASE STUDY ON VOCABULARY LEARNING THROUGH READING FAIRY TALES. In E-Conference Globe (pp. 5-6).