International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture

Available online at https://sloap.org/journals/index.php/ijllc/

Vol. 8, No. 3, May 2022, pages: 67-75
ISSN: 2455-8028
https://doi.org/10.21744/ijllc.v8n3.2076

Argument Structure of Transition and Transfer Verbs

Ni Luh Putu Ariasih a

I Nyoman Sedeng b

Article history: Abstract

This study entitled Argument Structure of Transition and Transfer Verbs. It

Submitted: 27 February 2021 focused on the argument structure which maps the grammatical relation and
Revised: 18 March 2022 the semantic roles. This study aimed to recognize the grammatical relations
Accepted: 09 April 2022 of transition and transfer verbs of slides verbs arguments and to explain the
semantic roles of transition and transfer verbs of slides verbs arguments. This
study is library research. The data of this study were collected from Corpus
of Contemporary American English (COCA) which was related to transition
Keywords: and transfer verbs. The documentation method and note-taking technique
argument structure; were applied in collecting the data. In analyzing the data, the descriptive-
grammatical relations; qualitative method was applied. The data were described and explained based
semantic roles; on the theory of argument structure and the theory of transition and transfer
slide verbs; verbs. Based on the analysis, the grammatical relation operated within
transition and transfer verbs; transition and transfer verbs with the class of slide verb involve subject,
object and oblique. Verb bounce, float, move, roll and slide can be
constructed with SV, SVO, SV OBL, SVO OBL and SVO OBL OBL.
Furthermore, the structure SVO OBL OBL only appears in the verb of move.
The semantic roles that appear in clauses of the verbs bounce, float, move,
roll and slide are agent, theme, location, source, path and goal. Furthermore,
each clause can be categorized as clauses applying transition or transfer verb.
The clauses of which the construction are SV, SV OBL, and SV OBL OBL,
the verbs are considered as transition because there is no causative argument
which becomes the causer of the movement. On the other hand, the clauses of
which the construction are SVO, SVO OBL and SVO OBL OBL, the verbs
are considered as transfer because the verb has causative argument which
becomes the causer of the movement.

International journal of linguistics, literature and culture © 2022.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Corresponding author:
Ni Luh Putu Ariasih,
Udayana University, Denpasar, Indonesia.
Email address: [email protected]

a
Udayana University, Denpasar, Indonesia
b
Udayana University, Denpasar, Indonesia

67
68  ISSN: 2455-8028

1 Introduction
Different predicates require different numbers of arguments. In general, there are some constructions of clauses in
English, SV, SVO, SV OBL etc. This sentence considerably belongs to SV, someone was laughing loudly in the next
room (Quirk et al., 1985). The verb of this sentence is laughing and someone is the subject. The following example is
SVO, my mother usually enjoys parties very much. The verb of this sentence is enjoys, and this verb requires two
core arguments, my mother as subject and parties as object. Other than the number of arguments, the meaning also
provides an essential rule in the appearance of an argument, and it could be related to the category of the verb,
transfer predicates within the view of semantics (Newton & Kennedy, 1996; Bickel & Yādava, 2000).
Movement can be expressed by the verbs like come and go. These verbs convey a movement or position
changing. According to Kreidler (2002), transition predicates express the going or coming from one place to another.
This type of verb or predicate must or might have its own characteristics, either the types of arguments or its number.
This type of predicate might be interrelated with transfer verbs as having similar notions of movement. Transfer
predicate is one of the subjects in semantics (Clifton Jr et al., 1965). According to Kreidler (2002), verbs and other
predicates determine the meaning of the sentence expresses and what roles assigned by the arguments. Mostly,
transfer predicates express transition, movement from one place to another, respectively the source and the goal.
Another function of transfer predicate shows the change of position of a track, represented by focusing the verbs in
path. This study concerned on the argument structure of transfer and transition verbs (Marantz, 2013; Gropen et al.,
1991). It was decided to discuss a particular class of verb; slide verbs based on Levin (1993), which consists of verbs
bounce, float, move, roll and slide in order to provide an accurate understanding.

2 Materials and Methods

Descriptive-qualitative methods was applied in this study. The data were taken from Corpus of Contemporary
American English (COCA) which is related to transition and transfer verbs (James, 2010). A particular class of verb;
slide verbs which consists of verbs bounce, float, move, roll and slide are used for the keyword to search the data in
Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Starting with verb of sending and carrying which have the
notion of movement, Levin (1993), stated that slide verbs are also included under the appropriate subclass of verbs of
motion which bear the notion of movement, in this case transition and transfer. This relation is relevant to the
understanding of transfer and transition verbs based on Kreidler (2002). The slide verbs belong to verbs of sending
and carrying as proposed by Levin (1993) which is related to the transition and transfer verb. The documentation
method and note-taking technique were applied in collecting the data. In analyzing the data, the descriptive-
qualitative method was applied. The data were described and explained based on the theory of argument structure
and the theory of transition and transfer verbs (Wonnacott et al., 2008).

Argument Structure

According to Kroger (2005), arguments are those elements which are “selected” by the verb; they are required or
permitted by certain predicates, but not by others. It means certain arguments might be obligatory for certain verbs.
Dealing with argument structure, it is necessary to involve the discussion of grammatical relation and the semantic
role since it is the elements that mapped within the argument structure (Lidz & Gleitman, 2004).

Grammatical Relation

According to Kroger (2005), in order to express grammaticality, arguments must be assigned a grammatical relation
within the clause. In addition, it is determined by the syntactic and morphological properties. Van Valin (2001),
stated that there are strong tendencies for certain phenomena to involve a particular relation and examples of the
most likely constructions to pick out subjects, direct objects or indirect objects are presented. However, Greenbaum
& Nelson (2009), stated that regular sentences consist of a subject and a predicate, and the predicate contains at least
a verb. Within this understanding, it classifies the basic sentence structure, namely SV, SVO, SVOO, SVA, SVC,
etc.

IJLLC Vol. 8, No. 3, May 2022, pages: 67-75

IJLLC ISSN: 2455-8028  69
Subject and Object

The term “subject” in English grammar refers to a person or thing (noun or pronoun) that serves as one of the
primary components of a clause and performs the action (or verb). According to Kroeger (2005), here are the
following properties of subject in English:

a) Word order: In basic English sentences, the subject normally comes before the verb, and object and other
elements come after the verb. Van Valin (2001), stated that word order is a common means of signalling
grammatical relations, and it is also relevant in many languages to the relation between adpositions and their
objects, since the object must immediately follow (preposition) or precede (postposition) the adposition.
However, postposition is not concerned in this study as English does not have postposition.
b) Pronoun forms: Pronouns have a special form when they appear in a certain position that indicates whether
they are subject or object pronouns.
c) Agreement with verb: In the simple present tense, a morphological marking, a suffix -s, is added to the verb
when a third person subject is singular. However, the number and person of the object or any other element in
the sentence does not give any effect to the form of the verb. According to Van Valin (2001), the primary
coding properties are verb agreement, case marking and (in languages with very rigid word order) the position
of an argument in the sentence, which may serve to express a particular grammatical relation.
d) Content questions: If the subject is replaced by a question word (who or what), the rest of the sentence
remains unchanged. However, if the object is replaced by a question word, there must be an auxiliary before
the subject.
e) Tag questions: A tag question is used to seek confirmation of a statement. It always contains a pronoun which
refers back to the subject, and never to any other element in the sentence.

Primary and secondary object

Kroeger (2005), stated that the term “indirect object” in traditional grammar is used to refer to the semantic role of
recipient (or sometimes beneficiary), rather than to a specific Grammatical Relation. Van Valin (2001), stated that
the direct– indirect object contrast is not appropriate for languages of this kind and that a different distinction is
required, namely primary object (the recipient of ditransitive verbs or the usual direct object of plain transitive verbs)
versus secondary object (the theme of ditransitive verbs). On the other hand, Dryer (1986), stated that A Primary
Object is an Indirect Object in a ditransitive clause or a Direct Object in a monotransitive clause, while a Secondary
Object is a Direct Object in a ditransitive clause. However, a different view is adopted in this study. Primary object is
regarded as the first object that comes after the verb; on the other hand, the secondary object is regarded as the object
that comes after the primary object.

Oblique and adjunct

Kroeger (2005), defined that element which are not closely related to the meaning of the predicate but which are
important to help the hearer understand the flow of the story are called adjunct. Subjects and objects are often
referred to as terms, or direct arguments. Arguments which are not subjects or objects are called indirect or oblique
arguments (Suryasa, 2016; Chandio et al., 2019). In other word, an oblique argument is an argument of a relation that
is marked by a preposition. (Syntactically, oblique arguments aren't direct arguments; in other words, they aren't
subjects or direct objects or second objects). On the other hand, adjunct is an optional unit within the relation,
whereas oblique is semantically required by the verb. However, the terms oblique and adjunct may appear to be
similar (Mohamed & Oussalah, 2019; Osman et al., 2012). All oblique arguments are marked with prepositions,
whereas adjuncts are always optional. In the subcategorization, however, adjunct is not obligatory. In order to
provide better understanding related to oblique and adjunct, a data taken from Kroeger (2005), is presented. Henry
put the money into his pocket. My daughter swallowed a penny last night. The argument after the preposition “into”
is considered as oblique as it is required by the verb “put”. It is different from the second data presented, the italic,
considered as adjunct which can be omitted at any time without causing any sense of incompleteness.

Ariasih, N. L. P., & Sedeng, I. N. (2022). Argument structure of transition and transfer verbs. International Journal
of Linguistics, Literature and Culture, 8(3), 67-75.
https://doi.org/10.21744/ijllc.v8n3.2076
70  ISSN: 2455-8028

Semantic roles

According to Kroeger (2005), semantic roles are defined as helpful elements to classify arguments into broad
semantic categories according to the kind of role they play in the situations described by their predicates. While Van
Valin (2001), stated that each verb or other predicate has a certain number of arguments, each of which bears a
distinct semantic role; this will be referred to as a verb’s argument structure. Huddleston & Pullum (2005), stated
that, there is something in both of these that is relevant to a definition of the subject at the general level: many
languages have a function in the clause that is often associated with the semantic role of actor or with the topic and
that shows other signs of primary syntactic importance in the clause (though some languages seem to be organized
rather differently). Kroeger (2005), divided the semantic roles into some roles. These roles are presented as follows:

1) Agent: causer or initiator of events.

2) Experience: animate entity which perceives a stimulus or registers a particular mental or emotional process or
state.
3) Recipient: animate entity which receives or acquires something.
4) Beneficiary: entity (usually animate) for whose benefit an action is performed.
5) Instrument: inanimate entity used by an agent to perform some action.
6) Theme: entity which undergoes a change of location or possession, or whose location is being specified.
7) Patient: entity which is acted upon, affected, or created; or of which a state or change of state is predicated.
8) Stimulus: object of perception, cognition, or emotion; entity which is seen, heard, known, remembered, loved,
hated, etc.
9) Location: spatial reference point of the event (the source, goal, and path roles are often considered to be sub-
types of location).
a) Source : the origin or beginning point of a motion.
b) Goal : the destination or end-point of a motion.
c) Path : the trajectory or pathway of a motion.
10) Accompaniment (or comitative): entity which accompanies or is associated with the performance of an
action.

Transition and transfer predicate

According to Kreidler (2002), verbs and other predicates determine what meaning a sentence expresses and, to a
large extent, they determine what roles the accompanying arguments have, and even what kinds of noun phrases
occur as arguments. Kreidler (2002), defined transition predicate as a verb or predicate that expresses the going or
coming of entities from one place to another. In order to provide better understanding related to transition verbs, a
data taken from Kreidler (2002), is presented.

The bus goes from Greenville to Stratford

This clause has verb “go” and this verb has 3 arguments as follows; the bus, Greenville and Stratford. In this data,
movement is shown from one place to another, Greenville and Stratford respectively. This verb belongs to transition
as it expresses the going and coming of an entity. However, there is no entity which causes the movement. Therefore,
verb “go” is regarded as transition verb.
According to Kreidler (2002), transfer verbs are the causative equivalent of the transition verbs. Furthermore,
transfer predicate has a role which causes the transition to occur. In order to provide better understanding related to
transfer verb, a data taken from Kreidler (2002), is presented.

Fenwick drives a bus from Greenville to Stratford by way of Compton

This clause has verb “drives” and this verb has 4 arguments as follows; Fenwick, Greenville, Stratford and Compton.
In this data, the movement is shown from one place to another, Greenville and Stratford respectively. This verb
belongs to transfer as it expresses the going and coming of an entity. And this verb has causative argument.
Therefore, verb “drives” is regarded as transfer verb. Slide verbs involved to the verb of sending and carrying bears

IJLLC Vol. 8, No. 3, May 2022, pages: 67-75

IJLLC ISSN: 2455-8028  71
the same relation with transition and transfer verbs based on Kreidler (2002). Therefore, this verb is concerned in this
study due to its relations.

3 Results and Discussions

Bounce

Structure Data Clause Transition/Transfer

Data 1 Big Bird bounce
SV Transition
Data 2 Multiple balls bounce well
Data 3 I could bounce the ball
SVO Transfer
Data 4 Tommy can bounce the yellow ball
Data 5 We’ll bounce off from here
S V OBL Data 6 The scuffed rubber tip of her cane bounce to Transition
the ground
Data 7 You can bounce the ball through the fringe
S V O OBL Transfer
Data 8 I bounce the ball against the wall
Data 9 The ball bounce from Vincent Kompany to
S V OBL OBL Carlos Tevez Transition
Data 10 I bounce from Atkins to South Beach

The possible constructions operated by the verb bounce involves subject-verb, subject-verb-object, subject-verb-
oblique, subject-verb-object-oblique, and subject-verb-oblique-oblique. However, it is also possible to operate
construction with subject-verb-object-oblique-oblique as oblique can be added to the verb depending on the
information required to be conveyed. The clause which involves this verb can assign causative argument, and it is
indicated based on the structure and the meaning. While the clause is intransitive, it does not require any causative
argument; on the other hand, the transitive clause requires causative argument. Moreover, based on the framework,
the transfer has a causative argument, and the transition does not.

Float

Structure Data Clause Transition/Transfer

Data 11 You'd float anyway
SV Transition
Data 12 They float along
Data 13 We float the paper
SVO Transfer
Data 14 Chief of the watch float the buoy
Data 15 Balloon's ribbon will float into Oblivion
S V OBL Transition
Data 16 We'll float into the Caribbean
Data 17 We float the balloon up the aorta
S V O OBL Transfer
Data 18 We'll float the tarp over the building
Data 19 Boats festooned in lights float from Port
Isabel to South Padre Island
S V OBL OBL Transition
Data 20 Other students float from one project area
to another

The possible constructions operated by the verb float involves subject-verb, subject-verb-object, subject-verb-
oblique, subject-verb-object-oblique, and subject-verb-oblique-oblique. However, it is also possible to operate
construction with subject-verb-object-oblique-oblique as oblique can be added to the verb depending on the
information required to be conveyed. The clause which involves this verb can assign causative argument, and it is
indicated based on the structure and the meaning. While the clause is intransitive, it does not require any causative
argument; on the other hand, the transitive clause requires causative argument. Moreover, based on the framework,
the transfer has a causative argument, and the transition does not.

Ariasih, N. L. P., & Sedeng, I. N. (2022). Argument structure of transition and transfer verbs. International Journal
of Linguistics, Literature and Culture, 8(3), 67-75.
https://doi.org/10.21744/ijllc.v8n3.2076
72  ISSN: 2455-8028

Move

Structure Data Clause Transition/Transfer

Data 21 They move VERY fast
SV Transition
Data 22 We always move forward
Data 23 3M can’t move the jobs off shore fast
enough
SVO Transfer
Data 24 The US government can not move a
single factory overseas
Data 25 You should move to Hong Kong.
S V OBL Data 26 You move to the Multithreaded Transition
benchmark
Data 27 I move my tapestry around the lower bar
S V O OBL Data 28 We can move a reg file with the Transfer
following contents up to the first host
Data 29 Most tornadoes move from the southwest
S V OBL OBL to the northeast Transition
Data 30 They move from Siberia to Brazil
Data 31 It will move the election from the politics
to the policy
S V O OBL OBL Transfer
Data 32 We move a sentence from the cookbook
to the bible

The possible constructions operated by the verb move involves subject-verb, subject-verb-object, subject-verb-
oblique, subject-verb-object-oblique, subject-verb-oblique-oblique, and subject-verb-object-oblique-oblique. The
clause which involves this verb can assign causative argument, and it is indicated based on the structure and the
meaning. While the clause is intransitive, it does not require any causative argument; on the other hand, the transitive
clause requires causative argument. Moreover, based on the framework, the transfer has a causative argument, and
the transition does not.

Roll

Structure Data Clause Transition/Transfer

Data 33 The ball roll away
SV Transition
Data 34 It can roll away
Data 35 She could roll the ball
SVO Transfer
Data 36 I roll the stone
Data 37 I can roll into the office
S V OBL Transition
Data 38 The tanks roll into the Kremlin
Data 39 They just roll the ball on the court
S V O OBL Transfer
Data 40 They roll the ball into the coach's office
Data 41 We roll from one chocolate season to the
S V OBL OBL next Transition
Data 42 You roll from one shoulder to the other

The possible constructions operated by the verb roll involves subject-verb, subject-verb-object, subject-verb-oblique,
subject-verb-object-oblique, and subject-verb-oblique-oblique. However, it is also possible to operate construction
with subject-verb-object-oblique-oblique as oblique can be added to the verb depending on the information required
to be conveyed. The clause which involves this verb can assign causative argument, and it is indicated based on the
structure and the meaning. While the clause is intransitive, it does not require any causative argument; on the other
hand, the transitive clause requires causative argument. Moreover, based on the framework, the transfer has a
causative argument, and the transition does not.

IJLLC Vol. 8, No. 3, May 2022, pages: 67-75

IJLLC ISSN: 2455-8028  73
Slide

Structure Data Clause Transition/Transfer

Data 43 I'll just slide
SV Transition
Data 44 He can slide well
Data 45 I slide the straps
SVO Transfer
Data 46 I slide the door
Data 47 Students slide to the edge of their seats
S V OBL Transition
Data 48 I slide to the very inside of the road
Data 49 You slide the screen into the VR goggles
S V O OBL Data 50 Many people just slide the card into the Transfer
played position
Data 51 Lord Cayton's hands slid from her back to
S V OBL OBL the sides of her waist Transition
Data 52 The movie slid from No. 6 to No. 8

The possible constructions operated by the verb slide involves subject-verb, subject-verb-object, subject-verb-
oblique, subject-verb-object-oblique, and subject-verb-oblique-oblique. However, it is also possible to operate
construction with subject-verb-object-oblique-oblique as oblique can be added to the verb depending on the
information required to be conveyed. The clause which involves this verb can assign causative argument, and it is
indicated based on the structure and the meaning. While the clause is intransitive, it does not require any causative
argument; on the other hand, the transitive clause requires causative argument. Moreover, based on the framework,
the transfer has a causative argument, and the transition does not.

4 Conclusion

Based on the data that have been analysed and presented in the previous chapter, the conclusions of both problems
are presented as follows. The grammatical relations operated within transition and transfer verbs with the class of
slide verb involve subject, object and oblique. Verb bounce, float, move, roll and slide can be constructed with
Subject-Verb, Subject-Verb-Object, Subject-Verb-Oblique, Subject-Verb-Object-Oblique and Subject-Verb-
Oblique-Oblique. However, the structure Subject-Verb-Object-Oblique-Oblique only appears in the verb move.
Related to the semantic roles of the arguments in the verb of bounce, float, move, roll and slide involved agent,
theme, location, source, path and goal. The semantic role played by subject arguments of the verb of bounce, float,
move, roll and slide in Subject-Verb construction is theme or agent. On the other hand, the subject arguments in
Subject-Verb-Object construction always play the role of agent. However, its object arguments always play the role
of theme. The role played by the subject arguments in Subject-Verb-Oblique is theme or agent. However, the oblique
plays the role of source or goal. The subject arguments in subject-verb-object-oblique construction always play the
role of agent. However, its object arguments always play the role of theme. Moreover, the oblique plays the role of
path,source, goal or location. The role played by the subject arguments in Subject-Verb-Oblique-Oblique is theme or
agent. However, the obliques always play the role of source and goal in sequence. On the other hand, the subject
arguments in Subject-Verb-Object-Oblique-Oblique construction always play the role of agent and its object
arguments always play the role of theme. However, the obliques always play the role of source and goal in sequence.
Each clause can be categorized as a transition or transfer verb. The clauses of which the construction are Subject-
Verb, Subject-Verb-Oblique, and Subject-Verb-Oblique-Oblique are considered as transition as providing
information about movement without showing an entity which becomes the causer of the movement. On the other
hand, the clauses of which the construction is Subject-Verb-Object, Subject-Verb-Object-Oblique, and Subject-Verb-
Object-Oblique-Oblique are considered as transfer because the argument has causative argument which becomes the
causer of the movement.

Ariasih, N. L. P., & Sedeng, I. N. (2022). Argument structure of transition and transfer verbs. International Journal
of Linguistics, Literature and Culture, 8(3), 67-75.
https://doi.org/10.21744/ijllc.v8n3.2076
74  ISSN: 2455-8028

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declared that they have no competing interest.

Statement of authorship
The authors have a responsibility for the conception and design of the study. The authors have approved the final
article.

Acknowledgments
We are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the earlier version of this paper.

IJLLC Vol. 8, No. 3, May 2022, pages: 67-75

IJLLC ISSN: 2455-8028  75
References
Bickel, B., & Yādava, Y. P. (2000). A fresh look at grammatical relations in Indo-Aryan. Lingua, 110(5), 343-373.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(99)00048-0
Chandio, R., Fatima, S., Tarique, T., & Soomro, S. (2019). The stylistics analysis of the poem “raqeeb se, to the
rival” by Faiz Ahmed Faiz. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture, 5(6), 36-47.
https://doi.org/10.21744/ijllc.v5n6.756
Clifton Jr, C., Kurcz, I., & Jenkins, J. J. (1965). Grammatical relations as determinants of sentence
similarity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 4(2), 112-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-
5371(65)80094-9
Dryer, M. S. (1986). Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language, 808-845.
Greenbaum, S., & Nelson, G. (2009). An introduction to English grammar. Pearson Education.
Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., & Goldberg, R. (1991). Affectedness and direct objects: The role of lexical
semantics in the acquisition of verb argument structure. Cognition, 41(1-3), 153-195.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90035-3
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2005). A Students Introduction to English Grammar Cambridge University
Press. Nueva York.
James, M. A. (2010). An investigation of learning transfer in English-for-general-academic-purposes writing
instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 183-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.09.003
Kreidler, C. (2002). Introducing english semantics. Routledge.
Kroeger, P. R. (2005). Analyzing grammar: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. University of Chicago press.
Lidz, J., & Gleitman, L. R. (2004). Argument structure and the child's contribution to language learning. Trends in
cognitive sciences, 8(4), 157-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.02.005
Marantz, A. (2013). Verbal argument structure: Events and participants. Lingua, 130, 152-168.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.012
Mohamed, M., & Oussalah, M. (2019). SRL-ESA-TextSum: A text summarization approach based on semantic role
labeling and explicit semantic analysis. Information Processing & Management, 56(4), 1356-1372.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2019.04.003
Newton, J., & Kennedy, G. (1996). Effects of communication tasks on the grammatical relations marked by second
language learners. System, 24(3), 309-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(96)00024-3
Osman, A. H., Salim, N., Binwahlan, M. S., Alteeb, R., & Abuobieda, A. (2012). An improved plagiarism detection
scheme based on semantic role labeling. Applied Soft Computing, 12(5), 1493-1502.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2011.12.021
Quirk, e. a. (1985). Comprehensive Grammar Of The English Language. New York: Longman Inc.
Suryasa, I. W. (2016). The roles played of semantic theory found in novel the moon that embracing the sun
translation. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture, 2(1), 39-42.
Van Valin Jr, R. D. (2001). An introduction to syntax. Cambridge University Press.
Wonnacott, E., Newport, E. L., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2008). Acquiring and processing verb argument structure:
Distributional learning in a miniature language. Cognitive psychology, 56(3), 165-209.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.04.002

Ariasih, N. L. P., & Sedeng, I. N. (2022). Argument structure of transition and transfer verbs. International Journal
of Linguistics, Literature and Culture, 8(3), 67-75.
https://doi.org/10.21744/ijllc.v8n3.2076