the natural language studies of Vendler 1967, Davidson, and others, Asher built a semantic model called Discourse Representational Theory of abstract nominals. This theory is
representational and conceptualist together with a “natural language metaphysics,” that he credits to Emmon Bach 1981. It should be noted that natural language distinguishes many
types of abstract objects, whose ontology is presupposed. These abstract objects include propositions, properties, states of affairs and facts, and all belong to the broad class of
semantic expressions called nominals.
Figure 30. Spectrum of abstractness Asher 1993:57
Like Vendler 1967, Asher 1993 distinguishes two types of sentential nominals but contributes his philosophical observations that there are 1 world immanent objects—events
and states—with causal, temporal, and spatial properties, and 2 purely abstract objects like propositions and thoughts which lack temporal, spatial, and causal properties. These
correspond respectively to event and result nominals. Though Vendler did distinguish fact nominals, an inclusive model was not developed between those two basic types and the fact
nominals. Asher proposed a much broader spectrum of nominals with fact nominals in between the two basic classes of event and result, because they can have causal efficacy like
events but do not take spatial or temporal properties like results. He proposes a schema of world immanence to capture the similarities and differences between these three types of
nominal abstract objects. He labels events as “eventualities” and results as “propositions.” Subcategorizing each type into component forms, he proposes a spectrum of more concrete
entities on the left to more abstract on the right.
4.2.4 Continuum of Noun and Verb Categoriality
Hopper and Thompson argue that linguistic forms are “in principle to be considered as lacking categoriality completely unless nounhood or verbhood is forced on them from their
discourse functions” 1984:747. Discourse functions of “discourse-manipulable participant”
Events
desires
noun or “reported event” verb account for the properties associated with categoriality. Categoriality therefore appears to be a continuum based upon notions of whether that
category is more prototypical of a participant, or of an actual event. Underlying notions of thingness versus eventness appear strategically primitive to conceptualization and to broader
patterns of lexical-semantic and discourse-pragmatic functions. The cross-linguistic characterization of nominality and predication while varying considerably appear to have
prototypical characteristics.
4.2.5 Summary of Approaches to Nominalization
Comparing the spectrum of abstractness proposed by Asher with the framework of categoriality of nounhood and verbhood proposed by Hopper and Thompson, with the
cognitive typology of noun versus verb by Langacker, with the categories of result versus event nominal constructions of Vendler 1968 and Grimshaw 1990, with the functional
heads determining the category of a lexical head Alexiadou 2001, results in the following observations of noun and verbness:
• an apparent binary system of opposition where the opposing poles of nounness and
eventness are most prominent •
a fuzziness of the distinctive terminal points, resulting in a spectral sense of gradience, e.g., some members being more or less nouns or verbs—that is,
prototypical categories •
context shapes categoriality—such as the “container” clause, the functional head, the discourse function
• conceptual organization is manifest in linguistic encoding of categories
• natural language metaphysics operating in a basic-level ontology of thing and event
• systematic organization of constituents into ontologically perceptive linguistic
units. These observations are relevant to the study of Burmese nominalization in that what
is being proposed is a binary system of categoriality with two principle categories nominal and verbal noun and verb, together with an intermediate category of particle, which shares
operational characteristics with the verbal.
4.3 Structure of Burmese Nominalization
