3.9 Sentence
The Sentence is the name given to the class of constructions which include the Observer see table 22. This constructional level includes the type of units found in sentences, paragraphs,
sections of text, and the text as a whole structure. The Sentence as a construction type differs in two ways from Expression:
1 The Sentence as a class displays initial nominal units which function to link the unit to preceding units. This function is similar to an intra-textual “setting” linkage.
2 The Sentence as a class displays particles that function to nominalize whole units— whether of sentence, paragraph, or text. These are semantically external to the text.
They are speech acts in a projected speech situation. These two differences are not necessarily internal to the structuring process of a
sentence but both are aspects of how the Sentence is contextualized, by the linguistic and pragmatic context. As such, this constructional form differs significantly from the type of
distinctions that separate the other two constructional forms—Word and Expression. It may be that a separate constructional form for Sentence is not, in fact, significant for the
description of the structure of nominalization since the roles established for Word and Expression are essentially comprehensive for all particles, verbs, and nouns. Those rules will
capture distinctions sufficient to process even the sentence-final particles. What is not captured by the existing two constructional forms are constituents across sentences. The
discourse use of nominals in information structure is not captured.
For the present, the Sentence-level constructional form is posited and may prove helpful in the paragraph and text analysis presented in chapter 5. For the broader textual
framework, a different sort of categorization using notional structure will be employed.
90
4 Approaches to Nominalization
In any field, find the strangest thing and then explore it. -John Archibald Wheeler
4.1 Introduction
Nominalization as a subject of linguistic investigation has been approached over the last several decades from different theoretical perspectives with varying objectives and
formalisms. Each tradition asks different questions of the data and gives results employing divergent classifications, generalizations, rules, formulas, configurations and argumentation.
The transformational approach observed generalizations in the generation of the surface form, asking questions about what underlying representation and rules could account
for the patterns of nominalization and the implications for universal grammar Chomsky 1957, 1970; Lees 1960. The philosophical-linguistic approach to nominalization embodied
by the work of Vendler 1968, 1970 asked how and where nominalization is used. By examining the linguistic context of nominalized clauses he determined a generalized set of
semantico-grammatical frames from which a further set of types and constraints on nominals were determined. Typological studies inquired about the implicational universals inferable
from cross-linguistic studies of surface nominalizations Comrie 1976, Comrie and Thompson 1985, Koptjevskaja-Tamm 1993. Textual typologists contemplated the role of
nominalization across spans of text, within thematic grids Hoekstra 1986 or within textual units and functions Longacre 1977, 1996; Hopper and Thompson 1980, 1984.
This chapter examines in detail the nature of nominalization from three perspectives and combines those viewpoints to launch a discussion of nominalization in Burmese. A
nominalizing template is proposed as the key concept to unlock the role of nominalization.
4.2 Approaches to Nominalization 4.2.1 Generative Approach
Kategori