Philosophers of science have repeatedly demonstrated that more than one theoretical construction can always be placed upon a given collection of data. Kuhn
1970:76
If grammatical nominalization is an abstract entity then the ontological nominal is as well. Nominalization is a process that is both grammatical in the traditional sense
derivational morphology and nominalized noun phrases and clauses but is also supra- grammatical in Burmese and manifest by another process of nominalization in which
grammatical nominals are collected as constituents of higher, more abstract nominal units that function in the sentence and text as arguments, adjuncts, or other types of constituents of the
discourse. In particular, the structures generated by the role of postpositional particles are abstract units of the text which also have a linguistic ontological status. That is, they can be
questioned and answered as units by native speakers. They can be moved about or transformed in information restructuring. They exist as textual objects and provide regular
organization to the grammar. These abstract units are called
ONTOLOGICAL NOMINALS
.
1.3.3 Systematic Summary of Conceptual Dimensions
The relationship of the various concepts presented here so far can be summarized as a set of units metaphorical blends in a dimension such as grammatical category manifesting a
bipolar relationship such as Noun and Verb that are contrastive yet systematically complementary along each dimension.
Dimension of Application Ground Profile
Abstract Thought Unit
Relation Semantic Concept
Thing Relation
Grammatical Category Noun
Verb Conceptual Processing
Framing Conceptual Integration
Ontological Status Being State to Gerund
form Become Process to Result
Table 2. Application of ground to profile framing
1.3.4 Contextual Integration and Lexical Processing
Lexical and post-lexical processing had been assumed by most psycholinguistic researchers to be separate cognitive processes up until Coulson and Federmeier 2002. Lexical processing
word was thought to be more rapid, earlier, and almost automatic, while post-lexical phrase and sentence processing was assumed to be slower, done subsequently to lexical processing,
and the result of more complex cognitive operations. Coulson and Federmeier’s research showed that the influences in lexical processing time could be attenuated by contextual
factors. The difference in processing time argued against automaticity in lexical processing, and suggested that lexical access and contextual integration are to some extent interdependent
processes.
The significance of their study to the topic here is the suggestion that the difference in processing time between the lexical compound word—so common in Burmese and other
Southeast Asian languages—and that of the phrase is essentially minimal. If constructional meaning is accomplished by the same conceptual processes as lexical meaning since
immediate context was found to significantly decrease processing time for both types of
meaning, then there is little conceptual difference between the word and larger units such as compound nouns or modified noun phrases. This would suggest that more complex abstract
nominals, such as are found in typical Burmese sentences see chapter 5, would also be processed by the same rapid conceptual operations.
A further implication with regard to the conceptual blending model is the relevance of the Generic Space in selecting a “frame” of inputs, which itself is a form of contextual
selection and narrowing of options that can increase response time for cross-space mapping sets for various kinds of blends—both constructional and lexical meaning.
1.4 Conceptual Blends in N + N Constructions
As a head-final language, the Burmese order is Modifier + Head. Compound nouns also manifest this relation: the final noun of the compound serves as the psychological ground or
basis, while the first element is similar to a modifier. Although there are cases where semantically the relation is balanced or coordinate, the predominant pattern is where the final
noun serves as the head of the compound.
Conceptually, the Modifier position fills the conceptual blend role of Source space,
while the Head or Ground, fills the role of conceptual Target space in what is an asymmetrical relation of Input spaces. So, for example, the word for a medical doctor 6a in
Burmese is often analyzed as a compound noun or a modified noun that has become lexicalized pragmatically into a unitary noun, a completed blend.
6
Burmese compound nouns Component parts
Meaning in English
a. hc ăra wan
q|m 0ef
teacherdoctor + officialminister
medical doctor
b. a-myui: sa:
trsdK:om:
a kindracesome + sonmaleperson
countryman nationalcitizen
c. ca pe
pmay
writingpaper + palm leaf
literature Using the notions exemplified in figures 2 and 3, table 3 displays the roles of the
component parts of 6a, b, c in the conceptual blends. Elements that are brought into the Input spaces from the Generic space are not semantic primitives in some absolute, universal
lexicon but rather are relativistic, relational, and perceptually cognitive. In fact, they can be individualistic, as in the cases of poets and more creative thinkers or speakers, but the
resources of the Generic space, the cultural set of relevant similarities, are usually conventional so that working out the meaning of an innovation is possible and an
intellectually pleasant experience.
