The Structure of Nominalization in Burmese
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DigitalResources SIL eBook 22 ® The Structure of Nominalization in Burmese Paulette M. Hopple The Structure of Nominalization in Burmese Paulette M. Hopple SIL International® 2011 ii SIL e-Books 22 ©2011 SIL International® ISBN: 978-1-55671-256-2 ISSN: 1934-2470 Fair-Use Policy: Books published in the SIL e-Books (SILEB) series are intended for scholarly research and educational use. You may make copies of these publications for research or instructional purposes free of charge (within fair-use guidelines) and without further permission. Republication or commercial use of SILEB or the documents contained therein is expressly prohibited without the written consent of the copyright holder(s). Series Editor Mary Ruth Wise Volume Editor Mary Ruth Wise Mary Huttar Managing Editor Bonnie Brown Compositor Margaret González iii Dedication To the peoples of Burma/Myanmar who are an example of patient endurance and who live by faith in the unseen iv Editor’s note We are sad to report that Paulette Hopple passed away in late 2008 before she had the opportunity to finish revising her dissertation and approving this final manuscript. The editors take full responsibility for changes. We hope she would have been pleased with the book. v Acknowledgments I wish to acknowledge the solid contribution to my professional growth by my dissertation advisor, Jerry Edmondson, who “held the line” with me over some long delays in the writing process and periods of illness which, at times, made the end goal seem so distant. It’s an honor to know such a man who is both brilliant and kindhearted. Another scholar to whom I owe a great debt is Ken McElhanon, who first introduced me to Cognitive Linguistics and challenged my assumptions about truth, epistemology, and theology. Many people have contributed to my sense of intrigue and wonder at the nature and function of language. I wish to thank my first linguistic teachers at the Summer Institute of Linguistics of the University of North Dakota during the summer of 1973 for their challenge to invent systems of analysis that allow the data to determine validity. That spirit of investigation and scholarship together with the challenge of minority language linguistics, inspired me from the first flicker of insight into the systems underlying language. Of the many teachers whose inspiration lit the pathway, Kenneth L. Pike was a paragon of invention, fun, scholarship and faith. Robert L. Longacre brought oil to the lamps of imagination of linguistic structure beyond the sentence. It was at the University of London, School of Oriental and African Studies that John Okell and Anna Allott introduced me to the joy of spoken and written Burmese. My debt to both these teachers is enormous—their instruction laid the foundation for the years I would later spend in Burma/Myanmar. Also at the University of London, Professor Dr. Saya Hla Pe assisted me in innumerable ways to understand the intersection of Burmese language with the Burmese worldview. I wish to also thank all my teachers from the Burmese Department of the University of Rangoon (then Rangoon Arts and Sciences University) for their patience and friendship that made the goal of learning Burmese language, culture, and history inviting indeed. The Department of Higher Education of the Ministry of Education facilitated my work and study in Myanmar, and many in that institution provided succor and friendship. I wish to acknowledge the labor of Deputy Director U Thet Tun on my behalf, and also the friendship of the Senior University Librarian, U Thaw Kaung. Of the many Myanmar friends, sayas, and sayamas at the University of Yangon, I wish to particularly acknowledge Daw Betty Limbu, Daw Khin Than Win, Daw Khin May Kyo, and Daw Nu Yi for their friendship and ability to reach across cultural barriers with compassionate universal values. I wish to thank the Government of the Union of Burma for their assistance in arranging my stay as a Colombo Plan Scholar, facilitating study of Burmese and minority language linguistics, and every arrangement of hospitality. I also wish to acknowledge the Myanmar brothers and sisters who first requested linguistic assistance in the late 1970s. Many friends and colleagues over the years encouraged my pursuit of Burmese and the study of other languages in Asia. Of particular note was the Asia Area administration of SIL International who with foresight allowed me to follow my vision. To friend and colleague, Frances M. Woods, goes heartfelt gratitude for the many years of working together in Asia, and to my supporters, especially Ann Thornton for keeping my personal culture, Rebecca Duncan for encouragement and understanding of the spiritual depths of vi one’s songs and dreams. To my family who assisted me financially and with the greatest sustenance—prayer—goes this nod of recognition. The completion of this work would not have been possible without the encouragement and emotional support, financial scholarship, and friendship of Edna Jane Travis. For all those who prayed for me and supported me in unseen ways, I am deeply grateful. During my study program in the United States, various communities have become a sustaining part of life—Pat’s group, the Jones’ group, and my church. Supreme acknowledgment goes to the God of all ideas and all creation who inspires, and gave, and gives most lovingly of His abundant goodness. vii Abstract Nominalized sentential elements have long been observed in Tibeto-Burman languages, but the role and extent of nominalized patterns have not been explored as a base of formative structuring. This dissertation examines nominalization patterns in Burmese from the word to text level and posits a complex information packaging role of postposition particles in erecting a structure of predictable and iteratively patterned nominals which function to reduce information overload and facilitate online parsing. Burmese has been characterized as a predominantly verbal language (U Pe Maung Tin 1956). A complementary view is presented in which ontological objects created via a grammatical system of nominalization function to establish a sturdy skeletal framework for verbal and particle expression. Together the role of nominal and relational elements engender a balance realized structurally as ontological nominal objects whose juxtaposition iteratively creates larger nominals. The claim is made here that an underlying ontological level of organization supports grammatical categorization. This organization is structurally simple and patterned. Only two word categories are posited —noun and verb. A third basic category of postposition particle functions abstractly as a type of grammatical verb. The role of the particle is expanded as an abstract nominalizing element that constructs and organizes the ontological structure of Burmese sentences and orders higher level units of discourse. Sentences are regarded as nominalized units based upon the unique and diverse functions of onf sany as nominalizer. This key particle unlocks the role of nominalization in Burmese grammatical structure — as deictic specifier, as personalizer ‘affix’, as general nominal complementizer, as relativizer, and as sentence final particle of realis mood. The prototypical functions of onf sany are realized as a vast ‘conspiracy’ of nominalization underlying the organization of Burmese grammatical constructions from simple noun phrase to paragraph to the discourse as a whole. viii Contents Dedication Editor’s note Acknowledgments Abstract List of Figures List of Tables Abbreviations 1 Introduction 1.1 Components of Language Processing 1.2 Essential Pattern—Juxtaposition 1.3 Conceptual Integration 1.3.1 The Role of Metaphor in Burmese Constructions 1.3.2 Conceptual Integration and Framing 1.3.2.1 The Role of Framing in Creating Units 1.3.2.2 The Role of Bounding in Creating Units 1.3.2.3 Ontological Nominals 1.3.3 Systematic Summary of Conceptual Dimensions 1.3.4 Contextual Integration and Lexical Processing 1.4 Conceptual Blends in N + N Constructions 1.5 The Role of Grammatical Particles as Predicators 1.6 Nominal Constructions of Predications 1.7 Bifurcation as the Preferred Burmese Pattern 1.8 Summary 2 Overview of Burmese 2.1 Linguistic Affiliation of Burmese 2.2 Diglossia 2.3 Modern Burmese 2.4 Constituency in Burmese 2.4.1 Phonological Aspects of Constituency 2.4.2 Semantic versus Grammatical Constituent Structure 2.5 Functional Types of Nominalization 2.5.1 Action Nominal 2.5.2 Factive 2.5.3 Future Nominal 2.5.4 Procedural 2.5.5 Infinitive 2.5.6 Agentive (Realis) 2.5.7 Future Agentive 2.5.8 Professional Nominal 2.5.9 Agentive Nominal (Attributive) 2.5.10 Future Attributive Nominal 2.5.11 Participial Nominal 2.5.12 Future Participial Nominal 2.5.13 Participial Nominal (with Genitive) ix 2.5.14 Adjectival Nominal 2.5.15 Attributive Nominal 2.5.16 Adjective Nominal 2.5.17 Abstractive Nominal 2.5.18 Genitive Nominal 2.5.19 Attributive Nominal 2.5.20 Action Noun 2.5.21 Derived Noun 2.6 Scope Limitations and Summary 3 Burmese Grammatical Units 3.1 Grammatical Hierarchy in Burmese 3.2 Morpheme 3.2.1 Morphemes and Language Contact 3.2.2 Vestiges of Proto-Tibeto-Burman Prefixes 3.3 Word 3.3.1 Simple Words 3.3.2 Complex Words 3.4 Past Approaches to Word Categories 3.4.1 Judson 3.4.2 Taw Sein Ko 3.4.3 Stewart 3.4.4 Cornyn 3.4.5 Forbes 3.4.6 Minn Latt 3.4.7 Pe Maung Tin 3.4.8 Okell 3.4.9 Wheatley 3.4.10 Myanma Language Commission 3.4.11 Myint Soe 3.4.12 Summary 3.5 Present Approach to Word Categories and Nominalization 3.5.1 Basic Form Categories 3.5.2