05.08.2013 Views

Perception verb complements in Akatek, a Mayan language

Perception verb complements in Akatek, a Mayan language

Perception verb complements in Akatek, a Mayan language

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

2. TYPOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 123<br />

the other hand, is a deictic strategy, itprovides reference as to which<br />

noun phrase obta<strong>in</strong>s which grammatical role. Cross-l<strong>in</strong>guistically, it<br />

turns out that agreement <strong>in</strong>dexes the important or salient arguments,<br />

i.e. subject and objects, whereas case mark<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>dicates non-obvious<br />

grammatical relationships. The cross-l<strong>in</strong>guistic distribution of agreement<br />

and case mark<strong>in</strong>g is distributed along the upper part of the accessibility<br />

hierarchy established by Keenan & Comrie (1977) for the<br />

relative accessibility of NPs to relativization:<br />

(80) Accessibility Hierarchy (AH) (Keenan & Comrie, 1977)<br />

S > DO > IO > OBL > GEN > O of Comparison<br />

The AH expresses the observation that subjects (S) are more accessible<br />

to relativization than (>) direct objects (DO), which <strong>in</strong> turn are more<br />

accessible than <strong>in</strong>direct objects (IO) and so on. The AH is speci ed by<br />

the follow<strong>in</strong>g constra<strong>in</strong>ts (Keenan & Comrie, 1977):<br />

1. A <strong>language</strong> must be able to relativize subjects.<br />

2. Any relative clause-form<strong>in</strong>g strategy must apply to a cont<strong>in</strong>uous<br />

segment of the AH.<br />

3. Strategies that apply at one po<strong>in</strong>t of the AH may <strong>in</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ciple<br />

cease to apply at any lower po<strong>in</strong>t.<br />

Regard<strong>in</strong>g the distribution of agreement mark<strong>in</strong>g, Table 7 illustrates<br />

that agreement mark<strong>in</strong>g is realized across <strong>language</strong>s from subject<br />

via direct object and <strong>in</strong>direct object/oblique to benefactive. A <strong>language</strong><br />

Table 7. Presence of agreement mark<strong>in</strong>g (after Croft (1988))<br />

S DO IO/ OBL BEN Languages<br />

{ { { { Chrau, Ch<strong>in</strong>ese<br />

+ { { { English, Turkish<br />

+ + { { Quiche<br />

+ + + { Abkhaz, Manam<br />

+ + + + K<strong>in</strong>yarwanda<br />

(+ = agreement, { = no agreement)<br />

that shows agreement for all these categories is K<strong>in</strong>yarwanda. At the<br />

other end of the scale there are <strong>language</strong>s like Ch<strong>in</strong>ese, where none of<br />

the categories is referred to by agreement mark<strong>in</strong>g. The <strong>Mayan</strong> <strong>language</strong><br />

Quiche takes a middle position <strong>in</strong> that subject and object have<br />

agreement markers while <strong>in</strong>direct object/oblique and benefactive do<br />

not. In other words, if a <strong>language</strong> has agreement mark<strong>in</strong>g at all, it has<br />

at least agreement mark<strong>in</strong>g for the subject.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!