Perception verb complements in Akatek, a Mayan language
Perception verb complements in Akatek, a Mayan language
Perception verb complements in Akatek, a Mayan language
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.