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.
124 4. AKATEK, A `TYPICAL' MAYAN LANGUAGE<br />
(81) Agreement mark<strong>in</strong>g AH<br />
S > DO > IO/ OBL > BEN<br />
Table 8 re ects the distribution of case mark<strong>in</strong>g across <strong>language</strong>s. 20<br />
In <strong>language</strong>s like English or Manam, there is no case mark<strong>in</strong>g on noun<br />
Table 8. Presence of case mark<strong>in</strong>g (after Croft (1988))<br />
S DO IO Languages<br />
+ + + German, Japanese<br />
{ + + Turkish<br />
{ { + Quiche, Chrau<br />
{ { { English, Manam<br />
(note: + = case mark<strong>in</strong>g, { = zero case mark<strong>in</strong>g)<br />
phrases. The opposite situation can be found <strong>in</strong> Japanese where subject<br />
NPs, as well as direct object and <strong>in</strong>direct object NPs are marked<br />
for case. Quiche ranks at the lower end because only <strong>in</strong>direct object<br />
NPs receive case mark<strong>in</strong>g. As opposed to the realization of agreement<br />
mark<strong>in</strong>g along the hierarchy, case mark<strong>in</strong>g occurs m<strong>in</strong>imally on <strong>in</strong>direct<br />
objects:<br />
(82) Case mark<strong>in</strong>g AH<br />
IO > DO > S<br />
Tak<strong>in</strong>g Croft's functional de nition of agreement markers, namely<br />
that agreement markers actually denote the entity that is represented<br />
by a subject or object NP, I th<strong>in</strong>k it legitimate for the present purpose<br />
to analyze the pronom<strong>in</strong>al arguments on the <strong>verb</strong>al complex <strong>in</strong> <strong>Mayan</strong><br />
<strong>language</strong>s as agreement markers <strong>in</strong> the sense of the above de nition.<br />
Therefore, I contend that <strong>Mayan</strong> <strong>language</strong>s show a complementary distribution<br />
for case and agreement. Agreement ranges from subject to<br />
direct object, while case is <strong>in</strong>stantiated for <strong>in</strong>direct objects only.<br />
As can be seen <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Akatek</strong> example <strong>in</strong> (83), there is no case<br />
mark<strong>in</strong>g on either the subject NP naj Xhunik `John' or on the direct<br />
object NP jun te' serwesa `a beer'. Only the <strong>in</strong>direct object `e-<strong>in</strong> an<br />
`for me' is marked with the dative (DAT) case marker `e, while the<br />
<strong>in</strong>direct object itself is the set B a x -<strong>in</strong>. Due to the lack of rst or<br />
second person pronouns <strong>in</strong> <strong>Akatek</strong>, <strong>in</strong> example (83) the <strong>in</strong>direct object<br />
cannot be lexically <strong>in</strong>stantiated.<br />
20 Absolutive case is the unmarked case and therefore counted as subject case<br />
by Croft. S<strong>in</strong>ce this is not a problem regard<strong>in</strong>g case mark<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>Mayan</strong> <strong>language</strong>s,<br />
I do not discuss this issue here.
Change language