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.

3. TYPES OF MEANING EXTENSION 27<br />

In sum, the revised version of the lexicalization hierarchy for passive<br />

PVs as shown <strong>in</strong> Table 2 considers the exceptions presented above.<br />

First of all, no basic passive PV might beavailable <strong>in</strong> a <strong>language</strong> (;).<br />

Second, <strong>in</strong> case only one PV is lexicalized, there is either a PV for<br />

vision or for general sense perception, i.e. perceive. Third, the<br />

order of touch, smell, and taste cannot be decided at this po<strong>in</strong>t.<br />

Table 2. Revised lexicalization hierarchy for passive<br />

perception <strong>verb</strong>s (after Viberg (1983))<br />

Touch<br />

; > Perceive/ Vision > Hear<strong>in</strong>g > Smell<br />

Taste<br />

In the next section, two k<strong>in</strong>ds of mean<strong>in</strong>g extension of passive PVs<br />

are discussed. The rst mean<strong>in</strong>g extension is along the sense modality<br />

hierarchy. More speci cally, PVs higher <strong>in</strong> the hierarchy can cover<br />

mean<strong>in</strong>gs of PVs lower <strong>in</strong> the hierarchy but not vice versa. The second<br />

mean<strong>in</strong>g extension of passive PVs is an extension to non-perception<br />

doma<strong>in</strong>s like cognition.<br />

3. Types of mean<strong>in</strong>g extension<br />

Two types of mean<strong>in</strong>g extension are described. First, the `last' PV<br />

lexicalized along the hierarchy often covers some or all of the mean<strong>in</strong>gs<br />

`below' it (section 3.1). Second, passive PVs can extend their mean<strong>in</strong>g<br />

from the doma<strong>in</strong> of perception to the doma<strong>in</strong> of cognition. In this case,<br />

the tendency to acquire cognitive extensions roughly follows the sense<br />

modality hierarchy aswell (section 3.2). In section 3.3, etymological<br />

evidence for both types of mean<strong>in</strong>g extension is provided.<br />

3.1. Extension along the hierarchy. The sense modality hierarchy<br />

established by Viberg (1983, 1984) re ects a hierarchical tendency<br />

of PVs to cover mean<strong>in</strong>gs lower on the hierarchy. Cross-l<strong>in</strong>guistically,<br />

the lowest, i.e. the rightmost, PV lexicalized <strong>in</strong> a particular <strong>language</strong><br />

along the hierarchy tends to cover all or a part of the unlexicalized<br />

mean<strong>in</strong>gs to its right with the exception that certa<strong>in</strong> modalities<br />

may be skipped. In other words, if a <strong>language</strong> lexicalizes passive PVs<br />

for the senses of vision and hear<strong>in</strong>g, the PV for hear<strong>in</strong>g is likely<br />

to be extended <strong>in</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>g to the senses of touch, smell and taste.<br />

This mean<strong>in</strong>g extension along the sense modality hierarchy can either<br />

be achieved via polysemy, or via serial <strong>verb</strong> constructions or compound

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!