Perception verb complements in Akatek, a Mayan language
Perception verb complements in Akatek, a Mayan language
Perception verb complements in Akatek, a Mayan language
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
4. PERCEPTION VERB COMPLEMENTS 39<br />
Table 4. Distribution of complementizers<br />
Proposition denot<strong>in</strong>g PVCs Event denot<strong>in</strong>g PVCs Language<br />
+ COMP + COMP Russian<br />
+ COMP { COMP Cambodian<br />
{ COMP { COMP Cayuga<br />
{ COMP + COMP n.a.<br />
The last comb<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>in</strong> Table 4, { COMP + COMP, has to my<br />
knowledge not been attested, so that I can posit the rst implicative<br />
correlation:<br />
(24) Correlation 1:<br />
If the event denot<strong>in</strong>g PVC has a complementizer, then the<br />
proposition denot<strong>in</strong>g PVC also has a complementizer.<br />
Correlation 1 excludes a situation <strong>in</strong> which the event denot<strong>in</strong>g PVC<br />
has a complementizer while the proposition denot<strong>in</strong>g PVC lacks one.<br />
The form of the predicate of the complement has been the central<br />
criterion for the identi cation of di erent complement types. One<br />
typological approach to the study of PVCs suggested the dist<strong>in</strong>ction<br />
between nite and non- nite <strong>complements</strong> (Horie, 1993). Under this<br />
approach non- niteness is de ned <strong>in</strong> that the complement is less likely<br />
to show tense, aspect and modality mark<strong>in</strong>g than a nite complement,<br />
which <strong>in</strong> turn exhibits mark<strong>in</strong>g for tense, aspect, and mood. Horie<br />
(1993) makes the follow<strong>in</strong>g cross-l<strong>in</strong>guistic observations regard<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
encod<strong>in</strong>g of event vs. proposition denot<strong>in</strong>g PVCs:<br />
(25) Correlation 2.1 (Horie, 1993):<br />
a. If a nite PVC denotes events, then a nite PVC also<br />
denotes propositions.<br />
b. If a non- nite PVC denotes propositions, then a non- nite<br />
PVC also denotes events.<br />
That the nite vs. non- nite dist<strong>in</strong>ction `turns out to be of limited<br />
cross-l<strong>in</strong>guistic applicability' for the de nition of structural types<br />
has recently been po<strong>in</strong>ted out by Cristofaro (1998). First of all,<br />
<strong>language</strong>s di er with respect to the number and type of parameters<br />
that might be relevant for de n<strong>in</strong>g nite vs. non- nite. Therefore, it<br />
is impossible to de ne a fundamental set of morphological parameters<br />
to de ne the notion of niteness. Secondly, distribution is problematic<br />
<strong>in</strong> that <strong>verb</strong> forms lack<strong>in</strong>g a number of <strong>verb</strong>al categories, e.g. imperatives,<br />
can only occur <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>dependent clauses while there are <strong>verb</strong> forms