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. MATRIX PREDICATES 57<br />
Tak<strong>in</strong>g up the latter claim, I follow up four speci c hypotheses for<br />
PVCs <strong>in</strong> English:<br />
1. Hypothesis 1<br />
NI-PVCs, <strong>in</strong>g-PVCs, and PNOMs are exclusively event denot<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
2. Hypothesis 2<br />
To-PVCs are exclusively proposition denot<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
3. Hypothesis 3<br />
That-PVCs are primarily proposition denot<strong>in</strong>g, but under special<br />
conditions that-PVCs can also be event denot<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
4. Hypothesis 4<br />
Only proposition denot<strong>in</strong>g PVCtypes can alternatively be embedded<br />
by the matrix predicate know.<br />
The semantic type attributed to a complementtype depends on the<br />
one hand on the type of the complement, more speci cally on the complement's<br />
structural and semantic properties, and on the other hand on<br />
the k<strong>in</strong>d of matrix predicate it occurs with. The abovehypotheses refer<br />
explicitly to English PVCs. If I speak of the complementtypes <strong>in</strong> non-<br />
PV environments, I do not refer to them as PVCs, but as that-clauses,<br />
to-<strong>in</strong> nitives, ACC-<strong>in</strong>g clauses and NI-clauses. PNOMs are always referred<br />
to as PNOMs. INOMs cannot occur with PVs and therefore do<br />
not qualify as PVCs. The k<strong>in</strong>d of typology pursued <strong>in</strong> this study is<br />
aimed at discover<strong>in</strong>g clusters of <strong>in</strong>terrelated features. Therefore, one<br />
of my secondary goals is to <strong>in</strong>vestigate alternative environments of the<br />
designated complement types. In other words, what is the variety of<br />
matrix predicates each complementtype can occur with? In chapter 5,<br />
I raise the same question regard<strong>in</strong>g PVC types <strong>in</strong> <strong>Akatek</strong>, so that both<br />
results can be compared.<br />
2. Matrix predicates<br />
Typologists are <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> discover<strong>in</strong>g correlations between features.<br />
In other words, they are not only concerned with a s<strong>in</strong>gle construction<br />
that has a s<strong>in</strong>gle function, but extend their endeavours to<br />
both functional and constructional variation. Therefore, besides look<strong>in</strong>g<br />
at the structural and semantic variety ofPVCs, I <strong>in</strong>clude <strong>in</strong> this<br />
study the types of matrix predicates these complementtypes can occur<br />
with. The complementtypes whichhave been selected for characterization<br />
above, i.e. that-clauses, to-<strong>in</strong> nitives, INOMs, PNOMs, ACC-<strong>in</strong>g<br />
clauses and NI-clauses, can also occur with non-PV matrix predicates.<br />
It is important to realize that the mean<strong>in</strong>g of a complement also depends<br />
on the type of matrix predicate. Therefore, it is necessary to