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.

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

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!