Perception verb complements in Akatek, a Mayan language

78 3. PERCEPTION VERB COMPLEMENTS IN ENGLISH
one of the English PVC types has a complementizer, that, which isoptional.
That-PVCs are also the only PVC type which retains sentential
case marking, agreement, and tense marking. This clausal complement
type accepts expletive it and can be modi ed by aspectual have and
adverbs but not by adjectives, or determiners. In case the matrix PV is
passivized, that-PVCs permit PVC-to-S raising but not S-to-S raising.
That-PVC objects can be clefted, but not their subjects or the whole
complement.
To-PVCs are morphologically marked by the preverbal particle to,
both logical subject and direct object (in case of transitive predicates)
are marked with the accusative case. Only the modi cation with aspectual
have is grammatical but neither agreement nor tense marking.
Clausal to-PVCs accept expletive it. They can be modi ed by adverbs
but not by adjectives or determiners. To-PVCs of passivized PVs allow
S-to-S raising but not PVC-to-S raising. The subject as well as the
object of a to-PVC can be clefted but not the whole PVC.
The nominalized PVC, PNOM, lacks a complementizer and encodes
its logical subject as well as its logical object in the genitive case.
PNOMs do not permit agreement, tense, aspect marking or adverbs,
but are unique among the PVC types considered here in accepting
adjectives as well as determiners and the plural -s. As nominal constituents
PNOMs cannot occur with expletive it. Like that-PVCs they
admit PVC-to-S but not S-to-S raising in passivization. With respect
to clefting, PNOMs only allow PVC cleft.
The non-PVC type INOM was investigated because it contrasts
with PNOMs. The structural di erence between the two nominalization
types is that INOMs encode their direct objects in the accusative
case and not in the genitive like PNOMs. As opposed to PNOMs,
INOMs permit aspectual have as well as adverbs, but cannot occur
with adjectives, determiners or the plural -s. Regarding expletive it,
passivization and cleft INOMs behave like PNOMs.
Ihave argued above that ing-PVCs are the progressive counterparts
of NI-PVCs, di ering from NI-PVCs only in the -ing su x on the verb.
In fact, both types of PVC exhibit the same structural characteristics:
no complementizer; accusative case of logical subject and direct object;
no agreement, tense, or aspectual have; adverbs but neither adjectives,
nor articles or the plural -s; no passivization. Expletive it is grammatical,
so that both NI-PVCs and ing-PVCs are analyzed as clausal
constituents. Neither subject nor object cleft are grammatical, but the
ing-PVC permits PVC cleft. This divergence might be due to the fact
that neither expletive it nor impersonal expressions like someone nor