Socialidad intercomunal: El q’urawasiri entre los centros poblados de Thunco

Brinton (1988: 56-57) claims that both states and activities are homogeneous. In her system, homogeneity is analogous to countability in nouns. The sole diagnostic for homogeneity is given in (80).

(80) V for an hour entails Ved at all times in the hour

We can see that FLOW has a stative and a dynamic sense, but that both senses are homogeneous, as the example in (81) shows.

(81) a. the water flowed over the weir b. the water was flowing over the weir c. the Thames flows through London

As I pointed out in 3.5.1, the homogeneity of ‘se e l’ varies exactly with the nature of the percept.

(82) a. For an hour, Peter saw Jane climbing b. For an hour, Peter saw Jane climb

Both of the examples in (82) are homogeneous but if the xcomp is given a direct object, only the -ing participle xcomp example fulfil the entailment in (84).

(83) a. for an hour, Peter saw Jane climbing the mountain b. for an hour, Peter saw Jane climb the mountain

It is clear that ‘seel’ is underspecified for its homogeneity, too.

3.5.1.4 Dynamicity

Dynamicity is different from the other elements of aktionsart because it is not

conditioned by the ee of the sense of the verb, ‘seel ’ is unmarked for dynamicity; but whereas the absence of marking for an aktionsartal category is not problematic as far as the other categories are concerned, it is problematic in the case of dynamicity. A situation is classified in an isa hierarchy, and its classification as a dynamic or a stative situation is central to the grammar of the progressive in English. A situation that is not dynamic and that is not stative is uniquely very near the top of any isa hierarchy. The fact that HEAR-class verbs do not inherit from any other elements is important in demonstrating that they are not a species o f perception, but that they are a unique class of verbs. I present diagnostics for dynamicity drawn from Dowty (1979: 55-6) in (84).

(84) a. only dynamic verbs occur in the progressive

b. only dynamic verbs occur as the complements o f FORCE and PERSUADE

d. only dynamic verbs occur with DELIBERATELY and CAREFULLY e. only dynamic verbs occur in pseudo-cleft constructions with DO f. dynamic verbs cannot occur in the present tense with present time, non-

habitual, non generic, non-instantaneous time-reference

These diagnostics are not without their problems. If we take a verb such as LIKE, we can see that it gives a mixed response to the diagnostics.

(85) a. !I am liking toffee

b. I persuaded Jane to like toffee c. like toffee or die!

d. II deliberately/ carefully like toffee e. I what I did was like toffee

f. I like toffee

According to the progressive, manner adverb, pseudo-cleft, and simple present tense tests, LIKE is not dynamic; according to the PERSUADE and imperative tests, it is. It is necessary to bear in mind that the diagnostics may not all be testing for the same element. And Hike toffee is less acceptable than Hike toffetor die is, in (85c).

Bearing these caveats in mind, the diagnostics are not clear with SEE.

(86) a. II am seeing Peter crossing the road

b. II persuaded Peter to see Jane crossing the road c. Isee Jane crossing the road

d. IJane deliberately saw Peter crossing the road e. Iwhat he did was see Jane crossing the road f. I Peter sees Jane crossing the road

According to the examples in (86), SEE/'see T is not stative and it is not dynamic. I chose examples with SEE complemented by a direct object and an xcomp in order to avoid the potential interpretation ‘go to see’ of SEE + direct object strings.

The problem that the analysis of SEE faces is that it has some o f the

characteristics o f a dynamic verb without having all o f them. Prototypical dynamic verbs, like HIT, RUN and BEAT involve bounded themes traversing telic paths. They involve a force opposition between the er and the ee. Other dynamic verbs, like BEGIN do not have a thematic relationship between the sense of the verb and the referent of the subject but there is a force-dynamic one. The referent o f the subject of an instance of BEGIN is in a force-dynamic opposition with the referent of the xcomp of BEGIN. We have seen that there is a relationship between the force-dynamics and the thematics of SEE/’seel ’ so that the theme of ‘se e l’ is the antagonist o f ‘seel ’ and the referent of the subject is the agonist. In normal circumstances, this would mean that ‘s e e l’ was dynamic: the only cases where a verb with a thematic element in its semantics is not dynamic involve themes that are co-extensive with the paths o f the sense o f the verb. Although we have seen that the first theme of ‘seel’ may possibly be co-extensive with the path of ‘seel’, the second or percept theme cannot possibly be so.

There is a further reason why ‘see l’ is not ordinarily dynamic. As Croft (1991) cogently argues, force-dynamic relations form chains. The chain of force transmission in ‘seel ’ is broken, however. As a consequence, the referent of the object is not the antagonist of ‘se e l’. As the force-dynamic chain is reversed in the case o f ‘seel ’ it violates the prototypical characteristics of force-dynamic relations, leading to a situation where ‘seel’ is dynamic, but so non-prototypically so that it does not meet the conditions of dynamic verbs. The upshot is that ‘se e l’ is classed as a non-prototypical dynamic meaning, with the result that, to all intents and purposes, it is neither dynamic nor stative.

3.5.2 Aspectual conclusions

The irregular conclusion is that ‘seel’ does not have an aktionsart. To the extent that it is punctual or durative, telic or atelic, homogeneous or non-homogeneous, or multiple or not, the complement of the instance of SEE determines the outcome. As far as the dynamicity of ‘seel’ is concerned, the outcome is set by the thematics and the force-dynamics of ‘seel’. I have argued that, uniquely, it is neither stative nor

dynamic, not because it is not classed as one or the other in an isa hierarchy, but because it is classed as dynamic, while having so many elements in its meaning at odds with such a classification that the analysis of ‘seel ’ as dynamic is entirely at odds with every element in the grammar of ‘seel’, barring its not being a state. All of the facts about the aktionsart of ‘seel ’ are consonant with my initial hypothesis that ‘seel ’ is a consequence of the direct embodiment of perception and our experience of seeing. There are a number of contradictory facts about ‘seel’, especially in its thematics and force-dynamics, and these give rise to the aktionsart o f ‘seel’.