526 ROBERT D. VAN VALIN, JR. & DAVID P. WILKINS
function of the semantics of the purposive adjunct together with the mean
ing of ¿telare-.
The process of relating the semantic representations of irlpangke- "re
member" and itelare- "(actively) know" to the syntactic complement types
which they take is straightforward. With both verbs, the SRRs would tell us
that the χ argument is a person and the y argument can be a proposition
that is part of the knowledge of x. The fact that the y variable is something
that χ knows is explicit in the semantic representation of both verbs, and
when the thing known is a clausal proposition, this immediately links the
interpretation to the cognition/propositional attitude relation on the IRH.
The cognition/propositional attitude relation maps to a core subordinate
syntactic clause linkage in MpA, and the language-specific complement
type that is finally associated with these predicates is the -rie complement
clause. Figures 4 and 5 diagram the association of -rle complements with
irlpangke- and itelare- respectively.
We have observed previously that when itelare- "(actively) know"
takes an -rle complement it does not carry a sense of remember, but when a
purposive adjunct occurs with it, itelare- conveys a sense akin to the psych-
action sense of English remember. To generate this interpretation and
structure within the RRG framework the following steps occur. First, part
of the SRRs for irlpangke- and itelare- are the fact that the former is a Sta
tive predicate and the latter an activity predicate. At the level of interpreta-IrIpangke-:
have.in.mind.again (x) something.x.knows.be.in.mind.from.before (y)↓
Semantic Redundancy Rules↓
χ = a person; y = a (knowledge) proposition; the predicate is stative
↓
Cognition/Propositional Attitude
↓
Core/Clausal Subordination
-rle complement
Figure 4: The analysis of complement association with irlpangke- "re
member"