Cover not available
Part of
Topics in Theoretical Asian Linguistics: Studies in honor of John B. Whitman
Edited by Kunio Nishiyama, Hideki Kishimoto and Edith Aldridge
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 250] 2018
► pp. 45–72

Chapter 3
Displaced modification

Picture-noun constructions in Marathi and Japanese

| Kobe University | Universities of Virginia and Michigan | NINJAL
| Kobe University | Universities of Virginia and Michigan | NINJAL
| Kobe University | Universities of Virginia and Michigan | NINJAL
The picture-noun construction in Marathi has a constituent structure in which the imagee-NP marked with genitive case appears outside the participial complement clause, i.e. it does not appear as a direct argument to the verb in the complement clause. It is shown that Japanese has the same type of picture-noun construction, which is not an instance of the genitive-subject construction derived by nominative-genitive conversion. In the picture-noun construction, the genitive NP, which is structurally related to the picture noun head, is interpreted as the subject of the complement clause. We argue that the imagee NP controls an invisible pronoun residing in the complement clause, and is thus understood as the subject of that clause. We discuss a number of empirical facts regarding the picture-noun complements in Marathi and Japanese that provide support for this analysis.
Keywords: picture noun, participial complement, imagee NP, control, Marathi, Japanese
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Marathi and Japanese picture-noun constructions
    • 2.1The basic properties
    • 2.2The structure
  • 3.Genitive subjects in Japanese
    • 3.1Nominative-genitive conversion
    • 3.2Clausal idioms
  • 4.Sensorial nouns
  • 5.Theoretical implications
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgment
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.250.04kis
References (22)
References
Boeckx, C., Hornstein, N. & Nunes, J. 2010. Control as Movement. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carnie, A. 2013. Syntax: A Generative Introduction, 3rd edn. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Harada, S. I. 1971. Ga-no conversion and idiolectal variations in Japanese. Gengo Kenkyu 60: 25–38.Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, K. 2001. On nominative-genitive conversion. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 39: A Few from Building E39, 67–125.Google Scholar
Hook, P. E. & Koul, O. N. 2014. The noun phrase accessibility hierarchy and participial noun-modifying constructions in Hindi-Urdu and Kashmiri. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference of South Asian Languages and Literatures (ICOLSI-11), Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, 23–25 January.Google Scholar
Hook, P. E. & Pardeshi, P. 2013. Prenominal participial phrases in Marathi, the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy, and picture nouns. Lingua Posnaniensis 55(2): 77–89.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. Noun-modifying expressions in Marathi. In Noun-Modifying Clause Constructions in Languages of Eurasia: Rethinking Theoretical and Geographical Boundaries [Typological Studies in Language 116], Y. Matsumoto, B. Comrie & P. Sells (eds.), 293–329. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69–96.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, P. 1992. Raising without movement. In Control and Grammar, R. Larson, S. Iatridou, U. Lahiri & J. Higginbotham (eds.), 149–194. Dordrecht: Kluwer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kinsui, S. 1994. Rentai-syūshoku-no ‘-ta’ nituite (On attributive use of ‘-ta’). In Nihongo-no Meishi-Syūshoku Hyōgen (Noun-modifying expressions in Japanese), Y. Takubo (ed.), 29–65. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
2000. Toki-no hyōgen (Expressions of time). In Toki-Hitei-to Toritate (Time, Negation and Focus), Y. Nitta & T. Masuoka (eds.), 3–92. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.Google Scholar
Landau, I. 2013. Control in Generative Grammar: A Research Companion. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. 1988. Semantics and pragmatics of noun-modifying constructions in Japanese. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: 166–175.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997. Noun-Modifying Constructions in Japanese: A Frame-semantic Approach [Studies in Language Companion Series 35]. Amsterdam: Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Y., Comrie, B. & Sells, P. 2017. Noun-modifying clause constructions in languages of Eurasia: Rethinking theoretical and geographical boundaries. In Noun-Modifying Clause Constructions in Languages of Eurasia: Rethinking Theoretical and Geographical Boundaries [Typological Studies in Language 116], Y. Matsumoto, B. Comrie & P. Sells (eds.), 3–21 Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochi, M. 2001. Move F and ga/no conversion in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 10: 247–286.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oshima, M. 2010. Nihongo Rentai Syūsyoku Kōzō-no Kenkyū (A study of the structures of noun modifying clauses in Japanese). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. 2009. Elements of complex structures, where recursion isn’t: The case of relativization. In Syntactic Complexity: Diachrony, Acquisition, Neuro-cognition, Evolution [Typological Studies in Language 85], T. Givón & M. Shibatani (eds.), 163–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teramura, H. 1969. The syntax of noun modification in Japanese. The Journal-Newsletter of the Association of Teachers of Japanese 6(1): 64–74.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1975–1978. Rentaisyūsyoku-no Syntakusu-to imi (1–4) (The syntax and meaning of noun modification (1–4)). Reprinted in Teramura, H. 1992. Teramura Hideo Ronbunsyū II (Collected papers by Hideo Teramura II). Tokyo: Kurosio. English Translations available at [URL]Google Scholar
Watanabe, A. 1996. Nominative-genitive conversion and agreement in Japanese: A crosslinguistic perspective. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5: 373–410.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whitman, J. 2013. The prehead relative clause problem. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 67: Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics, 361–380.Google Scholar