Cover not available
Part of
Noun-Modifying Clause Constructions in Languages of Eurasia: Rethinking theoretical and geographical boundaries
Edited by Yoshiko Matsumoto, Bernard Comrie and Peter Sells
[Typological Studies in Language 116] 2017
► pp. 121–146

Chapter 6
General noun-modifying clause constructions in Hinuq and Bezhta, with a note on other Daghestanian languages

| Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology | University of California Santa Barbara
| University of Bamberg | LCRC James Cook University
| Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Hinuq and Bezhta, two languages of the Tsezic sub-group of the Nakh-Daghestanian (East Caucasian) language family, have General noun modifying clause constructions (GNMCCs), which have also been noted in some other Nakh-Daghestanian languages. While readily acceptable and interpretable, GNMCCs that do not receive an interpretation with a coreferential element in the modifying clause are rare in natural discourse, certainly in comparison with Japanese, and the range of types also seems more restricted. We speculate that this is because Japanese by and large lacks sentential complement structures independent of GNMCCs, and moreover because Hinuq and Bezhta do not have highly frequent GNMCCs with light nouns, whose presence in Japanese serves to make GNMCCs a much more salient feature of discourse.
Keywords: General noun-modifying clause construction, Tsezic languages, Nakh-Daghestanian languages, sentential complements
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.GNMCCs with a coreferential element in the modifying clause and “accessibility”
    • 2.1The “gap” strategy
      • 2.1.1The understood coreferential noun phrase in the modifying clause is an argument
        • S
        • P
        • A
        • Stim
        • Exp
        • R (Recipient of ditransitive construction)
        • T (Theme of ditransitive construction)
        • E (Oblique object of extended intransitive or transitive verb)
        • Subcategorized locatives
      • 2.1.2“Relativization” of adjuncts
        • Non-subcategorized locatives
        • Instrument
        • Comitative
        • Time
        • Reason and cause
        • Possessor
        • Object of postposition
        • Standard of comparison
    • 2.2Resumptive pronouns
  • 3.GNMCCs without a coreferential noun phrase in the modifying clause
    • 3.1Other components of the Frame
      • Consequence/result
      • Reverse condition
      • Purpose
      • Requisite
    • 3.2Sentential complements of nouns
      • Nouns of communication
      • Nouns of thought and feeling
      • Other content-taking nouns as heads
      • Other types
  • 4.Coreference across clause boundaries
  • 5.Other Nakh-Daghestanian languages
  • 6.Conclusions and interpretations
  • 7.A note on Tsez
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 28 February 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.116.07com
References (8)
References
Comrie, Bernard & Horie, Kaoru. 1995. Complement clauses versus relative clauses: Some Khmer evidence. In Discourse Grammar and Typology: Papers in Honor of John W. M. Verhaar [Studies in Language Companion Series 27], Werner Abraham, T. Givón & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 65–75. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, Khalilov, Madzhid & Khalilova, Zaira. 2015. Valency and valency classes in Bezhta. In Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Andrej Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds), 541–570. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard & Polinsky, Maria. 1999. Possessor raising in a language that does not have any. In External Possession, [Typological Studies in Language 39], Doris L. Payne & Emmanuel Barshi (eds), 523–542. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Daniel, Michael [ = Daniel´, M. A.] & Lander, Yuri [ = Lander, Ju. A.]. 2010. A girl of word, meat of a ram, and a life of longing. On peculiar cases of relativization in East Caucasian languages. Paper presented at the conference Syntax of the World’s Languages IV, Lyon.
Daniel�, Mixail & Lander, Jurij A. 2008. O nekotoryx osobennostjax otnositel´noj konstrukcii v dagestanskix jazykax (On some peculiarities of the relative construction in Daghestanian languages). Paper presented at the conference Caucasian Languages: Genetic, Typological, and Areal Links, Makhachkala.
Forker, Diana. 2013. A Grammar of Hinuq. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, Maria & Comrie, Bernard. In preparation. A grammar of Tsez.
Takara, Nobutaka. 2012. The weight of head nouns in noun-modifying constructions in conversational Japanese. Studies in Language 36(1): 33–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Maisak, Timur
2020. Relative clauses in Agul from a corpus-based perspective. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 73:1 ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo
Lander, Yury & Michael Daniel
2019. West Caucasian relative pronouns as resumptives. Linguistics 57:6 ► pp. 1239 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.