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. 147–178

Chapter 7
The general noun-modifying clause construction in Tundra Nenets and its possible origin

 | School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
Tundra Nenets (Uralic) exhibits unambiguous relative clauses and sentential complements of nouns, but I show that it also has a previously unstudied but structurally distinct GNMCC. The GNMCC covers a diversity of functions although its usage is restricted in various ways. The paper suggests that it has a direct parallel in the non-sentential domain in terms of its syntactic behaviour, the morphosyntactic expression of the constructional ingredients and the basic semantics: it is modelled after the non-clausal compound-like structure employed for the very general purpose of modifying one noun by reference to another noun. Such modification-by-noun constructions served as a historical source of Tundra Nenets GNMCCs, which emerged when the modifying deverbal noun was reanalysed as heading a clausal domain.
Keywords: noun-noun compounds, modification, reanalysis, deverbal nominals
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The basic properties of the language
  • 3.Relative clauses
  • 4.Noun complementation
  • 5.General noun-modifying clause constructions
    • 5.1Relativization-like function
    • 5.2Extended functions
  • 6.GNMCCs and noun-noun compounds
  • 7.Remarks about diachrony
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 28 February 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.116.08nik
References (30)
References
Ackerman, Farrell & Nikolaeva, Irina. 2013. Descriptive Typology and Linguistic Theory: A Study in the Morphosyntax of Relative Clauses. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Barker, Chris. 1995. Possessive Descriptions. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 2011. Possessives and relational nouns. In Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Vol. 2, Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds), 1109–1130 Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Beck, David. 2002. The Typology of Parts of Speech Systems. The Markedness of Adjectives. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Downing, Pamela. 1977. On the creation and use of English nominal compounds. Language 55: 810–842. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraurud, Kari. 2001. Possessives with extensive use: A source of definite articles? In Dimensions of Possession [Typological Studies in Language 47], Irène Baron, Michel Herslund & Finn Sørensen (eds), 243–267. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice & Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, Roger. 1981. Towards an account of the possessive constructions: NPs and the N of NP’. Journal of Linguistics 17: 247–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 1985. On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16(4): 547–593.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2000. Romani genitives in cross-linguistic perspective. In Grammatical Relations in Romani: The Noun Phrase [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 211], Viktor Elšík & Yaron Matras (eds), 123–149. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laczkó, Tibor. 1997. Action nominalization and the possessor function. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 44 (3–4): 413–475.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1993. Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4: 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard & Segal, Gabriel. 1995. Knowledge of Meaning. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. P. (ed.). 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 16th edn. Dallas TX: SIL International. <[URL]/>
Nikolaeva, Irina. 1999. Ostyak. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
. 2003. Possessive affixes as markers of information structuring: Evidence from Uralic. In International Symposium on Deictic Systems and Quantification in Languages Spoken in Europe and North and Central Asia. Collection of papers, Pirkko Suihkonen & Bernard Comrie (eds), 130–145. Izhevsk: Udmurt State University, and Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar
. 2005. Modifier-Head person concord. In Morphology and Linguistic Typology. Proceedings of the Fourth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM4) Catania, 21–23 September 2003, G. Booij, E. Guevara, A. Ralli, S. Sgroi & Sergio Scalise (eds), 221–234. Bologna: Universití degli Studi di Bologna.Google Scholar
. 2014. A Grammar of Tundra Nenets. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina & Spencer, Andrew. 2012. Possession and modification: A perspective from canonical typology. In Canonical Typology, Dunstan Brown & Greville G. Corbett (eds), 207–238. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1997. Genitives: A case study. Appendix to Theo M.V. Janssen, ‘Compositionality’. In Handbook of Logic and Linguistics, Johan van Benthem & Alice ter Meulen (eds), 464–470. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. & Borschev, Vladimir. 1998. Integrating lexical and formal semantics: Genitives, relational nouns, and type-shifting. In Proceedings of the Second Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic, and Computation, Robin Cooper & Thomas Gamkrelidze (eds), 229–241. Tbilisi: Center on Language, Logic, Speech, Tbilisi State University.Google Scholar
Salminen, Tapani. 1997. Tundra Nenets Inflection. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Seiler, Hansjakob. 1983. Possession as an Operational Dimension of Language [Language Universals Series, 2]. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2011. What’s in a compound. Review article of Lieber and Štekauer (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Journal of Linguistics 47: 481–507.Google Scholar
. 2013. Lexical relatedness. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deidre. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1994. The noun phrase. In Hungarian syntax [Syntax and Semantics 27], Ferenc Kiefer & Katalin É. Kiss (eds), 179–274. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 1996. Possessives in English. An Exploration in Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Tereščenko, Natalʹja M. 1965. Nenecko-russkij slovarʹ (Nenets-Russian dictionary). Moscow: Sovetskaja ènciklopedija.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Starchenko, Aleksey
2019. Periphrastic Nominalization in Khanty. SSRN Electronic Journal 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.