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. 293–329

Chapter 11
Noun-modifying constructions in Marathi

| University of Michigan | University of Virginia
| National Institute for Japanese Language & Linguistics
We provide a detailed description of the types of noun-modifying constructions in Marathi whose counterparts in Japanese are considered to be structurally comparable and one type of. We show that in Marathi, while one type of relative construction and one type of noun-complement clause are formally distinct, there are other types that are identical in form, as in Japanese. Furthermore, the same noun-modifying construction in Marathi has yet other functions (among them are “gapless” relativization and disembedded or insubordinate predication) that are characteristic of their counterparts in Japanese. The data reported in our chapter is taken from published and online sources.
Keywords: Marathi, prenominal, participle, gapless, NPAH
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Noun-modifying constructions (NMCs) in Marathi
    • 2.1Relativizing NMCs
      • (A)“Gap” type relativizing NMCs
        • Relativization on agent-subject
        • Relativization on abilitative or experiencer “subject”
        • Relativization on inalienable possessor subject
        • Relativization on direct object
        • Relativization on indirect object
        • Relativization on oblique objects
      • (B)Non-reduction strategy: The relative-corelative type of relativizing NMC
      • (C)So-called “fused” relatives
    • 2.2Beyond accessibility
      • 2.2.1Reduced valency prenominal relatives
      • 2.2.2Verb-gapped prenominal relatives
      • 2.2.3Gapping NMCs with unpredictable (non-compositional) semantics
      • 2.2.4Gapless NMCs with sensory and circumstantial head nouns
    • 2.3Noun-complement NMCs
    • 2.4The short prenominal NMC
    • 2.5The short relative-corelative construction
  • 3.Other functions of NMCs in ‑lel‑ and ‑ṇār
    • 3.1As a complementizer
    • 3.2As insubordinate “finite” verbs (Evans 2007)
  • 4.Marathi NMCs: Historical remarks
  • 5.Suggestions for further investigation and concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 28 February 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.116.12hoo
References (39)
References
Annamalai, E. 1997. Adjectival clauses in Tamil. Tokyo: ILCAA, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
Bubeník, Vít. 1998. A Historical Syntax of Late Middle Indo-Aryan (Apabhraṃśa) [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 165]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chevillard, Jean-Luc. 2007. Syntactic duality in classical Tamil poems. In Masica (ed.), 211–245.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1996. The unity of noun modifying clauses in Asian languages. In Pan-Asiatic Linguistics: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Languages and Linguistics, January 8–10, Vol. 3, 1077–1088. Salaya, Thailand: Institute of Language and Culture for Rural Development, Mahidol University at Salaya.Google Scholar
. 1998a. Attributive clauses in Asian languages: Towards an areal typology. In Sprache in Raum und Zeit. In memoriam Johannes Bechert, Band 2, Winfried Boeder, Christoph Schroeder, Karl Heinz Wagner & Wolfgang Wildgen (eds), 51–60. Tübingen: Günter Narr.Google Scholar
. 1998b. Rethinking the typology of relative clauses. Language Design 1: 59–86.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard & Horie, Kaoru. 1995. Complement clause 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
Davison, Alice. 2009. Correlative clause features in Sanskrit and Hindi/Urdu. In Historical Syntax and Linguistic Theory, Paola Crisma & Guiseppe Longobardi (eds), 271–291. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deo, Ashwini. 2006. Tense & Aspect in Indo-Aryan Languages: Variation & Diachrony. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Dhongde, Ramesh & Wali, Kashi. 2009. Marathi [London Oriental and African Language Library 13]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 366–431. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hook, Peter E. 1997. Relative clauses in Eastern Shina. In Indo-European, Nostratic and Beyond: Festschrift for Vitalij V. Shevoroshkin, Peter Michalove, Irèn Hegedüs & Alexis Manaster-Ramer (eds), 140–154. Washington DC: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar
Hook, Peter E. & Koul, Omkar Ms.. The noun phrase accessibility hierarchy and participial noun-modifying constructions in Hindi-Urdu and Kashmiri.
Hook, Peter E. & Pardeshi, Prashant. 2013. Prenominal participial phrases in Marathi, the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy, and picture nouns. Lingua Posnaniensis 55(2): 77–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hook, Peter E. & Pardeshi, Prashant. MS-a. ‘Mouth-watering pakoras’, ‘frightened states’, and ‘key-twirling photos’: Three kinds of syntactic-semantic mismatches in Marathi’s prenominal participial phrases. Ms, NINJAL, Tokyo.
Hook, Peter E. & Pardeshi, Prashant. MS-b. kodomo no asonde iru šašin [children’s playing photographs] vs. asonde iru kodomo no šašin [playing children’s photographs]: Mismatched prenominal participial phrases in Japanese, Marathi, and Hindi-Urdu. Ms, NINJAL, Tokyo.
Ikegami, Yoshihiko. 1991. “DO-language” and “BECOME-language”: Two contrasting types of linguistic representations. In Empire of Signs: Semiotic Essays on Japanese Culture [Foundation of Semiotics 8], Yoshihiko Ikegami (ed.), 285–326. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Junghare, Indira. 1973. Restrictive relative clauses in Marathi. Indian Linguistics 34(4): 251–262.Google Scholar
Kachru, Yamuna. 2006. Hindi [London Oriental and African Language Library 12]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kelkar, Ashok. 1973. Relative clauses in Marathi: A plea for a less constricted view. Indian Linguistics 34(4): 274–300.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward & Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1): 63–99.Google Scholar
Kishimoto, Hideki, Hook, Peter E. & Pardeshi, Prashant. Forthcoming. Displaced modification: Picture noun constructions in Marathi and Japanese.
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Chungmin & Lee, Jeong-Shik. 2012. Gap in “gapless” relative clauses in Korean and other Asian languages. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics. Theories of Everything 17 (article 25): 204–214. Los Angeles CA: Dept. of Linguistics, UCLA.Google Scholar
Masica, Colin P. 1991. The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1972. Relative clauses in South Asia. In The Chicago Which Hunt: Papers from the Relative Clause Festival, Paul M. Peranteau, Judith N. Levi & Gloria C. Phares (eds), 198–204. Chicago IL: Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Yoshiko. 1988. Semantics and pragmatics of noun-modifying constructions in Japanese. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Shelley Axmaker & Helen Singmaster (eds), 166–175. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar
Ozeki, Hiromi & Shirai, Yasuhiro. 2007. Does the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy predict the difficulty order in the acquisition of Japanese relative clauses? SSLA 29: 169–196.Google Scholar
Pandharipande, Rajeshwari. 1997. Marathi. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pardeshi, Prashant. 2002. “Responsible” Japanese vs. “Intentional” Indic: A cognitive contrast of non-intentional events. Japanese-Language Education around the Globe 12: 123–144.Google Scholar
Pilot-Raichoor, Christiane. 2013. Noun modifying clause constructions in Dravidian. Paper presented at the 10th Biennial Conference of the Association for Linguistic Typology, Leipzig, August.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2009. Elements of complex structures, where recursion isn’t: The case of relativization. In Syntactic Complexity: Diachrony, Acquisition, Neuro-cognition, Evolution [Typhological Studies in Language 85], T. Givón & Masayoshi Shibatani (eds), 163–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sridhar, Shikaripur N. 1990. Kannada. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Speijer, Jakob Samuel. 1973[1886]. Sanskrit Syntax. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. (reprint of Brill’s edition).Google Scholar
Subbarao, Karumuri Venkata. 2012. South Asian Languages: A Syntactic Typology. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teramura, Hideo. 1975. Rentai syuusyoku no sintakusu to imi: Sono 1 (Syntax and semantics of noun modification 1) Nihongo Nihonbunka (Japanese Language and Culture) 4: 71–119.Google Scholar
. 1969. The syntax of noun modification in Japanese. The Journal-Newsletter of the Association of Teachers of Japanese 6: 64–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whitman, John. 2013. The prehead relative clause problem. In Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics, Umut Özge (ed.), 361–180. Cambridge MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Wu, Tong. 2011. The syntax of prenominal relative clauses: A typological study. Linguistic Typology 15: 569–623. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Pardeshi, Prashant & Masayoshi Shibatani
2023. Marathi Relative and Complement Clauses in Nominalization Perspective. In Language Studies in India, ► pp. 321 ff. DOI logo
Kishimoto, Hideki, Peter Edwin Hook & Prashant Pardeshi
2018. Chapter 3. Displaced modification. In Topics in Theoretical Asian Linguistics [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 250], ► pp. 45 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.