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. 331–337

Conclusion

In this conclusion, we address three issues: a) the geographic extent of GNMCCs in Eurasia, including considerations of areal phenomena resulting from language contact; b) delimiting GNMCCs from other constructions, in particular those that in Japanese fall under GNMCCs; and c) structural properties that favor or disfavor GNMCCs.
Article outline
  • 1.The geographic extent of GNMCCs in Eurasia
  • 2.Competition with other constructions
  • 3.Factors that promote or hinder the presence of GNMCCs
  • References
Published online: 28 February 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.116.13com
References (12)
References
Brown, Dunstan, Kim, Shin-Sook & Sells, Peter. 2013. Grammatical properties which influence GNMCCs. Paper presented at the 10th Biennial Conference of the Association for Linguistic Typology, Leipzig, August.
Comrie, Bernard. 1996. The unity of noun modifying clauses in Asian languages. 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
Comrie, Bernard & Horie, Kaoru. 1996. 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, Talmy Givón & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 65–75. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. Order of relative clause and noun. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <[URL]> (5 July 2015).
Gil, David. 2013. Genitives, adjectives and relative clauses. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <[URL]> (9 July 2015).
Hoonchamlong, Yuphaphann. 1991. Some Issues in Thai Anaphora: A Government and Binding Approach. PhD dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Yoshiko. 1989. Japanese-style noun modification … in English. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Kira Hall, Michael Meacham & Richard Shapiro (eds), 226–237. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar
. 1997. Noun-Modifying Constructions in Japanese: A Frame-Semantic Approach [Studies in Language Companion Series 35]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsumura, Kazuto. 1981. Mari (Cheremis) relative clauses. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of Finland, February 7–8.
. 1983. Mari (Cheremis) Pseudo-Relatives. In Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Linguists, 461–464. Tokyo.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina & Spencer, Andrew. 2013. Possession and modification – a perspective from Canonical Typology. In Canonical Morphology and Syntax, Dunstan Brown, Marina Chumakina & Greville G. Corbett (eds), 207–238. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Sridhar, Shikaripur N. 2007. Modern Kannada Grammar. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers & Distributors.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

WU, Tong
2022. The general noun-modifying clause construction beyond Eurasia. Linguistic Typology 26:1 ► pp. 89 ff. DOI logo
Maisak, Timur
2020. Relative clauses in Agul from a corpus-based perspective. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 73:1 ► pp. 113 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.