Cover not available

In:New Insights into Theoretical Syntax from Asian Languages: Studies in honor of C.-T. James Huang
Edited by Andrew Simpson
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 290] 2026
► pp. 459–486

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Noun complements are not [not complements]

 | Cornell University
Published online: 15 January 2026
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.290.18whi
Abstract
This chapter examines “General Noun-Modifying Clause Constructions” (GNMCCs) and the thesis that verbs and nouns combine with clauses in significantly different ways, with verb phrases embedding either clausal arguments or clausal adjuncts, and nominal phrases embedding only clausal modifiers. Such a claim has been disputed in Huang (2016) with a broad range of arguments from Chinese. The current paper adds much further support for Huang’s line of argumentation with patterns from other languages with head-final NPs, building on Whitman (2013, 2015), and Bugaeva and Whitman (2015). The chapter also considers the proposal, maintained in Arsenjević (2009), Haegeman (2010), and Cinque and Krapova (2016) that noun complements may in fact be relative clauses. The chapter shows that shows that noun ‘complement’ CPs are in fact more tightly linked to the nominal head than are relative clauses in the languages under consideration, supporting a different analysis of the position of nominal heads within DPs in (many) head-initial and head-final languages.
Article outline
  • 1.Background
  • 2.Noun complement constructions in Japanese, Korean, and Turkish
    • 2.1The relative order of NC and relatives in Japanese, Korean, and Turkish
      • 2.1.1Japanese NC-RC order
      • 2.1.2Korean NC-RC order
      • 2.1.3Turkish NC-RC order
    • 2.2N-bar pronominalization and ellipsis
      • 2.2.1No-Replacement in Japanese (McGloin 1985)
      • 2.2.2Kes-replacement in Korean
      • 2.2.3Ki-replacement in Turkish
      • 2.2.4Summing up: Ellipsis/pronominalization tests
    • 2.3Head marking on the nominal head in NCCs
    • 2.4Head-initial RCs in Japanese (argument due to Masaya Yoshida)
  • 3.The adjunct/modifier analysis of noun complement constructions
    • 3.1Stowell (1981) and consequences
    • 3.2Cinque & Krapova (2016) and de Cuba (2017)
    • 3.3Predicate modification
      • 3.3.1De Cuba’s (2017) structure
      • 3.3.2 Moulton (2009)
      • 3.3.3Defining “complement” and Condition C reconstruction effects
  • 4.Prehead/posthead asymmetry
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (63)
References
Aboh, Enoch. 2004. The morphosyntax of complement-head sequences: clause structure and word order patterns in Kwa. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arsenjević, Boban. 2009. Clausal complementation as relativization. Lingua 119.39–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Asarina, Alya & Jeremy Hartman. 2011. Uyghur genitive subjects and the Phase Impenetrability Condition. In Andrew Simpson (ed.), Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL7) (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 62), 17–31. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barss, Andrew. 2003. Syntactic Reconstruction Effects. In Baltin, Mark & Chris Collins (eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntax, 670–696. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin, and Eman Al Khalaf. 2019. No argument–adjunct asymmetry in reconstruction for Binding Condition C. Journal of Linguistics 55.2, 247–276.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bugaeva, Anna and John Whitman. 2015. Deconstructing clausal noun modifying constructions. In Kenstowicz, Michael, Theodore Levin, and Ryo Mausda (eds.) Japanese/Korean Linguistics 23. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cho, Sungdai and John Whitman. 2020. Korean: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, Roderick and Peter Rosenbaum (eds.) Reading in English Transformational Grammar, 184–221. Waltham: Ginn.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.) Ken Hale: A life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1982. Constructions with left peripheral phrases, “connectedness”, move-α, and ECP. University of Venice ms.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1989. Long wh-movement and referentiality”. Paper presented at the Second Princeton Workshop on Comparative Grammar.
Cinque, Guglielmo and Iliyana Krapova. 2016. On noun clausal ‘complements’ and their non-unitary nature. Annali di Ca’ Foscari 50:77–107. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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, 1996, Vol. 3, 1077–1088. Salaya: Mahidol University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998. Rethinking the typology of relative clauses. Language Design 1:59–86.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Cuba, Carlos. 2017. Noun complement clauses as referential modifiers. Glossa 2(1), 3.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 2007. Amharic Relatives and Possessives: Definiteness, Agreement, and the Linker. Linguistic Inquiry 38.2, 302–320. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Freidin, Robert. 1986. Fundamental issues in the theory of binding. In Lust, Barbara (ed.), Studies in the Acquisition of Anaphora: Volume 1, Defining the Constraints, 151–188. Dordrecht: Reidel. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2010. Locality and the distribution of main clause phenomena. [URL]
Hankamer, Jorge. 2004. Why there are two -ki’s in Turkish. In Kamile, Imer & Gürkan Doğan (eds.), Current research in Turkish linguistics. Gazimağusa: Eastern Mediterranean University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heim, Irene and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. ISBN: 978-0-631-19713-3Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2012. The mechanism of inverted relativization in Japanese: A silent linker and inversion. Journal of Linguistics 48.2, 345–388. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hualde, José Ignacio and Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds.) 2003. A Grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. 1993. Reconstruction and the Structure of VP: Some Theoretical Consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 24.1, 103–38.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. The Syntax and Semantics of Prenominals: Construction or Composition? Language and Linguistics 17.4, 431–475Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. 2004. Direct compositionality: Is there any reason why not? Paper presented at the Workshop in Linguistics and Philosophy, University of Michigan.
Jenks, Peter. 2014. Generalized clausal modification in Thai noun phrases. Syntax 17:4:299–342. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1992. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. Antisymmetry and the lexicon. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 8:1–32. [URL]
. 2008. Antisymmetry and the lexicon. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 8.1–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, Shin-Sook. 2011. Noun Complements and Clause Types in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 18, 278–90.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1997. Turkish. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krapova, Iliana and Guglielmo Cinque. 2016. On Noun Clausal ‘Complements’ and their Non- unitary Nature. Annali di Ca’ Foscari. Serie occidentale vol. 50, 77–107.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2006. Decomposing Attitude Verbs. Talk given in honor of Anita Mittwoch. The Hebrew University Jerusalem.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika, and Irene Heim. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 2004. Empathy and direct discourse perspectives. In Horn, Laurence & Gregory Ward, The Handbook of Pragmatics, 315–343. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1975–76. Pivot-independent relativization in Japanese II. Papers in Japanese Linguistics 4, 85–96. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1976–77. Pivot-independent relativization in Japanese III. Papers in Japanese Linguistics 5, 157–176. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David. 1991. Relative clauses, licensing, and the nature of the derivation. Syntax and Semantics 25: 209–239. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Yoshiko, Comrie, Bernard, and Sells, Peter. In preparation. Noun-ModifyingClause Constructions in Languages of Eurasia: Reshaping theoretical and geographical boundaries (tentative title).
Moulton, Keir. 2009. Natural selection and the syntax of clausal complements. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Mullen, Dana. 1986. Issues in the morphology and phonology of Amharic: The lexical generation of pronominal clitics. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Ottawa.
Nichols, Lynn. 2003. Attitude evaluation in complex NPs. In Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley and MaryAnn Willie (eds) Formal Approaches to Function in Grammar, 155–164 Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2017. The general noun-modifying clause construction in Tundra Nenets and its possible origins. In Matsumoto, Yoshiko, Bernard Comrie, and Peter Sells, Noun-Modifying Clause Constructions in Languages of Eurasia: Reshaping theoretical and geographical boundaries, 147–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ogawa, Yoshiki. 2001. A unified theory of verbal and nominal projections. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Parker, Dan. 2011. Which-phrases reconstruct? A syntactic investigation of D-linked wh- movement. In D. Baily & V. Teliga (eds.), Proceedings of the 39th Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL). pp. 207–220. Fresno, CA: California State University.
Paul, Waltraud. 2012. Why Chinese DE is not like French DE: A Critical Analysis of the Predicational Approach to Nominal Modification. Studies in Chinese Linguistics 33.3, 183–210.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. Ph.D. dissertaton, Masschusetts Institute of Technology.
Pesestsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In Reuland, Eric & Alice ter Meulen (eds.), The representation of (in)definiteness, 98–129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer. 2000. A complement-of-N° account of restrictive and non-restrictive relatives: The case of Swedish. In Artemis Alexiadou, Paul Law, André Meinunger & Chris Wilder (eds.), The syntax of Relative Clauses, 265–308. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Rijk, Rudolf. 2008. Standard Basque: A Progressive Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. 1972. Doubl-ing. Linguistic Inquiry 33(2), 61–86.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sirai, Hidetosi, and Takao Gunji Takao. 1998. Relative Clauses and Adnominal Clauses. In Gunji, Takao and Kōiti Hasida (eds.), Topics in Constraint-Based Grammar of Japanese, 17–38. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 2018. Somber Prospects for Late Merger. Linguistic Inquiry 50.2, 416–424.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. MIT Ph.D. dissertation.
Shimamura, Koji. 2023. The syntax and semantics of the Quotative Complement in Japanese. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 29.1, 177–186.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Whitman, John. 2013. The prehead relative clause problem. In Umut Özge (ed.) Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 361–380.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Iwayuru ajia-siki kankeisetsu ni tsuite [On so-called Asian-type relative clauses]. In Fukuda, S., Nishida, K., and Tamura, T. (Eds.), Gengo kenkyū no shiza [Perspectives on Linguistic Research]. Tokyo: Kaitakusha, 188–203.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yoshida, Masaya, Honglei Wang, and David Potter. 2012. Remarks on “Gapping” in DP. Linguistic Inquiry 43.3: 475–494. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhu, Dexi. 1961[1999]. Shuo “de” [On “de”]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese Language] 1961.12:1–15.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue