The structure of appositional constructions

The structure of appositional constructions
Coordination, parataxis and predication?
First year report
Herman Heringa
CLCG
Department of Linguistics
University of Groningen
[email protected]
Contents
1 Introduction................................................................................................................3
1.1 A definition for appositions .......................................................................3
1.2 Overview .....................................................................................................3
2 A structure for appositions .......................................................................................4
2.1 Apposition markers ....................................................................................4
2.2 Predication .................................................................................................5
2.2.1 Sentential adverbs? ...................................................................5
2.2.2 Paraphrasis by relative clauses?...............................................6
2.3 Different semantics, one syntax? ..............................................................6
2.4 Non-nominal and unbalanced appositions...............................................7
2.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................8
3 A structure for appositional constructions ..............................................................8
3.1 Apposition and coordination .....................................................................8
3.1.1 Resemblances ............................................................................8
3.1.2 Differences.................................................................................12
3.1.3 Specifying coordination.............................................................14
3.1.4 Structural consequences ............................................................14
3.2 Apposition and parataxis ...........................................................................14
3.2.1 Prosodic and discourse backgrounding ....................................15
3.2.2 Is coordination parataxis? ........................................................15
3.2.3 Other paratactic features ..........................................................16
3.2.4 Structural consequences ............................................................17
3.3 Apposition and predication........................................................................18
3.3.1 V2-relatives revisited.................................................................18
3.3.2 Structural consequence..............................................................19
4 Extra questions...........................................................................................................19
4.1 Extraposition..............................................................................................20
4.2 Epithets.......................................................................................................20
5 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................21
References......................................................................................................................22
Appendix I: Activities first year ..................................................................................24
Appendix II: Schedule coming years...........................................................................25
Appendix III: Submitted article (in Dutch)........................................not in this version
-2-
1
Introduction
In this report, I give an overview of my investigation of the structure for appositional
constructions so far. The report presents data that should be explained by a theoretical
model of appositional construction. Based upon these data, some hypotheses of what the
underlying structure can look like are made. In particular, I show that there is a relation
between appositional constructions on the one hand and coordination, parataxis and
predication on the other hand. I propose a syntactic structure that combines these notions.
Of course, the predictions of the hypotheses have to be tested and the report leaves
several open questions which have to be investigated in the continuation of this project.
First of all, however, it is clear that we need to define what apposition is exactly.
1.1
A definition for appositions
In Heringa & de Vries (2006; see appendix III), we define appositions as specifying nonrestrictive postmodifiers modifying a phrase. This implies that so-called restrictive
appositions are not included in the definition, because their syntactic structure is clearly
different. These restrictive modifiers have a closer relation to the modified phrase. In (1),
it is shown that it is impossible to insert a PP between a ‘restrictive apposition’ and its
anchor, whereas this is possible in a non-restrictive construction (cf. Wiers, 1978: 64):
(1) a *
b
The book by Tolkien The Lord of the Rings, … (restrictive)
This book by Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings … (non-restrictive)
The definition also implies that verbless adverbial clauses (cf. Quirk et al., 1985:996,
1314), like those in (2), are included in the class of appositions. We call them unbalanced
appositional constructions, because the modifier and its anchor differ in syntactic
category.
(2) a
b
Raymond, ever mindful of his manners, …
Mavis, her hands in her lap, …
Moreover, the definition implies that non-restrictive relative clauses are appositions too.
See de Vries (to appear) for an approach in which appositive relative clauses are indeed
handled as extended appositions. For now, we assume that these constructions all have
the same underlying syntactic structure.
1.2
Overview
In order to find out the details of this structure, we first have a look at the apposition on
its own. Section 2 presents some important features of the apposition, namely apposition
markers (2.1), a possible correspondence to predication (2.2), the relation with semantic
classes (2.3) and the possibility of different syntactic categories (2.4). Section 3 focuses
on the relation between the anchor and the apposition and describes in that way the whole
appositional construction. It shows that this relation shares some features with
-3-
coordination (3.1), with parataxis (3.2) and, again, with predication (3.3). Each of the
descriptions of these resemblances is followed by some suggestions about consequences
for the structure of appositions. In section 4 some other questions, about extraposition
and about epithets, are posed. Section 5 gives the conclusion.
2
A structure for appositions
Since the constructions mentioned in section 1.1 are not always classified as appositions
in the literature (cf. Haeseryn et al., 1997, ao), we have to find out whether there are good
reasons to separate them from appositions, or whether they are just subclasses of
appositions, but have in fact the same syntactic structure.
Therefore, the question is what syntactic structure appositions have. In order to
answer this question, some important features of appositions should be taken into
account.
2.1
Apposition markers
First, the structure for appositions needs a position for explicit apposition
markers. These words or sequences of words, usually precede the actual apposition, see
(3)a/b. Some of them, however, like that is, that is to say and for example, can also
follow the actual apposition, witness (3)c/d, and there are even some markers, like
‘included’, which can only appear at the end, as in (3)e/f (cf. Quirk et al., 1985:1307).
(3) a
A company commander, namely Captain Madison, …
b * A company commander, Captain Madison namely, …
c
Dickens’s most productive period, that is the 1840s, …
d
Dickens’s most productive period, the 1840s that is, …
e * Many people, included my sister, …
f
Many people, my sister included, …
It is important to note that apposition markers can consist of a sequence of words,
sometimes including verbs. This suggests that they are not just function words, but
complete CP’s. Of course, they could be analysed as multi-token units which function
just as one word. It seems, however, that some of these markers can still be modified as if
they are real sentences. In Dutch, for example, an adverb can occur in the middle of an
apposition marker like dat wil zeggen, that is to say:
(4)
De man die naast mij woont, dat wil dus zeggen mijn buurman, …
The man who next to me lives, that wants so to say my neighbour, …
“The man who lives next to me, so that is to say my neighbour, …”
Furthermore, the flexible position of the apposition marker needs some attention.
Apparently, this marker has no fixed position, which makes the syntactic structure less
clear. In this respect, the markers look like some initial coordinators, which are
-4-
sometimes also found in an unexpected position, namely higher up in the clause, inside
the first conjunct or directly preceding the conjunction (de Vries, 2005: 3/4), in Dutch:
(5) a
b
c
Noch heeft hij gezegd dat ze moet blijven, noch dat ze weg moet gaan.
Neither has he said that she has to stay, nor that she has away to go.
Niet alleen is Joop zeer rijk, maar hij gaat ook goed gekleed.
Not only is Joop very rich, but he is also well-dressed.
Joop houdt van macaroni evenmin als van spaghetti.
Joop likes macaroni as little as spaghetti.
Maybe even more important with respect to apposition markers is that they do not need to
be there. Actually, it seems that there are much more appositions without (asyndetic) than
with a marker. This means that appositional constructions often look like juxtaposition
and we have to find out what this means for the underlying structure.
2.2
Predication
In the past, several arguments have been used to analyse appositions as an instance of
(nominal) predication (e.g. Doron, 1994), or at least to assume that appositions have an
underlying sentential structure. Intuitively, this seems to be attractive, since the meaning
of appositions corresponds to that of predication. If an appositional construction like
John, a linguistic celebrity, is used, this implies that John is a linguistic celebrity. If we
want to implement this intuition, however, it should be evident that appositions and
predication indeed share (some of) their features. In the coming sections, two of these
features are presented and discussed.
2.2.1 Sentential adverbs?
One of the arguments in favour of predication that is used in the literature is that
appositions can contain sentential adverbs (Klein, 1977; Quirk et al., 1985: 1314).
(6) a
b
Norman Jones, then a student, wrote several best-sellers.
They elected as chairman Edna Jones, also a Cambridge graduate.
This is also true for floating quantifiers and negation (Doron, 1994: 56).
(7) a
b
The men, both/some/all doctors, were awarded medals.
Orville Wright, not Wilbur, made the first flight at Kitty Hawk.
Note that, in identifying appositions, these adverbs are in complementary distribution
with apposition markers. In attributive and inclusive appositions, however, apposition
markers and adverbs can co-occur. In attributive appositions the adverb follows the
marker, whereas in inclusive appositions the adverb precedes the marker. See the
examples in (8) in Dutch.
-5-
(8) a
Mijn buurman, overigens vermoedelijk een goede handelaar, …
My neighbour, by the way presumably a good trader, …
Wetenschappers, duidelijk inclusief linguisten, …
Scientists, obviously including linguists, …
b
The possibility of incorporating sentential adverbs indeed suggests that the apposition has
a sentential structure. Klein (1977: 50), however, already points out that sentential
adverbs occur in ordinary NP’s too. The question is then, of course, whether these
adverbs really are sentential:
(9) a
De vermoedelijk blonde daders
The presumably blond perpetrators
De helaas nog te jonge vader
The unfortunately still too young father
b
2.2.2 Paraphrasis by relative clauses?
Another feature that has been used as an argument in favour of a sentential structure for
appositions is the possibility of paraphrasing the apposition with an appositive relative
clause, or, if our definition is correct, even the inclusion of these relative clauses in the
class of appositions. Besides analyses in which relative clauses are handled as extended
appositions (e.g. de Vries, 2006), there are indeed analyses in which appositions are
described as reduced relative clauses (e.g. Del Gobbo, 2003). Though there is a clear
relation between relative clauses and appositions, it is not always possible to paraphrase
an apposition by a (copular) relative clause. Compare (10a) to (1b) and (10b) to (3f):
(10) a * This book by Tolkien, which is The Lord of the Rings, ...
b * Many people, who are my sister included....
This possibility of paraphrasing with a copular relative clause is related to the semantic
class of apposition. Attributive appositions can be paraphrased in this way; identifying
and inclusive appositions can not. Of course, it is possible to paraphrase (1b) and (3f) by
a relative clause, however, it is difficult to see what reduction would look like if the
original relative clauses differ in their verbs and word order that much:
(11) a
b
This book by Tolkien, which is called The Lord of the Rings, ...
Many people, among which my sister is included, ...
It is not clear which conclusion should be drawn about the analysis of appositions as
predication. The arguments presented are under discussion. More arguments are needed
therefore. In section 3.3, the issue will be raised again.
2.3
Different semantics, one syntax?
As stated above, the possibility of paraphrasing the apposition with an appositive relative
clause depends on the semantic type of apposition (Wiers, 1978). Of course, it is possible
-6-
that the several semantic classes of apposition, as described in Heringa & de Vries
(2006), differ also syntactically. It could be that attributive appositions have to be
analysed as reduced relative clauses and that identifying and inclusive appositions are
something else. The distinction between these classes correlates also with a distinction
between two different types of predication, however: specificational (12) and
predicational (13) predication (cf. Higgins 1979; Blom & Daalder, 1977: 66/67).
(12) a
Wat Jan ons aanraadde was niet te laat weg te gaan.
What Jan us advised was not too late away to go.
“What Jan advised us was not to leave late.”
b Zijn fout was dat hij zich snel liet intimideren.
His mistake was that he himself fast let to intimidate.
“His mistake was that he let himself intimidate easily.”
c Mijn eerste plaat was “Help”.
My first record was “Help”.
(13) a
Wat Jan ons aanraadde was te realiseren.
What Jan us advised was to realise.
“What Jan advised us was practicable.”
b Zijn fout was begrijpelijk.
His mistake was understandable.
c Die jongens zijn de winnaars.
Those boys are the winners.
Therefore, a different syntactic structure for different types of appositions implies a
different syntactic structure for these types of predication. There seem to be no reasons
for that (cf. Blom & Daalder, 1977), though. With respect to this, it is necessary to find
out what these two types of predication mean and especially what attribution is exactly.
Other features for which the semantic classes differ, like the possibility of extraposition
and possible appearance in questions (Wiers, 1978), are under debate (Bennis, 1978) and
have to be worked out systematically, before conclusions can be drawn. Besides, it would
be interesting to find out whether the semantic classes we found for Dutch (and English)
exist in other languages too. If the classification is more general in languages, it is more
likely that this is also represented in the syntactic structure than if the classification is just
used in some Germanic languages.
Of course, it is preferable to analyse constructions as much as possible in the
same way. Therefore, I assume for now that the different classes have the same syntactic
structure and differ in meaning and semantic properties only.
2.4
Non-nominal and unbalanced appositions
In the literature on appositions, most attention has been given to nominal appositions:
constructions in which both the anchor and the apposition are nominal. It is evident,
however, that appositions can consist of all possible syntactic categories: NP, AP, PP,
VP, and CP. It is not even necessary that the anchor and the apposition have the same
-7-
syntactic category. They can be unbalanced too (see section 1.1 above and section 3.1.1
below). The examples in (12a-c) are from Burton-Roberts (1975:410); (12d) is from
Meyer (1992: 34):
(14) a
b
c
d
They met here, in London. (AP/PP, PP)
He ran – absolutely raced – up the hill. (V/VP, V/VP)
You won’t be totally alone, that’s to say, there’ll be others to help you.
(CP, CP)
The occupation of the territory by the colonial power was wholly
indefensible, the wicked work of evil men. (AP, NP/DP)
This means that we need a kind of meta-structure which does not specify the possible
phrases, but describes an abstract structure in which all kinds of maximal projections can
be inserted. In this respect it is clear that for the structure of apposition it is important to
look at the complete appositional construction, and especially the type of grammatical
relation between apposition and anchor, a type of relation that stands in opposition to
complementation and modification, for example (Meyer, 1992).
2.5
Conclusion
For now, we conclude that a structure for appositions needs a position for an apposition
marker. This apposition marker probably is sentence-like and therefore may consist of a
(small) CP. There are several arguments suggesting that the apposition looks like a
(reduced) clause too. Since these arguments are under debate, however, we leave it open
whether the apposition should be analysed as predication or some other sentential
structure or not. In section 3.3, I come back to this
3
A structure for appositional constructions
As stated before, it is important to find out which type of grammatical relation exists
between an apposition and its anchor, in order to define the syntactic structure of the
complete appositional construction. Therefore, we need to explore some characteristics of
appositional constructions. In the following sections the appositional constructions are
compared to coordination (section 3.1), parataxis (section 3.2) and predication (section
3.3).
3.1
Apposition and coordination
Some of the features of appositions described in section 2, namely the position for a
marker, the possibility of incorporating sentential adverbs, and the possibility to be
implemented by all kinds of syntactic categories, they have in common with the second
conjunct in coordination. Therefore, this section investigates whether there are more
resemblances between apposition and coordination (section 3.1.1) and which differences
-8-
there are (section 3.1.2). For the comparison between apposition and coordination
features of coordination are used from Progovac (1998) and de Vries (to appear b).
Section 3.1.3 concludes that apposition indeed has a lot in common with coordination and
it is even suggested to belong to a distinct type of coordination: specifying coordination,
which results in the structure presented in section 3.1.7.
3.1.1 Resemblances
Coordinations and appositional constructions both have a position for a marker of the
construction in the second part: the second conjunct or the apposition. In most cases, this
marker is also in the same position: in the front of the second part. As stated in section
2.1, however, both coordinators and apposition markers can have unexpected other
positions. It is even more important that coordination and apposition sometimes use the
same connectors. Coordinators like and, or (Quirk et al., 1985: 1311, 1312) and but,
occasionally appear as (part of) apposition markers as well.
(15) a
b
c
The United States of America, or America for short, …
You could cut the atmosphere with a knife, and a blunt knife at that.
John likes to eat everything, but especially ice cream.
Just as was shown for apposition in section 2.2, coordination allows sentential adverbs in
the second part of the construction too, though in apposition it is much more common.
(16) a
b
John and maybe Mary went to the store.
John, obviously a carpenter, often appears in linguistic environments.
As stated before, the appositional construction is able to connect phrases of all kinds of
syntactic categories. Though the apposition and its anchor do not need to be of the same
syntactic category, usually they are. If they are not, the phrases are at least similar in a
semantic view and probably both have to satisfy the subcategorization of the verb in the
matrix sentence. See the examples in (12) above. This type of connection between
phrases of the same category is also found in coordination (e.g. Sag et al., 1985; Sag,
2002).
Furthermore, both apposition and coordination are between symmetry and antisymmetry. The apposition always specifies the anchor and not the other way round
(asymmetry), though for the class of identification apposition and anchor are coreferential and can be reversed in their order (symmetry). In coordination the first and
second conjunct are called equal parts (symmetry). However, only the second conjunct
forms a constituent with the coordinator, as can be shown by extraposition of the second
conjunct or by replacing both the second conjunct and the coordinator by etcetera
(asymmetry). The apposition also forms a constituent with an apposition marker.
Also, both coordination and apposition lack at least some features of c-command.
Several tests can be used for that, and they are not all clear, but the general impression is
that the second conjunct and the apposition are not c-commanded by the first conjunct
and the anchor, or by other material in the host sentence. The only clear case is
extraction. This is not possible out of the second conjunct or out of an apposition:
-9-
(17) a * Who did you see Mary and _ ?
b * What did you see Chimp, that is _ ?
Another test is Q-binding, which can take place if the quantifier is in the host, but not if it
is in the anchor or in the first conjunct. In Dutch, that is, for English it has been claimed
that this type of q-binding is grammatical at least for coordination:
(18) a * [Elke man]i en zijni vrouw gingen naar de film.
Every man and his wife went to the movie.
b * [Elke zelfstandige]i, zijni eigen baas, moet zelf pensioen opbouwen.
Every shopkeeper, his own boss, must himself pension set up.
c [Elke man]i houdt van eten en van zijni vrouw.
Every man holds of food and of his wife.
Every man loves food and his wife.
d [Elke man]i houdt van eten, zijni eerste levensbehoefte.
[Every man] loves food, his first necessity of life.
It is not very clear whether condition C has to be satisfied both for coordination and
apposition. Some examples suggest that it is not there, implying that there is no ccommand either.
(19) a
b
Hiji vertelde me dat de reis leuk was en dat iedereen aardig was geweest
He told me that the trip nice was and that everybody kind was been
tegen Jani.
to Jan.
Hiji vertelde me dat de reis leuk was geweest, maar vooral dat iedereen
He told me that the trip nice was been, but especially that everybody
aardig tegen Jani was geweest.
nice to Jan was been.
It is clear, however, that it is difficult to test whether there is c-command. For
coordination this is under debate, though it seems that people at least agree that the
second conjunct is not always c-commanded by the first. For apposition the tests are even
less clear. I will return to this in section 3.2.
Another shared feature is that both multiple coordination and multiple apposition
exist. In coordination there is a difference between stacked and recursive multiplicity. In
(20a), for example, the three conjuncts are just strung together, whereas in (20bc) two
coordinated constituents are again combined in coordination with another constituent.
Note that stacked coordination is regarded as the normal case, but still it is the
problematic one for syntactic structure. After all, recursion and binary branching are part
of the syntactic system, but for stacked coordination it is not clear how this should be
represented in a binary way:
- 10 -
(20) a
b
c
John and Mary and Pete went to the store.
John and [Mary and Pete] went to the store.
[John and Mary] and Pete went to the store.
For apposition there is no difference in meaning between stacked and recursive
apposition. In (21a), a carpenter can be either an apposition to John, the boyfriend of
Mary or to the boyfriend of Mary alone. It is impossible to distinguish the two. Note that
is also possible to get an apposition within an apposition, witness (21b):
(21) a
b
John, the boyfriend of Mary, a carpenter, is a linguistic celebrity.
John, the boyfriend of Mary, a nice girl, is a linguistic celebrity.
Furthermore, in languages like German (Durrell, 1996: 42) in (22) and Czech (R. Simik,
pc) in (23), the anchor and the apposition usually agree in case, just as first and second
conjunct. Note that this observation can be used as an argument against an analysis of the
appositional construction as a reduced relative clause. In that case, we would always
expect nominative case (or default case; cf. Schütze, 2001).
(22) a
b
(23)
Es spricht Herbert Werner,
der Vorsitzende des Vereins.
it speaks Herbert Werner-nom, the chairman-nom the society-gen
The speaker is Herbert Werner, the chairman of the society.
in Michelstadt,
einem kleinen Städtchen im
Odenwald …
in Michelstadt-dat, a
little town-dat in the Odenwald-dat …
Pan Novák nakreslil tuto místnost tužkou,
svým oblíbeným
Mr Novak drew
this room-acc pencil-instr his favorite
nástrojem
instrument-instr
Mr Novak drew this room with a pencil, his favourite instrument.
Also, in languages like English (24) and Norwegian (25), pronouns in apposition and in
the second conjunct of coordination (can) get default case: accusative, even in subject
position (Schütze, 2001: 210, 214, 226, 227):
(24) a
b
The best athlete, her/*she, should win.
Did your parents or him/*he pick up Mary?
- 11 -
(25) a
b
Ha
nog meg var sammen om det. [Stavanger dialect]
he-nom and me-acc were together about it
He and I were in it together.
(Johannesen 1998, citing Berntsen & Larsen 1925)
Laereren sa at den smarteste studenten, altså meg/jeg,
the-teacher said that the smartest student, thus me-acc/I-nom,
skulle gi en tale.
should give a speech.
The teacher said that the smartest student, namely me, should give a
speech.
3.1.2 Differences
There are also differences between coordination and appositional constructions, however.
The most important difference is that second conjuncts do not show the same
backgrounding in prosody and discourse as appositions. This backgrounding of
appositions seems paratactical and is therefore discussed in section 3.2 below.
Second, there is a difference in agreement with the verb. Conjunctions of singular
subjects usually result in a plural verb, whereas appositional constructions with both
anchor and apposition in singular form agree with a singular verb. This difference is not
clear, however, since conjunction is the only type of coordination which shows
agreement with both conjuncts. Disjunction does not. Furthermore, there are cases in
languages like Arabic (cf. Aoun et al., 1999), but also sometimes in English, in which the
verb only agrees with the first conjunct. The type of agreement of both coordination and
apposition should be investigated in order to see whether it is possible that they work in
the same way. Van Koppen & Rooryck (2006) argue that the agreement of coordination
is not syntactic, but semantic. They suggest that features intersect only if they don’t differ
and use a default value for the other features. It would be interesting to see whether this
approach is applicable to appositions too.
Third, it is not clear whether the argument that anchor and apposition share their
case is valid for all languages and even in the languages for which it is claimed, it seems
not always to be true. For German, for example, an anchor in genitive or dative case often
is followed by an apposition in nominative case (Engel, 1996: 807), especially if there is
no definite article. Gallmann (1996) argues that these are examples of default case, like in
English and Norwegian (see (21) and (22) above).
(26) a
b
einer alten Dame, letzte Bewohnerin dieses Hauses, …
an
old lady-gen, last occupant-nom this house-gen, …
of an old lady, the last occupant of this house, …
mit diesem durchtriebenen Aufschlag, die Spezialität des Schweden, …
with this sly service-dat, the specialty-nom the Swede-gen, …
with this sly service, the specialty of the Swede, …
- 12 -
3.1.3
Specifying coordination
Since there seem to be more resemblances than differences between apposition and
coordination, it is reasonable to assume that apposition in fact is a subtype of
coordination.
An important question then is what this type of coordination expresses. In most
cases, coordination reflects a parallel connection between two or more elements.
Basically, there are two types of this connection: conjunction and disjunction. These can
be represented by the logical operators AND ( or &) and OR ( ). Subtypes of the two,
like adversative coordination, can be represented in the same way, if necessary in
combination with the negation operator NOT (¬). Every coordinator can be described in
this way (van der Heijden, 1999: 31). The type of coordination we are dealing with,
however, can not be analysed as a subtype of conjunction or disjunction, because the
connected items refer to the same element. De Vries (2006) uses the term ‘specifying
coordination’. The apposition specifies the anchor by adding information to it. De Vries
takes the specifying operator as a special type of conjunction and uses the symbol &: to
show both conjunction and specification. Since specification is not a subtype of
conjunction, however, and both coordinators of conjunction and disjunction appear in
apposition markers, specification should just be taken as a third type of coordination and
be described by the semicolon only.
Zwart (2005) uses the term specifying coordination in a different context (V2relatives). He suggests that this type of coordination is a non-parallel type. He refers to
Kehler (2000), who distinguishes three types of coordination (or, in his words, coherence
relations between clauses): parallel, narration and result. Zwart calls the last two types
asymmetric and argues that specifying coordination is a third type of asymmetric
coordination. These asymmetric types seem to correspond with the logical connective of
implication (symbol , see also van der Heijden, 1999: 33). Kehler (2000: 548) shows
that in non-parallel coordination VP-ellipsis is possible, even if there is no VP parallelism
or syntactic reconstruction, in the case of (27) the elided VP is in active voice, whereas
the source was in passive:
(27)
In March, four fireworks manufacturers asked that the decision be
reversed, and on Monday the ICC did [reverse the decision].
Zwart (2005: 69) argues that this kind of ellipsis is also possible in a specifying sentence,
like (28):
(28)
It seems that Fermat’s last theorem has finally been proved. To be
precise, Andrew Wiles did [prove it].
Zwart states that specifying coordination is something similar, but with specifications for
a noun instead of a CP. He uses the term specifying coordination for so-called V2relatives in Dutch (and German, see Gärtner, 2001): relative clauses with verb second, a
word order that is normally used in main clauses only.
- 13 -
(29)
Ik ken iemand die
vindt disco leuk.
I know someone that-dem finds disco nice.
I know someone who likes disco.
Zwart (p. 69/70) also relates V2-relatives to asymmetric coordination because of the
possibility to associate the element zelfs in the first conjunct with a focused item in the
second conjunct. In parallel coordination, this association is impossible.
(30) a
Ik ken zelfs iemand die vindt DISCO leuk.
I know even someone that finds disco nice.
I know someone who even likes disco.
b Jan pakte zelfs de krant en ging zitten LEZEN.
Jan took even the paper and went to sit to read.
Jan took the paper and sat down to even read.
c * Jan is zelfs getrouwd en werkt in de HORECA.
Jan is even married and works in the hotel and catering industry.
Jan is married and has a job even in the hotel and catering industry.
It is interesting that these V2-relatives are called specifying coordination too and a reason
to find out how much this construction and the appositional construction have in
common. In section 3.3 this issue will be raised again.
3.1.4 Structural consequences
Assuming that apposition indeed can be analysed as coordination, it is important to see
which consequences this has for its syntactical structure. In most of the current literature
it is assumed that the structure of coordination is a phrase with the coordinator as head:
CoP or &P. We could use this for appositions too, taking the apposition marker as head
and projecting this to an apposition phrase: AppP or :P. The specifier is then filled by the
anchor and the complement by the apposition. This structure implies that the apposition
marker and the apposition form one constituent. This seems to go with the data and for
now I assume that this structure is correct.
Figure 1 Coordination and Apposition phrases
3.2
Apposition and parataxis
As stated above, apposition has been analysed as specifying coordination, a term that
Zwart (2005) uses for V2-relatives. Interestingly, Zwart describes V2-relatives as
paratactic, just as de Vries (to appear a) does for appositional constructions. Therefore, it
seems reasonable to investigate whether the appositional construction indeed can be
analysed as a paratactic construction.
- 14 -
3.2.1
Prosodic and discourse backgrounding
A first thing to note in this respect is that an apposition is separated from the
matrix sentence prosodically. The intonation shows a so-called parenthetical dip (see
Schelfhout et al., to appear) between the apposition and the anchor. This implies that the
appositional construction is part of a larger class of parenthetical constructions, like
interjections, transparent free relatives and reporting clauses and indeed may belong to
the still broader class of parataxis (cf. de Vries, to appear b). In this respect it is also
relevant to have a look at the discourse of appositional constructions. This shows that
appositions express a proposition of their own, separate from the proposition of the whole
sentence (Corazza, 2005: 6). The truth value of this background proposition does not
affect the truth value of the official proposition of the whole utterance.
(31) a Jane, my best student, graduated with a distinction.
b Jane graduated with a distinction. (official proposition)
c Jane is the speaker’s best student. (background proposition)
Even if (31c) is not true, (31b), and therefore (31a) can be true. The background
proposition, or conventional implicature (Potts, 2005: 14), is invariably speaker-oriented.
In embedded sentences like (14), the background proposition is outside the scope of the
verb in the main clause. This example does not say anything about Sheila’s believe with
regard to Chuck being a psychopath.
(32)
Sheila believes that Chuck, a psychopath, is fit to watch the kids.
Apposition seems less integrated in the matrix sentence than coordination, therefore.
Contrary to the apposition, the second conjunct is in the scope of a plug, a verb of saying,
in the main clause, for example. Compare (32) above to (33) from Potts (2005: 4):
(33)
Sheila says that Chuck is fit to watch the kids and that Chuck is a
confirmed psychopath.
Moreover, the apposition and the matrix sentence can differ in illocutionary force and
mood. In (34a), the matrix sentence is interrogative. The apposition is not a part of the
question, however, it is in fact a statement, that John is the linguistic celebrity. In (34b),
the apposition is not in the scope of a modal adverb. The apposition gives the information
that Mary is John’s girl friend as a fact, whereas the matrix sentence is only probably
true, because of the adverb.
(34) a
b
Did John, the linguistic celebrity, kiss Mary?
John probably thought that Mary, his girl friend, would kiss him.
A syntactic structure of these constructions should account for the backgrounding of
these appositional propositions, both in discourse and prosody, which seems to be
paratactic.
- 15 -
3.2.2
Is coordination parataxis?
In order to do investigate in more detail whether appositions are paratactical, the criteria
of Espinal (1991) for parataxis, in her words parenthetical or disjunct constituents, are
used.
For some of these criteria, namely the lack of c-command (tested by principle C),
the scope of quantifiers, negation and other propositional operators and multiplicity, it is
already shown in section 3.1 that they are satisfied by appositions, because they are
satisfied by coordination. Maybe, then, coordination is parataxis too, as suggested by de
Vries (2006).
3.2.3
Other features of parataxis
In a footnote, Espinal herself states that (nominal) appositions are no disjunct
constituents, because they can be the focus in cleft sentences, they can be questioned and
they can substitute some valence requirement of the verb in the matrix sentence.
According to her, nominal apposition (the only type of apposition she takes into account)
should be analysed as adjunction to the NP or DP. I think, however, that appositions
cannot be the focus of a cleft sentence and therefore they cannot be questioned either.
Consider her own example (p. 746). The apposition is not grammatical as the focus of a
cleft sentence here.
(35) a
The Gulf War, the mother of all wars, is going to be devastating for
many people.
b * It is the mother of all wars that the Gulf War _ is going to be
devastating for many people.
c It is the Gulf War, the mother of all wars, that is going to be devastating
for many people.
Note that it is possible to get the apposition in the focus of a cleft sentence if it is put
there together with the anchor, as in (35c). This only shows, however, that appositions
really can occur in every position in the sentence, even if the anchor is in the focus of a
cleft sentence.
Of course, unlike most paratactic constructions, the apposition functions in a way
as an argument of the verb in the host clause. This argument position is filled twice,
however. That is something which Espinal considers impossible for non-paratactic
structures in her description of the multiplicity of paratactic structures. Intuitively, it is
the anchor that really fills the argument position and the apposition is just a specification
to the anchor. Besides, if just one criterion fails, this is not enough to argue that
appositions are not paratactic.
Therefore, we should check the other criteria. Comma-intonation and
being speaker-oriented have been mentioned in section 3.2.1 already. Another feature, the
possibility of combining different tenses in disjuncts and the host clause is in a way
possible for appositions too. Though it is not really possible to speak about tense, since
there is no overt verb in the apposition, it is possible to use temporal adverbs showing
that there is a difference in time between the host sentence and the apposition. This is
already pointed out by Klein (1977: 54) for appositions, in Dutch:
- 16 -
(36) a
b
Willem, eens een alcoholist, is nu een hasj-gebruiker.
Willem, once an alcoholic, is now a hashish user.
Willem, volgend jaar vermoedelijk mijn collega, is gisteren getrouwd.
Willem, next year presumably my colleague, is yesterday married.
Also, it is possible to add or delete constituents in either the host or disjunct structure,
without affecting the grammaticality or meaning of the rest of the syntactic structure
(37) a
b
c
The mechanic, an excellent person, hasn’t repaired the car yet.
The mechanic, who incidentally is an excellent person, hasn’t repaired
the car yet.
The mechanic, an excellent person, hasn’t repaired the car of my
parents yet.
Furthermore, the verb in Dutch and German does not need to be in the second position if
an apposition is used, see (36) above. Note that this argument is not very clear. If anchor
and apposition are analysed as one constituent, thus filling only one position, the verb is
in the second.
Also, appositions can be inserted in wh-islands which are immune to extraction:
(38) a John knows the man who kissed Mary, the famous linguist, yesterday.
b * Who does John know the man who kissed _?
3.2.4
Structural consequences
The other criteria Espinal (1999) uses, are just not applicable to appositions, but since all
criteria argue in favour of parataxis, as shown above, I think it is fair to conclude that
appositions indeed are paratactic.
The question now is how this should be represented in syntactic theory. Espinal
(1991) already argues that these constructions are not a part of the sentential structure and
should therefore be represented in a different dimension. She proposes multiple root
nodes which intersect in some way at the terminal level. The root of a paratactic structure
can be the maximal projection of a head of any syntactic category. In John, a guy, kisses
Mary there would be two root structures: the CP John kisses Mary and the DP a guy. The
linearization of the two is done on PF. Of course, this type of analysis clearly shows that
the apposition is in some ways independent from the host clause and lacks c-command
etcetera. However, it does not show how the apposition is related to the anchor and why
they have to be adjacent. Now, if we use this type of analysis to show the partly
independency and combine this with the idea that anchor and apposition are related in
coordination, we get an analysis like de Vries (2006), in which the paratactic construction
is represented behind its anchor, in a different dimension, explaining amongst other
things invisibility for c-command, but is still related to it in a CoP-like structure.
- 17 -
AppP
Anchor
3.3
AppMarker Apposition
App’
Apposition and predication
In section 2.2 it was shown that appositions have some features which can be used as
arguments for an analysis as predication. Since it is not clear that these features really
imply a sentential structure for appositions, however, let us consider another argument
here. In order to do that, I come back to the relation with V2-relatives as described in
section 3.1.3.
3.3.1 V2-relatives revisited
The first thing to note in a comparison between V2-relatives and appositions is that some
of the apposition markers in Dutch, like dat wil zeggen, lit. that wants to say, and dat is,
that is, show verb second as well. This can be used as an argument that appositions are
not like reduced relatives at all, but are just main clauses, somehow coordinated with the
matrix sentence.
However striking the resemblance with V2-relatives is, it is also clear that there
are some important differences between V2-relatives and appositions. First of all V2relatives are restrictive, whereas appositions are non-restrictive. In contrast with
appositions, the intonation pattern of V2-relatives is integrated in the matrix clause.
Furthermore, the position of V2-relatives is always in sentence-final position, while
appositional constructions appear in all possible positions in the sentence. To me,
however, it seems that there is something like a non-restrictive V-2 relative, which indeed
is very similar to appositions.
(39)
a
b
Piet, (en)die
is niet dom, begreep
het verslag niet.
Piet, and that-dem is not stupid, understood the report not.
“Piet, and he is not stupid, didn’t understand the report.”
Piet, niet dom, begreep
het verslag niet.
Piet, not stupid, understood the report not.
Piet, not stupid, didn’t understand the report.
If the nominal part of the predicate in this construction consists of a DP instead of an AP,
the expletive dat, that is used instead of the demonstrative die, that. In that case, the
construction is indistinguishable from the apposition with the marker dat is, that is:
- 18 -
(40)
a
b
Piet, (en) dat is een aardige jongen, gaf Marie een bos bloemen.
Piet, and that-expl is a nice boy, gave Mary a bunch flowers.
“Piet, and he is/that is a nice boy, gave Mary a bunch of flowers.”
Piet, (en) dat is de buurman, is ziek.
Piet, and that-expl is the neighbour, is ill.
“Piet, that is/and he is the neighbour, is ill.”
Though this construction is not a normal relative clause, and therefore the resemblance
with appositions does not support the analysis of appositions as reduced relative clauses,
it does support the relation between predication and apposition. Note that the similarity
with this construction could also be used as an argument that dat is, that is and some
similar expressions like dat wil zeggen, that is to say, do not function as apposition
markers, because they can co-occur with the coordinator en, and. This would mean that
not all expressions called apposition markers so far have to be in the head of AppP, but
that some of them get a position within the apposition.
3.3.2 Structural consequences
Assuming that the conclusions in the last section are on the right track, this means that
the apposition is a CP expressing predication, whereas the apposition marker, the head of
the AppP, is not, because the markers that were considered sentence-like before can be
combined with a coordinator and thus seem to be no markers at all. This results in the
following structure:
CP
AppP
DP
AppMarker
TP
App’
(and)
(that is) me
The author of this report
4
CP
drew a tree.
Some other questions
Above, I investigated the structure of appositions and of the appositional constructions in
which they appear. Here, I present some questions related to appositions, but not really
important for their syntactic structure: the possibility of extraposition and the difference
between appositions and so-called anaphoric epithets.
- 19 -
4.1
Extraposition
The first question is about the possibility of appositions to appear in the right periphery of
the matrix sentence, even if the anchor is in its normal position in the sentence.
Traditionally, this is analysed as extraposition: movement of the apposition to the right.
Following the LCA of Kayne (1994) however, it is assumed that movement to the right is
impossible. This means that there are two options. Either the anchor and the apposition
are generated at the right of the host sentence together, and the anchor is moved to the
left, or only the apposition is generated at the right side of the host sentence in the basis.
Most often this last option is assumed to be the right one. This raises new questions about
the relation between the anchor and the apposition, however. If they are generated
separately, how are they related? In this respect, it is interesting to have a look at the
analysis of Koster (2000) for cases of extraposition in general. He assumes that this is a
parallel construal, meaning something coordination-like. He even uses the term
specification in this respect. It would be very interesting, therefore, to see whether his
analysis can be used to analyse appositions and their possibility of extraposition at once.
Maybe the possibility of extraposition follows directly from the normal features of
appositions in this way.
4.2
Epithets versus appositions
Another interesting question related to appositions is raised by Klein (1977). In a rather
long footnote, he points out that appositions in some contexts look like anaphoric
epithets. These are constituents referring to a concept that has been introduced before, but
in a new way. This means that, besides just referring, these words indirectly add some
new information. In (41) the epithet the idiot refers to John and expresses that either
John’s father or the speaker thinks that John is an idiot because he missed the train.
(41) Johni’s father said that [the idiot]i missed the train.
Epithets have been investigated because they behave in a special way as anaphors. Here,
however, it is more important that they look like appositions sometimes. Here are some
examples from Corazza (2005: 4):
(42) a
b
c
Jon, the fool, missed the train.
You, the sweetheart, insulted the dean.
Bush, the illiterate warmonger, invaded Iraq.
Klein (1977: 114, 115) notes some interesting differences with appositions, however.
First, epithets can occur easily in sentence final position, whereas for appositions there
are restrictions on this possibility. The examples are in Dutch:
(43) a
b
Paul, de koning van Griekenland, trouwde een ware Xantippe.
Paul the king of Greece
married a true Xantippe.
Paul, de stommeling, trouwde een ware Xantippe.
- 20 -
Paul the fool
married a true Xantippe.
c * Paul trouwde een ware Xantippe, de koning van Griekenland.
d Paul trouwde een ware Xantippe, de stommeling.
Second, Klein shows that the antecedent of a sentence final epithet does not need to be in
focus, whereas the antecedent of a sentence final apposition has to.
(44)
Pauli is met Xantippe
getrouwd, de schati.
Paul is with Xantippe-focus married, the sweetheart.
Paul is married to Xantippe, the sweetheart.
Besides, appositions can be both definite and indefinite, but epithets have to be definite.
Of course, using the indefinite een stommeling in (43b) would not be ungrammatical, but
it has a different meaning. In (43d) and (44) it is simply impossible to use an indefinite
form.
Finally, sentential adverbs cannot occur in epithets:
(45) a
b
Paul, gedurende vele jaren (de) koning van Griekenland, trouwde met
Paul, during
many years the king of Greece,
married with
Xantippe.
Xantippe.
Paul, gedurende vele jaren de stommeling, trouwde met Xantippe.
Paul, during
many years the fool
married with Xantippe.
It would be interesting to explore the differences and resemblances of appositions and
epithets in more detail and to see what this implies for their syntactic structure. For now,
it seems to me that epithets look less like predication than appositions do. It seems that
they are more like implications from the matrix sentence than specifications to the
anchor. More research is needed, however.
5
Conclusion
In order to investigate the syntactic structure of appositional constructions, they have
been compared to several other constructions in language. It seems that appositional
constructions share properties with all of these constructions and therefore have to be
analysed as a hybrid form. In particular appositions look like predication in their meaning
and also in some of their syntactic properties, though they have no verb. The construction
looks like coordination in the way of combining anchor and apposition, though these
parts refer to the same concept. Furthermore, appositions are paratactic and separated
from the matrix sentence in prosody and discourse, though they have to be adjacent to the
anchor and thus they are closer connected to the host than other paratactic constructions.
It is hypothesised therefore, that the syntactic structure has to show features of
predication, coordination and parataxis. A structure is assumed in which the apposition
consists of a clause and is related to the anchor in a CoP-like structure in which the
- 21 -
apposition marker is the head. That this relation is paratactic is shown by using a third
dimension in which the apposition and its marker are behind the matrix sentence. The
main question of the further research will be to which extend the appositional
construction can be categorized as each of the three constructions: predication,
coordination and parataxis. Which features of each do they borrow and which features do
they lack? Further research has to point out whether the proposed structure for
appositions explains exactly the combination of the features that apposition uses and the
features it lacks.
References
Aoun, J., E. Benmamoun & D. Sportiche, ‘Further remarks on first conjunct agreement’,
Linguistic Inquiry 30: 669-681.
Bennis, H. (1978), ‘Appositie en de interne struktuur van de NP’, Spektator 8.5: 209-228.
Berntsen, M. & A.B. Larsen (1925), Stavanger bymål, Oslo: Utgitt av Bymålslaget, I kommisjon
hos H. Aschehoug & Co.
Blom, A. & S. Daalder (1977), Syntaktische theorie & taalbeschrijving. Muiderberg: Coutinho.
Burton-Roberts, N. (1975), ‘Nominal apposition’, Foundations of language 13: 391-419.
Corazza, E. (2005), ‘On epithets qua attributive anaphors’, Journal of Linguistics 41: 1-32.
Del Gobbo, F. (2003), Appositives at the interface, Doctoral dissertation, University of Californa,
Irvine.
Doron, E. (1994), ‘The discourse function of appositives’, in R. Buchalla & A. Mitwoch (eds.)
Proceedings of the ninth Annual Conference of the Israel Association for Theoretical
Linguistics and of the Workshop on Discourse, 53-65, Jerusalem: Hebrew University.
Durrell, M. (1996), Hammer’s German grammar and usage. London: Arnold, 3d edition.
Engel, U. (1996), Deutsche Grammatik. Heidelberg: Groos, 3d edition.
Espinal, M.T. (1991), ‘The representation of disjunct constituents’, Language 67.4: 726-762.
Gallmann, P. (1996), ‘Die steuerung der Flexion in der DP’, Linguistische Berichte 164: 283-314.
Gärtner, H.M. (2001), ‘Are there V2 relative clauses in German?’, Journal of Comparative
Germanic Linguistics 3:97-141.
Haeseryn, W., K. Romijn, G. Geerts, J. de Rooij & M.C. van den Toorn (1997), Algemene
Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Groningen/Deurne: Martinus Nijhoff uitgevers/Wolters Plantyn,
2nd edition.
Heringa, H. & M. de Vries (2006), ‘Een semantische classificatie voor apposities’, Ms.,
University of Groningen.
Heijden, E.M.R. van der (1999), Tussen nevenschikking en onderschikking. Een onderzoek naar
verschillende vormen van verbinding in het Nederlands, Doctoral dissertation, Nijmegen
University.
Higgins, F.R. (1979), The pseudo-cleft construction in English. New York: Garland Publishing.
Johannesen, J.B. (1998), Coordination, New York: Oxford University Press.
Kehler, A. (2000) ‘Coherence and the resolution of ellipsis’, Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 533575.
Klein, M. (1977), Appositionele constructies in het Nederlands, Doctoral dissertation, Nijmegen
University.
Koppen, M. van & J. Rooryck (2006), ‘Resolving resolution: underspecification and the Law of
the Coordination of Likes’, Ms., University of Leiden and University of Utrecht.
Koster, J. (2000), ‘Extraposition as parallel construal’, Ms., University of Groningen.
- 22 -
Meyer, Ch.F. (1992), Apposition in Contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Potts, C. (2005), ‘Conventional implicatures, a distinguished class of meanings’, in G. Ramchand
& Ch. Reiss (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, 187-198, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Progovac, L. (1998), ‘Structure for coordination’, Part I and II, Glot International 3.7: 3-6 and
3.8: 3-9.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svarvik (1985), A Comprehensive Grammar of the
English Language, London: Longman.
Sag, I.A. (2002), ‘Coordination and underspecification’, in J. Kim & S. Wechsler (eds.),
Proceedings of the 9th international conference on HPSG, 267-291, Stanford: CSLI.
Sag, I.A., G. Gazdar, T. Wasow & S. Weisler (1985), ‘Coordination and how to distinguish
categories’, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3.2: 117-171.
Schelfhout, C.R.M., P.A.J.M. Coppen & N.H.J. Oostdijk (to appear), ‘A parenthetical approach
to conjunction reduction’, Leuvensche bijdragen.
Schütze, C.T. (2001), ‘On the nature of default case’ Syntax 4.3: 205-238.
Vries, M. de (2005), ‘Coordination and syntactic hierarcy’ Studia Linguistica 59: 83-105.
Vries, M. de (2006) ‘The Syntax of Appositive Relativization. On Specifying Coordination, False
Free Relatives, and Promotion’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 229-270.
Vries, M. de (to appear a) ‘Asymmetric Merge and Parataxis’, Canadian Journal of Linguistics.
Vries, M. de (to appear b) ‘Invisible constituents? Parentheses as b-merged adverbial phrases’, in
N. Dehé & Y. Kavalova (eds.) Parentheticals, Linguistik Aktuell series, Benjamins.
Wiers, E. (1978), ‘Kleins “Appositionele Constructies”’, Spektator 8(1/2): 62-80.
Zwart, C.J.W. (2005), ‘Iets over zgn. V2-relatieven in het Nederlands’, Nederlandse Taalkunde
10.1: 59-81
- 23 -
Appendix I: Activities first year
I
Courses
E. Werkman
Reference Manager
C.J.W. Zwart Syntaxis II: Minimalisme
II
Schools
LOT Summerschool 2006, Amsterdam:
M. Baker
M. Piatelli-Palmarini
Ch. Lehmann
B. Philip
J. Quer
M. Egg
The syntax of Agreement and Concord
Issues in the biology and evolution of language
Aspects of grammaticalization
Relating Contemporary UG-based and Non-UG-based Theories of
L1A
Current issues in sign language linguistics
Semantic interfaces
LOT Winterschool 2007, Nijmegen (planned):
E. Woolford
J. Spenader
H. Broekhuis
III
Case and Agreement
Semantic Aspects of Ellipsis
Derivations and Evaluations: Object Shift in the Germanic
Languages
Attended conferences
Tabudag 2006, University of Groningen.
SAM III, 2006, University of Tilburg.
IV
Output
Syntax seminar: Iets over apposities (overview of the literature on appositions)
Tabudag 2006: Analyse sentences? Start analysing words. Integrating a tagger into a
parser. (on my master’s thesis)
Submitted article with M. de Vries co-author (Nederlandse Taalkunde): Een semantische
classificatie voor apposities. (see appendix III)
V
Committees
Organisation of CLCG colloquium
- 24 -
Appendix II: Schedule coming years
Second year
Research focus:
•
Specification. What is specification? Apposition is described as a specifying type
of coordination. It is not clear, however, what this means. What is the relation
with conjunction and disjunction, where two different elements are combined
instead of two instances of the same element. How can this be represented in logic
(kind of boolean operator)? Is there a link with implication? Are there more types
of specifying coordination (e.g. V2-relatives, extraposition, other paratactic
constructions)? What do they have in common and what are differences? Since
these questions are related to logic and semantics, it seems a good idea to
cooperate with a semanticist (Petra Hendriks/Jack Hoeksema/Markus Egg)
How to:
read literature on propositional logic and functional connectives
discuss with semanticist
define truth table for specification (p:q)
think of other examples of specifying coordination
read literature on V2-relatives and extraposition. List features and
compare with features of apposition
study literature on non-parallel coordination. Compare with appositions.
•
Coordination. What does it mean to analyse appositions as coordination? How do
anchor and apposition get their case? How can we explain that in some languages
this case is the same for both and in others the apposition gets default case? Are
there still other possibilities in other languages? How does the anchor agree with
the verb? How can we explain that this is different from conjunction and
disjunction? Is there a link with first-conjunct agreement? Why can the head of
the construction, the marker, be empty? How does this relate to empty
coordinators in multiple conjunction? And what is the relation with juxtaposition?
What does juxtaposition express?
How to:
read literature on coordination, (first conjunct) agreement and case
assigning; find out which theories apply best to appositions and which
adaptations are needed (possibly combining with other theories)
study grammars of different languages with a case system and compare
them on the case they assign to appositions: anchor case, default case or
something else
read literature on empty heads and juxtaposition; compare appositions
with other constructions using juxtaposition
- 25 -
I
II
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
III
IV
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Education
Courses:
Schools:
Presentations in English
LOT Summerschool, June 11-22 2007, Leuven or
EGG Summerschool, 2007
LOT Winterschool, 2007
Talks
Presentations at syntax seminar
TABU-dag, June, Groningen: ‘A semantic classification for appositions’1
(presentation of the submitted article on the same topic)
SIN-dag, September, Groningen: ‘On the logic of specification’ (an investigation
of what specification means related to conjunction, disjunction and boolean
operators)
SAM IV, November, Groningen: ‘Agreement with parallel structures’ (How do
features of conjuncts percolate and how are they combined, depending on the type
of coordination: conjunction, disjunction, specification? And what about firstconjunct agreement in front of the verb?)
Workshop on coordination, ? (see other activities), Groningen: ‘Specifying
coordination’ (analysing appositions as a type of coordination. Also about the
meaning of specification and agreement in coordination, see other talks)
Papers
‘On the logic of specification’ (see talk at SIN-dag above)
‘Agreement in coordination’ (see talk at SAM IV above)
Other activities
Member of committee organising CLCG colloquia (including web-editing)
Organising SAM IV together with Marlies Kluck & Radek Simik
Organising workshop on coordination together with Mark de Vries & Marlies
Kluck
Start building a database with examples of appositions and other paratactic
constructions (with Mark de Vries en Marlies Kluck), using the data of the project
of Carla Schelfhout and exploring the Alpino treebank (with Gertjan van Noord?).
Teaching introductory course in syntax for undergraduates (with Marlies Kluck?)
1
All titles of talks and papers in this appendix are just ideas. They do not imply that I submitted an abstract
or anything like that.
- 26 -
Third year:
Research focus:
• Predication. If appositions are analysed as reduced clauses expressing some form
of nominal predication, how does this reduction work? Which elements, besides
the verb, have to be elided and which elements can remain? What does this mean
for the word order? Can this explain the variation in order between sentential
adverbs and apposition markers? Is predication reduced in the same way in
languages like Hungarian, where verbs never show up in nominal predication?
How to:
read literature on predication and ellipsis; compare properties of nominal
predication with apposition
find and construct examples of appositional constructions showing which
elements of CP can occur in appositions
study grammars of languages expressing nominal predication without a
verb; compare features with appositions
•
Parataxis. What does it mean if appositions are analysed as parataxis? How can
this be implemented in the minimalist framework? Is b-merge a solution? How
does the linearization work? Why need appositions be next to the anchor (or right
peripheral in extraposition)? Is there really a lack of c-command?
How to:
read literature on parataxis, 3d-syntax and merge
investigate theoretical consequences of combining behindance and
coordination
try to construct new tests for c-command, applicable for appositions
Education: LOT summer/winter schools; maybe other school.
Papers:
• ‘Reducing predication in appositions’ (see research focus)
• ‘Appositions: behind the host sentence’ (see research focus)
Other activities:
• Presenting papers in progress at national and international conferences
• Teaching master course in syntax
• Prepare stay abroad and go there
• Start writing thesis
Fourth year:
• Write thesis
- 27 -