A multidominance approach to appositional constructions

Heringa, Herman

doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2011.07.003

Cited by 34 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In German Molitor (1979) and Zifonun et al (1997):2038ff distinguish nominative appositions, which allow the presence of an adverb, from case-agreeing apposition carrying another case, which do not (see also the detailed recent work in O'Conner 2008 andHeringa 2011). This also applies to the speech-act-related sentence adverbs discussed here.…”

Section: Accented Appositionsmentioning

confidence: 68%

Intonation phrases and speech acts

Truckenbrodt¹

2015

Parenthesis and Ellipsis

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Accented Appositionsmentioning

confidence: 68%

Intonation phrases and speech acts

Truckenbrodt¹

2015

Parenthesis and Ellipsis

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…While many existing MD proposals (especially the early ones) focus on coordinate structures, such as gapping or Right-Node Raising (RNR) (McCawley 1982; Goodall 1983, 1987; Levine 1985; Muadz 1991; Moltmann 1992; Wilder 1999, 2008; among others), Across-the-Board (henceforth ATB) Questions (Williams 1978; Goodall 1983, 1987; Moltmann 1992; Citko 2000, 2003, 2005; among others), determiner sharing (Citko 2006, Kasai 2007), MD also figures in accounts of non-coordinate constructions, such as free relatives (Citko 1998, 2000; Huddelston, Pullum & Peterson 2002; Van Riemsdijk 2006; Payne, Huddleston & Pullum 2007), parasitic gaps (Kasai 2007), serial verb constructions (Hiraiwa & Bodomo 2008), amalgams and parentheticals (McCawley 1982, De Vries 2009, Heringa 2012). 6 , 7 MD also features in other (not necessarily derivational) frameworks; Chen-Main (2006) argues for MD structures in Tree Adjoining Grammar, and Ojeda (1987) motivates their existence in Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar.…”

Section: Proposal: Three Types Of Cwhsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a new typology of coordinatedwh-questions

Citko

Gračanin-Yuksek

2012

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we develop a new typology of multiplewh-questions with coordinatedwh-pronouns. We motivate the existence of three distinct structures for such questions: one mono-clausal and two bi-clausal. We use four kinds of diagnostics to determine which of the three structures is available in a particular language: the availability of both multiplewh-questions andwh-questions with coordinatedwh-pronouns, coordination of two argumentwh-phrases, transitivity restrictions and superiority effects.

show abstract

“…Note in passing that while for the present approach appositions to PP that lack a P are problematic (while appositions to PP that contain a P, such as (42a) and (42c), are analysable as movement of a PP), the opposite problem arises for the theory in Heringa (2011). The derivations of (42b) and (42d) do involve stranding of a preposition.…”

Section: Appositions With An Anchor P[np]mentioning

confidence: 73%

“…Two recent and detailed studies are O'Connor (2008) and Heringa (2011). Two recent and detailed studies are O'Connor (2008) and Heringa (2011).…”

Section: One Argument Appositionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Parentheticals are – presumably – CPs

Döring¹

2015

Parenthesis and Ellipsis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is concerned with the internal syntax of parentheticals in German. I argue that, despite superficial appearance, parentheticals form a categorially homogeneous class with respect to their category, namely they are clausal (i.e. CPs) throughout. To derive the fact that parentheticals show up as various categories at the surface, I adopt a movement plus deletion approach that assimilates parentheticals to other phenomena analysed as ellipsis, such as sluicing, fragment answers, split questions, amalgams, left and right dislocation. Moreover, I propose that appositions and parentheticals are one and the same phenomenon and thus should be captured by the same approach.The first evidence for the clausal hidden structure of parentheticals comes from two observations. To begin with, there are certain elements which are usually assumed to depend on the presence of a C-projection and which can appear within parentheticals. This suggests an underlying clausal structure. The observation will be illustrated by means of sentence adverbs and discourse particles in 2.1. (4) is also briefly mentioned in Döring (2010). An approach in terms of movement and deletion was touched upon in Döring (2012). Earlier related discussions can be found in Hypothesis

show abstract

A multidominance approach to appositional constructions

Cited by 34 publications

References 38 publications

Intonation phrases and speech acts

Intonation phrases and speech acts

Towards a new typology of coordinatedwh-questions

Parentheticals are – presumably – CPs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About