On apposition

Abstract

This paper seeks to redefine apposition, a term that is often used in the literature with a remarkable lack of precision. Starting from paradigmatic instances of apposition (Romulus, the legendary founder; Santiago, the capital of Galicia), the main resemblances to the paradigm are analysed in an attempt to measure the validity of a general syntactic relation that is often put on a par with co-ordination and dependency. Paradigmatic appositions and other related nominal patterns are shown to be structures of nonrestrictive modification (i.e. not really appositions) which are best understood in reference to the concept of a Local Domain. The second unit of these structures has its scope in the local domain of the first unit, of which it is an expansion, not in the larger domain of the sentence. By contrast, most instances of non-nominal apposition (e.g. He ran – absolutely raced – up the hill; Burton-Roberts, 1975) are seen as true appositions, as defined in this paper, namely as structures whose two units relate independently to a Sentence Domain without forming a superordinate node in it. Crucial to the distinction between the Local and the Sentence domains is the role of intonation boundaries. These are strongly obligatory only with those structures which have been considered paradigmatic appositions in the literature (Romulus, the legendary founder), and their role is to isolate the second unit within them from the remainder of the sentence, thus preventing it from having a function in it. The intonation boundaries are also responsible for the most distinctive feature of these structures, namely the predicative relationship binding the two units together (Dupont, 1985; Koktová, 1985; Longrée, 1987; Forsgren, 1988).

Ellipsis in appositives

“…Heringa (2012a), who develops a similar proposal with a somewhat different implementation, 15 traces the basic idea implemented here back to Motsch (1966) and Klein (1976) (see also Acuña-Fariña 1999). This approach to p-NAPs has likewise been adopted by Griffiths (2015a;b).…”

The syntax and prosody of apposition in Shingazidja

“…In spoken language, pauses separate the NRA from the rest of the clause (e.g. Acuña-Fariña 1999). As for RAs, the two parts form one intonation unit, and are thus not separated by a pause (Keizer 2007).…”

Nominal juxtaposition in Australian languages: An LFG analysis

“…Although the prevalent use of the term apposition in the literature on European languages is to refer to non-restrictive nominal, clausal or other phrases (loose appositions), there has also been work on the nature of close or restrictive apposition and how it relates to modifierhead constructions both syntactically and semantically (Keizer, 2005;Lekakou and Szendröi, 2007;Keizer, 2007;Acuña-Fariña, 1999 Returning now to the Australian language data, a further type of juxtaposed construction common to Australian languages is the inclusory construction (Singer, 2001(Singer, , 2005 (also known in the literature as the 'plural pronoun construction' (Schwartz, 1988a)), in which a plural pronoun referring to the superset is combined with a subset nominal. In many languages the inclusory construction involves simple juxtaposition of the two elements, as in the following from Kayardild:…”

“…Although the prevalent use of the term apposition in the literature on European languages is to refer to non-restrictive nominal, clausal or other phrases (loose appositions), there has also been work on the nature of close or restrictive apposition and how it relates to modifier–head constructions both syntactically and semantically (Acuña-Fariña 1999; Keizer 2005, 2007; Lekakou & Szendröi 2007). 10…”