On the Information Status of Appositive Relative Clauses

Koev, Todor

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-31482-7_41

Cited by 16 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The judgments are subtle in these cases, but it seems clear not only that (40c) is more marginal than (40a), as AnderBois, Brasoveanu & Henderson (2010 and Koev (2012) also claim, but also that (40b) is somewhat less marginal than (40c). Note the similarity between the influence of a supplement's linear position on its deniability and the effects of linear order on the relative salience of antecedents for anaphora.…”

Section: Anaphora and Deniabilitymentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Scott Martin gives a model of the greater degree of deniability observed for utterance-final supplements (AnderBois, Brasoveanu & Henderson 2010, Koev 2012, Schlenker 2013b. I also offer new examples that show a supplement in the scope of a quantifier being interpreted outside its scope, and argue that these cases are instances of Roberts's (1989) telescoping.…”

Section: :3mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…AnderBois, Brasoveanu & Henderson (2010 and Koev (2012) argue that supplements can be more easily denied when they occur finally within an utterance. In (39), both the nonsupplement content and the supplement can be directly denied.…”

Section: Anaphora and Deniabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To force the less recently mentioned cowboy as the antecedent, the first cowboy would have to be used instead of he, just as No he wasn't; they met in a restaurant is needed to target the supplement in (40c). I claim, following Koev (2012), that the presence of a supplement in a matrix clause generates two separate proposals: one containing only the supplement's content, and the other containing the surrounding content. The resulting proposals are ordered based on their linear position within the utterance that gave rise to them, so that (40a) generates the sequence of proposals The first Lady got introduced to Lance.…”

Section: :17mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several authors (Amaral, Roberts & Smith 2007, AnderBois, Brasoveanu & Henderson 2010, Koev 2012, Martin 2013) point out that a supplement can both contain elements that are anaphoric to an antecedent occurring outside it, as well as introduce antecedents for subsequent anaphora. Others (del Gobbo 2007;Nouwen 2007Nouwen , 2014Schlenker 2010Schlenker , 2013aSchlenker , 2013b) draw attention to the fact, already noticed by Amaral, Roberts & Smith, that supplements are sometimes interpreted in the scope of operators.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Supplemental update

Martin

2017

Semantics and Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Supplements have often been characterized as inert with respect to other content. But under closer scrutiny, the data shows that supplements can take scope and participate in anaphoric links, undermining multidimensional accounts of them. I argue that the core empirical facts pertaining to supplements, including projection, can in many cases be accounted for by more general, independently motivated factors such as anaphora resolution in discourse and quantifier scope preferences. Importantly, supplement projection is decoupled from at-issueness, with projection arising instead as an epiphenomenon of various external influences.The account is formalized in a dynamic, compositional, and unidimensional semantics that allows anaphoric links to and from supplement content. Since supplements are modeled as a kind of quantifier phrase modifier, scope interactions with semantic operators are captured without further stipulation. When a supplement takes widest scope, it constitutes a separate at-issue proposal, enabling both supplement projection and (non)deniability. The formal machinery requires no additional rules or representation layers except for the dynamic meaning of the comma intonation, which demarcates a supplement from its surrounding content.

show abstract

Section: Anaphora and Deniabilitymentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: :3mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Anaphora and Deniabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: :17mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Supplemental update

Martin

2017

Semantics and Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

(Non)Restrictive Nominal Modification

Fabricius‐Hansen¹

2020

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The chapter is concerned with the distinction between restrictive and nonrestrictive modification of nouns, focusing on relative clause (RC) modification but with a view also to adjectival/participial (AP) modification. After a brief introduction to the traditional notion of (non)restrictiveness, it presents a preliminary semantic characterization of (non)restrictiveness in relation to RCs and some observational characteristics of restrictive and nonrestrictive RCs, respectively. The central part of the chapter discusses the formal (syntactic–)semantic explication of restrictive vs nonrestrictive RC modification, in particular the question of whether or how nonrestrictive modification can be accounted for in compositional terms. Three different formal semantic approaches to this issue are presented: standard syntax with bidimensional semantics, nonstandard syntax with unidimensional semantics, and dynamic accounts. The presentation also looks into the epistemic status and discourse‐relational contribution of nonrestrictive RCs, as compared to independent sentences. As for (non)restrictive AP modification, it is shown that a semantically restrictive AP modifier may be nonrestrictive (nonrestricting) in context. More generally, it is argued that the term “appositive,” which is sometimes used as a synonym for “nonrestrictive,” might be reserved for modifiers that by prosody or punctuation are explicitly marked as being nonrestrictive (nonrestricting).

show abstract

The Semantics and Pragmatics of Appositives

Schlenker

2020

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Appositives have been argued to provide a powerful argument in favor of a multidimensional semantics, one in which certain expressions fail to interact scopally with various operators because their meaning is located in a separate semantic dimension (as argued by Potts). On this view, appositive relative clauses and nominals have an unexceptional syntax but a semantics that radically differs from that of superficially related constructions (restrictive modifiers on the one hand, presupposition‐triggering expressions on the other) – hence the development of new semantic tools. An older line of research (due in particular to McCawley) posited instead that appositives have an unexceptional (and conjunctive) semantics, but a very nonstandard syntax; in a nutshell, the view was that even when appositives appear to be deeply embedded, they can be attached to higher propositional nodes than meets the eye. This chapter reviews the phenomenological differences between appositives and superficially similar constructions, notably restrictive modifiers, presupposition triggers, and parentheticals. It introduces accounts based on a rich semantics, in particular Potts' bidimensional framework and more recent accounts in terms of “post‐suppositions.” It revisits arguments in favor of a syntactic approach to some “wide scope” phenomena, following work by McCawley, and discusses various phenomena that have been taken to suggest that in other cases appositives can have genuinely narrow scope. It also lays out some data that suggest that sometimes the content of appositives “projects” in a nontrivial way, possibly reminiscent of presupposition projection. While the issues continue to be the object of vigorous debates, they offer a particularly interesting case study in the division of labor between syntax, semantics, and pragmatics.

show abstract

On the Information Status of Appositive Relative Clauses

Cited by 16 publications

References 9 publications

Supplemental update

Supplemental update

(Non)Restrictive Nominal Modification

The Semantics and Pragmatics of Appositives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About