Timeline for Is this clause restrictive or non-restrictive?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 11, 2023 at 18:07 | comment | added | TimR | @linguisticum I've read that apposition requires, among other things, the two constituents to be "coreferential". Does it follow that a non-referential NP cannot be apposite another NP? Would "the most influential work of his time" be considered referential but indeterminate? | |
| Nov 25, 2021 at 16:31 | vote | accept | Hypatia of Alexandria | ||
| Dec 19, 2019 at 19:46 | comment | added | Edwin Ashworth | You can also argue that either renaming is adding information, albeit only at the hyperlinguistic level (again, where names are not, or are equally, attribute-informed). But I think there needs to be a classification which includes 'mere renaming'. There will always be the possibility that someone cottons on to the second name but not the first, as you say. (Or vice versa, in which case do we regard the apposition as both defining for some and descriptive for others?) | |
| Dec 19, 2019 at 19:32 | comment | added | linguisticturn | @EdwinAshworth And so Karen implicitly gets interpreted as "x such that x is called Karen", and then Abby specifies which Karen. I don't expect anyone to be convinced by this argument—like I said, there really has to be some independent test for referentiality, or else circularity threatens. But it is at least possible that something like this is going on. | |
| Dec 19, 2019 at 19:32 | comment | added | linguisticturn | @EdwinAshworth Suppose there is someone who is called both Karen and Abby, and both names are used in the same contexts, with the same frequency, with the same legal standing, by the same people, etc. Now imagine someone says, Karen (pause) Abby (pause) is moving to Europe. Again, I don't know how to test for referentiality in these cases, but it seems to me that, by adding the appositive Abby, the speaker has implicitly suggested (even if it's wrong) that, if Abby hadn't been added, there would have been some confusion as far as whom he's talking about. | |
| Dec 19, 2019 at 19:31 | comment | added | linguisticturn | @EdwinAshworth I think that the possible trouble with CGEL's account is their claim that the anchor is always non-referential. I don't know how to test for it independently—my understanding of what counts as referential and what doesn't is a bit shaky—but the more I think about it, the more it seems that it is the very presence of the apposition that can turn a formerly referential NP into a non-referential (I know—circularity threatens. But hold on!). An example: | |
| Dec 19, 2019 at 19:30 | comment | added | linguisticturn | @EdwinAshworth As best as I can tell, there is no such category in CGEL. I think CGEL would say that this is indeed a specifying supplement, because it admits the indicator phrase that is: The Siberian ibex, that is, Capra ibex sibirica, is a species of ibex that lives in central Asia. | |
| Dec 19, 2019 at 17:47 | comment | added | Edwin Ashworth | In 'The Siberian ibex, Capra ibex sibirica, is a species of ibex that lives in central Asia' we have an appositive which is neither specifying (either name does that) nor ascriptive (neither noun phrase adds information (to non-Latin-scholars) other than that of the alternative name). It is a renaming appositive, a class which seems not to be mentioned here. Does CGEL refer to them separately (not under 'supplements')? | |
| Dec 19, 2019 at 17:29 | history | edited | linguisticturn | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 439 characters in body
|
| Dec 19, 2019 at 17:18 | history | answered | linguisticturn | CC BY-SA 4.0 |