Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHollenbach, Barbara E.
dc.date.accessioned2012-05-29T17:33:35Z
dc.date.available2012-05-29T17:33:35Z
dc.date.issued1983
dc.identifier.issn0894-4539
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/226533
dc.descriptionPublished as Coyote Papers: Working Papers in Linguistics from A-Z, Exploring Language: Linguistic Heresies from the Deserten_US
dc.description.abstractThe goal of this paper is to apply the insights of X -bar syntax, as developed by Jackendoff (1977), to apposition, a topic that has received only moderate attention within the framework of generative grammar, and one which Jackendoff essentially ignores. In Section 1, I try to capture the intuitive notion that we have of apposition by defining it as the repetition of full NP's, none of which has either structural or semantic priority, dominated by the same node in the tree. I propose a rule that generates such structures by doubling N'''. In Section 2, I discuss the difference between restrictive and nonrestrictive apposition, and I propose that restrictive apposition consists in the repetition of something smaller than the maximal projection of N. I therefore modify the rule given in Section 1 by replacing the triple -prime superscript on N with the variable n, which allows the rule to generate both kinds of apposition. In Section 3, I briefly compare the analysis of apposition presented in Sections land 2 with the approaches to apposition taken by Delorme and Dougherty (1972), Halitsky (1974), Pesetsky (1978), and Janda (1980). All of these investigators state or imply that apposition is a kind of head-modifier construction, a claim with which I disagree. One of Jackendoff's goals was to search for cross-category generalizations in syntax; in Section 4, therefore, I explore the possibility of generalizing my definition of apposition to categories outside of NP. The paper closes with a brief presentation of some unresolved problems for future research.
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherUniversity of Arizona Linguistics Circle (Tucson, Arizona)en_US
dc.relation.urlhttps://coyotepapers.sbs.arizona.edu/en_US
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author(s).en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/en_US
dc.titleApposition and X-Bar Rulesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.identifier.journalCoyote Papersen_US
dc.description.collectioninformationThe Coyote Papers are made available by the Arizona Linguistics Circle at the University of Arizona and the University of Arizona Libraries. Contact coyotepapers@email.arizona.edu with questions about these materials.en_US
dc.source.journaltitleCoyote Papers
refterms.dateFOA2018-07-01T22:56:46Z
html.description.abstractThe goal of this paper is to apply the insights of X -bar syntax, as developed by Jackendoff (1977), to apposition, a topic that has received only moderate attention within the framework of generative grammar, and one which Jackendoff essentially ignores. In Section 1, I try to capture the intuitive notion that we have of apposition by defining it as the repetition of full NP's, none of which has either structural or semantic priority, dominated by the same node in the tree. I propose a rule that generates such structures by doubling N'''. In Section 2, I discuss the difference between restrictive and nonrestrictive apposition, and I propose that restrictive apposition consists in the repetition of something smaller than the maximal projection of N. I therefore modify the rule given in Section 1 by replacing the triple -prime superscript on N with the variable n, which allows the rule to generate both kinds of apposition. In Section 3, I briefly compare the analysis of apposition presented in Sections land 2 with the approaches to apposition taken by Delorme and Dougherty (1972), Halitsky (1974), Pesetsky (1978), and Janda (1980). All of these investigators state or imply that apposition is a kind of head-modifier construction, a claim with which I disagree. One of Jackendoff's goals was to search for cross-category generalizations in syntax; in Section 4, therefore, I explore the possibility of generalizing my definition of apposition to categories outside of NP. The paper closes with a brief presentation of some unresolved problems for future research.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
cpiv-037-058.pdf
Size:
774.9Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record