Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T11:52:38.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aspects of the grammar of close apposition and the structure of the noun phrase1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

JUAN CARLOS ACUÑA-FARIÑA
JUAN CARLOS ACUÑA-FARIÑA*
Affiliation:
Facultad de Filología, Avda. das Ciencias s/n, Department of English, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela 15782, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The range of structures commonly classed as close appositives forms a rich ecological niche where each construction relates to the other constructions forming a dense network of taxonomic and inheritance ties (Goldberg 1995). As a first approximation to the concept of close apposition, however, the structure of that network falls outside the scope of this article, where I focus on the theoretical notion of close apposition itself, on how it deviates from that of loose apposition (Acuña-Fariña 2006), and on an analysis of a quintessentially close appositive construction, the the poet Burns type in the literature (Curme 1947; Lee 1952; Fries 1952; Haugen 1953; Hockett 1955, 1958). The thesis that these strings are formed by a doubly endocentric structure where the putative first segment (the poet) is a grounded nominal (i.e. an active referent; e.g. Langacker 1991; Taylor 2002) is rejected. Instead, it is argued that these highly conventionalized close appositions are instances of ‘inchoate’ noun phrase structure, and that the internal constituency of such strings is not fully elaborated due to a lack of strong functional pressure. Three reasons are put forward in order to defend such a view: 1. the construction has as its job the activation of a social referent, and in the social world that we inhabit this is usually done either by name or profession, with no logical incompatibility between the two; 2. the construction is a hybrid of distinct and more productive (and fully elaborated) templates, which act as attractor poles and pull constituency in opposite directions; and 3. the construction is easily identifiable as such ‘from the top’. This makes it unnecessary to have to spend valuable cognitive resources (like creating, storing and deploying inaudible, abstract, constituent structure) when, somewhat metaphorically, one can reach the final destination of that journey (the last stop being meaning) directly, as it were, with no changing of trains (Haiman 1994; Boyland 1996; Hay 2001). The present analysis is framed along lines compatible with various forms of Construction Grammar.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , November 2009 , pp. 453 - 481
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aarts, Bas. 2007. Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ackema, Peter & Neeleman, Ad. 2004. Beyond morphology: Interface conditions on word formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acuña-Fariña, J. Carlos. 1996. The puzzle of apposition. Santiago: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
Acuña-Fariña, J. Carlos. 1999. On apposition. English Language and Linguistics 3, 59–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acuña-Fariña, J. Carlos. 2000. Reduced relatives and apposition. Australian Journal of Linguistics 20, 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acuña-Fariña, J. Carlos. 2005. Aspects of the relationship between theories of grammar and theories of processing. Atlantis 27 (1), 11–27.Google Scholar
Acuña-Fariña, J. Carlos. 2006. A constructional network in appositive space. Cognitive Linguistics 17 (1), 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acuña-Fariña, J. Carlos. Submitted. The close apposition network. Cognitive Linguistics.Google Scholar
Allerton, David J. 1979. Essentials of grammatical theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Altmann, Gerry. 1997. The ascent of Babel. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark & Stewart, Osamuyimen. 1999. On double-headedness and the anatomy of the clause. MS, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Bitea, Ioan. N. 1977. An attempt at defining apposition in modern English. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 453–77.Google Scholar
Bogacki, B. K. 1973. Types de constructions appositives en français. Wrocław: Polska Akademia Nauk. Komitet Jezykoznzwstw 73.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1968. Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa 2, 119–27.Google Scholar
Boyland, Joyce T. 1996. Morphosyntactic change in progress: A psycholinguistic approach. PhD dissertation, University of California.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, E. Keith & Miller, Jim E.. 1980. Syntax: Generative grammar. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, Noel. 1975. Nominal apposition. Foundations of Language 13, 391–419.Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, Noel. 1993. Apposition. In Asher, Ron (ed.), The encyclopaedia of language and linguistics, vol. I, 184–7. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Hopper, Paul (eds). 1993. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Scheibman, Joanne. 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: the reduction of don't in English. Linguistics 37, 575–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Thompson, Sandra. 1997. Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistics Society 23, 378–88.Google Scholar
Carlson, Katy, Clifton, Chuck & Frazier, Lyn. 2001. Prosodic boundaries in adjunct attachment. Journal of Memory and Language 45, 58–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & Cruse, Allan. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter. W. 1999. Syntactic nuts: Hard cases in syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curme, George O. 1947. English grammar. New York: Barnes & Noble.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1988. Studies on copular sentences, clefts and pseudoclefts. Leuven: Leuven University Press/Fortis Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delorme, Evelyne & Dougherty, Ray C.. 1972. Appositive NP constructions: We, the men; we men; I, a man; etc. Foundations of Language 8 (1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Doron, Edit. 1992. Appositive predicates. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 7, 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupont, Norbert. 1985. Linguistique du détachement en français. Berne: Lang.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1979. Appositive relatives have no properties. Linguistic Inquiry 10, 211–43.Google Scholar
Feldman, Gerome. 2006. From molecule to metaphor. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles, Kay, Paul & O'Connor, Mary C.. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64, 501–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles & Kay, Paul. 1993. Construction grammar. MS, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Fodor, Janet. 1998. Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 27, 285–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fries, Charles C. 1952. The structure of English. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Fugier, Huguette. 1973. L'apposition en Latin. Pour une étude des relations à l'intérieur du sintagme nominal. Linguistique 9 (1), 97–113.Google Scholar
Geluykens, Ronald. 1987. Tails (right-dislocations) as a repair mechanism in English conversational discourse. In Nuyts, Jan & Schutter, Georges (eds.), Getting one's words into line: On word order and functional grammar, 119–29. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1985. Function, structure and language acquisition. In Slobin, Dan I. (ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition, vol. 2, 1005–28. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1993. English grammar. A function-based introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele & Jackendoff, Ray. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80, 532–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hadlich, Roger L. 1971. A transformational grammar of Spanish. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1994. Ritualization and the development of language. In Pagliuca, William (ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization, 3–28. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannay, Mike & Keizer, Evelien. 2005. Non-restrictive apposition in an FDG of English. In Mackenzie, Nial & Gómez-González, M. Angeles (eds.), Studies in functional discourse grammar, 159–94. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Hare, Mary, McRae, Ken & Elman, Jeffrey. 2004. Admitting that admitting verb sense into corpus analysis makes sense. Language and Cognitive Processes 19 (2), 181–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugen, Einar. 1953. On resolving the close apposition. American Speech 28, 165–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer. 2001. Lexical frequency in morphology: is everything relative? Linguistics 39, 1041–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hebb, Donald. O. 1949. The organization of behavior: A neuropsychological theory. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1955. Attribution and apposition in English. American Speech 30, 99–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1958. A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2008. Construction after construction and its theoretical challenges. Language 84, 8–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul & Fillmore, Charles J.. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What's X doing Y? construction. Language 75, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keizer, Evelien. 2005. The discourse function of close appositions. Neophilologus 89, 447–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keizer, Evelien. 2007a. The English noun phrase: The nature of linguistic categorization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keizer, Evelien. 2007b. The English noun phrase: An empirical study. UCL Survey of English Usage document (www.ucl.ac.uk/english-usage/projects/noun-phrase/report.htm).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koktová, Eva. 1985. Apposition as a pragmatic phenomenon in a functional description. UEA Papers in Linguistics, 39–79.Google Scholar
Kolliaku, Daemaetra. 2004. Monadic definites and polydefinites: Their form, meaning, and use. Journal of Linguistics 40, 263–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 2006. On the continuous debate about discreteness. Cognitive Linguistics 17 (1), 107–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D. W. 1952. Close apposition: an unresolved pattern. American Speech 27, 268–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lekakou, Marika & Szendröi, Kriszta. 2007. Eliding the noun in close apposition, or Greek polydefinites revisited. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics (www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/publications/WPL/uclwpl19.html).Google Scholar
Levy, David M. 1979. Communicative goals and strategies: Between discourse and syntax. In Givón, Talmy (ed.), Discourse and syntax, 337–54. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lieven, Elena, Pine, Julian & Baldwin, Gillian. 1997. Lexically-based learning & early grammatical development. Journal of Child Language 24, 187–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Longrée, Dominique. 1987. Les compléments du nom en Latin classique: syntaxe, sémantique et pragmatique. Cahiers de l’ Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 13 (1–2), 163–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, Maryellen, Pearlmutter, Neil & Seidenberg, Mark. 1994. Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 101, 676–703.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacWhinney, Brian. 2001. Emergentist approaches to language. In Bybee & Hopper (eds.), 449–71.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter H. 1981. Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1982. Parenthetical and discontinuous constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 91–106.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1998. The syntactic phenomena of English, 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, Charles F. 1989. Restrictive apposition: An indeterminate category. English Studies 70, 147–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, Charles F. 1991. A corpus-based study of apposition in English. In Aijmer, Karin & Altenberg, Bengt (eds.), English corpus linguistics, 166–81. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Meyer, Charles F. 1992. Apposition in contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, Ad & van de Koot, Hans. 2002. The configurational matrix. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 529–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogura, Mieko. 1993. The development of periphrastic do in English: A case of lexical diffusion in syntax. Diachronica 10, 51–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, Peter. 1999. On the boundaries of syntax. In Collins, Peter & Lee, David (eds.), The clause in English. In honour of Rodney Huddleston, 229–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petitot, Jean. 1995. Morphodynamics and attractor syntax: Constituency in visual perception and cognitive grammar. In Port, Robert F. & van Gelder, Timothy (eds.), Mind as motion: Explorations in the dynamics of cognition, 227–81. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2005. The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poutsma, Hendrik. 1904. A grammar of late modern English, Part I. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rayner, Keith. 1998. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin 124, 372–422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, Paul. 1966. Understanding grammar. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Sauer, Hans. 2000. Lexicalisation and demotivation? In Booij, Geert, Lehmann, Christian & Mugdan, Joachim (eds.), Morphology. An international handbook on inflection and word formation, vol. 2, 1625–36. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Scheibman, Joanne. 2000. I dunno but. . . a usage-based account of the phonological reduction of don't in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 32, 105–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sopher, H. 1971. Apposition. English Studies 52, 401–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Aaron. 2001. The role of frequency in the specialization of the English anterior. In Bybee & Hopper (eds.), 361–82.Google Scholar
Smolka, Eva, Rabanus, Stefan & Rösler, Frank. 2007. The processing of verbs in German idioms: Evidence against the Configuration Hypothesis. Metaphor and Symbol 22, 213–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, John R. 1995. Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2002. Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2000. Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition 74, 209–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1982. The NP cycle. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 277–95.Google Scholar
Zanone, Pier G. & Kelso, Scott. 1992. Evolution of behavioural attractors with learning: Nonequilibrium phase transition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 18 (2), 403–21.Google Scholar
Zemb, Jean-Marie. 1968. Les structures logiques de la proposition allemande. Paris: OCDL.Google Scholar