Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T02:37:11.950Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nominal Appositives in Grammar and Discourse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Edgar Onea  and
Dennis Ott
Edgar Onea*
Affiliation:
University of Graz
Dennis Ott*
Affiliation:
University of the Basque Country and University of Ottawa
*
[edgar.onea-gaspar@uni-graz.at]
[dennis.ott@post.harvard.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, we develop a theory of the form and interpretation of nonrestrictive nominal appositives (NAPs) by combining two recent syntactic and pragmatic approaches. Following Ott (2016), we assume that NAPs are independent elliptical speech acts, which are linearly interpolated into their host sentences in production. Building on insights in Onea 2016, we argue that NAPs make their pragmatic contribution as short answers to discourse-structuring Potential Questions. We show how these two assumptions combine to yield a comprehensive theory of NAPs that captures their central syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic properties and furthermore sheds light on the mechanisms that govern their linear interpolation.

Keywords

appositionquestionsellipsisparenthesissyntaxpragmaticsdiscourse

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 98 , Issue 2 , June 2022 , pp. 359 - 391
Copyright
Copyright © 2022 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

We are indebted to Language editor Andries Coetzee and especially our associate editor Ezra Keshet for their patience and thoughtful feedback on our manuscript, which led to various significant improvements in the final product. Thanks also to three anonymous Language referees for their constructive commentary, as well as to those individuals and audiences mentioned in the acknowledgments of Ott 2016 and Onea 2016. Last but not least, we would like to thank Malte Zimmermann for making us aware of each other's work, thus kickstarting a collaboration that culminated in this paper. EO acknowledges financial support from the Austrian Science Fund (grant nr. I 4858). DO acknowledges financial support from the Basque Foundation for Science (Ikerbasque) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (grant nr. 430-2018-00305).

References

Abusch, Dorit. 1994. The scope of indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 2. 83–135. DOI: 10.1007/BF01250400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acuña-Fariña, Juan Carlos. 1999. On apposition. English Language and Linguistics 3(1). 59–81. DOI: 10.1017/S1360674399000131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aloni, Maria. 2001. Quantification under conceptual covers. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation. Online: https://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.173339.Google Scholar
AnderBois, Scott. 2014. The semantics of sluicing: Beyond truth conditions. Language 90(4). 887–926. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2014.0110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AnderBois, Scott, Brasoveanu, Adrian; and Henderson, Robert. 2015. At-issue proposals and appositive impositions in discourse. Journal of Semantics 32(1). 93–138. DOI: 10.1093/jos/fft014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, Nicholas, and Lascarides, Alex. 2003. Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barros, Matthew. 2014. Sluicing and identity in ellipsis. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University dissertation. DOI: 10.7282/T3VM49R5.Google Scholar
Barros, Matthew, Elliott, Patrick D.; and Thoms, Gary. 2014. There is no island repair. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, London: University College London, and Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, ms. Online: https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002100.Google Scholar
Beaver, David, and Clark, Brady. 2008. Sense and sensitivity. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaver, David, and Krahmer, Emiel. 2001. A partial account of presupposition projection. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 20. 147–82. DOI: 10.1023/A:1008371413822.Google Scholar
Beaver, David, and Onea, Edgar. 2015. Cleftomania. Paper presented at the Questions in Pragmatics workshop, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Brisson, Christine. 1998. Distributivity, maximality, and floating quantifiers. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University dissertation.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2003. On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics & Philosophy 26. 511–45. DOI: 10.1023/A:1025887707652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel, and Hartmann, Katharina. 1997. Doing the right thing. The Linguistic Review 14(1). 1–42. DOI: 10.1515/tlir.1997.14.1.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butschety, Madeleine. 2019. Additivity 2.0 [‘too’ point zero]: Superset-to-subset inferences. Graz: University of Graz, ms.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2013. Logic in grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, Gallego, Ángel J.; and Ott, Dennis. 2019. Generative grammar and the faculty of language: Insights, questions, and challenges. Catalan Journal of Linguistics (Special issue: Generative syntax: Questions, crossroads, and challenges) 2019. 229–61. DOI: 10.5565/rev/catjl.288.Google Scholar
Ciardelli, Ivano, and Roelofsen, Floris. 2015. Alternatives in Montague grammar. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 19. 161–78. Online: https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/227.Google Scholar
Dillon, Brian, Clifton, Charles Jr.; and Frazier, Lyn. 2014. Pushed aside: Parentheticals, memory and processing. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 29(4). 483–98. DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2013.866684.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Döring, Sandra. 2014. Parentheticals are—presumably—CPs. Parenthesis and ellipsis: Cross-linguistic and theoretical perspectives, ed. by Kluck, Marlies, Ott, Dennis, and de Vries, Mark, 109–46. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9781614514831.109.Google Scholar
Ebert, Cornelia. 2021. Wide-scope indefinites. The Wiley-Blackwell companion to semantics, ed. by Gutzmann, Daniel, Matthewson, Lisa, Meier, Cécile, Rullmann, Hotze, and Zimmermann, Thomas Ede. DOI: 10.1002/9781118788516.sem031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Donka F., and Bruce, Kim B.. 2010. On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics 27(1). 81–118. DOI: 10.1093/jos/ffp010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geurts, Bart. 2010. Quantity implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, James. 2019. A Q-based approach to clausal ellipsis: Deriving the preposition-stranding and island-sensitivity generalizations without movement. Glossa 4:12. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.653.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Stokhof, Martin. 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation.Google Scholar
Hamblin, Charles. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10(1). 41–53. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25000703.Google Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard. 2007. Partial variables and specificity. Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, ed. by Sauerland, Uli and Penka, Doris, 121–62. New York: Palgrave-McMillan. DOI: 10.1057/9780230210752_5.Google Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard. 2010. The proof theory of partial variables. Language and logos, ed. by Hanneforth, Thomas and Fanselow, Gisbert, 190–201. Berlin: Akademie. DOI: 10.1524/9783050062365.190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamp, Hans, van Genabith, Josef; and Reyle, Uwe. 2011. Discourse-representation theory. Handbook of philosophical logic, vol. 15, ed. by Gabbay, Dov and Guenthner, Franz, 125–394. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-0485-5_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koev, Todor. 2013. Apposition and the structure of discourse. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University dissertation. DOI: 10.7282/T3QN64SD.Google Scholar
Koev, Todor. 2018. Notions of at-issueness. Language and Linguistics Compass 12(12): e12306. DOI: 10.1111/lnc3.12306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika, and Shimoyama, Junko. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, 1–25.Google Scholar
Kripke, Saul. 1980. Naming and necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics & Philosophy 27. 661–738. DOI: 10.1007/s10988-005-7378-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina, and Vogel, Irene. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Onea, Edgar. 2013. Potential questions in discourse and grammar. Göttingen: Universität Göttingen habilitation thesis.Google Scholar
Onea, Edgar. 2015. Why indefinites can escape scope islands. Linguistics & Philosophy 38. 237–67. DOI: 10.1007/s10988-015-9167-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onea, Edgar. 2016. Potential questions at the semantics–pragmatics interface. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onea, Edgar. 2019. Underneath rhetorical relations: The case of result. Questions in discourse, vol. 2: Pragmatics, ed. by Heusinger, Klaus von, Onea, Edgar, and Zimmermann, Malte, 194–250. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onea, Edgar, and Volodina, Anna. 2011. Between specification and explanation: About a German discourse particle. International Review of Pragmatics 3(1). 3–32. DOI: 10.1163/187731011X561036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onea, Edgar, and Zimmermann, Malte. 2019. Questions in discourse: An overview. Questions in discourse, vol. 1: Semantics, ed. by Heusinger, Klaus von, Onea, Edgar, and Zimmermann, Malte, 5–117. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ott, Dennis. 2016. Ellipsis in appositives. Glossa 1(1):34. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.37.Google Scholar
Ott, Dennis. 2023. Phrase structure and its limits. The Cambridge handbook of minimalism, ed. by Grohmann, Kleanthes K. and Leivada, Evelina. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Ott, Dennis, and de Vries, Mark. 2016. Right-dislocation as deletion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34. 641–90. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-015-9307-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ott, Dennis, and Onea, Edgar. 2015. On the form and meaning of appositives. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 45(2). 203–12.Google Scholar
Ott, Dennis, and Struckmeier, Volker. 2018. Particles and deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 49(2). 393–407. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, Peter. 1999. On the boundaries of syntax. The clause in English, ed. by Collins, Peter and Lee, David, 229–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2005. The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 2012 [1996]. Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5:6. DOI: 10.3765/sp.5.6. [Originally published in OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49, 1996.].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1. 75–116. DOI: 10.1007/BF02342617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1984. Inner islands. Berkeley Linguistics Society 10. 258–65. DOI: 10.3765/bls.v10i0.1940.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2021. The semantics and pragmatics of appositives. The Wiley-Blackwell companion to semantics, ed. by Gutzmann, Daniel, Matthewson, Lisa, Meier, Cécile, Rullmann, Hotze, and Zimmermann, Thomas Ede. DOI: 10.1002/9781118788516.sem110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2011. The syntax–phonology interface. The handbook of phonological theory, ed. by Goldsmith, John, Riggle, Jason, and Yu, Alan C. L., 435–84. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781444343069.ch14.Google Scholar
Simons, Mandy, Tonhauser, Judith, Beaver, David; and Roberts, Craige. 2010. What projects and why. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20. 309–27. DOI: 10.3765/salt.v20i0.2584.Google Scholar
Snider, Todd. 2018. Distinguishing at-issueness from anaphoric potential: A case study of appositives. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 35. 374–81. Online: http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/35/abstract3410.html.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert L. 1978. Assertion. Syntax and semantics, vol. 9: Pragmatics, ed. by Cole, Peter, 315–32. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert L. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics & Philosophy 25. 701–21. DOI: 10.1023/A:1020867916902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Syrett, Kristen, and Koev, Todor. 2015. Experimental evidence for the truth-conditional contribution and shifting information status of appositives. Journal of Semantics 32(3). 525–77. DOI: 10.1093/jos/ffu007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonhauser, Judith, Beaver, David, Roberts, Craige; and Simons, Mandy. 2013. Toward a taxonomy of projective content. Language 89(1). 66–109. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2013.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2014. Intonation phrases and speech acts. Parenthesis and ellipsis: Cross-linguistic and theoretical perspectives, ed. by Kluck, Marlies, Ott, Dennis, and de Vries, Mark, 301–49. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9781614514831.301.Google Scholar
van der Sandt, Rob A. 1992. Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9(4). 333–77. DOI: 10.1093/jos/9.4.333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus. 2011. Specificity. Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 2, ed. by Heusinger, Klaus von, Maienborn, Claudia, and Portner, Paul, 1024–45. DOI: 10.1515/9783110255072.1025.Google Scholar
Weir, Andrew. 2014. Fragments and clausal ellipsis. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation. DOI: 10.7275/5823750.0.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte. 2011. Discourse particles. Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 2, ed. by Heusinger, Klaus von, Maienborn, Claudia, and Portner, Paul, 2011–13. DOI: 10.1515/9783110255072.2012.Google Scholar