On the Information Status of Appositive Relative Clauses

  • Todor Koev
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7218)

Abstract

Existing semantic theories of appositive relative clauses (ARCs) assume that ARCs contribute asserted but not at-issue content (Böer & Lycan [4], Bach [3], Chierchia & McConnell-Ginet [5], Potts [13], AnderBois et al. [2], Murray [12]). In this paper I demonstrate that the information status of ARCs depends on their linear position in the clause: clause-medial ARCs are not at-issue whereas clause-final ARCs can behave like regular at-issue content. I propose a uniform one-dimensional semantics under which ARCs are conjuncts that can acquire at-issue status if the issue raised by the main clause has been terminated. The idea is formally implemented in Dynamic Predicate Logic (Groenendijk & Stokhof [9]) enriched with propositional variables (AnderBois et al. [2]).

Keywords

appositive relative clauses at-issue/not-at-issue content 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Amaral, P., Roberts, C., Smith, E.A.: Review of The Logic of Conventional Implicatures by Chris Potts. Linguistics and Philosophy 30, 707–749 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    AnderBois, S., Brasoveanu, A., Henderson, R.: Crossing the Appositive/At-issue meaning Boundary. In: Proceedings of SALT 20, elanguage, pp. 328–346 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bach, K.: The Myth of Conventional Implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 327–366 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Böer, S., Lycan, W.: The Myth of Semantic Presupposition. Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington (1976)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chierchia, G., McConnell-Ginet, S.: Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to Semantics. MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cornilescu, A.: Non-Restrictive Relative Clauses, An Essay in Semantic Description. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 26, 41–67 (1981)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dever, J.: Complex Demonstratives. Linguistics and Philosophy 24, 271–330 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frege, G.: Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100, 25–50 (1892)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M.: Dynamic Predicate Logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 39–100 (1991)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kempson, R.: Nonrestrictive Relatives and Growth of Logical Form. In: WCCFL 22 Proceedings, pp. 301–314. Cascadilla Press, Somerville (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McCawley, J.D.: The Syntactic Phenomena of English, vol. 2. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1988)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Murray, S.: Evidentiality and the Structure of Speech Acts. Unpublished Dissertation, Rutgers University (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Potts, C.: The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. OUP, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roberts, C.: Information Structure: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics. In: Yoon, J.H., Kathol, A. (eds.) OSU Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 49, pp. 91–136. The Ohio State University, Department of Linguistics (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rodman, R.: Scope Phenomenon, Movement Transformations and Relative Clauses. In: Partee, B. (ed.) Montague Grammar, pp. 165–176. Academic Press, New York (1976)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schlenker, P.: Supplements within a Unidimensional Semantics I: Scope. In: Aloni, M., Bastiaanse, H., de Jager, T., Schulz, K. (eds.) Amsterdam Colloquium 2009. LNCS, vol. 6042, pp. 74–83. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sells, P.: Restrictive and Non-Restrictive Modification. CSLI-85-28 (1985)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Simons, M., Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., Roberts, C.: What Projects and Why. In: Proceedings of SALT 20, elanguage, pp. 309–327 (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stalnaker, R.: Assertion. In: Cole, P. (ed.) Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics. LNCS, pp. 315–332. Academic Press, New York (1978)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tonhauser, J.: Diagnosing (Not-)at-issue Content. In: Proceedings of SULA 6 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Todor Koev
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsRutgers UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations