Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The explicative genitive and close apposition

  • Published:
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The genitive in languages like Czech, German, Japanese or Latin is notoriously multiply ambiguous. Some senses (partitive, possessive, relational, objective) are more or less well-studied, but one, in particular, is understudied: the explicative genitive (also called the genitive of apposition or of definition). I discuss this genitive across several languages and argue that it encodes the inverse of the function that the definite article is standardly taken to encode. Like the definite article, the explicative genitive (also: the EG) is polymorphic, taking arguments of a wide range of logical types. I further argue that many cases of apposition involve the EG meaning, more specifically, that so-called close apposition should be modeled in terms of a covert EG.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. On (1)/(2), see Barker (1995), Partee and Borschev (2003), Peters and Westerståhl (2013); on (3), see Partee and Borschev (2012); on (4), see Hartmann and Zimmermann (2002).

  2. (5) Is a so-called Saxon genitive construction, and as such a rare case of EG in English; as in (pseudo-)partitive constructions, the prepositional of genitive is the normal form.

  3. Source: en.wikisource.org/wiki/Molly_Malone.

  4. As applying to a name, genetivus explicativus is only attested in post-Republican Latin.

  5. Cf. Burton-Roberts (1975), Jackendoff (1984), Lasersohn (1986), McCawley (1996).

  6. As to representative literature, see, in particular, Carlier and Verstraete, eds. (2013).

  7. Source: www.princeton.edu/news/2017/07/10/rock-stars-exploring-ruins-and-royalty-ancient-maya-courts.

  8. This case comprises the traditional categories of the genitive of possession, the genitive of quality and the genitive of substance; the case where the head noun provides the relation comprise, beside core ‘argumental’ genitives as in (17), ‘picture noun’ genitive constructions and generally the objective and the subjective genitive, as well as the (pseudo-)partitive genitive (the genitive of measure, see Partee and Borschev 2012).

  9. In the approach of Asher and Denis (2004), the free relation, by default set to possession, originates in an empty determiner.

  10. When it comes to higher orders than individuals, the intension 〚 C 〛 can be relevant; see Sect. 3.2.

  11. See Uegaki (2016:632) for an application to propositions.

  12. Adapted from: www.incentivetravel.co.uk/3288-strictly-come-gdansk-ing.

  13. Adapted from: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1323459.stm.

  14. It is assumed here that the adjective combines with the common noun before the merge combines with the genitive phrase, though the other order would make just as much sense; in fact, in Finnish, where genitives and adjectives are preposed, both surface orders occur:

    1. (i)
      figure r
    1. (ii)
      figure s

  15. Adapted and modified from www.upi.com/Archives/1990/04/17/Karl-Marx-Stadt-residents-vote-on-city-name/8139640324800/.

  16. Adapted and modified from www.nauticapedia.ca/Articles/PH_Vessels_Ships.php.

  17. See also the discussion in Partee and Borschev (2003:69ff.)

  18. Source: everyhistory.org/literature/history1Strindberg1.html.

  19. See Schoubye (2016) for a critical survey and Chierchia (2010:137) for a defense of this version of ‘Predicativism.’

  20. See, e.g., Zimmermann and Sternefeld (2013:98ff).

  21. Source: ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=obstacle.

  22. Source: www.nationalgeographic.org/media/bonneville-dam-columbia-river-gorge/.

  23. Source: www.cruiselawnews.com/2013/09/.

  24. Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki.

  25. Source: www.homeaway.co.uk/d/2198/bathsheba.

  26. Thus Fabricius-Hansen and Sæbø (2004:244) formulate a principle of ‘explicative composition,’ and Matushansky (2012) suggests that “the proper name may turn into a semantic predicate as a result of the ident type-shifting rule.”

  27. The second definite article in (57) and (58) is the so-called generic definite article, which tends to correlate with the overt EG; see Sect. 3.2 for discussion of a similar case, (66).

  28. Source: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/suffolk/8218216.stm.

  29. A different analysis, sharing, however, the assumption that the CP modifies the noun, is proposed by Moulton (2015).

  30. Validated by Kevin Steinman, p.c.

  31. Source: abortion.ws/category/pro-life-lies/.

  32. Validated by Kevin Steinman, p.c.

  33. Validated by Kevin Steinman, p.c.

  34. In accordance with common practice, s, e, v and t are the types of worlds, individuals, events, and truth values, respectively; any type (ab) is the type of functions from objects of type a to objects of type b, so that, for instance, (vt) is the type of functions from events to truth values, equivalently, that of sets of events.

  35. In cases 3 and 4 the type of the example is (under standard assumptions) (et) and (vt), but because \(\mathcal {G}_{E}\) can invoke the composition principle of Intensional Functional Application (Heim and Kratzer 1998:308), the type of its argument can still be s(et) and s(vt).

  36. This list may in fact need to be long, longer even than 5 + 2 for kinds of individuals or events, to faithfully represent the diversity of sorts and types noted by Jackendoff (1984) and Moltmann (2013), some of which may seem to involve a ‘mention’ rather than a ‘use.’

  37. Adapted from: www.sallymorganpt.com/2016/04/23/what-not-a-single-mention-of-a-corgi-in-shakespeare/.

  38. Adapted from: www.caliburnfencing.com/fencint.html.

  39. In (68a), the subscript a stands for the type e for individuals or the type v for events, as the case may be; in (68b), k designates the type of kinds (of individuals or of events; a subscripted e or v would specify one or the other sort).

  40. In (69), the corgi denotes an individual and corgi denotes a set of individuals, whether from the outset or after being shifted from denoting a kind.

  41. Source: journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/nebraska/louisville-girl-seeks-to-become-top-dog-at-westminster/article_222f461b-7573-5447-b65f-5274de2ecb92.html.

  42. Note, though, that if the verb is intensional, as in (i), the theory of Zimmermann (1993) says that it composes semantically with a set in intension (a property), which an indefinite like a unicorn can express, and thus it predicts that (ii) is acceptable, which is borne out:

    1. (i)

      The knight departs for Africa in search of a unicorn.

    1. (ii)

      The knight departs for Africa in search of the mythical animal unicorn.

    (Source: https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/8408071742?reviewerType=all_reviews)

  43. Source: countervortex.org/taxonomy/term/505.

  44. Possibly, P should also be required to be the intension of a noun in the language.

  45. The reason for this correlation is not clear; in particular, it is difficult to explain why (i), where there is definiteness marking but no genitive marking on C, is infelicitous, even though the same definite nominative DP is felicitous in subject position on its own.

    1. (i)
      figure al

    (Source: www.vn.at/dornbirn/2017/11/21/briefmarkensammeln-ist-nicht-eintoenig.vn).

  46. Source: www.britannica.com/science/thorite.

  47. Source: www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Beekeeping-ebook/dp/B00AR199WC.

  48. Source: mobile.askmoses.com/article/555,2092854/Do-Oral-Medications-Need-To-Be-Kosher.html.

  49. Source: Halat (2008:61).

  50. Source: Buseth and Saunders (2014:5).

  51. “Die drei Worte ‘der Begriff “Pferd” ’ bezeichnen einen Gegenstand, aber eben darum keinen Begriff …Dies stimmt vollkommen mit dem von mir gegebenen Kennzeichen überein, wonach beim Singular der bestimmte Artikel immer auf einen Gegenstand hinweist …” ‘The three words “the concept ‘horse’  ” denote an object, but precisely therefore no concept. This accords with my notion that the singular definite article always refers to an object…’.

  52. Adapted and modified from www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/thunder-bay-lynx-update-1.4544765.

  53. Source: plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-kinds/.

  54. Based on Xu (2007:91).

  55. Validated by Ruprecht von Waldenfels, p.c.

References

  • Aarts, Bas. 1998. The syntax of binominal noun phrases in English. Transactions of the Philological Society 96: 117–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adger, David. 2013. A syntax of substance. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguilar-Guevara, Ana, and Joost Zwarts. 2010. Weak definites and reference to kinds. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20, eds. Nan Li and David Lutz, LSA open journal systems, 179–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aloni, Maria, and Floris Roelofsen. 2011. Interpreting concealed questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 34: 443–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • AnderBois, Scott, Adrian Brasoveanu, and Robert Henderson. 2015. At-issue proposals and impositive impositions in discourse. Journal of Semantics 32: 93–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asher, Nicholas. 2012. Context in content composition. In Philosophy of linguistics, eds. Ruth Kempson, Tim Fernando, and Nicholas Asher, 229–269. Amsterdam: North-Holland Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Asher, Nicholas, and Pascal Denis. 2004. Dynamic typing for lexical semantics: A case study: The genitive construction. In International conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS) 3, eds. Achille Varzi and Laure Vieu, 165–176. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, Chris. 1995. Possessive descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bech, Gunnar. 1957. Studien über das deutsche verbum infinitum, Band 2. Copenhagen: Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borik, Olga, and M. Teresa Espinal. 2015. Reference to kinds and to other generic expressions in Spanish: Definiteness and number. The Linguistic Review 32: 167–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bošković, Željko. 2012. On NPs and clauses. In Discourse and grammar: From sentence types to lexical categories, eds. Günter Grewendorf and Thomas Ede Zimmermann, 179–242. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton-Roberts, Noel. 1975. Nominal apposition. Foundations of Language 13: 391–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buseth, Marit, and Richard Saunders. 2014. Rabbit behaviour, health and care. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlier, Anne, and Jean-Christophe Verstraete, eds. 2013. The genitive. Vol. 5 of Case and grammatical relations across languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6: 339–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, Gennaro. 2010. Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation. Synthese 174: 99–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coppock, Elizabeth, and David Beaver. 2015. Definiteness and determinacy. Linguistics and Philosophy 38: 377–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Cuba, Carlos. 2017. Noun complement clauses as referential modifiers. Glossa 2(1): 3. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dayal, Veneeta. 2004. Number marking and (in)definiteness in kind terms. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 393–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and linkers. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eco, Umberto, and Patrizia Violi. 1987. Instructional semantics for presuppositions. Semiotica 64(1/2): 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elbourne, Paul. 2008. Demonstratives as individual concepts. Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 409–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espinal M. Teresa. 2010. Bare nominals in Catalan and Spanish: Their structure and meaning. Lingua 120: 984–1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine, and Arnim von Stechow. 1989. Explikative und implikative Nominalerweiterungen im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 8: 173–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine, and Kjell Johan Sæbø. 2004. In a mediative mood: The semantics of the German reportive subjunctive. Natural Language Semantics 12: 213–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frege, Gottlob. 1892. Über Begriff und Gegenstand. Viertelsjahresschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie 16: 192–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehrke, Berit, and Louise McNally. 2015. Distributional modification: The case of frequency adjectives. Language 91(4): 837–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, Scott, and Louise McNally. 2015. The -ing dynasty: Rebuilding the semantics of nominalizations. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 25, eds. Sarah D’Antonio, Mary Moroney, and Carol Rose Little, LSA open journal systems, 82–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halat, Eva. 2008. Contemporary scrimshaw. Atglen: Schiffer Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale, Bob, and Crispin Wright. 2012. Horse sense. The Journal of Philosophy 109: 85–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, Katharina, and Malte Zimmermann. 2002. Syntactic and semantic genitive. In (A)Symmetrien – (A)Symmetries, ed. Claudia Maienborn, pp. 171–202. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellan, Lars. 1980. Toward an integrated theory of noun phrases. PhD diss., University of Trondheim.

  • Jackendoff, Ray. 1984. On the phrase the phrase ‘the phrase’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2: 25–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, Manfred. 2004. Bare NPs: Kind-referring, indefinites, both, or neither? In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 13, eds. Robert Young and Yuping Zhou, 180–203. Cornell: CLC Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasersohn, Peter. 1986. The semantics of appositive and pseudo-appositive NPs. In Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) 3, eds. Fred Marshall, Ann Miller, and Zheng-Sheng Zhang, 311–322. Pittsburgh: The University of Pittsburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leland, John. 1539–1543. Itinerary of England and Wales.

  • Mahieu, Marc-Antoine. 2013. The genitive case and the possessive construction in Finnish. In The genitive. Vol. 5 of Case and grammatical relations across languages, eds. Anne Carlier and Jean-Christophe Verstraete, 19–54. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Matushansky, Ora. 2002. A beauty of a construction. In West Coast Conference on Linguistics (WCCFL) 21, eds. Line Mikkelsen and Chris Potts, 264–277. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matushansky, Ora. 2012. The case of close apposition. Ms., CNRS/Université Paris 8.

  • McCawley, James D. 1996. An overview of ‘appositive’ constructions in English. In Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) 12, eds. Marek Przezdziecki and Lindsay J. Whaley, 195–211. Ithaca: Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNally, Louise. 2009. Properties, entity correlates of properties, and existentials. In Quantification, definiteness, and nominalization, eds. Anastasia Giannakidou and Monika Rathert, 163–187. Oxford: Oxford Unuversity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNally, Louise, and Gemma Boleda. 2004. Relational adjectives as properties of kinds. In Vol. 5 of Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics. eds. Olivier Bonami, and Patricia Cabredo Hofherr, 179–196. Paris: CNRS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menge, Hermann. 2005. Lehrbuch der lateinischen Syntax und Semantik. 2. Auflage. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikkelsen, Line. 2005. Copular clauses: Specification, predication, equation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Moltmann, Friederike. 2013. Abstract objects and the semantics of natural language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Moulton, Keir. 2015. CPs: Copies and compositionality. Linguistic Inquiry 46(2): 305–342. https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Partee, Barbara. 1986. Ambiguous pseudoclefts with unambiguous be. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 16, eds. Steve Berman, Jae-Woong Choe, and Joyce McDonough, 354–366. Amherst: University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, Barbara. 1987. NP interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers, eds. Jeroen Groenendijk, Dick de Jongh, and Martin Stokhof, 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, Barbara, and Vladimir Borschev. 1998. Integrating lexical and formal semantics: Genitives, relational nouns, and type-shifting. In Tbilisi symposium on Language, Logic, and Computation (TbiLLC) 2, eds. Robin Cooper and Thomas Gamkrelidze, 229–241. Tbilisi: Center on Language, Logic, Speech, Tbilisi State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, Barbara, and Vladimir Borschev. 2003. Genitives, relational nouns, and argument-modifier ambiguity. In Modifying adjuncts, ed. Ewald Lang, Claudia Maienborn, and Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen, 67–112. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, Barbara, and Vladimir Borschev. 2012. Sortal, relational, and functional interpretations of nouns and Russian container constructions. Journal of Semantics 29: 445–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, Charles S. 1905. The basis of pragmaticism. Ms.

  • Peters, Stanley, and Dag Westerståhl. 2013. The semantics of possessives. Language 89(4): 713–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel, Michael. 2013. The double life of ‘The mayor of Oakland’. Linguistics and Philosophy 36: 417–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker, Philippe. 2017. The semantics and pragmatics of appositives. Ms., CNRS/Institut Jean Nicod. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002538.

  • Schoubye, Anders. 2016. The predicative predicament: Philosophy and phenomenological research. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uegaki, Wataru. 2016. Content nouns and the semantics of question-embedding. Journal of Semantics 33(4): 623–660. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffv009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vikner, Carl, and Per Anker Jensen. 2002. A semantic analysis of the English genitive: Interaction of lexical and formal semantics. Studia Linguistica 56: 191–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villalba, Xavier. 2008. The focus-background articulation in Spanish qualitative binominal NPs. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 7(2): 131–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, Anne Lijing. 2007. The sublime writer and the lure of action: Malraux, Brecht, and Lu Xun on China and beyond. PhD diss., Rutgers University.

  • Zamparelli, Roberto. 2000. Layers in the determiner phrase. New York: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, Ede. 1993. On the proper treatment of opacity in certain verbs. Natural Language Semantics 1: 149–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, Ede, and Wolfgang Sternefeld. 2013. Introduction to semantics: An essential guide to the composition of meaning. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am deeply indebted to fellow linguists in the SynSem group at the University of Oslo and to former colleagues in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Chicago, as well as to three anonymous reviewers for Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, for very helpful comments and suggestions along the way.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Oslo, Box 1003, 0315, Oslo, Norway

    Kjell Johan Sæbø

Authors
  1. Kjell Johan Sæbø
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kjell Johan Sæbø.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sæbø, K.J. The explicative genitive and close apposition. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 37, 997–1027 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-018-9421-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-018-9421-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation