Analyses for Two Different Types of Apposition
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Kim (2014) has previously addressed the semantic difference between the loose AC and the close AC by claiming that the former evokes a conventional implicature while the latter simply induces an at-issue meaning. However, in terms of the IQ test suggested by Bach (1999), the propositional meaning generated by the loose AC cannot be considered as a conventional implicature. Pointing out this problem, this paper addresses the difference between the two constructions in a new way, relying on the Generative Lexicon Theory advanced by Pustejovsky (1996). The loose AC projects two independent phrases as the anchor and the appositive. However, in the case of the close AC, the anchor and the appositive intrinsically depend on each other since one element is the overt realization of the argument of the Formal quale in the Qualia structure of the other element. This semantic characteristic of the close AC also results in its compounding-like syntactic nature. This proposal can explain four additional grammatical contrasts observed between the two constructions.
Abstract
Kim (2014) has previously addressed the semantic difference between the loose AC and the close AC by claiming that the former evokes a conventional implicature while the latter simply induces an at-issue meaning. However, in terms of the IQ test suggested by Bach (1999), the propositional meaning generated by the loose AC cannot be considered as a conventional implicature. Pointing out this problem, this paper addresses the difference between the two constructions in a new way, relying on the Generative Lexicon Theory advanced by Pustejovsky (1996). The loose AC projects two independent phrases as the anchor and the appositive. However, in the case of the close AC, the anchor and the appositive intrinsically depend on each other since one element is the overt realization of the argument of the Formal quale in the Qualia structure of the other element. This semantic characteristic of the close AC also results in its compounding-like syntactic nature. This proposal can explain four additional grammatical contrasts observed between the two constructions.
참고문헌 (11)
- Bach, Kent, "The myth of conventional implicature", Linguistics and Philosophy, 22, pp.327~366 (1999)
- Burton-Roberts, Noel, "Nominal apposition", Foundations of Language, 13, pp.391~319 (1975)
- Delorme, Evelyne, "Appositive NP constructions: We, the men: We men: I, a man: Etc", Foundations of Language, 8, pp.2~29 (1972)
- Frege, Gottlob, "Basic topics in the philosophy of language", pp.142~160 (1994), Prentice-Hall
- Grice, Paul, "Studies in the way of words" (1989), Harvard University Press
- Hannay, Mike, "Studies in foundational grammar", pp.159~194 (2005), de Gruyter
- Heringa, Herman, "Appositional constructions", Doctoral, pp.2011
- 김종복, "Form and Function Mismatch in the English Appositional Construction", 어학연구, 48(3), pp.509~531 (2012), 언어교육원
- 김종복, "Similarities and Differences between the Close and Loose Apposition in English", 영어학연구, 20(3), pp.79~98 (2014), 한국영어학학회[DOI]
- Middelsen, Line, "Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning", pp.1805~1829 (2011), Mouton de Gruyter
- Pustejovsky, James, "The generative lexicon" (1996), The MIT Press