The Lexical Semantics of Parenthical-as and Appositive-which
The Lexical Semantics of Parenthical-as and Appositive-which
复制标题
附语-as 和同位语-which 的词汇语义
DOI：
10.1111/1467-9612.00047
复制
发表时间：
2002
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Christopher Potts
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Christopher Potts
尽管表面上有相似之处，但非限制性亲属和插入语在一系列明显不同的领域中表现出截然不同的行为，包括 (i) 等价结构（第 4 节）； (ii) 选择性岛屿背景（第 5 节）； (iii) 条款内部“利基”（第 7 节）。此外，与同位语亲属相比，作为插入语可以对其先行词进行更广泛的解释（第 6 节）。本文主要基于这些子句定义的间隙各自的语义类型，对这些差异和其他差异提供了统一的解释：as-子句痕迹是命题性的；非限制性相对踪迹是单独的指称（即，名词化命题）。类型区分源自这些语素的词汇含义（第 2 节），并与独立动机原则相结合来预测子句的不同行为。该分析还统一了各种同位关系词，并类似地帮助我们理解谓语类型的从句（例如，Sue 讨厌派对，Ali 也是如此）；参见第 8 节。
Despite their superficial similarities, nonrestrictive relatives and as-parentheticals show contrasting behavior in a range of apparently disparate domains, including (i) equative constructions (section 4); (ii) selective island contexts (section 5); and (iii) clause-internal “niching” (section 7). Additionally, as-parentheticals allow a wider range of interpretations relative to their antecedents than do appositive relatives (section 6). This paper offers a unified account of these differences and others based largely on the respective semantic types of the gaps these clauses define: as-clause traces are propositional; nonrestrictive relative traces are individual denoting (i.e., nominalized propositions). The type distinction follows from the lexical denotations of these morphemes (section 2) and combines with independently motivated principles to predict the clauses’ divergent behavior. The analysis also unifies the various kinds of appositive-relatives and similarly informs our understanding of predicate-type as-clauses (e.g., Sue hates parties, as does Ali); see section 8.