Table of contents
Publication type
In this paper, the dichotomy of restrictive and appositive relative clauses is argued to be a consequence of the semantic interpretation of the relative pronoun, which is analyzed as an operator in case of restrictives and as an anaphoric pronoun in case of appositives. Empirical evidence supporting the anaphoric account of the relative pronoun comes from Russian. The paper shows that the range of interpretations of the pronoun kotoryj which in appositives is identical to those of regular 3rd person anaphoric pronouns.
appositive relative clauses, relative pronouns, anaphoric pronouns, unbound anaphora, pronouns of laziness
Date of publication
Number of purchasers
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite Download pdf 100 RUB / 1.0 SU

To download PDF you should sign in

Full text is available to subscribers only
Subscribe right now
Only article and additional services
Whole issue and additional services
All issues and additional services for 2012


Additional sources and materials

1. Russkaya grammatika / Pod red. N.Yu. Shvedovoj. M.: Nauka, 1980.
2. Partee B. H. Some transformational extensions of Montague grammar // Journal of Philosophical Logic. 1973. № 2. P. 509-534.
3. Partee B. H. Montague grammar and transformational grammar // Linguistic Inquiry. 1975. V. 6. P. 203-300.
4. Jackendoff R. The base rules for prepositional phrases // A festschrift for Morris Halle. S. Anderson, P. Kiparsky (eds.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973. P. 345-356.
5. McCawley J. D. The syntax and semantics of English relative clauses // Lingua. 1981. V. 53. P. 99-149.
6. Lehmann Ch. Der Relativsatz. Typologie seiner Strukturen - Theorie seiner Funktionen - Kompendium seiner Grammatik. Tubingen: G. Narr (Language Universals Series 2), 1984.
7. Sells P. Restrictive and non-restrictive modifi cation // CSLI Report. 1985. № 28. Leland Stanford Junior University.
8. Kleiber G. Relatives restrictives et relatives appositives: une opposition \"introuvable\"? Tubingen: Niemeyer, 1987.
9. Fabb N. The difference between English restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses // Journal of Linguistics. 1990. V. 26. P. 57-78.
10. Grosu A., Landman F. Strange relatives of the third kind // Natural Language Semantics. 1998. № 6. P. 125-170.    
11. Zaliznyak A.A., Paducheva E.V. Sintaksicheskie svojstva mestoimeniya kotoryj // Sb. Kategoriya opredelennosti-neopredelennosti v slavyanskih i balkanskih yazykah. M.: Nauka, 1979.
12. Yanova N.N. Funkcional'no-semanticheskaya harakteristika otnositel'no-rasprostranitel'nyh predlozhenij v nauchnom tekste // Yazykovaya sistemnost' pri kommunikativnom obuchenii. M., 1988. S. 147-157.
13. Ivanishcheva O.N. Tekstovye zony funkcionirovaniya otnositel'nyh mestoimenij v kachestve soyuznyh slov v iz"yasnitel'nyh slozhnopodchinennyh predlozheniyah // Edinicy vostochnoslavyanskih yazykov: struktura, semantika, funkciya. Tula, 1994. S. 87-100.
14. Men'kova N.V. Anafora v prisubstantivno-opredelitel'nyh predlozheniyah // Sintaksis: izuchenie i prepodavanie. M., 1997. S. 137-143.
15. Montague R. The Proper Treatment of Quantifi cation in Ordinary English // Approaches to Natural Language. Hintikka K., Moravcsik E., Suppes P. (eds.) Dordrecht: Reidel, 1973. P. 221-242.
16. Kayne R. The Antisymmetry of Syntax (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 25). Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1994.
17. Haegeman L. Introduction to Government and Binding theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991.
18. Radford A. Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the structure of English. Cambridge: CUP, 2004.
19. Paducheva E.V. Vyskazyvanie i ego sootnesennost' s dejstvitel'nost'yu: Referencial'nye aspekty semantiki mestoimenij. Izd. 3-e, stereotipnoe. M.: Editorial URSS, 2002.
20. Stockwell R., Schachter P., Partee B. H. The Major Syntactic Structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973.
21. Vergnaud J.-R. French relative clauses. Doctoral dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1974.
22. Jackendoff R. X-bar syntax: a study of phrase structure. (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 2) Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1977.
23. Emonds J. Appositive Relatives Have No Properties // Linguistic Inquiry. 1979. V. 10. P. 211-243.
24. Borsley R.D. More on the difference between English restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses // Journal of Linguistics. 1992. V. 28. № 1. P. 139-148.
25. Marquis R.C., Tremblay M. The Wh-feature and the syntax of restrictive and non-restrictive relatives in French and English // Theoretical analyses on Romance languages. Amsterdam - Philadelphia, 1998. P. 127-141.
26. Stowell T. Appositive and Parenthetical Relative Clauses // Organizing Grammar: Linguistic Studies in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk. Broekhuis H., Corver N., Koster J. et al. (eds.). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2005. P. 608-617.
27. Cinque G.. Two Types of Nonrestrictive Relatives // Proceedings of the Colloque de Syntaxe et Semantique de Paris. 2007. [http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000688]
28. Ross J. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation. MIT. 1967.
29. Aissen J. Where do relative clauses come from? // Syntax and semantics. New York: Seminar Press, 1972. V. 1. P. 187-109.
30. Emonds J. Parenthetical clauses // You take the high node and I\'ll take the low node: A paravolume to papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting. Corum C., Smith-Stark T., Weiser A. (eds.). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 1973. P. 333-347.
31. Rodman R. Scope phenomena, \"movement transformations\" and relative clauses // Montague Grammar. Partee B.H. (ed.). New York: Academic Press, 1976. P. 165-176.
32. Demirdache H. Resumptive chains in restrictive relatives, appositives and dislocation structures. Doctoral dissertation. MIT. 1991.
33. Del Gobbo F. Appositives at the interface. Doctoral dissertation. University of California. 2003.
34. Partee B. H. Relative clauses. Lecture 10. MSU. 2005. [http://people.umass.edu/partee/MGU_2005/ MGU05Lec10.pdf]
35. Huang Y. Anaphora: a cross-linguistic study. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
36. Ivlieva N.V. Ogranicheniya na upotreblenie mestoimenij s kvantornymi antecedentami. Diss.... kand. filol. nauk. M., MGU. 2010.
37. Partee B. H. Bound variables and other anaphors // Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing. Waltz D. (ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois, 1978. P. 79-85.
38. Geach P. Reference and Generality. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1962.
39. Evans G.. Pronouns, quantifiers and relative clauses // Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 1977. V. 7. P. 467-536.
40. Evans G.. Pronouns // Linguistic Inquiry. 1980. V. 11. № 2. P. 337-362.
41. Heim I., Kratzer A. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998.
42. Moltmann F. Unbound Anaphoric Pronouns: E-Type, Dynamic and Structured-Propositions Approaches // Synthese. 2006. V. 153. № 2. P. 199-260.
43. Abbott B. Defi niteness and indefi niteness // Handbook of Pragmatics. Horn L., Ward G. (eds). Oxford: Blackwell, 2004. P. 122-149.
44. Izvorska R. Formal'naya semantika // Fundamental'nye napravleniya sovremennoj amerikanskoj lingvistiki / Pod red. A.A. Kibrika, I.M. Kobozevoj i I.A. Sekerinoj. M.: Izd-vo MGU, 1997.
45. Kamp H. A theory of truth and semantic representation // Formal Methods in the Study of Language. Groenendijk J. et al. (eds.). Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre, 1981. P. 277-322.
46. Heim I. The semantics of defi nite and indefi nite noun phrases. New York: Garland Pub, 1988.
47. Cooper R. The interpretation of pronouns // Syntax and Semantics 10: Selections from the Third Groningen Round Table. Heny F., Schnelle H. (eds.). New York: Academic Press, 1979. P. 61-122.
48. Elbourne P. E-Type Pronouns as Defi nite Articles // WCCFL 19 Proceedings. Somerville: Cascadilla Press, 2000. P. 83-96.
49. Elbourne P. E-type anaphora as NP-deletion // Natural Language Semantics. 2001. V. 9. P. 241-288.    
50. Elbourne P. Situations and Individuals. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005.
51. Kobozeva I.M. Lingvisticheskaya semantika. M.: Editorial URSS, 2000.
52. Berman S. Situation-based semantics for adverbs of quantifi cation // University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 12. Blevins J., Vainika A. (eds.). Amherst: University of Massachusetts, 1987.
53. Heim I. E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora // Linguistics and Philosophy. 1990. V. 13. P. 137-177.
54. Asher N., Lascarides A. Logics of conversation. Cambridge: CUP, 2003.
55. Lascarides A., Asher N. Segmented Discourse Representation Theory: Dynamic Semantics with Discourse Structure // Computing Meaning. Bunt H., Muskens R. (eds.). Springer, 2007. P. 87-124.
56. Roberts C. Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse // Linguistics and Philosophy. 1989. V. 12. № 6. P. 683-721.
57. Krifka M., Pelletier F., Carlson G. et al. Introduction to Genericity // The generic book. Carlson G., Pelletier F. (eds.). Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1995. P. 1-124.
58. Carlson G. A unifi ed analysis of the English bare plural // Linguistics and Philosophy. 1977. V. 1. P. 413-458.
59. Carlson G. Reference to Kinds in English. Doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts. 1977.
60. Partee B. H. Noun phrase interpretation and typeshifting principles // Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifi ers. Groenendijk J., de Jongh D., Stokhof M. (eds.). Dordrecht: Foris, 1987. P. 115-143.
61. Chierchia G. Reference to kinds across languages // Natural Language Semantics. 1998. V. 6. P. 339-405.    
62. Karttunen L. Pronouns and variables // Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Binnick R. et al. (eds.). Chicago: University of Chicago, 1969.
63. Haik I. The Syntax of Operators. Doctoral dissertation. MIT. 1985.
64. Bošković Ž., Franks S. Across-the-Board movement and LF // Syntax. 2000. V. 3. P. 107-128.
65. Paducheva E.V. Metonimicheskie i metaforicheskie perenosy v paradigme znachenij glagola naznachit' // Teoriya i tipologiya yazyka. Ot opisaniya k ob"yasneniyu. K 60-letiyu A.E. Kibrika / Pod red. E.V. Rahilinoj i Ya.G. Testel'ca. M., 1999. S. 488- 502.
66. Lewis D. Adverbs of quantifi cation // Formal Semantics of Natural Language. Keenan E. (ed.). Cambridge: CUP, 1975.  
67. Kratzer A. Conditionals // Chicago Linguistics Society. 1986. V. 22(2). P. 1-15.  
68. Heim I. The Semantics of Defi nite and Indefi nite Noun Phrases. Doctoral dissertation. MIT. 1982.  
69. Potts Ch. The lexical semantics of parenthetical-as and appositive-which // Syntax. 2002. V. 5. P. 55-88.
70. Potts Ch. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Doctoral dissertation. UC Santa Cruz. 2003.
71. Potts Ch. The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
72. Nouwen R. On appositives and dynamic binding // Research on Language and Computation. 2007. V. 5. P. 87-102.
73. AndersBois S., Brasoveanu A., Henderson R. Crossing the Appositive / At-issue meaning boundary // Proceedings of 20th conference \"Semantics and Linguistic Theory\" (SALT 20) (Vancouver, April 29-May 1, 2010). Vancouver, 2010.
74. Korotaev N.A., Podlesskaya V.I. Frazovaya akcentuaciya v slozhnyh predlozheniyah s postpozitivnym pridatochnym v russkom yazyke: opyt ispol'zovaniya ustnogo korpusa s prosodicheskoj razmetkoj // Komp'yuternaya lingvistika i intellektual'nye tekhnologii: Po materialam ezhegodnoj mezhdunarodnoj konferencii \"Dialog\" (Bekasovo, 4-8 iyunya 2008 g.). Vyp. 7 (14). M.: RGGU, 2008. C. 234-241.    
75. Podlesskaya V.I. Frazovaya akcentuaciya v otnositel'nyh predlozheniyah: analiz korpusnyh dannyh // Fonetika i nefonetika. K 70-letiyu Sandro V. Kodzasova / Pod red. A.V. Arhipova i dr. M.: Yazyki slavyanskih kul'tur, 2008.    
76. Podlesskaya V.I. Prosodiya protiv sintaksisa v russkih otnositel'nyh predlozheniyah. Materialy k dokladu na seminare \"Teoreticheskaya semantika\", 19 marta 2010. M.: IPPI, 2010.


No posts found

Write a review