Editor for this issue: Takako Matsui <tako
linguistlist.org>
Institution: University of California, Irvine Program: Department of Linguistics Dissertation Status: Completed Degree Date: 2003 Author: Francesca Del Gobbo Dissertation Title: Appositives at the Interface Dissertation URL: http://helios.unive.it/~fdelgobb/Del_Gobbo_dissertation.pdf Linguistic Field: Syntax Subject Language: Chinese, Mandarin (code: CHN) Dissertation Director 1: C-T James Huang Dissertation Director 2: Naoki Fukui Dissertation Director 3: Y-H Audrey Li Dissertation Director 4: Utpal Lahiri Dissertation Abstract: Most properties of appositive relatives force us to treat them as separate from their antecedent and from the matrix clause; at the same time other properties (adjacency requirement, feature matching) call for a structure in which the appositive relative and its antecedent do form a constituent. This dissertation provides a solution to the above paradox. I claim that appositives are generated as adjuncts of their 'heads E2', but they separate from them in order to be properly interpreted. Following Sells ( 1985a,b) and Demirdache (1991), I propose that the appositive relative pronoun is E-type. I adopt an approach to E-type anaphora that is both grammatical (Heim 1990) and pragmatic (Cooper 1979, Heim and Kratzer 1998). If the 'head' of the relative is definite, the pronoun is replaced at LF by a copy of the 'head' only if the latter precedes the relative. If the 'head' is not definite, the appositive is 'Restructured' into an independent sentence before Spell-Out (becoming the sister of the matrix clause under a Text node) only if the appositive occurs sentence-finally. At LF, in this representation, the pronoun can correctly receive the E-type interpretation following Heim's (1990) rule. In both cases, at the level of discourse, the appositive is an independent sentence, sister of the matrix and daughter of a Text node (see Heim's (1982) Text Formation). This theory predicts that prenominal relatives cannot be appositive. To test this prediction, a substantial part of the dissertation is devoted to the analysis of Chinese relatives. Chapter 1 presents Aoun and Li's (2003) approach to relativization in Chinese. The authors show that Chinese relative clauses can only be analyzed in terms of adjunction structure. As for derivation, they adopt a variety of strategies, including 'head'-raising and operator movement. In order to economize on the strategies available, I slightly modify and adopt Sauerland's (1998) matching analysis. Sauerland (1998) proposes to treat the 'head'-raising strategy as a special case of the matching strategy: The 'head'-raising derivation is chosen only if necessary. Throughout the dissertation, relative clauses are analyzed as adjunction structures, derived through operator movement (i.e. matching). In Chapter 2 I show that Chinese relatives can only be restrictive. This is striking, as Chao (1968) and Hashimoto (1971) - among others - maintain that a relative in Chinese is interpreted as appositive if it follows a demonstrative, but as restrictive if it precedes it. My evidence comes from tests that use well-known properties that distinguish appositives from restrictives. Chinese relatives modifying pronouns and proper names also do not behave as appositives. This is shown with binding and long-distance anaphora facts, and with tests using sentential adverbs of modification and the difference between presupposition and backgrounded assertion. In Chapter 3 I address the issue of an appropriate semantics for appositives. The proposed mechanism of interpretation of appositive relatives predicts that appositives can modify quantified 'heads', as long as they occur in sentence-final position. New data is presented to show that such prediction is fulfilled. As for the semantics of Chinese relatives mo difying proper names and pronouns, I adopt two strategies. For a subset of the relevant cases, I propose that in Chinese when a proper name or pronoun is combined with a restrictive relative, the nominal is type-shifted to a predicate of type <e,t> (a particular 'stage' of the individual). For those cases that are resistant to a 'stage' level interpretation, I adopt the operation Restrict (Chung and Ladusaw, 2003).Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue