同位语从句有不同的种类吗?

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Mark de Vries
{"title":"同位语从句有不同的种类吗?","authors":"Mark de Vries","doi":"10.1075/avt.00089.dev","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In his latest book on relative clauses, Cinque claims that there are two fundamentally different kinds of appositive (non-restrictive) relative clauses. The unintegrated ones are the typical English type, the integrated ones are found in various languages, including Chinese and Japanese. This second type shares some characteristics with restrictive relatives, and seems to require a different syntactic analysis. Some languages, like Italian, supposedly have both types. A list of a dozen criteria differentiates the two, such as the use of relative pronouns and the possibility of heavy pied piping. However, when we carefully look at Dutch and other languages, the picture starts to blur considerably, and an abundance of (micro)variation shows up. This is problematic. I argue that the suggested criteria do not add up to two natural classes at all and are in fact non-explanatory. Therefore, we need to focus on what is truly fundamental to non-restrictiveness, which leads to a different perspective on the matter.","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":"49 8","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are there different kinds of appositive relative clauses?\",\"authors\":\"Mark de Vries\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/avt.00089.dev\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In his latest book on relative clauses, Cinque claims that there are two fundamentally different kinds of appositive (non-restrictive) relative clauses. The unintegrated ones are the typical English type, the integrated ones are found in various languages, including Chinese and Japanese. This second type shares some characteristics with restrictive relatives, and seems to require a different syntactic analysis. Some languages, like Italian, supposedly have both types. A list of a dozen criteria differentiates the two, such as the use of relative pronouns and the possibility of heavy pied piping. However, when we carefully look at Dutch and other languages, the picture starts to blur considerably, and an abundance of (micro)variation shows up. This is problematic. I argue that the suggested criteria do not add up to two natural classes at all and are in fact non-explanatory. Therefore, we need to focus on what is truly fundamental to non-restrictiveness, which leads to a different perspective on the matter.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35138,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Linguistics in the Netherlands\",\"volume\":\"49 8\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Linguistics in the Netherlands\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00089.dev\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00089.dev","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Cinque在其最新著作《关系从句》中提出了两种根本不同的同位语(非限制性)关系从句。非整合型是典型的英语类型,整合型在各种语言中都有,包括汉语和日语。第二种类型与限制性亲属有一些相同的特征,似乎需要不同的语法分析。一些语言,比如意大利语,应该有两种类型。区分这两者的标准有十几个,比如关系代词的使用和厚重的花斑管道的可能性。然而,当我们仔细观察荷兰语和其他语言时,画面开始变得相当模糊,并且出现了大量(微小)变化。这是有问题的。我认为,建议的标准加起来根本不是两个自然的类别,实际上是没有解释的。因此,我们需要把重点放在不限制的真正根本问题上,这将导致对该问题的不同看法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Are there different kinds of appositive relative clauses?
Abstract In his latest book on relative clauses, Cinque claims that there are two fundamentally different kinds of appositive (non-restrictive) relative clauses. The unintegrated ones are the typical English type, the integrated ones are found in various languages, including Chinese and Japanese. This second type shares some characteristics with restrictive relatives, and seems to require a different syntactic analysis. Some languages, like Italian, supposedly have both types. A list of a dozen criteria differentiates the two, such as the use of relative pronouns and the possibility of heavy pied piping. However, when we carefully look at Dutch and other languages, the picture starts to blur considerably, and an abundance of (micro)variation shows up. This is problematic. I argue that the suggested criteria do not add up to two natural classes at all and are in fact non-explanatory. Therefore, we need to focus on what is truly fundamental to non-restrictiveness, which leads to a different perspective on the matter.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Linguistics in the Netherlands
Linguistics in the Netherlands Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Linguistics in the Netherlands is a series of annual publications, sponsored by the Dutch Linguistics Association (Algemene Vereniging voor Taalwetenschap) and published by John Benjamins Publishing Company since Volume 8 in 1991. Each volume contains a careful selection through peer review of papers presented at the annual meeting of the society. The aim of the annual meeting is to provide members with an opportunity to report on their work in progress. Each volume presents an overview of research in different fields of linguistics in the Netherlands containing articles on phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信