Linguist Forum
Specializations => Morphosyntax => Topic started by: zaba on April 14, 2014, 07:45:46 AM
-
What's a characteristic example of apposition that even a total dumbo like me could understand? What are juxtaposed (right word?) arguments called? "Arguments"? Sounds ok to me. Thanks a lot!
-
Mr. Smith, a teacher, was a nice person.
What are juxtaposed (right word?) arguments called?
I don't understand. An argument is a syntatically selected element that is part of the core of a sentence-- it is not an appositive or just "juxtaposted". For example, "buy a book" has an argument of "a book".
Is this an unrelated question? Or does that clarify it?
-
Hmmm... What is the difference than between apposition and juxtaposition?? Thanks
-
Apposition is specifically, as far as I know, renaming. "The book was old, very old." -- "That guy over there, my teacher, speaks French." etc.
Juxtaposition is not a technical term in linguistics-- it's just putting two things next to each other (usually without any kind of element linking them). So for example, you might talk about asyndetic coordination as juxtaposition-- "mother father" instead of "mother and father".
-
Apposition is specifically, as far as I know, renaming. "The book was old, very old."
So it is correct to say that, at least for English, apposition is expressed with juxtaposed arguments.
?
-
Apposition is specifically, as far as I know, renaming. "The book was old, very old."
So it is correct to say that, at least for English, apposition is expressed with juxtaposed arguments.
?
Arguement? Can they be called arguements? Are they not non -verbal predicate(adjectivial) linked by copula?
-
So it is correct to say that, at least for English, apposition is expressed with juxtaposed arguments.
1. In English, appositives are justapoxed:
"Mr. Smith, my teacher, is nice."
2. No, they are not arguments, because appositives are not filling a required role in the syntax.
Arguement? Can they be called arguements? Are they not non -verbal predicate(adjectivial) linked by copula?
No, there's no copula. In my example above "very old" was the appositive, renaming "old" (which was itself linked by a copula). Specifically, appositives are not linked by anything, by definition.
-
Arguement? Can they be called arguements? Are they not non -verbal predicate(adjectivial) linked by copula?
No, there's no copula. In my example above "very old" was the appositive, renaming "old" (which was itself linked by a copula). Specifically, appositives are not linked by anything, by definition.
[/quote]
I was not talking about the juxtaposed string.I mean "the sentence The book was old" has a non-verbal predicate and so "old" cannot be considered the arguement of "was". Am I right?
-
I was not talking about the juxtaposed string.I mean "the sentence The book was old" has a non-verbal predicate and so "old" cannot be considered the arguement of "was". Am I right?
Depends on the theory, I suppose, because the terminology would vary.
But in general, I'd consider it an argument, in that an adjective is selected by "was" in the same way that a noun is selected by "eat".
Certainly "He was" is not the same meaning as "He was happy", and "He was" isn't even a complete thought. So in technical terms it's a complement, and in that it's probably also an argument.
[But I don't see how this is relevant to the original question about apposition.]
-
1. In English, appositives are justapoxed:
Could it be any other way? Are you familiar with how apposition is expressed in other languages in which juxtaposition is not used? It is hard to imagine a different strategy.
-
Could it be any other way? Are you familiar with how apposition is expressed in other languages in which juxtaposition is not used? It is hard to imagine a different strategy.
I don't know.... I'm unaware of other ways. As for terminology, maybe not-- I think apposition means exactly that, at least for English. Maybe the definition is stretched for other languages, but I haven't seen (or looked for) that.
Of course a similar discourse effect can be achieved by other means, such as relative clauses.
I think your strategy/questions rely too much on terminology and too little on actual observed phenomena. In my opinion, interesting data should be the goal of linguistic description, and then after that you can try to determine what labels are most convenient/effective for the theorist. Sometimes a footnote or other explanation is needed, but that's not a big problem!