On Semantic Relationship In Apposition Structures

Valeriy V.Mykhaylenko, Doctor of Philology

Bukovyna State Finance Academy

Chernivtsi, Ukraine

On Semantic Relationship in Apposition Structures

Abstract: The paper is focused on the functional semantic types of relationship between constituents within appositive structuresin fiction discourse. A certain apposition paradigm marked with various relationship is revealed in Tom Clancy’s discourse ("Debt of Honor").

Key words: apposition, discourse, author’s intention, identification, appellation, particularization, exemplification.

The objective of our research is the analysis of functional semantic relationship of the apposition constituents in Tom Clancy’s discourse ("Debt of Honor"). The volume of the discourse is 70 298 word units. The noun phrases referring to the same entity and occurring together in a clause are called apposition [2, p.330-331].

First we must define semantic relationship types of apposition as a unity and then its constituents, types revealing the manner in which the second constituent of an apposition provides information about the first constituent.

This type of relationship can be more specific, less specific, or equally specific. The results of our investigation are presented in the following table:

Table №1. The Functional Semantic Classes of Apposition

In Tom Clancy’s Discourse

Semantic class	Tom Clancy “Debt of Honor”
More specific
Identification	323
Appellation	212
Particularization	49
Exemplification	42
Total	626
Less specific
Characterization	208
Equally specific
Paraphrase	165
Reorientation	26
Self-correction	1
Total	192

Table №1. gives semantic classes according to the frequency of the classes in the discourse. As it is indicated, the second constituent of the apposition specifies the first constituent: the majority of appositions in the corpora (626 units) consist of constructions whose second constituent bears information which is more specific than the first one; the remaining appositions contain second constituents that are either less specific than the first ones (208 units) or equally as specific as the first ones (192 units).

We have determined four types of semantic relationship - identification, appellation, particularization, exemplification in Table №1. Nearly three-fourths of the appositions reveal identification (323 units) and appellation (212 units); the remaining appositions are grouped into two types of particularization (49 units) and exemplification (42 units)

In Tom Clancy’s discourse in appositions marked with the identification semantic relationship type, the first constituent is expressed by a noun phrase denoting capabilities followed by a noun phrase, clause, or sentence that “identifies” the referent of the first constituent. Either the two constituents are corefential, or the first constituent is a cataphora to the second one. If the apposition is nonrestrictive, the markers of apposition namely or that is (to say) can be optionally inserted to indicate that the second constituent identifies the first one. If the apposition is restrictive, a marker is not usually permitted, except when the obligatory marker of is required.

Let’s consider example 1 where both constituents of the apposition are expressed by noun phrases - the second constituent identifies the features of the object referred to in the first constituent:

1. Consider the features of Utopian communism: (namely) generous public provision of the infirm; democratic and secret elections of all officers including priests; meals taken publicly in common refectories; a common habit or uniform prescribed for all citizens; even houses changed once a decade... [T.Clancy, p. 204].

In example 2 the initial noun phrase of the apposition is followed by the second constituent which identifies the object mentioned in the first constituent:

2. I was talking about the administrative achievement of building up the supporting services for this great citizen army [T.Clancy, p. 249].

In Tom Clancy’s discourse the appellation semantic relationship type is similar to that of identification, except when the second constituent “names” rather than identifies the first one. Appositions within the appellation semantic relationship type consist of two noun phrases where the second one is a proper noun. The noun phrases will be either coreferential or attributive. If the apposition is nonrestrictive, the markers namely or that is (to say) can be used to link the two units.

Example 3 shows that the second constituent names the person whom the first constituent assigned a certain role:

Example 3. Secretary of Labor Tom Loch will speak Sunday night at a $25-a-plate dinner honoring Sen. Wayne L. Morse, D-Ore [T.Clancy, p. 250].

We have found out that in appositions within the particularization semantic relationship type, the second constituent highlights either the reference or meaning of the first constituent. There can be appositions with obligatory markers of apposition like particularly, especially, or including underlining one of the referents of the first constituent. Alternatively, there can be appositions whose constituents are hyponymic, appositions with a more specific second constituent containing a word whose meaning can be included into the meaning of a more general first constituent.

In example 4, the second constituent determines one woman, a member of the class of women mentioned in the first constituent.

4. He had known women like that, one woman in particular [T.Clancy, p. 235].

Appositions within the exemplification semantic relationship type do not differ from those within the particularization semantic relationship type, except in the exemplification semantic relationship type the second constituent provides an “example” of the first constituent. Appositions within this type contain the constituents that are in a part/whole relationship and joined by the obligatory markers of apposition such as, like, or for example, markers explicitly indicating that the second constituent is an example of the first one.

In example 5, the second constituent gives an example of a town close to Dogtown:

5. Today Dogtown is the only deserted village in all New England that I know of. There it sits, a small highland, with towns like Gloucester near by [T.Clancy, p. 221].

It is proved that only one semantic relationship type - characterization - contains a second constituent that is less specific than the first one. Table №1 illustrates that the characterization relationship type is fairly frequent in the corpora. It occurs less frequently than the identification semantic relationship type and the paraphrase semantic relationship type, though it occurs more frequently than the appellation, particularization, exemplification, reorientation, and self-correction semantic relationship types.

Example 6 contains units that are coreferential and therefore admitting either a marker of apposition or a relative pronoun followed by the form of the verb be. In example 6, the Republicans referred to in the first constituent characterized as being the third party in a particular political coalition.

6a. The Republicans, (that is to say) the third party in the Centre-Left coalition, would not come in to a new Government unless assured of complete Socialist support [T.Clancy, p. 215].

6b. The Republicans, (who are) the third party...

In example 7, the constituents are not coreferential and therefore can only be joined by a relative clause followed by the form of the verb be. In example 7, the individual named in the first unit is characterized as being a particular kind of secretary of state.

7. Helping foreign countries to build a sound political structure is more important than aiding them economically, Mr. Yamata, (who is) assistant secretary of state for economic affairs, told members of the World Affairs Council Monday night [T.Clancy, p. 241].

The second constituent has the same grammatical status as the first one. And according to school grammar “these constituents can normally be reversed without altering the meaning” [ p.330]. The thesis is quite correct on the sentence level. On the contrary, we are sure that the referred altering may change the author’s intention on the discourse level. John Eastwood adds an emphatic component to the functional semantics of apposition giving an illustration “The man is a fool, a complete idiot.” [3, p.14].

There are three semantic classes of appositions including a second constituent which is as specific as the first one: the types of semantic relationship are paraphrase, reorientation, and self-correction. Two of these types – reorientation and self-correction – are the least frequent - 2% of the appositions in the corpora each. On the other hand, the third type – paraphrase – occurs much more frequently - 20% of the appositions in the corpora.

Appositions marked with paraphrase consist of the second constituent that “paraphrases” the meaning of the first one. Appositions of this type are expressed by phrases, clauses, or sentences. The constituents can be joined by two optional markers of apposition – that is (to say) and in other words – or the obligatory marker of apposition or.

In example 8 the second constituent paraphrases the first one and makes clear the meaning the speaker intended the phrase imaginative works to have:

8. Good guidebooks really are full of impressions, aren’t they, whereas imaginative works, or works of fiction, often do blend facts in a distorted form [T.Clancy, p. 155].

Nominal appositions within the paraphrase semantic relationship type contain a second constituent that paraphrases the meaning of the first one and therefore provides a different way of interpreting the meaning of the first constituent. Appositions within the reorientation semantic relationship type reveal a similar purpose. Constituents in the reorientation semantic relationship type are coreferential, the second constituent does not paraphrase the meaning of the first one instead it refocuses its reference, providing a different way of interpreting the first constituent. The constituents of this type of apposition are expressed by definite noun phrases that can be joined optionally by the marker of apposition that is (to say).

In example 9, the second constituent of the apposition refocuses the reference of the first one, suggesting that whatever the speaker talks about is not necessarily the feature of the book but its approach.

9. The individual features, (that is to say) the individual attack (of the book), is really through a kind of aesthetics of Hank which is pretty much stolen straight from the thesis [T.Clancy, p. 255].

We have determined that in appositions within the self-correction semantic relationship type, the second constituent “corrects” a mistake made in the first unit. As Table №1. shows the constituents in appositions of this type are expressed by noun phrases denoting the speaker’s coreference and they can be optionally joined by the markers of apposition or or or rather.

10. He entertained Mr. Johnnie Reb or whoever the American representative was [T.Clancy, p. 184].

Example 10 shows, on the other hand, that the speaker cannot precisely correct the reference of the first constituent because he does not know precisely who the correct referent is. Therefore, in the second constituent he uses an indefinite noun phrase to correct the first constituent and indicate the correct.

The analysis has defined a specific apposition paradigm in the author’s discourse. In this case it is a study of the functional semantic relationship between noun phrases in discourse which further requires a functional stylistic analysis. Such investigation must be based on the author’s intention as the pivot of the arrangement of the appositive units.

REFERENCES:

1. Clancy T. Debt of Honor / T. Clancy. – New York: Jack Ryan Limited Partnership, 1994. – 230 p.

2. Carter R., McCarthy M. Cambridge Grammar of English./ R.Carter, M.McCarthy. – Cambridge: CUP, 2006. – 973p.

3. Eastwood John. Oxford Guide to English Grammar./ JohnEastwood. – Oxford: OUP, 1995. – 446p.