Discourse-Pragmatic Functions of Appositive Relative Clauses as Parenthetical Constructions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46991/BYSU.B/2026.17.2.079Keywords:
appositive relative clauses, information packaging, discourse pragmatics, foreground-background interplay, parentheticalsAbstract
This paper examines the discourse functions of appositive relative clauses (ARCs) based on Chafe's (1976) information-packaging theory, which suggests that the information status of the main clause (MC) and that of the ARC differ significantly, inasmuch as the main clause conveys foreground content while ARCs provide background information, with the former playing a decisive role in the interpretation of the overall utterance. While ARCs have so far been thoroughly studied morphological and syntactic points of view, their semantic representation and pragmatic interpretation have received comparatively less attention. Based on Loock's (2010) classification, three main types of ARCs are identified: continuative appositive relative clauses (CARCs), relevance appositive relative clauses (RARCs), and subjectivity appositive relative clauses (SARCs). While RARCs and SARCs generally provide supporting details and background information, CARCs are unique in that they present events on the same informational level as the main clause, effectively placing both parts of the sentence in the foreground. This blurry demarcation line between main and subordinate clauses shows that ARCs are far more than supplementary details; they considerably contribute to the meaning of the utterance through establishing a number of semantic and chronological relations between clauses. These inter-clause connections including, but not limited to, causality, consequence, contrast, or concession shape the semantic weight of ARCs and reveal variability of their illocutionary force across contexts and interlocutors.
Downloads
References
Arnold D. (2007). Non-Restrictive Relatives are not Orphans. Journal of Linguistics, 43, 2, 272– 309.
Burton-Roberts N. (1999). Language, linear precedence and parentheticals. The Clause in English, 33–52. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Chafe W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. Subject and Topic, 25–55. New York: Academic Press.
Cornilescu A. (1981). Non-restrictive Relative Clauses, an Essay in Semantic
Description. Revue roumaine de linguistique, 26.1, 41–67.
Cotte P. (1997). Grammaire linguistique. Paris: CNED Didier Erudition.
Del Gobbo F. (2007). On the syntax and semantics of appositive relative clauses. Parentheticals,173–201. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Del Gobbo F. (2003). Appositives at the Interface. PhD dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
Demirdache H.K. (1991). Resumptive chains in restrictive relatives, appositives and dislocation structures. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Depraetere I. (1996). Foregrounding in English Relative Clauses. Linguistics, 34, 699–731.
Emonds J. (1979). Appositive Relatives Have No Properties. Linguistic Inquiry, 10.2, 241–243.
Fabb N. (1990). The Difference between English Restrictive and Nonrestrictive Relative Clauses. Linguistics, 26, 57–78.
Fowler H. W., Fowler F. G. (1949). The King’s English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Grice H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. Studies in Syntax and Semantics III: Speech Acts, 41– 58. New York: Academic Press.
Haegeman L. (1991). Parenthetical Adverbials: the radical orphanage approach. Aspects of Modern linguistics, 232– 254. Tokyo: Kaitakushi.
Heringa H. (2011). Appositional Constructions. Groningen: LOT: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.
Hopper P., Thompson S. A. (1980). Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language 56, 251– 299.
Huddleston R., Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP.
Jackendoff R. (1977). X-bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Khalifa J. C. (1999). A Propos des relatives appositives. Syntaxe, sémantique, pragmatique. Anglophonia, 6, 7–29.
Labov W. (1972). The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lee-Goldman R.(2012). Supplemental relative clauses: internal and external syntax. Journal of Linguistics 48(3), 573–608.
Loetscher A. (1973). On the Role of Nonrestrictive Relative Clauses in Discourse. Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society (April 13–15), 356–368.
Loock R. (2010). Appositive relative clauses in English: discourse functions and competing structures. John Benjamins Publishing.
McCawley J. D. (1988). The Syntactic Phenomena of English, Volume 2, Chapter 13. Chicago: CUP.
Potts C. (2005). The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: OUP.
Safir K. (1986). Relative clauses in a theory of binding and levels. Linguistic Inquiry 17(4), 663–89.
Sells P. (1984). Syntax and Semantics of Resumptive Pronouns. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Sperber D., Wilson D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Thompson S. A. (1987). Subordination and Narrative Event Structure. Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, 435– 454. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Vries M. de. (2006).The syntax of appositive relativization: on specifying coordination, false free relatives, and promotion. Linguistic Inquiry 37(2), 229–70.
Vries M. de. (2012). Parenthetical main clauses – or not? On appositives and quasi-relatives. Main Clause Phenomena: New Horizons, 177–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Astghik Chubaryan, Marine Evoyan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
