A Taxonomy Of Appositive Relative Clauses In The Framework Of Systemic Functional Grammar

Appositive Relative Clauses(ARCs)are acknowledged as an archetypal kind of relative construction semantically identified in contrast to Restrictive Relative Clauses(RRCs);Apropos of their distinction,the stock-in-trade of linguistic academia may be that while an RRC defines its antecedent by delimiting/restricting it to a specific subclass of a more general class,an ARC doesn't;rather it adds some extra,ancillary information to its antecedent,which is already specific in meaning;and the information added can be expunged without mediating the meaning of the antecedent or the whole sentence.However,the semantic distinctions between these two kinds of relative clauses are far more than about that.In Systemic Functional Grammar(SFG),ARCs,or to use Halliday's parlance� non-defining relative clauses,are subsumed under the category of Hypotactic Elaboration,which constitutes a subtype of the combination/intersection of TAXIS/the degree of INTERDEPENDENCY and the system of LOGICO-SEMANTIC RELATION.Thus on the one hand,grammatically an ARC stands in hypotactic relation to the main clause as a whole,with the ARC being dependent and the main clause dominant;and the grammatical relation between the ARC and its antecedent has not been taken account of;on the other hand,semantically it only �adds a further characterization of something(i.e.,its antecedent/domain,not the main clause,with which the ARC has a hypotactic relation),which is already fully specific'� only the logico-semantic relation of Elaboration between the ARC and the main clause,no Extension or Enhancement.However,this part of the categorization is not unproblematic,or at least seems to have lacunas in it,especially when the sui generis features or the lineaments of ARCs are taken into consideration.Therefore one of the motifs of this thesis is a re-categorization of ARCs in the framework of SFG.And the basics for this re-categorization are:(1)grammatically,an ARC is not hypotactically dependent on the main clause,rather it forms a syntactic constituent with its antecedent;(2)semantically,an ARC is usually a palimpsest! � it not only elaborates its antecedent,it may also,though not necessarily,have a logico-semantic relation of extension or enhancement with the main clause no matter whether the main clause functions as its antecedent or not.The basic precept of constituency is that an ARC is a subordinate clause embedded within the construction it forms with its antecedent.According to Mark de Vries(2006),who is a proponent of constituency,an ARC is a �specifying conjunct� to its(visible)antecedent and its internal syntax is equivalent to that of restrictive relatives.(�specification' here corresponds to Halliday's concept of �elaboration' in terms of semantics.)Therefore,it is more plausible to assume that on the level of lexicogrammar,an ARC,as a false free relative with an empty head noun,is structurally combined in paratactic relation to its antecedent within the specifying CoP.This is the basic kind of structure that all ARCs have.However,some ARCs undergo structural movement(somewhere at the interface between the level of lexicogrammar and the level of semantics);they are raised from the specifying CoP they form with their antecedent to the status equal to that of the �outer'/main clause and form a clause complex with it.Therefore the ARCs which have undergone movement have at least two kinds of grammatical structures for the realization of semantic sequences on semantic level;in the second kind of construction,the ARCs are what Halliday termed �paratactic expansion clauses that are not explicitly marked for logico-semantic relation';and in the clause complex,the ARC,as an potentially independent clause,is linked to the main clause grammatically by parataxis and semantically by the �extension' relation or the �enhancement' relation.Therefore it can be semantically construed as a continuing clause expanding its initiating clause by extension or enhancement,according to different co-texts.That's why compared with an RRC,an ARC can have a more dynamic,contextually dependent and reciprocal relationship with the main clause or even sentence/clause complex as a whole;the meaning of an ARC is far removed from a plain semantic addition to the antecedent or the clause,because an inter-clausal relationship(cause,concession,time and so on)may be present and foregrounded.(And this may be construed as a new explanation for the seemingly contradictive property of ARCs��ARCs are syntactically subordinate,but semantically behave like a main clause',as De Vries(2012)proposed.)And with regard to the other ARCs,they need not move if they don't have any logico-semantic relations with the �outer� clause;they simply maintain the status quo in the specifying CoP,being classified into the category of paratactic elaboration.Hence,I propose that on semantic level,where the degree of interdependency and the system of logico-semantic relation intersect and combine to produce different types of semantic sequences,there are three categories of ARCs: paratactic elaboration,paratactic extension and paratactic enhancement.Another motif of this thesis is studying ARCs beyond the level of semantics� from the pragmatic and cognitive perspective mainly with recourse to the basic model of Conceptual Blending Theory(CBT).On pragmatic level,an ARC can be analyzed and interpreted as an independent clause that is comprised of informational,conceptual fragments,which then can be selectively chosen as relevant,mapped and listed discretely and re-organized in mental spaces for dynamic cognitive processing.