{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02132895816242822, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.387434554973822, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Grammars of Close Apposition

This paper addresses the notion of close apposition. It begins by analyzing the quintessential appositive construction the poet Burns, arguing that such strings do not have a stable internal structure. This conclusion can be applied to other so-called close appositions, such as we boys, but not to similar-looking structures like my friend Burns or a friend John in linguistics. Most close appositions are characterized by a strong degree of conventionalization and fixity, and remain relatively fossilized schemas, a fact that contributes to their recognizability as specific constructions. However, not all these seemingly binominal constructions have exactly the same constituency, but are rather relatively distinct symbols with distinct functions. The focus of this paper is thus to show how so-called close appositions do not constitute a fixed form. It will also be suggested—although due to space limitations not fully pursued—that both their similarities and the “taxonomic” and “inheritance” ties they share motivate an analysis of close apposition in general as a constructional “network,” understood in a way which is compatible with various forms of Construction Grammar.