In Griffiths and De Vries 2013 (G&dV), we offer an argument in favor of treating appositive relative clauses (ARCs) as syntactically integrated into their hosts, an argument that revolves around the distribution of ARCs in clausal ellipsis environments. In a reply, Ott (2016) counters this specific argument, rejects the more general integration analysis adopted in G&dV on conceptual grounds, and contends that an orphanage analysis of ARCs provides a more parsimonious explanation for the data introduced there. In this rejoinder, we demonstrate that, while Ott presents some relevant data and provides welcome discussion, his specific counterargument does not withstand scrutiny. We also defend the integration approach to ARCs on conceptual and empirical grounds and examine the orphanage analysis of ARCs, arguing that such an approach has conceptual and empirical inadequacies that no integration approach exhibits.

Appositive relative clauses differ in some essential respects from restrictive relative clauses. I argue that appositive relatives and appositions can be put together as a third class of coordination denoting specification. Thus, an appositive relative is a specifying conjunct to the visible antecedent. It is a semifree relative with a pronominal head that is normally empty. Therefore, its internal syntax is equivalent to that of restrictive relatives; hence, there is one syntax for both types of relative clauses. In essence, it is the context of specifying coordination that accounts for the different behavior of appositive relatives. In the light of this analysis, the properties of appositive relatives (as opposed to restrictive relatives) are systematically reviewed.