Coordination (Linguistics)
Coordination (Linguistics)
Coordination (Linguistics)
In linguistics, coordination is a complex syntactic structure that links together two or more elements; these elements are called conjuncts or conjoins. The presence of coordination is
often signaled by the appearance of a coordinator (coordinating conjunction), e.g. and, or, but (in English). The totality of coordinator(s) and conjuncts forming an instance of
coordination is called a coordinate structure. The unique properties of coordinate structures have motivated theoretical syntax to draw a broad distinction between coordination and
subordination.[1] It is also one of the many constituency tests in Linguistics. Coordination is one of the most studied fields in theoretical syntax, but despite decades of intensive
examination, theoretical accounts differ significantly and there is no consensus on the best analysis.
Contents
Coordinators
Basic examples
Structure of coordination
Coordination in different languages
Unique behaviour in English
Nested coordinate structures
Mismatch in syntactic category
Non-constituent conjuncts
Gapping or not?
Forward versus backward sharing
Extraction
Pseudo-coordination
Japanese
“to/ya” - coordinator for nominals
“-te” - coordinator for adjectives
"-te" - coordinator for verbs
Afroasiatic: Hausa
“dà/kóo” - coordination for nominals and adjectives
"kóo” - Coordination for verbs
Sinitic: Mandarin
Floating coordinators
Lexical Integrity Hypothesis in Mandarin Chinese
See also
Notes
References
Coordinators
A coordinator or a coordinating conjunction, often appears between the conjuncts, usually at least between the penultimate and ultimate conjunct of the coordinate structure. The
words and and or are by far the most frequently occurring coordinators in English. Other coordinators occur less often and have unique properties, e.g. but, as well as, then, etc. The
coordinator usually serves to link the conjuncts and indicate the presence of a coordinate structure. Depending on the number of coordinators used, coordinate structures can be
classified as syndetic, asyndetic, or polysyndetic.
[2]
Different types of coordinators are also categorised differently. The table below shows the categories for the coordinators in English:
Coordinator Category
and conjunctive coordination
or disjunctive coordination
but adversative coordination
Basic examples
Coordination is a very flexible mechanism of syntax. Any given lexical or phrasal category can be coordinated. The examples throughout this article employ the convention whereby
the conjuncts of coordinate structures are marked using square brackets and bold script. In the following examples, the coordinate structure includes all the material that follows the
left-most square bracket and precedes the right-most square bracket. The coordinator appears in normal script between the conjuncts.
Structure of coordination
Theoretical accounts of coordination vary in major respects. For instance, approaches to coordination in constituency and dependency differ significantly, and derivational and
representational systems are also likely to disagree on many aspects of how coordination should be explained. Derivational accounts, for instance, are more likely to assume
transformational mechanisms to "rectify" non-constituent conjuncts (e.g. conjunction reduction and RNR, as mentioned above).
Even concerning the hierarchical structure of coordinated strings, there is much disagreement. Whether or not coordinate structures should be analyzed in terms of the basic tree
conventions employed for subordination is an issue that divides experts. Broadly speaking, there are two options: either a flat or a layered analysis. There are two possibilities for the
flat option, both of which are shown here. The a-trees represent the analyses in a constituency-based system, and the b-trees in a dependency-based system:
The first two trees present the traditionalexocentric analysis. The coordinate structure is deemed exocentric insofar as neither conjunct can be taken to be the sole head, but rather both
conjuncts are deemed heads in a sense. The second two trees, where the coordinator is the head, are similar to the first two insofar as the conjuncts are equi-level sisters. These two flat
analyses stand in contrast to the following three layered analyses. The constituency-based a-trees appear again on the left, and the dependency-based b-trees on the right:
The primary aspect of these layered analyses is that an attempt is being made to adapt the analysis of coordinate structures to the analysis of subordinate structures. The conjuncts in
each case are NOT sister constituents, but rather the first conjunct is in a more prominent (higher) hierarchical position than the second conjunct. The three analyses differ with respect
to the presumed head of the entire structure. The third option in terms of the X-bar schema cannot be rendered in terms of dependency because dependency allows a word to project
just a single node. There is no way to capture the hierarchical distinction between specifiers and complements in a dependency-based system (but there is always a linear distinction,
since specifiers precede complements).
The flat analysis has the benefit that it captures our intuition that coordinate structures are different from subordinate structures at a basic level. The drawback to the flat analysis,
however, is that the theory of syntax must be augmented beyond what is necessary for standard subordinate structures. The layered analysis has the advantage that there is no need to
augment the syntax with an additional principle of organization, but it has the disadvantage that it does not sufficiently accommodate our intuition that coordination is fundamentally
different from subordination.
The brackets indicate the three possible readings for the sentence. The (b)- and (c)-readings show one coordinate structure being embedded inside another. Which of the three readings
is understood depends on intonation and context. The (b)-reading could be preferred in a situation where Bill and Sam arrived together, but Fred arrived separately. Similarly, the (c)-
reading could be preferred in a situation where Fred and Bill arrived together, but Sam arrived separately. That the indicated groupings are indeed possible becomes evident when or is
employed:
Data like these have been explored in detail.[4] They illustrate that the theory of coordination should not rely too heavily on syntactic category to explain the fact that in most instances
of coordination, the coordinated strings are alike. Syntactic function is more important, that is, the coordinated strings should be alike in syntactic function. In the former three
sentences here, the coordinated strings are, as complements of the copula is, predicative expressions, and in the latter two sentences, the coordinated strings are adjuncts that are alike
in syntactic function (temporal adjunct + temporal adjunct, causal adjunct + causal adjunct).
Non-constituent conjuncts
The aspect of coordination that is perhaps most vexing for theories of coordination concerns non-constituent conjuncts.[5] Coordination is, namely, not limited to coordinating just
constituents, but is also capable of coordinating non-constituent strings:
While some of these coordinate structures require a non-standard intonation contour, they can all be acceptable. This situation is problematic for theories of syntax because most of the
coordinated strings do not qualify as constituents. Hence since the constituent is widely assumed to be the fundamental unit of syntactic analysis, such data seem to require that the
theory of coordination admit additional theoretical apparatus. Two examples of the sort of apparatus that has been posited are so-called conjunction reduction and right node raising
(RNR).[6][7] Conjunction reduction is an ellipsis mechanism that takes non-constituent conjuncts to be complete phrases or clauses at some deep level of syntax. These complete
phrases or clauses are then reduced down to their surface appearance by the conjunction reduction mechanism. The traditional analysis of the phenomenon of right node raising
assumed that in cases of non-constituent conjuncts, a shared string to the right of the conjuncts is raised out of VP in such a manner that the material in the conjuncts ends up as
constituents. The plausibility of these mechanisms is NOT widely accepted as it can be argued that they are ad hoc attempts to solve a problem that plagues theories that take the
constituent to be the fundamental unit of syntactic analysis.
Coordination has been widely employed as a test or for the constituent status of a given string, i.e. as a constituency test. In light of non-constituent conjuncts however, the helpfulness
of coordination as a diagnostic for identifying constituents can be dubious.
Gapping or not?
Gapping (and stripping) is an ellipsis mechanism that seems to occur in coordinate structures only. It also involves finite verb to be excluded in the second conjunct and, allows for
constituents to be further elided.[8] While gapping itself is widely acknowledged to involve ellipsis, which instances of coordination do and do not involve gapping is still a matter of
debate.[9] Most theories of syntax agree that gapping is involved in the following cases. A subscript and a smaller font are used to indicate the "gapped" material:
[Brent ate the beans], and [Bill ate the rice]. - Gapping
[You should call me more], and [I should call you more ]. - Gapping
[Mary always orders wine], and [Sally always orders beer]. - Gapping
Accounts of gapping and coordination disagree, however
, concerning data such as the following:
a. [They saw him first] and [they saw her second]. - Gapping analysis
b. They saw [him first] and [her second]. - Non-gapping analysis
a. [Tanya expects the dog to eat cat food] and [she expects the cat to eat dog food]. - Gapping analysis
b. Tanya expects [the dog to eat cat food] and [the cat to eat dog food]. - Non-gapping analysis
The gapping analysis shown in the a-sentences is motivated above all by the desire to avoid the non-constituent conjuncts associated with the b-sentences. No consensus has been
reached about which analysis is better.
*After Wallace fed [his dog the postman] and [his sheep the milkman] arrived. - Forward sharing fails.
*The man [who built the rocket has] and [who studied robots designed] a dog. - Forward sharing fails.
*After [Sue’s presentation , I was sad] and [Fred’s presentation, I was angry]. - Forward sharing fails.
The star * indicates that the sentence is not unacceptable in the language. Each of these coordinate structures is disallowed. The underline draws attention to a constituent that mostly
precedes the coordinate structure but that the initial conjunct "cuts into". There is apparently a restriction on the constituents that mostly precede a coordinate structure. The same
restriction does not limit similar constituents that mostly follow the coordinate structure:
[She stated the strengths], and [he mentioned the weaknesses] of the explanation. - Backward sharing succeeds.
[Larry put a flier on], and [Sue slipped one under] the door. - Backward sharing succeeds
Sally [arrived just before the speaker initiated], and [left right after he finished] his speech. - Backward sharing succeeds
The underline now marks a constituent that mostly follows the coordinate structure. Unlike with the first three examples, the coordinate structure in these three examples can cut into
the underlined constituent.
Extraction
In Transformational Grammar, the interaction of coordination and extraction (e.g. wh-fronting) has generated a lot of interest. The Coordinate Structure Constraint is the property of
[11] For example:
coordinate structures that prevents extraction of a single conjunct or from a single conjunct. Coordinate structures are said to be strong islands for extraction.
*Who did you see [Fred] and [ ]? - Failed extraction of an entire conjunct
*Who did you see [ ] and Susan? - Failed extraction of an entire conjunct
*Which action did the president understand [the criticism] and [take]? - Failed extraction out of a single conjunct
What does [Sarah like] and [Xolani hate]? - Across-the-board extraction of What
There are other apparent exceptions the Coordinate Structure Constraint and the Across-the-Board generalization and their integration to existing syntactic theory has been a long-
standing disciplinary desideratum.[13]
Pseudo-coordination
In pseudo-coordinative constructions, the coordinator, generally and, appears to have a subordinating function. It occurs in many languages and is sometimes known as "hendiadys",
and it is often, but not always, used to convey a pejorative or idiomatic connotation.[14] Among the Germanic languages, pseudo-coordination occurs in English, Afrikaans,
Norwegian, Danish and Swedish.[15] Pseudo-coordination appears to be absent in Dutch and German. The pseudo-coordinative construction is limited to a few verbs. In English, these
verbs are typically go, try, and sit. In other languages, typical pseudo-coordinative verbs and/or hendiadys predicates are egressive verbs (e.g. go) and verbs of body posture (e.g. sit,
stand and lie down).
A typical property of pseudo-coordinative constructions is that, unlike ordinary coordination, they appear to violate the Across-the-Board extraction property (see above). In other
[16]
words, it is possible to extract from one of the conjuncts.
It has been argued that pseudo-coordination is not a unitary phenomenon. Even in a single language such as English, the predicate try exhibits different pseudo-coordination properties
to other predicates and other predicates such asgo and sit can instantiate a number of different pseudo-coordinative construction types.[17] On the other hand, it has been argued that at
least some different types of pseudo-coordination can be analyzed using ordinary coordination as opposed to stipulating that pseudo-coordinative and is a subordinator; the differences
between the various constructions derive from the level of structure that is coordinated e.g. coordination of heads, coordination of ,VP
etc.
Japanese
“to/ya” - coordinator for nominals
In Japanese, the articleと [to], which can be directly translated toand in English, is used as a coordinator of nominals (a noun, noun phrase or any word that functions as a noun). This
article cannot be used to coordinate other word categories such as adjectives and verbs. Different word categories require different coordinators. We will discuss the basic use of these
coordinators in Japanese.[18]
The article と [to] is used specifically for nominals. Below is a simple example for nominal coordination in Japanese. The article や [ya] can also be used, the two words have exactly
the same function, and nominals are coordinated in the same way
.
However, in Japanese, this article can also be used to coordinate two conjuncts that are not syntactic constituents. In the examples below, conjuncts can include their own direct object,
indirect object and quantifier.[19]
安い 安くて
i-adjectives yasui yasukute
安全な 安全で
na-adjectives anzenna anzende
In i-adjectives, when they are in -te form, the final い is dropped and くて is added as a suffix instead. On the contrary, in na-adjectives, when they are in -te form, the final な is
dropped and で is added as a suffix.
As we can see, instead of an article, in Japanese, a suffix is added to the first adjective, to show coordination of adjectives. Below is a simple example for adjectival coordination in
Japanese. In (3), both adjectives are i-adjectives, while in (4) both adjectives are na-adjectives.
Afroasiatic: Hausa
“dà/kóo” - coordination for nominals and adjectives
In Hausa, dà means and in English, while kóo means or. It is used as a coordinator for nominals. Unlike Japanese, articles dà and kóo can be used to coordinate other word categories
like adjectives and nominalised verbs.[20] The number of nouns that can be conjoined to dà is unlimited.[21] The tables below shows a simple example of simple nominal coordination
in Hausa.[20]
Nouns in Hausa
Àbêokùtá dà/kóo Àbúuja dà Ilòor̃í dà/kóo Ìbàadàn
Abeokuta and/or Abuja and Ilorin and/or Ibadan
Abeokuta and/or Abuja and Ilorin and/or Ibadan
Adjectives in Hausa
Wánnàn rìigáa tánàà dà kálàa jáa dà/kóo kóor̃èe
This dress 3SG.F.PROG with colour red and/or green
This dress has red and green colour
VP sentences in Hausa
Mount kòogi-
Hàbîb yáa háu (*dà/kóo) yáa núunàa mánà Íísà (*dà/kóo) yáa gyáarà móotà -r- sà
Patti n
Mount river- -
Habib 3SG.M.PFV climb and/or 3SG.M.PFV show us Niger and/or 3SG.M.PFV repair car his
Patti GEN GEN-
Habib has climbed Mount Patti, has showed use the river Niger
, has repaired his car
Kóo can also only appear between the first and second, or the second and third conjunct. The tables below show examples of this.
Sinitic: Mandarin
Floating coordinators
Standard Mandarin Chinese allowsfloating coordinators. Essentially, these consist of coordinators in the language that cannot appear to the left of or inside the first conjunct. Instead,
they may only appear between two conjuncts or inside the second.[22] This is demonstrated in the following table in which the floating coordinator ke(shi) may occur between the two
conjuncts in the first example or inside the second conjunct in the second example. However, when ke(shi) appears inside the first conjunct, as in the third example, or to the left of the
first conjunct, as in the fourth example, the sentence becomes ungrammatical.
[22]
Example of floating coordinators in Mandarin Chinese
Baoyu yao tiaowu, ke(shi) wo yao hui- jia
Baoyu want dance but I want return- home
Baoyu wants to dance but I want to return home
Baoyu yao tiaowu, wo ke(shi) yao hui- jia
Baoyu want dance I but want return- home
Baoyu wants to dance but I want to return home
*Baoyu ke(shi) yao tiaowu, wo yao hui- jia
*Baoyu but want dance I want return- home
*Ke(shi) Baoyu yao tiaowu, wo yao hui- jia
*but Baoyu want dance I want return- home
The distribution of the coordinator yu(shi), meaning and thus, bears some similarity to that of ke(shi) but restricts other coordinators from appearing before the conjunct in which it
[22]
occurs. Yu(shi) may precede or follow the second conjunct but never precedes the first conjunct.
[23]
Example of Syntactic Coordination in Mandarin Chinese
[hide]
Lisi shi yi ge [lu-shi]NP jian [yi-shi]NP
However, it is important to note that Verb-Object compounds are an exception to this hypothesis. This is demonstrated in the following example in which the V-O forms chi-hun and
chi-su permit the coordination of the word-internal elementshun and su, thereby not following the hypothesis.
[24]
Example of Exception to Lexical Integrity Hypothesis in Mandarin
Zhangsan shi -bu- shi chi- hun- han- su dou keyi?
Zhangsan AUX -no- AUX eat- meat- and- veggies all allowed?
Is it that Zhangsan can eat non-vegetarian or vegetarian meals?
See also
Constituent Phrase structure grammar
Dependency grammar Right node raising
Gapping Subordination
Notes
1. Concerning the distinction between subordination and coordination, see Payne (2006:309).
2. Kiss, Tibor; Alexiadou, Artemis (2015).Syntax - theory and analysis : an international handbook. o
Vlume 1. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. p. 505.
ISBN 9783110377408. OCLC 909907935 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/909907935).
3. See Williams, E. (1978) concerning the matching conjuncts of coordinate structures.
4. See for instance Dik (1968), Sag et al. (1985), Zoerner (1995), Bayer (1996), and Progovac (1998).
5. See Osborne (2008).
6. Concerning conjunction reduction, see for instance Akmajian and Heny (1980:261f.).
7. Concerning RNR, see for instance Hudson (1984:2335f.) and McCawley (1988:56).
8. Kiss, Tibor; Alexiadou, Artemis (2015).Syntax - theory and analysis: an international handbook. o
Vlume 1. Germany: DE GRUYTER MOUTON. p. 505.
ISBN 978-3-11-037740-8. OCLC 909907935 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/909907935).
9. Concerning this debate, see Sag et al. (1985) and Osborne (2006).
10. The first two examples are taken from Phillips (2003). All six examples in this section appear in Osborne (2008: 1121).
11. See Ross, J. (1967).
12. See Ross (1967) and Williams (1978).
13. See Carden and Pesetsky (1977), Goldsmith (1985), Lakof
f (1986), Zoerner (1995), Culicover and Jackendof
f (1997), Progovac (1998).
14. See Na and Huck (1992).
15. See Wiklund (2005) and De Vos (2005).
16. See De Vos (2005) and Lakoff (1986).
17. See De Vos (2005).
18. Tanimori, Masahiro (1998).Handbook of Japanese Grammar. Tuttle Publishing. ISBN 9780804819404.
19. Vermeulen, Reiko (January 2006)."Case and Coordination in Japanese"(http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/25/paper1475.pdf) (PDF). Case and Coordination in
Japanese.
20. Kiss, Tibor; Alexiadou, Artemis (2015).Syntax - theory and analysis : an international handbook. o
Vlume 1. Berlin: DE GRUYTER MOUTON. p. 483.
ISBN 9783110377408.
21. Caron, Bernard (2015). "Hausa Grammatical Sketch".LLACAN - Language, langues et cultures d'Afrique Noire
: 23.
22. Zhang, Niina Ning. (2010).Coordination in Syntax(https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/776951353). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 14, 15.
ISBN 9780511770746. OCLC 776951353 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/776951353).
23. C.T. James Huang, Y.H. Audrey Li, Andrew Simpson. The handbook of Chinese linguistics(https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/859168804)(First ed.). Malden, MA.
p. 15. ISBN 9781118584385. OCLC 859168804 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/859168804).
24. C.T. James Huang, Y.H. Audrey Li, Andrew Simpson. The handbook of Chinese linguistics(https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/859168804)(First ed.). Malden, MA.
p. 17. ISBN 9781118584385. OCLC 859168804 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/859168804).
References
Akmajian, A. and F. Heny. 1980. An introduction to the principle of Osborne, T. 2008. Major constituents: And two dependency grammar
transformational syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. constraints on sharing in coordination. Linguistics 46, 6, 1109-1165.
Bayer, S. 1996. The coordination of unlike categories. Language 72, 579- Phillips, C. 2003. Linear order and constituency
. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 1, 37–
616. 90.
Carden, G. and D. Pesetsky 1977. Double-verb constructions, markedness Payne, T. 2006. Exploring language structure: A student's guide. Cambridge,
and a fake coordination. In Papers from the 13th regional meeting, Chicago UK: Cambridge University Press.
Linguistic Society, Chicago, 82-92. Universityof Chicago. Reprinted in: Progovac, L. 1998. Structure for coordination (Part 1). GLOT International 3,
Minoru Yasui (ed.), Kaigai Eigogaku-ronso, 1979, Tokyo: Eichosha Company. 7, 3-6.
Culicover, P. and R. Jackendoff 1997. Semantic subordination despite Ross, J. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. thesis.
syntactic coordination. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 2, 195-217. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Dik, S. 1968. Coordination: Its implications for a theory of general linguistics. Sag, I., Gazdar, T., Wassow, T. and S. Weisler. 1985. Coordination and how
Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company . to distinguish categories. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3, 117-
Goldsmith, J. 1985. A principled exception of the coordinate structure 171.
constraint. In W. Eilfort, P. Kroeber and K. Peterson (eds). CLS 21, Part 1: De Vos, M. 2005. The syntax of pseudo-coordination in English and
Papers from the general session at the twenty-first regional meeting, Afrikaans. Utrecht, the Netherlands: LOT
.
Chicago, 133-143. Chicago Linguistic Society .
Wiklund, A-L. 2005. The syntax of tenselessness: On copying constructions
Hudson, R. 1984. Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. in Swedish. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Umeaa.
Lakoff, G. 1986. Frame semantic control of the coordinate structure Williams, E. 1978. Across the board rule application.Linguistic Inquiry 9, 31-
constraint. In A. Farley, P. Farley, and K-E. McCullough (eds), CLS 22, Part 43.
2: Papers from the parasession on pragmatics and grammatical theory ,
Zoerner, E. 1995. Coordination: The syntax of &P. Ph.D. thesis. University of
Chicago, 152-167. Chicago Linguistic Society .
California, Irvine.
McCawley, T. 1988. The syntactic phenomena of English, V
ol. 1. Chicago:
Postal, P. 1998. Three investigations of extraction.Cambridge MA: MIT
The University of Chicago Press.
Press.
Na, Y. and G. Huck 1992. On extracting from asymmetrical structures. In D.
Schmerling, S. 1975. Asymmetric coordination and rules of conversation.In
Brentari, G. Larson and L. Macleod (eds), The joy of grammar: A festschrift
P. Cole and J. Morgan (Eds).Speech Acts, Volume 3 of Syntax and
in honour of James D. McCawley, 251-274. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
semantics, pp211–231.New York: Academic Press.
Osborne, T. 2006. Gapping vs. non-gapping coordination. Linguistische
Berichte 207, 307-338.
Text is available under theCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to theTerms of Use and
Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of theWikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.