Coordination

Prof. Mgtr. Juan Luis Stamboni - U.N.L.P. 2011

1. Definition
The term coordination refers to a syntactic construction in which two (or more) units of the same grammatical
value (i.e. category)1 are joined in such a way that neither is hierarchically dependent on the other. In a structure
of coordination, two (or more) syntactically equivalent units are merged together in a structure which behaves as a
single constituent. Thus, a coordinate construction is a syntactic constituent consisting of two or more units, i.e.
coordinands.
Coordinands may be words (e.g. verbs, 1a), phrases (e.g. VP's, 1b; DP's, 1c; etc.), subordinate clauses (e.g. noun
clauses, 1d; relative clauses 1e; etc.), or sentence members (i.e. clauses which semantically and syntactically could
stand as independent sentences since they are not subordinated to any hierarchically superior constituent, e.g. 1f).
(1) a. My husband [supports] and [adores] Juventus Turin.
b. When he [arrived] and [saw his wife prancing around with another man], he decided to get even.
c. [My uncle] or [your in-laws] or [the neighbours] will come to visit us.
d. I admit [(that) you were right] and [that we really wanted you to be wrong on this one].
e. That was my dad, [whom I adored] and [who remained an important person in my life until his death].
f. [The pope dissolved the Jesuit order,] and [all the Indian missions were abandoned].
Coordinands are generally linked by a lexical item –usually a conjunction, but also certain adverbs. Such an element is
called a coordinator. Coordinators can be semantically classified as copulative (e.g. and), alternative (e.g. or),
adversative (e.g. but), illative (e.g. therefore), and explanatory (e.g. namely).
Type Meaning Coordinator
1. COPULATIVE ADDITION AND; besides; furthermore; moreover; as well as; not only but also; etc.
2. ADVERSATIVE OPPOSITION BUT; yet; however; still; nevertheless; notwithstanding; etc.
3. ALTERNATIVE CHOICE EITHER – OR; NEITHER – NOR
4. ILLATIVE CAUSE – CONSEQUENCE SO; therefore; consequently; for2; then; etc.
5. EXPLANATORY PARAPHRASING NAMELY; viz.; to wit; videlicet; that is (to say); I mean; etc.
How are coordinands and coordinators organized in a coordinate construction?
Early Generative models posited that they form a flat multiple branching structure, like the one in (2):
(2)

coordinand COORDINATOR coordinand

whereas from the formulation of the Government & Binding theory3 onwards these constructions are represented
by means of a basic binary-branching structure in which the coordinands merge as the specifier and the
complement in a functional projection headed by the coordinator. As illustrated in (3), the head of the structure of
coordination is realized by the coordinator; the coordinand that is structurally closer to the coordinator is the
complement of the head, and the other coordinand is the specifier of the head:
(3)
COORDINATOR PHRASE

coordinand COORDINATOR'

COORDINATOR coordinand

1 Exceptions to this generalization will be dealt with below.

2 The polycategorial lexical item for is (1) a C (complementizer) in constructions like “Obama Foreign Policy Advisor Calls For US to Shoot Down Israeli Jets.”,
(2) a P (preposition) in constructions like “This science fiction novel by Robert A. Heinlein was published for the first time in 2003.”, and (3) a J (conjunction) in
constructions like “My name is Legion, for we are many.”
3 Noam Chomsky (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht (the G&B theoretical model precedes 1995's Minimalist Program)
2. Coordination versus Subordination
Two or more finite CP's which can potentially stand as independent sentences (i.e. neither of which is
syntactically dependent on the other) may be joined by a coordinator forming a longer sentence. Such a
construction is said to be a compound sentence.
(4) [We understand his qualities] but [he can't be left on his own to do those things].
Preliminary analysis: Compound sentence
First MEMBER: we understand his qualities
Coordinator: coordinating adversative conjunction: BUT
Second MEMBER: he can't be left on his own to do those things
The expression “compound sentence” must be distinguished from “complex sentence”, since the latter describes a
sentence like (5), which includes at least one finite subordinate clause, i.e. a tensed syntactic construction
hierarchically dependent on a constituent in the matrix clause.
(5) [(When he arrived home) his relatives had gone].
A complex sentence like (5) may form part of a compound sentence if it is coordinated to another simple or complex
potentially independent sentence. In such cases, the overall sentence is described as compound-complex. When
at least one of the members in a compound sentence includes a finite subordinate clause, the sentence is said to be
compound complex.
(6) [(When he arrived home) his relatives had gone] and [(as midnight struck) he went to sleep].
Preliminary analysis: Compound Complex sentence
First MEMBER: complex
First member's main clause: his relatives had gone
Subordinate clause #1: when he arrived home [adverbial clause of time, VP-adjunct to gone]
Coordinating copulative conjunction: AND [joining first and second members]
Second MEMBER: complex
Second member's main clause: he went to sleep
Subordinate clause #2: as midnight struck [adverbial clause of time, VP-adjunct to went]
The label “complex sentence” does not apply to sentences containing non-finite or verbless clauses. That is, those
sentences which do not include any finite subordinate clause but which contain small clauses (7-8), infinitival
clauses (9-12), participial clauses (13-14), or gerundial clauses (15-16), in ECM, control, and object-control
constructions or as reduced clauses, will be treated as SIMPLE sentences.
(7) He considered [her a political pawn]. (ECM)
(8) Following the accident the Marine Corps found [him dangerous to equipment and personnel]. (ECM)
(9) She expected [us to be very disciplined and rigorous]. (ECM)
(10) We decided [PRO to crash the economy]. (control)
(11) They convinced us [PRO to wake up at 5am (PRO to watch the sunrise).] (object control + infinitive of purpose)
(12) We had to destroy the village [(in order) PRO to save it]. (infinitive of purpose)
(13) [PRO Knowing his return is unlikely], Stewart says goodbye to Jim. (present-participle free adjunct)
(14) [PRO Published last year], this book explains the behavioural factors that guide the decision-making processes of Wall Street
professionals. (past-participle free adjunct)
(15) [Being poor] is [knowing exactly how much everything costs]. (subject and predicator in equative sentence)
(16) I hate [not PRO knowing his name], because he is so cute! (direct object / VP-complement)
As far as finite clauses are involved, the main difference between coordination and subordination lies on the fact that
the former describes a syntactic relation between clauses which can potentially stand as independent sentences,
whereas, the latter describes a syntactic relation in which one of the clauses (i.e. the subordinate one) is
hierarchically dependent on an element in the matrix clause.

3. Further differences between coordination and subordination

There are ways in which coordinate constructions can be distinguished from related constructions, in particular,
dependency/subordination constructions and less grammaticalized constructions.
According to Haspelmath (1995), subordination structures have the following properties across languages:
(i) only subordinate clauses can be a constituent inside the main clause:
(17) At eight o'clock, [after we had breakfast], I went to school.
(18) *At eight o'clock, [and/but we had breakfast], I went to school.
(ii) only subordinate clauses can be the focus in a cleft-sentence:
(19) It was [after this month's challenge had been set] that I came across Criminal Minds.
(20) *It was [and/but this month's challenge had been set] that I came across Criminal Minds.
(iii) only subordination constructions allow extraction of wh-pronouns (coordinate structure constraint)
(21) Where did she say (her husband's home was where)?
(22) *Where did Peter go to the zoo and Mary stay where?
(iv) only subordinate clauses allow backwards anaphora (i.e. cataphora):
(23) After meeting heri again, I admired Joani even more.
(24) *I admired heri even more after meeting Joani again.
According to Culicover & Jackendoff (1997) there is a class of English clause-combining constructions that show
mixed subordinate-coordinate behaviour:
(25) You drink another can of beer and I'm leaving.
(= If you drink another can of beer, I'm leaving.)
This construction is semantically subordinate, but the syntactic evidence is mixed. The linker and does not look
like a clause subordinator, but rather like a clause coordinator. Culicover & Jackendoff (1997:206) show that this
construction does not obey the coordinate structure constraint, and behaves as subordinate also with respect to
backwards anaphora.
Contrast between coordination and dependency
In a coordination structure of the type A(-link-)B, A and B are structurally symmetrical in some sense, whereas in
a dependency (i.e. subordinate) structure of the type X(-link-)Y, X and Y are not symmetrical, but either X or Y is
the head and the other element is a dependent. When the dependent element is a clause, it is called subordinate
clause.
Although the distinction between coordination and dependency is of course fundamental, it is sometimes not
evident whether a construction exhibits a coordination relation or a dependency relation. The best-known
distinctive property of coordinate structures is that they obey the coordinate structure constraint (Ross 1986),
which prohibits the application of certain rules such as extraction of interrogative words from coordinate
structures. This is illustrated in (26-27), where the (i) sentences show the basic structure, and the (ii) sentences
show fronting of who. As the examples make clear, only the dependency structures allow extraction (26/27a-ii).
(26) a. subordination
(i) (basic sentence) You talked to someone before Joan arrived.
(ii) (who extraction) Who(m) did you talk to whom before Joan arrived?
b. coordination
(i) (basic sentence) You talked to someone and then Joan arrived.
(ii) (who extraction) *Who(m) did you talk to whom and then Joan arrived?
(27) a. dependency
(i) (basic sentence) You saw Marvin with someone.
(ii) (who extraction) Who(m) did you see Marvin with whom?
b. coordination
(i) (basic sentence) You saw Marvin and someone.
(ii) (who extraction) *Who(m) did you see Marvin and whom?
Obeying the coordinate structure constraint is a formal property of constructions that is sometimes taken as the
decisive criterion for coordinate status. However, only semantically-based notions apply crosslinguistically –
formal criteria are generally language-particular (e.g. not all languages have extraction constructions that would
show the effect of the coordinate structure constraint).
ADVERSATIVE [CONTRAST]: although (subordinator) / but (coordinator)
ILLATIVE [CAUSE-CONSEQUENCE]: because (subordinator) / for (coordinator) / so (coordinator)
Only subordinators, i.e. subordinate clauses (introduced by although and because) can take initial position in the
sentence, whereas coordinators (but, for, so) can never appear in initial position in the sentence.
4. Types of Coordination
SEMANTIC CLASSIFICATION / CHARACTERIZATION
The most frequently occurring coordinator is and (and its equivalents in other languages), but coordinate
constructions can also involve various other semantic types of connectors, such as or, but and for. And-
coordination is called copulative coordination, or-coordination is called alternative or disjunctive coordination,
but-coordination is called adversative coordination, and for-coordination is called illative or causal coordination.
By hypothesis, in copulative and alternative coordination, the coordinands can be phrases of any category
whatsoever (e.g. ), whereas in adversative and illative coordination, there is the logical-semantic requirement that
the coordinands be clausal “members”, albeit elliptical. However, in adversative coordination the coordinads can
be predicative constructions, i.e. attributive and predicative adjectives, and adverbs of manner (-ly).
(28) a. (copulative) Snowwhite ate and drank.
a'. (copulative) I’m in love and very happy.
a''. (adversative) I’m in love but very unhappy.
b. (alternative) She was a countess or a princess.
c. (adversative) The dwarfs were ugly but kind.
d. (illative) She died, for the apple was poisoned.
COPULATIVE/ALTERNATIVE versus ADVERSATIVE/ILLATIVE
PROPERTIES shared by COPULATIVE + ALTERNATIVE coordinations (any phrase, any category)
PROPERTIES shared by ADVERSATIVE + ILLATIVE coordinations (only predicative constructions)
i.e. full ideas (clauses), even with different illocutionary force [MEMBERS]

Types of coordinands
The definition of coordination contains the phrase “two or more units of the same type”. This can be seen as an
automatic consequence of the required identity of semantic roles of the coordinands: If two expressions have
different semantic roles (e.g. patient and location), it will not be possible to coordinate them (e.g. *We want to eat
pizza or in a Thai restaurant). It is sometimes said that the coordinands must belong to the same phrasal category;
for instance, *[pizza]DP or [in a Thai restaurant]PP is said to be ungrammatical because it consists of a DP and a PP.
However, coordination of different phrasal categories is often possible when both have the same semantic role:
(29) a. Mr Hasegawa is [a legal wizard]DP but [expensive to hire]AP.
b. She felt [quite happy]AP and [at ease]PP in her new office.
c. There will be typology conferences [in August]PP and [next April]DP.
d. [His kindness]DP and [that he was willing to write letters to me]CP amazed me.
Conversely, if two expressions belong to the same phrasal category but have a different semantic role,
coordination is generally not felicitous.
(30) a. *Ms. Poejosoedarmo bought a book [in Penang]PP and [in the spring]PP.
b. *I still smoked [last year]DP and [cigarettes]DP.
c. *[Go home!]CP and [are you hungry?]CP
The examples in (29-30) seem to suggest that semantic factors alone determine whether two expressions can be
coordinated. But there are also cases in which two syntactically dissimilar phrases have the same semantic role
but do not coordinate felicitously:
(31) *[Waterskiing]DP and [to climb mountains]TP can be fun. (Grover 1994:764)

SURE/SURELY does not express epistemic modality, but manner, i.e. effective(ly), inevitable(-ly)
(32) Slowly but surely spring returns.
(33) Congress has to act quickly but carefully to get financial rescue legislation right.
(34) We will work quickly but carefully to find the right person for your position.
(35) Bob's progress on his novel was slow but sure (i.e. it was a fact).
(36) She was pretty fat but attractive in the face.
(37) Fun, tattooed, fat but attractive couple here!
(38) Nancy is finishing the paint job on her house, slowly but surely (i.e. effectively).
(39) I'm 26 years old and I've been quickly but surely gaining weight.