Languages & Linguistics
Coordinating Conjunctions
Coordinating conjunctions are words that connect two or more elements of equal grammatical rank, such as words, phrases, or clauses. They are used to join independent clauses, coordinate words in a list, or connect phrases. Common coordinating conjunctions include "and," "but," "or," "nor," "for," "so," and "yet." These conjunctions play a crucial role in forming complex and compound sentences.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
Related key terms
1 of 5
10 Key excerpts on "Coordinating Conjunctions"
eBook - PDFSyntactic Analysis and Description
A Constructional Approach
- David Lockwood(Author)
- 2003(Publication Date)
- Continuum(Publisher)
Phrase coordination Basic varieties of coordination When two or more phrases or words jointly fulfill some kind of grammatical role in a larger structure, languages commonly have particular grammatical devices to use to join them into a larger unit. Table 5.1 illustrates some common devices of this type as applied to English phrases. As this material shows, English uses special words, termed CONJUNCTIONS in the usual grammatical tradition, to link words and phrases in five different patterns. The conjunction and, which indicates a combination, is traditionally called CONJUNCTIVE, in contrast to or, which indicates an alternative, and is called DISJUNCTIVE. Beyond these two simple patterns, three others are shown. These are called CORRELATIVE, because they use two different words correlated together, one before the first main phrase and the other before the second. The terms conjunctive and disjunctive are applied to the patterns using both ... and and either ... or, respectively, and the third correlative pattern, using neither . .. nor, is simply called NEGATIVE in the terminology suggested. Since it does indeed negate both of its associated terms, it could properly be called NEGATIVE CONJUNCTIVE, though its forms are morphologically related to the correlative disjunctives. The general use of conjunctions or other grammatical devices for joining words, phrases, or other units in a language is termed COORDINATION or CONJOINING. It has long been recognized that in order to fit into any of these patterns of conjoining, the words or phrases must have functional similarity. This does not necessarily mean that their internal structure will be similar. So, for example, we would think it strange for an English speaker to use and to join expressions of different functions, as in an example like She went yesterday and to the city, where it seems very odd to join the temporal expression yesterday with the locational expression to the city.
- John H. Connolly, Roel M. Vismans, Christopher S. Butler, Richard A. Gatward, John H. Connolly, Roel M. Vismans, Christopher S. Butler, Richard A. Gatward(Authors)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
The function and typology of Coordinating Conjunctions 179 Closest to sentential grammar, and yet fundamentally critical of formal and transformational theory, is Dik's (1968) approach to coordination. Dik suggests that coordination both of functions and of members of a syntactic function can be described in terms of a few basic semantic values of low specificity. Unlike logical connectors, grammatical connectors, according to Dik's claim, in fact depend on their semantic oppositions. This can be shown most clearly with the case of and and but, which are logically equivalent, connecting two propositions both of which are true, but semantically differentiated. Although the phenomenon involved in such connectors in language is understood to constitute a very complex processing mechanism, for the sake of grammatical description the basic semantic notions combinatory, alternative, adversative, and causal are chosen. 1 Coordination as an intra-sentential, discourse phenomenon is the main point of focus in Schiffrin's (1987) analysis of discourse markers. Here, coordination is regarded as a combination of functions, which are split analytically. On the content or propositional level, Schiffrin, much like Dik and other analysts, postulates basic semantic oppositions. The innovative part of her analysis pertains mostly to the interactional level. Conversational analysis makes it possible to trace the processing tasks assumed by the speaker while resorting to conjunctional expressions. It reveals that there are actional goals pursued by the expressions involved. In the case of the opposition between and and but, these goals are metaphorically conceived of as the speaker's movement along the surface of the discourse. And, in this respect, signals the speaker's continuation of the speech action. But, on the other hand, marks the speaker's return to a previous position in the discourse.
eBook - PDF- Lauren Kessler, Duncan McDonald(Authors)
- 2015(Publication Date)
- Cengage Learning EMEA(Publisher)
In Chapter 3, we explained about compound and complex sentences. Remember these sentence types are we move through this discussion. Coordinating and Subordinating Conjunctions In its primary role, a conjunction coordinates (balances) clauses and phrases of equal weight. A coordinating conjunction can link two independent clauses, which could stand alone as separate sentences: You can’t adjust the wind, but you can adjust your sails. A coordinating conjunction also links simple words and phrases that show a relationship: Vanessa loves tofu and chocolate. In a stressful situation, avoid jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. The most common Coordinating Conjunctions are: and but for nor or yet while When conjunctions are used to join clauses of unequal weight (that is, one clause clearly takes precedence and can stand by itself if necessary as a Copyright 201 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Chapter 5 Working With the Verb: The Captain’s Crew 61 complete sentence), they are called subordinating conjunctions . They often are used to introduce some material or to provide context or counterpoint to the main part of the sentence. In this first example, a subordinating conjunction (underlined) intro-duces a dependent clause: Unless management and labor can come to an agreement, the strike will begin at midnight. The most common subordinating conjunctions are: after although as as if before how if since so through unless while Pay careful attention to use of the subordinating conjunction as if .
eBook - PDF- Åshild Næss, Even Hovdhaugen(Authors)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
Chapter 17 Coordination and conjunctions 17.1. Introduction Coordination means the joining together of independent linguistic units which function at the same level of syntactic structure, with neither unit subordi-nated to the other. Coordination can take place at the level of phrases or clauses, and it may be achieved by a number of different means; in Vaeakau-Taumako the different means of coordination are juxtaposition, the use of conjunctions, and the use of so-called adverbial conjunctions, which are ad-verbs filling a coordinating function (17.4). Juxtaposition involves a sequence of clauses with no overt marking of the relationship between them, as in example (1): (1) Ko hano, ko huat nj loa la i Kola la koi kahikahia mai loa na a tai na. ko hano ko hua-th nj loa la i Kola la INCP go.SG INCP CAUS-stand EMPH DEM.3 LDA Kola DEM.3 ko-i kahi~kahi-a mai loa na a tai na INCP-3SG RED~invite-TR come EMPH DEM.2 COLL person DEM.2 ‘She went, she started at Kola and called the people there to come.’ Lhatuko mau mai mau mau mau mai lhatuko mau na ki Apia na. lhatu=ko mau mai mau mau mau mai 3PL=INCP come.PL come come.PL come.PL come.PL come lhatu=ko mau na ki Apia na 3PL=INCP come.PL DEM.2 to Apia DEM.2 ‘And they all came, they came to Apia.’ In principle, a variety of relations may hold between juxtaposed clauses in Vaeakau-Taumako; but the most frequent is the description of successive events, as in (1). The rest of this chapter will treat overt coordination by means of conjunctions and adverbial conjunctions. Phrasal coordination 411 17.2. Phrasal coordination 17.2.1. ia ‘and’ The conjunction ia ‘and’ most frequently conjoins noun phrases, usually with a simple additive meaning: (2) a. Nei huatulia te malama i lunga ia te malama i lalo. ne-i hua-th nj -lia te malama i lunga PFV-3SG CAUS-stand-TR SG.SP light LDA top ia te malama i lalo CONJ SG.SP light LDA under ‘He created heaven and earth.’ b.
- Paul Portner, Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, Paul Portner, Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger(Authors)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110589863-004 Roberto Zamparelli 4 Coordination 1 Introduction 135 2 Coordination vs. subordination 137 3 Syntactic and semantic relations among coordinands 143 4 Semantics 153 5 Conclusions 168 6 References 168 Abstract: The behavior of coordination, the operation which links together lin-guistic material by means of “and” and “or”, is different from that of any other linguistic operation, and can only be understood in terms of the combination of syntactic and semantic processes. The article presents the key features of this phenomenon, from old syntactic puzzles (the parallelism requirement, the Coor-dinate Structure Constraint, the ellipsis patterns), to semantic facts such as the difference between Boolean and non-Boolean conjunction, the cumulativity/dis-tributivity pattern, the possibility of “nested” pluralities and the scopal behavior of “and” and “or”. The article reviews the main theories that have been put forth to explain these facts, with an eye on their interrelations and on the way syntax and semantics can sometimes compete for a solution. 1 Introduction The term “coordination” refers to a linguistic operation that combines two or more constituents, typically of the same semantic and syntactic type, into a larger unit of that semantic and syntactic type, by means of one or more linking elements. In English, linking elements are the conjunction and , the disjunc-tion or and the adversative linker but , collectively called coordinators. The units that are coordinated will be called coordinands in this article (con-juncts, when linked by conjunction, disjuncts, when linked by the disjunctive connector). Any syntactic unit can be conjoined or disjoined: sentences (1a), phrases (1b,c), words (1d): Roberto Zamparelli, Trento, Italy 136 Roberto Zamparelli (1) a. [John had a beer], [Mary watched a film] and [Sue made popcorn]. conjunction of Ss b. Martin will [fly to Venice] or [drive to Milan] disjunction of VPs c.
eBook - ePub- Hadumod Bussmann, Kerstin Kazzazi, Gregory Trauth, Kerstin Kazzazi, Gregory Trauth(Authors)
- 2006(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
(when, before) relations.References
⇒ co-ordination2 ⇒ co-ordination3 In formal logic, connection of two elementary propositions p and q by the logical particle (⇒ logical connective) and, the resulting proposition of which is true only if both parts of the proposition (=conjuncts) p and q are true. The compound proposition Tokyo is the capital of Japan, and Tokyo is a European city has a false truth value because the second half of the proposition is false. The following (two-value) truth table represents a definition of conjunction:p q p∧q t t t t f f f t f f f f In everyday language and is realized as a conjunction by also, as well as, besides, in addition, not only…but also, both…and. In contrast with everyday use, however, the logical conjunction and does not distinguish between and and but nor temporally between the propositions (cf. The horse stumbled and fell down in contrast to The horse fell down and stumbled, that is, p∧q is equally logical as q∧p). Nor do both parts of the proposition necessarily have to be semantically related, that is, be in a communicatively relevant relation. The term ‘conjunction’ refers both to the function of the two-place sentence operator and as well as to the resulting proposition defined by it. With the aid of set theory, conjunction can be characterized semantically as the intersection set of both model sets that make the connected propositions true (⇒ set)
eBook - PDF- Claudine Chamoreau, Isabelle Léglise, Claudine Chamoreau, Isabelle Léglise(Authors)
- 2012(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
In my sample, I have incorporated for comparison the glosses of the forms of discourse markers, phasal adverbs, and coordinating conjunc-tions that Matras has surveyed in his articles in the tables for the lan-guages he examined, and I have used these to examine some of the claims made in those articles. The hierarchy which Matras (1998) proposed for Coordinating Conjunctions states that if borrowing of such conjunctions takes place, then the form for the adversative ‘but’ will be borrowed before the form for ‘or,’ which in its turn will be borrowed before the equivalent of ‘and.’ ALREADY is uncoded in Turoyo and Siwi. It should be possible for us to test this hypothesis with data from lan-guages whose Coordinating Conjunctions some of which have not hitherto been sampled for this purpose. Matras (1998) cites data from Turoyo, Urdu, Turkish and Pipil. I have tried to provide instances of languages that have borrowed a considerable number of their conjunctions from what were formerly or are now languages of empire, notably Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Arabic, Farsi, and Malay. Data on a language that has borrowed mostly lately but heavily in this sphere from Chinese (namely Tsat) are also included. In Tables 2 and 3, I present the glosses for the adverbs and conjunctions I have surveyed in this study according to the structural class to which each belongs, listing in Table 2 some coordinat-ing conjunctions ( and , but , or ), discourse markers ( well , even , only , also ), and phasal adverbs ( still , already ), then (in Table 3) subordinating conjunc-tions. These last conjunctions are organized into adverbial ( if , because , although , so that/in order to ), complement, and relative clause markers, with a final section of temporal adverbial clause markers ( when , before , until ). The sources’ orthographies are used. I also present the linguistic forms from the 21 languages plus English assembled for etymological analysis in this study.
eBook - ePub- Philip Holmes, Ian Hinchliffe(Authors)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
Chapter 8Conjunctions
8.1Coordination and subordinationConjunctions are elements that are outside the actual clause and have a linking function. For main clauses (MC) and subordinate clauses (SC), see 10.3.1 ff., 10.4.1 ff.; for link position, see 10.6.10 ; for the form, function and position of subordinate clauses, see 10.7.1 –10.7.7 .8.1.1 Coordination
Coordination involves the linking together of two clauses or elements of a similar kind. The link used is often a coordinating conjunction placed between the elements to be linked. See 8.2.1 ff.Subjects coordinated Alice och Albin gillar opera. Alice and Albin like opera.
Main clauses coordinated Jag hjälper dig och du hjälper mig. I help you and you help me. Subordinate clauses coordinated De sa att de var trötta och att det var dags att åka hem. They said that they were tired and that it was time to go home.Verbs coordinated De sitter och lyssnar. They are sitting and listening. 8.1.2 Subordination
Subordination involves the incorporation of a subordinate clause (indicated by brackets in the examples below) into a main clause sentence (indicated by < >). The link word used is often a subordinating conjunction (8.3.1 ff.) or other subordinator (8.4.1 ff.) placed at the beginning of the subordinate clause. In the example below, the subordinating conjunction is därför att.The subordinate clause in the example is subordinated to (i.e. dependent on) the main clause and forms part of the larger main clause sentence. See 10.7.5 .<Jag hjälper dig (därför att du hjälper mig)>. I help you because you help me. Main clause – Independent Subordinate clause – Dependent There is often a hierarchy of clauses, one within another, by which clauses are subordinated. In the example below, the subordinate clause marked [C-C] is subordinated to the subordinate clause (B-B), which in turn is subordinated to the main clause sentence <A-A>. See 10.7.5
eBook - PDF- Frede Jensen(Author)
- 2015(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter(Publisher)
IX: THE CONJUNCTION Conjunctions vs. Adverbs and Prepositions 987. It is not as easy as it may seem to establish any rigorous division between adverbs and conjunctions, and historically some adverbs have evolved to become conjunctions as is the case for example with Fr. pourtant and cepen-dant. For Occitan, we may note the use of epois with the conjunctional value of 'even though' (§ 1074). There is one feature, however, that may serve to separate the two categories, namely word order: a conjunction is usually placed at the beginning of the clause, while the adverb suffers no such restrictions. Since Coordinating Conjunctions may serve not only as a link between two separate clauses, but also between two sentence elements, it follows that some confusion between conjunctions and prepositions may also arise. There is no intrinsic difference between lo reis e sa gens 'the king and his people' and lo reis ab sa gen 'the king with his people', to the point where the two may be treated alike in respect to grammatical agreement as seen in § 699. Coordination vs. Subordination 988. While this division poses few problems, the two types of clauses are not structurally different from one another, and subordination is a misnomer in the sense that it is often the subordinate clause that contains the chief idea expressed. Basically, subordination links two clauses more closely together than coordination, but with a conjunction such as car, which may assume either role, it is often impossible to decide on the exact nature of the clause it intro-duces (§ 1006, 1020, 1046, 1072). Conjunctions of Coordination 989. Lat. et is continued as e, et or ez 'and', the latter originally an an-tevocalic form.
eBook - PDFAsyndeton and its Interpretation in Latin Literature
History, Patterns, Textual Criticism
- J. N. Adams(Author)
- 2021(Publication Date)
- Cambridge University Press(Publisher)
part 1 Introduction chapter i Asyndetic and Syndetic Coordination: Definitions and Types 1 Coordination and Asyndeton ‘Asyndeton’ has been used by classicists in mixed ways. In this book I use the term as it is used in modern linguistics, to refer to a form of coordin- ation. Various other phenomena, though interesting in their own right and often labelled ‘asyndeta’ by classical commentators and others, are left aside, worthy as they may be of study. I start with ‘coordination’. Huddleston, Payne and Peterson (2002: 1275) define coordination as follows: Coordination is a relation between two or more elements of syntactically equal status, the coordinates; they are usually linked by means of a coordinator such as and or or. There is a similar definition at Huddleston (2002: 66), where a third coordinator (but) is added. Examples are given of clause-coordination, noun phrase-coordination and noun phrase prepositional phrase- coordination. Quirk et al. (1972: 550–2) may be consulted too for defin- itions along the same lines. The definition of Haspelmath (2004b: 3–4) is much the same: A construction [A B] is considered coordinate if the two parts A and B have the same status (in some sense that needs to be specified further), whereas it is not coordinate if it is asymmetrical and one of the parts is clearly more salient or important, while the other part is in some sense subordinate. In practice, we typically suspect that a construction will be coordinate if it is systematically used to render English constructions with the coordinating particles and, or and but. I follow here the view that the coordinators of Latin are copulative/ conjunctive, disjunctive and adversative (see e.g. Pinkster 1990: 11–12, Torrego 2009: 444–6). Haspelmath, who accepts this distinction between the three semantic types of coordination (2004b: 5), observes (2004b: 6) 3 that sometimes an additional type, ‘causal coordination’, is included.
Index pages curate the most relevant extracts from our library of academic textbooks. They’ve been created using an in-house natural language model (NLM), each adding context and meaning to key research topics.
