Coordination and more 1 Coordination as a non-headed construction 225 2 Distinctive syntactic properties of coordination 227 3 The order of coordinates 230 4 The marking of coordination 231 5 Layered coordination 232 6 Main-clause and lower-level coordination 233 7 Joint vs distributive coordination 234 8 Non-basic coordination 234 1 Coordination as a non-headed construction In a coordination, two or more elements of equal status are joined to make a larger unit. Special words called coordinators are used to mark this kind of joining. In [ 1 ], the joined elements are underlined, the larger unit formed is in brackets, and the coordinator is double-underlined. [1] i \Jane is a good teacher and her students really like her]. ii They offered us a choice of \red wine, white wine qz beer). iii Her assistant is \very young but a quick learner]. The underlined constituents that are joined are called the coordinates. The coordinators illustrated are the most common ones in English: and, or and but. Internal syntax: the composition of coordinate structures The coordinates of the examples in [1] are equal in status: each makes the same sort of contribution to the whole thing. They cannot be distinguished as head vs dependents). The constructions dealt with earlier (clauses, NPs, VPs, PPs, etc.) have all had heads. Coordination is different: it is a non-headed construction. The coordinator indicates the particular relation holding between the coordinates. But there is a difference between the relation holding between the coordinates and the position of the coordinator in the structure. The coordinator is not one of the coordinates; it forms a constituent with the coordinate following it. For example, [li] is not in three parts; it has two parts. The first immediate constituent is the clause Jane is a good teacher. The second, and her students really like her, is also a clause, but it is marked with a coordinator. 225 226 Chapter 14 Coordination and more A simple piece of evidence for this is that a sentence division can occur between the two clauses. The two sentences might even be spoken by two different people, one adding to what the other said. And when we separate the two clauses like this, the coordinator goes with the second: [2] A: She's a good teacher. B: And her students really like her. We therefore use the term 'coordinate' not only for her students really like her, but also for and her students really like her. We distinguish them, when we need to, by calling the first a bare coordinate and the second an expanded coordinate. Here are simplified diagrams representing the structure for [li] and [liii]: [3] a. Coordination b. Clause Coordinate!: Coordinate^ Subject: Predicate: Clause Clause NP VP her assistant is very young but a quick learner External syntax: where coordinate constituents can occur Whether a coordination is admissible in a certain position depends primarily on the individual coordinates. In the default case, if each of the bare coordinates can occur on its own in some position, the coordination can occur there. Thus the admissibility of [liii] is predictable from that of the separate clauses Her assistant is very young and Her assistant is a quick learner. The fact that it is usually possible to replace a coordination by any one of the coordinates is the key reason for saying that coordination is a non-headed construction. This kind of replacement distinguishes coordination very sharply from head + dependent constructions, as illustrated in the following examples: §2.2 Bare coordinates must be syntactically similar 227 [4] head + dependent coordination i a. Pat is [very young]. b. Ed is [fond ofkidsl c. / \went in and sat down], ii a. Pat is [young]. b. *Ed is [fond]. c. / went in. iii a. *Pat is [very]. b.*Ed is [of kids]. c. I sat down. In the [a] and [b] examples the bracketed expression consists of a head (doubly underlined) and a dependent. The dependent, very, is optional in [ia]; the phrase can be replaced by the head alone ([iia]), but not by the dependent ([iiia]). In [ib] the dependent of kids is obligatory, and the phrase can't be replaced by either the head ([iib]) or the dependent ([iiib]). But in [ic] the bracketed expression is a coordination, with the bare coordinates underlined. And in this case each coordinate can replace the whole coordination. 2 Distinctive syntactic properties of coordination Prototypical coordination has three properties which we summarise in [5] and then explain in the following subsections. [5] i The grammar sets no limit on how many coordinates a coordination can have. ii The bare coordinates are required to be syntactically similar in certain ways. iii An expanded coordinate can never be preposed. 2.1 Unlimited number of coordinates A coordinate construction can have any number of coordinates from two up. Examples [li] and [liii] have two each, and [Hi] has three, while the following have four, five and six respectively, and there is clearly no grammatical limit on how many there can be:1 [6] i [Free sexual expression, anarchism, mining of the irrational unconscious and giving it free rein] are what they have in common. ii . . .\the caste system, witch-burning, harems, cannibalism, and gladiatorial combats]. . . iii Nothing [noble, sublime, profound, delicate, tasteful qz even decent] can find a place in such tableaux. 2.2 Bare coordinates must be syntactically similar In an acceptable coordination the coordinates are syntactically similar. The examples given so far contrast with the ungrammatical combinations shown in [7], where the underlined elements are manifestly quite different in kind: 1 The examples in [6] are all from pages 74-8 of Allan Bloom's polemic against rock music in The Closing of the American Mind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987). 228 Chapter 14 Coordination and more [7] i *We invited \the Smiths and because they can speak Italian}. ii *She argued {persuasively or that their offer should be rejected}. Function rather than category is the crucial factor In a large majority of the coordinate structures found in texts, the coordinates belong to the same category. Thus in [li] both coordinates are declarative main clauses, and in [lii] all are NPs. But coordinates do not have to be of the same category. We saw this in [liii], where very young is an AdjP and a quick learner an NP. Other examples are given in [8]: [8] i He won't reveal \the nature of the threat or where it came from]. [NP + clause] ii I'll be back [next week or at the end of the month! [NP + PP] iii He acted \selfishly and with no thought for the consequences]. [AdvP + PP] iv They rejected the \ United States and British] objections. [Nom + Adj] The coordinates here belong to the categories shown on the right; where it came from in [i] is, more specifically, a subordinate interrogative clause, while United States in [iv] is a nominal, the name we use for the unit intermediate between noun and noun phrase (Ch. 5, §1). Function is more important than category in determining the permissibility of coordination. What makes the coordinations in [8] acceptable despite the differences of category is that each coordinate could occur alone with the same function. [9] i a. He won't reveal the nature of the b. He won't reveal where it came from. threat. ii a. I'll be back next week. b. I'll be back at the end of the month. iii a. He acted selfishly. b. He acted with no thought for the consequences. iv a. They rejected the United States b. They rejected the British objections. objections. In each pair here the underlined element in [b] has the same function as that in [a]: complement of the verb in [i], time adjunct in [ii], manner adjunct in [iii], attributive modifier in [iv]. Contrast these examples with those in [10]: [10] i *We're leaving \Rome and next week]. [NP + NP] ii */ ran \to the park and for health reasons! [PP + PP] Here the coordinates belong to the same category, but don't satisfy the requirement of functional likeness. Each could appear in place of the whole coordination, but the functions would be different: [11] i a. We 're leaving Rome. b. We 're leaving next week. ii a. / ran to the park. b. I ran for health reasons. * Example [ia] has Rome as direct object, but next week in [ib] is an adjunct of time. * In example [iia], to the park is a goal complement, but for health reasons in [iib] is an adjunct of reason. §2.2 Bare coordinates must be syntactically similar 229 In [12] we state the likeness requirement a bit more precisely in the light of these observations. [12] A coordination of X and Y is admissible at a given place in sentence structure if and only if each of X and Y is individually admissible at that place with the same function. To see how this works, consider the examples given in [13]: [13] i a. We invited [Kim and Pat]. b. She is \very young but a quick learner]. ii a. We invited Kim. b. She is very young. iii a. We invited Pat. b. She is a quick learner. In the [a] set, let X be Kim and let Y be Pat: we can replace Kim and Pat by Kim, and we can replace it by Pat, without change of function, so the coordination is admissible. The same holds in the [b] examples, where the coordinates are of different categories: very young and a quick learner can both stand in place of the coordination with the same function (predicative complement), so again this is an admissible coordination. But [lOi-ii] are not permitted by condition [12]. Although we can replace the coordination by each of the coordinates Rome and next week or to the park and for health reasons, the functions are not the same, as explained in the discussion of [11]. So condition [12] is not satisfied in these cases. A number of qualifications and refinements to [12] are needed to cover various additional facts,2 but [12] does represent the basic generalisation. And of course, [12] does not have any application to the combination of X and Y in a head + dependent construction. Relativisation across the board A special case of the syntactic likeness requirement applies in various constructions such as relative clauses. Compare the following examples: [14] i They attended the dinner but they are not members. ii The people [who attended the dinner but who are not members] owe $20. iii *The people [who attended the dinner but they are not members] owe $20. In [i] we have a coordination of main clauses. If we embed this to make it a modifier in NP structure, we have to relativise both clauses, not just one. In [ii] both coordinates are relative clauses (marked by who): who attended the dinner is a relative clause and so is who are not members. That makes the coordination admissible. 2 One obvious case involves agreement features. Kim and Pat like it, for example, is sanctioned by the admissibility of Kim likes it and Pat likes it, not *Kim like it and *Pat like it. See also §7 below. 230 Chapter 14 Coordination and more In [iii], by contrast, just the first embedded clause is relativised: who attended the dinner is a relative clause but they are not members isn't, so the coordination is ungrammatical. Relativisation is thus said to work across the board, i.e. to all coordinates. Example [14iii] clearly doesn't satisfy condition [12]: the second underlined clause cannot occur alone in this context (*The people they are not members owe $20 is ungrammatical), so the coordination of the two underlined clauses is inadmissible. We find a sharp contrast here with head + dependent constructions: [15] i They attended the dinner although they are not members. ii *The people \who attended the dinner although who are not members] owe $20. iii The people \who attended the dinner although they are not members] owe $20. But in [14] is a coordinator. Although in [15] is not: it's a preposition with a content clause complement. When we relativise here, then, it is just the attend clause that is affected, as in [ 15iii] (the clause they are not members is the complement of a preposition inside the attend clause). Version [15ii] is ungrammatical, because the relative clause who are not members is complement of a preposition. This is not a permitted function for relative clauses. 2.3 Impossibility of proposing an expanded coordinate It is completely inadmissible to prepose an expanded coordinate. There is a sharp contrast between the coordinator but and the preposition although when we apply preposing to [14i] and [15i]: [16] i *But they are not members, they attended the dinner. ii Although they are not members, they attended the dinner. The adjunct in [16ii] is placed at the beginning of the clause (instead of the end, as in [15i]), and this is fully acceptable. But an expanded coordinate behaves quite differently: changing the structure of [14i] in a comparable way makes [16i], which is completely unacceptable. 3 The order of coordinates In the simplest and most straightforward cases, the order of the coordinates can be changed without perceptible effect on the acceptability or interpretation of the coordination: [17] i a We can have [beans or broccoli}. b. We can have \broccoli or beans]. ii a. / was \hunerv and tired]. b. / was [tired and hunerv]. Coordination of this kind is called symmetric - and contrasts with asymmetric coordination, such as we find in [18]: §4 The marking of coordination 231 [18] i a. We were left [high and drjl b. *We were left \dry and high]. ii a. / [got up and had breakfast]. b. / \had breakfast and got up]. High and dry ("above the tide line, abandoned") is fossilised, so that the order is fixed. There are a good number of expressions of this kind: aid and abet, betwixt and between, common or garden, hem and haw, and so on.3 In [ii] the [a] and [b] versions are both fully acceptable, but they differ in their natural interpretations. This is because there is an implication that the events took place in the order described: in [iia] you understand that I got up and then had breakfast, while in [iib] I had breakfast first (in bed) and then got up. There are a good many cases of and and or coordinations carrying implications beyond the basic additive or alternative meaning of the coordinator, and making the coordination asymmetric. A few examples are given in [19]: [19] i He [parked his car at a bus-stop and was fined $100]. ii [Pay within a week and you '11 get a 10% discount]. ill [We need to pay the bill today or we won't get the discount]. In [i] there is again an implication that the parking took place before the fining, but also a further implication that the fining was the consequence of the parking. In [ii] there is a conditional implication: "If you pay within a week you get the discount". There is also a conditional implication in [iii], but with or the implicit condition is negative: "If we don't pay the bill today we won't get the discount". 4 The marking of coordination In all the examples so far the coordination construction has been marked by a coordinator introducing the final coordinate. This is the most common pattern, but not the only one. There are three other possibilities. (a) Unmarked coordination Sometimes no coordinator is used, so the coordination is just a list. Commas are used to separate the items in writing. [20] i He felt [tired, depressed, listless]. [and understood] ii Did they ever offer you [red wine, white wine, beer] ? [or understood] (b) Repetition of coordinator The coordinator can introduce all except the first of a series of coordinates. The repetition of the coordinator gives added emphasis to the relation it expresses: 3 There are also numerous expressions where the order is not rigidly fixed but one order is usual and familiar, so that reversal sounds a bit strange: knife and fork, hope and pray, men and women. Fossilised expressions are another example of something that condition [12] doesn't cover: hem and haw, for example, cannot be replaced by either of its coordinates. 232 Chapter 14 Coordination and more [21] i He felt [tired, and depressed, and listless]. ii They offered us a choice of [red wine gz white wine or beez\ (c) Correlative coordination Although the first coordinate is never introduced by a coordinator, it can be marked by one of the determinatives both, either, and neither, paired respectively with the coordinators and, or, and nor, yielding correlative coordination: [22] i [Both the managing director and the company secretary] have been arrested. ii Its one of those movies that you '11 [either love gz hate]. iii [Neither Sue nor her husband] supported the plan.* Two prescriptive grammar notes 1. Both is restricted to two-coordinate constructions. Around 1900, usage books began to claim that this was also true of either and neither, but the evidence does not support them. 2. Both, either, and neither are often found displaced from their basic position in one direction or the other. Thus we find phrases like both to [the men and their employers]. where both is displaced to the left the more basic order would be to [both the men and their employers], with both immediately before the first coordinate. We also find phrases like rapid changes [in either the mixed liquor gz in the effluent], with either displaced to the right: the basic order would be rapid changes either [in the mixed liquor gz in the effluent]. Most people accept the displaced versions without noticing them, but some prescriptive grammarians insist that all displacements are errors. 5 Layered coordination Subject to a suitably refined condition along the lines of [12], a coordinate can belong to virtually any syntactic category. And that means a coordinate can itself be a coordination: [23] i [[Kim works in a bank and Pat is a teacher], but [Sam is still unemployed]]. ii You can have [[pancakes] or [egg and bacon]]. iii [[Laurel and Hardy] and [Fred and Ginger]] are my favorite movie duos. Here we have layered coordination: one coordinate structure functioning as a coordinate within a larger one. The outer square brackets enclose the larger coordination, with the inner brackets enclosing the coordinates within it; underlining then marks the coordinates at the lower level. In [i] the larger coordination has the form X but Y; the Y is just a clause, Sam is still unemployed, but the X is a coordination of the two underlined clauses. At the 4 This illustrates the usual pattern for neither, but sometimes or rather than nor is found paired with it, as in She was constrained by neither fashion or conformity. §6 Main-clause and lower-level coordination 233 top level we contrast employed with unemployed; at the lower level we distinguish two jobs. In [ii] we have XorY expressing a choice, where X is an NP and Y is a coordination. In [iii] we have X and Y at the top level, and at the lower level each of X and Y has the form of a coordination. In the first two examples we have contrasting coordinators: and and but in [i], or and and in [ii]. This itself is sufficient to indicate that there is layered coordination. A single coordination with more than two coordinates may have just one coordinator or multiple occurrences of the same coordinator (as in [21]), but not two different coordinators. 6 Main-clause and lower-level coordination Coordinations can occur at almost any place in constituent structure, from large constituents down to small ones like individual words. We make a general distinction between main-clause coordination and lower-level coordination: [24] i main-clause coordination \It was a perfect day and everyone was in good spirits. ] [main clauses] ii lower-level coordination a. He \made a mistake or changed his mind]. [VPs] b. We met \my bank manager and her husband] at the airport. [NPs] c. She introduced me to her Smother and father]. [nouns] Equivalent main-clause and lower-level coordinations In many cases a lower-level coordination can be expanded into a logically equivalent main-clause one. This is so with all of the examples in [24ii], which can be expanded as follows: [25] i He made a mistake or he changed his mind. ii We met my bank manager at the airport and we met her husband at the airport. iii She introduced me to her mother and she introduced me to her father. These are logically equivalent to [24iia-c]. There may be subtle meaning differences: the versions in [25ii-iii] do seem to separate the events more, so that you would be more likely to infer from [24iic] that she introduced me to her parents together, and from [25iii] that the introductions were on different occasions. But if [24iic] is true, then [25iii] is, and vice versa. That's what is meant by logical equivalence. Non-equivalent main-clause and lower-level coordinations There are some cases where pairs with lower-level and main-clause coordination are not logically equivalent: 234 Chapter 14 Coordination and more [26] i a. One teacher was \popular and patient]. b. One teacher was popular and one teacher was patient. ii a. No one \stood up and complained}. b. No one stood up and no one complained. iii a. She didn't have any [tea or coffee}. b. She didn't have any tea or she didn't have any coffee. In [ia] we have a single teacher with two properties; [ib] talks about two teachers. In [iia] no one both stood up and complained. But standing without complaining and complaining while seated are both excluded by [iib]. In [iii], suppose she had tea but not coffee. Then [b] is true but [a] is false. (Compare with She didn't have any tea and she didn't have any coffee.) 7 Joint vs distributive coordination One special case where a lower-level coordination is not equivalent to a corresponding main-clause coordination is in joint coordination, as opposed to the default distributive coordination: [27] distributive coordination joint coordination i a. \Kim and Pat] are fine players. b. \Kim and Pat] are a good pair. ii a. \Lee. Robin and Sam] like you. b. \Lee. Robin and Sam] like each other. In [i] the property of being a fine player applies to Kim and Pat separately - it's distributed between them; whereas that of making a good pair applies to the two of them jointly. In [ii] the property of liking you applies to Lee, Robin and Sam individually, but the property of liking each other can only apply to them jointly, as a group. Joint coordination is almost always marked by the coordinator and. The central cases are NP coordinations. In cases like [ib] and [iib] it is not possible to replace the coordination by either coordinate alone: it is incoherent to say *Kim is a good pair or *Lee likes each other. Condition [12], therefore, doesn't cover joint coordination. Joint coordination has the following properties: It requires that each coordinate denote a member of a set. It requires that the coordinates belong to the same syntactic category. It disallows correlative coordination (*Both Kim and Pat are a good pair). 8 Non-basic coordination So far we have focused on what can be called basic coordination constructions, the ones where all the following properties hold: [28] i The coordination consists of a continuous sequence of coordinates. ii The coordinates are either bare or expanded (by a coordinator or determinative). iii The coordinates can occur as constituents in non-coordination constructions. §8.3 Right nonce-constituent coordination 235 In this final section we very briefly discuss various kinds of non-basic coordination, which depart from that elementary pattern. 8.1 Expansion of coordinates by modifiers An expanded coordinate can contain a modifier as well as (or instead of) a marker: [29] i She comes home [every Christmas and sometimes at Easter as well]. ii We could meet [on Friday or alternatively at the week-end if you prefer]. iii She can speak [French but not German]. iv He felt [not angry but rather deeply disappointed]. The underlined expressions here are neither markers of the relation holding between the coordinates nor part of the bare coordinates. They are modifiers of the coordinate in which they are located. Sometimes they reinforce the relation expressed (as well or too reinforce the sense of and; alternatively or else reinforce or), and sometimes (as with but not) they indicate a contrast. 8.2 Gapped coordination The middle part of a non-initial coordinate can be omitted if it is recoverable from the corresponding part of the initial coordinate: [30] i Her son lives in Boston and her daughter_in Chicago. ii Kim joined the company in 1988, and Pat_the following year. iii Sue wants to be a doctor, Max_a dentist. The gap marked 4_' is understood by reference to the first coordinate: in these cases "lives", "joined the company", and "wants to be". The gap normally includes the verb, but can include other material too (as in [ii]). The antecedent needn't be a syntactic constituent; it isn't in [iii] (wants to be a doctor is made up of wants plus to be a doctor, so wants to be isn't a phrase). 8.3 Right nonce-constituent coordination A third non-basic coordination construction is illustrated in [31]: [31] i We gave [Kim a book and Pat a CD]. ii They stay [in Boston during the week and with their parents at week-ends]. iii / could lend you [$30 now or $50 at the end of the week]. There are two distinctive properties here. * First, the coordinates do not form constituents in corresponding non-coordination constructions. In We gave Kim a book, for example, the underlined part does not form a single constituent: it is a sequence of two NPs. 236 Chapter 14 Coordination and more Second, the coordinates are required to be syntactically parallel: the separate elements of each coordinate must have the same functions in corresponding non-coordination constructions. In the clauses We gave Kim a book and We gave Pat a CD, both the first elements (Kim and Pat) are indirect objects and both second elements (a book and a CD) are direct objects, so [31 i] is acceptable. The coordination is ungrammatical if the functions don't match in this way, as in *We gave \Kim $1.000 and generously to charity], with two objects in the first coordinate and a manner adjunct plus PP complement in the second.3 8.4 Delayed right constituent coordination Another odd coordination construction is illustrated in the [a] members of the pairs in [32], where the [b] members are the corresponding basic coordinations: [32] i a. She [noticed but didn't comment on] his inconsistencies. b. She [noticed his inconsistencies but didn't comment on them\ ii a. [Two perfect and four slightly damaged] copies were found. b. [Two perfect copies and four slightly damaged ones] were found. The delayed right constituent coordination construction has the following distinctive properties: At least one of the coordinates does not form a constituent in a corresponding non-coordination construction. In She didn't comment on his inconsistencies, for example, the underlined sequence is not a constituent, since on is head of the PP on his inconsistencies. Similarly two perfect does not form a constituent two perfect copies, which consists of the determiner two plus the head nominal perfect copies. The element on the right of the coordination (doubly underlined) is understood as related to each coordinate. In [i], for example, his inconsistencies is understood both as object of the verb noticed and as object of the preposition on. The term delayed right constituent coordination reflects the salient difference between this construction and basic coordination. In the latter the doubly underlined expression occurs earlier, as the rightmost constituent of the first coordinate (and then is repeated, normally in reduced form, at the end of the second): She noticed his inconsistencies but didn't comment on them. In the non-basic version, therefore, this element appears to be held back, delayed. 8.5 End-attachment coordination One more non-basic coordination construction we should mention is seen in the [a] members of the following pairs: 3 Nonce constituents have constituent status only for one special occasion, by courtesy of the coordination relation. We call this construction right nonce-constituent coordination because the coordinations occur to the right of the head (predicator) of the clause - gave, stay and lend in our examples. Exercises 237 [33] i a. Kim was included on the shortlist, but not Pat. b. \Kim but not Pat] was included on the shortlist. ii a. They've charged the boss with perjury - and her secretary. b. They've charged \the boss and her secretary] with perjury. They differ from the more elementary [b] versions in that the second coordinate (including the coordinator) is not adjacent to the first but is attached at the end of the clause. The relation marked by the coordinators but and and is still expressed, but in the [a] examples the constituents related by the coordinators don't make up a constituent. Exercises 1. Consider the determinatives both, either, and neither that occur in correlative coordinations. Which, if any, can occur introducing main clause coordinations? Give grammatical and ungrammatical examples to support your answer. 2. In Ch. 7 we referred to cases like What are you looking at? as illustrating preposition stranding. Consider the question of whether coordinators can be stranded, illustrating your discussion with grammatical and ungrammatical sequences of words as appropriate. 3. Some prescriptive manuals and English teachers advise against beginning a sentence with a coordinator. Choose a published work that you think is a good example of written Standard English, preferably one that you enjoy and admire, and read from the beginning looking for a sentence that begins with a coordinator {And, Or, But). How many sentences did you have to read before you found one? 4. Choose a published work that you think is a good example of written Standard English, preferably one that you enjoy and admire, and read it from the beginning, keeping count of each coordinate structure you encounter. At what point do you find the first one that has coordinates of different categories? How many sentences did you have to read before you found one? 5. Explain why the following coordinations are asymmetric. i He lost control of the car and crashed into a tree. ii Talk to me like that again and you '11 be fired. iii Don't tell anyone or we'll be in heaps of trouble. iv You can't work 18 hours a day and not endanger your health. v You can eat as much of this as you like and not put on any weight. 6. Explain why the following lower-level coordinations are not equivalent to main-clause coordination. i Who went to the movies and left the house unlocked? ii Did she take the car and go to the beach ? iii The last and most telling objection concerned the cost. iv They could find nothing wrong with the battery or with the thermostat. v One guy was drunk and abusive. 7. For each of the following examples, say which kind of non-basic coordination construction it exemplifies. i I'd expected Jill to back us, but not her father. ii It was criticised by some for being too long and by others for being too short. iii Both the British and the French delegates supported the proposal. iv You can have a banana or else an apple instead. v Max left the country in May and the rest of the family in June.