Grattan

Simple Coordination
Introduction
English provides a number of ways to combine two or more identically functioning
constituents into one longer and more complex construction. This process can involve
combining two or more words, phrases, clauses, or sentences together through different
methods of coordination. Coordination, also referred to as conjunction, can be used to form
compound sentences, which contain at least two independent clauses, meaning they can
stand on their own. Larsen-Freeman and Celce-Murcia (2016) use the phrase like
constituents to refer to what others call parallel structures, or clauses that are very similar
in form, have the same function, and can be combined (DeCapua, 2008, p. 282). These
parallel structures create a symmetry within the conjoined clauses, which differs from the
asymmetry found in clauses with inner constituent hierarchy or structure (Vries, 2005, p.
10). Coordinating conjunctions, which connect or conjoin parallel structures and are
therefore symmetrical (1) , and are not found in these asymmetrical forms of combination
such as subordination where the constituents are dependent on one another (2) (Cormack
& Smith, 2003, p. 395).
(1) He went to the store, and he bought some cherries.
(2) After he went to the store, he made a smoothie.
This paper covers conjunction between like constituents in relation to the types of
simple coordination that can be used in English. Coordination can be used grammatically to
omit repetition or redundancy by allowing the information that has already been stated in
the first clause to be replaced or removed from the following ones (3).
(3) The dog ate the bone, and then he took a nap.
Conjunctions are also used in order to avoid stylistic issues such as run-on sentences and
comma splices in writing (Weaver, 1996, p. 21). Some strategies are provided by linguists
to eliminate these problems when formulating compound sentences such as, conjunctions
used to connect clauses or refer to previously mentioned items, and substitution or ellipsis
of repeated content (Muhammad, 2015, p. 76). Larsen-Freeman and Celce-Murcia (2016)
go into detail about these strategies through the use of three simple coordination methods:
coordinating conjunctions, ellipsis, and pro-forms, and these will be discussed further in
this paper (p. 482).
Coordinating Conjunctions:
The Conjunction And
A common way of combining like constituents in English is using coordinating
conjunctions. While the most commonly used coordinating conjunction is and, the list also
includes but, or, yet, so, for, and nor. This paper will only cover the two most versatile and
widely used conjunctions for connecting a majority of constituents and those are and and
but (Larsen-Freeman & Celce-Murcia 2016, p. 484). First I will discuss the coordinating
conjunction and along with the types of constituents it can conjoin. This simple conjunction
can coordinate words, phrases, clauses, and sentences together to create a super-
 Grattan 2

constituent of the same category (Larsen-Freeman & Celce-Murcia 2016, p. 482). This
means that these conjoined constituents can function in the same way their individual
counterparts can. They may also replace these counterparts in a sentence as long as they
belong to the same part of speech.
(4) The television and remote are broken.
(5) The extremely intelligent and wildly enthusiastic fan painted his entire body for
the game.
(6) They arrived at the park and they ate a picnic.
(7) They ate a picnic and they arrived at the park.
Simple coordination is used in example (4) where television and remote are combined with
and to form a more complex noun phrase within the clause. Example (5) shows how two
adjective phrases can combine to form one adjective phrase that functions as one super-
constituent modifying the noun phrase fan. Example (6) is a compound sentence where
two independent clauses are conjoined with and representing a sequence of events. When
combining clauses, temporal sequencing should be taken into account to ensure an
analogous relationship between the constituents (Blakemore & Carston, 2005, p. 570). For
instance, the clauses in example (7) are not chronologically combined to represent a
plausible order of events, which makes the sentence hard for the interpreter to understand
based on their assumptions about the world.
While the previous four examples consist of constituents from the grammatical
category, there are instances where two constituents from different parts of speech can be
combined acceptably.
(8) The fish moved fast and with such efficiency.
This conjoined phrase fast and with such efficiency consists of an adverb and a prepositional
phrase, but because both function as adverb phrases they are treated as parallel structures
and can be conjoined (Carston & Blakemore, 2005, p. 355).
Another factor to consider when combining clauses is the relationship between the
constituents and how it can affect which method of coordination should be used. When two
sentences are combined using and it can alter the interpretation of the statements.
(9) The dog jumped onto Thomas. He has scratches on his arm.
(10) The dog jumped onto Thomas and he has scratches on his arm.
While there is some ambiguity in example (9) regarding whether or not the scratches on
Thomas are from the dog jumping on him, there is no confusion in example (10) as to how
Thomas got the scratches on his arm. Compound sentences can convey relationship of
meaning and relay lexical carry-over between what is being said in the first independent
clause and the following independent clauses (Blakemore & Carston, 1999, p. 2).
Another function of the coordinating conjunction and is when there are more than
two constituents being conjoined. If a sentence has three constituents all but the last
connection are usually asyndetic (Vries, 2005, p. 6), which means there is no conjunction
between them (11).
 Grattan 3

(11) Sharon loves to eat bananas, raspberries, and kiwis.

(12) Sharon loves to eat bananas and raspberries and kiwis.
However, in some particular cases where there are three or more equivalent constituents
being combined with and there can be additional readings of the sentence other than a
general collective. The two examples above can be interpreted in different ways, whether
distributively or collectively, leading to the possible formation of subgroups. For instance,
ambiguity of meaning or unequal distribution of importance can be attributed to intonation
or phonological discrepancies (Vries, 2005, p. 6). While this usage of and between each
constituent in a clause is subject to interpretation, the meaning is usually discernible in
context. The use of coordinating conjunctions such as and act as a link between the items
being conjoined as opposed to other conjunctions which can convey contradiction and
alternation.
The Conjunction But
But is another common coordinating conjunction used in the English language. Kitis
(1995), calls but a back-tracking device because when used to conjoin two clauses the
utterance is processed as two separate units of relevance (p. 6). It has a contrasting role
when used to conjoin constituents, as opposed to when and is used and a sentence is
processed as a collective unit. Halliday and Hasan use but as an example of an adversative
meaning contrary to expectation (p. 250, 1976), when discussing how sentences and
phrases can be combined and contrasted. In sentences containing but as a conjunction, the
assertion is that there is a distinction between the two or more lexical items being
presented (Blakemore, 2000, p. 475). In some cases the interpretation of but goes against
the assumptions made in the initial constituent (13), and this usage is referred to as a
denial-of-expectation (Larsen-Freeman & Celce-Murcia 2016, p. 493).
(13) It was wintertime, but the sun was shining.
This way of accounting for but can also show contradiction in a variety of ways including
personal characteristics or descriptions and false postulations or predictions (Blakemore,
2000, p. 474).
(14) Karen is short, but athletic.
(15) Her husband is sick, but he will go to work anyways.
But can be the prototypical adversative or contrastive connective (Kitis, 1995, p.
6), depending on the semantics of the conjoined constituents. Prototypical adversative but
is when two or more constituents have an obvious relationship affected by the others
presence in the sentence, such as in the examples above. Contrastive connective but places
two unrelated constituents next to one another in a sentence to show their semantic
distinctions.
(16) Math is hard, but English is easy.
In this example there are no predictions to be made about the second constituent by
reading the first, they are merely adjoined to one another to show a semantic contrast.
These utterances are common when discussing separate ideas whether through the use of
 Grattan 4

distinct words or through insinuated conceptual distinctions. Using coordinating

conjunctions is one way of showing relationships between constituents as well as
providing different interpretations of a sentence, clause, or phrase.
Ellipsis
To avoid redundancy, words or phrases can be removed from a compound sentence
through ellipsis. When discussing ellipsis in coordination, there are many ways to produce
suitable sentences where if the second clause contains the same information as the first,
this information can be replaced or omitted.
Gapping and Pseudogapping
One type of ellipsis that involves removing repetitive information from the middle of
the second clause is called gapping. Gapping is a part of the move-and-delete phenomenon,
along with pseudogapping, which entail removing some components of a sentence to avoid
repetition (Sailor & Thoms, 2013, p. 365). Gapping involves deletion of part of the verb
phrase from the following clauses that is the same as what is given in the initial clause.
What contrasts gapping from other forms of ellipsis, is that it can combine two subjects
with two different predicates (Langacker, 2012 p. 31).
(17) Carry cleaned the bathtub, and I, the sinks.
(18) John had read the book, and I had not.
These two examples differ since the first uses the process of gapping while the second uses
pseudogapping. Pseudogapping involves leaving the auxiliary verb and not the main verb
in the repetitive clause, while gapping is able to remove other items in the verb phrase,
such as negatives. These two processes differ regarding gapping being restricted to
coordinate structures and unable to occur in an adjunct clause, while pseudogapping needs
a noun phrase in the second constituent (Toosarvandani, 2012, p. 2).
In gapping the two conjoined clauses are separate when it comes to the different
subjects and predicates. However, there is regularity within the syntactic structure making
it possible to delete some information (Carston & Blakemore, 2005, p. 353). While gapping
is one way to remediate unnecessary information, there are other ways of coordinating
clauses found in English that work to make communication more effective and efficient.
Subject-operator Inversion
Another type of ellipsis involves subject-operator inversion, also called subject-
auxiliary inversion where the auxiliary verb appears to invert with the subject. In example
(19) copula be is in the clause-initial position enabling the noun phrase and the verb phrase
to trade places (Larsen-Freeman & Celce-Murcia 2016, p. 486).
(19) Trees are green, and so is money.
(20) *Trees are green, and money is so.
In sentences such as (20) where inversion is not used the sentence is ungrammatical. It is
important to remember the associated properties of so in these particular sentence
structures in order to make sure the appropriate component is inverted.
Negative Coordination
 Grattan 5

Ellipsis can also be used in negative coordinated clauses, and has a similar structure
to subject-operator inversion. However, in negative coordinating clauses the word
functioning as the inversion initiator is the combination of not and either, which is neither.
This process deletes the main verb from the second clause and reverts the negative
auxiliary verb used in the first clause to its uninflected, base form.
(21) Tom wont go to the grocery store, and neither will James.
In this example, the main verb go along with its prepositional phrase to the grocery store, is
deleted from the second clause and the auxiliary verb wont, is changed to will
corresponding with the negative sentence modifier neither. As long as the deleted
information repeats what is found in the first clause there is no problem leaving it out of
the second.
Adverb Too
Another type of ellipsis involves the addition of the adverb too at the end of the
sentence to imply correspondence.
(22) Sarah went to the store, and John went to the store, too.
(23) Sarah can sing, and John can, too.
(24) Sarah is an actor, and John is, too.
The first example does not remove any words but simply agrees with the information
stated in the first clause by including too meaning as well. While this sentence is
acceptable in English, the more common production of this sentence is example (23) where
the auxiliary verb can plus too stands for the deleted verb phrase can sing, implying that
John can also sing. When there is an auxiliary verb in the succeeding conjoined verb phrase
it cannot be deleted (Larsen-Freeman & Celce-Murcia 2016, p. 485). Example (24) involves
copula be and no auxiliary verb, where be functions as the verb phrase with no need for a
noun phrase. The use of adverb too is another form of ellipsis, which removes repetitive
information from the end of the clause.
Pro-form
In English another process that can co-occur with ellipsis is the use of pro-forms,
which is a type of substitution. When conjoining constituents, the pro-form can be used to
replace a recurring word with a pronoun, pro-verb, or pro-adverb to avoid unnecessary
restatement (Eastwood, 1994, p. 43).
(25) Mom ate the potatoes, and dad did, too.
In this example, the auxiliary verb did in the second clause replaces ate the potatoes in the
first. This process requires the verb phrase to be replaced by a pro-verb used in its place.
Pronouns and pro-adverbs can be used in place of noun phrases and adverb phrases if they
refer to the same constituent between the two clauses (DeCapua, 2008, p. 283). A very
lengthy adverb or noun phrase can be replaced with a single pro-form that references a
similar idea.
Conclusion
Conjunction is a complex linguistic topic involving many options for simple
 Grattan 6

coordination. The three main forms of simple coordination: coordinating conjunctions,

ellipsis, and pro-form can allow for the formation of compound sentences and other
complex phrases. Through this analyses of academic resources, it is apparent that knowing
the uses of the common coordinating conjunctions such as and and but are important for
English speakers. The other strategies of conjunction are also important to understand in
order to eliminate unnecessary repetition and ensure successful communication of ideas
when replacing or deleting information. Simple coordination is a complex issue that
involves a lot of semantic connection between constituents and the strategy of
coordination being used, and needs to be addressed thoroughly when teaching English as a
second or foreign language.






























 Grattan 7

Resources
Blakemore, D. (2000). Indicators and procedures: nevertheless and but. Journal of
Linguistics, 36(03), 463-486.
Blakemore, D. & Carston, R. (1999). The pragmatics of and-conjunctions: The non-narrative
cases. CILISC1 (Lconomie dans les structures, les computations et lutilisation du
langage, 1-21.
Blakemore, D. & Carston, R. (2005). The pragmatics of sentential coordination with and.
Lingua, 115(4), 569-589.
Carston, R. & Blakemore, D. (2005). Introduction to coordination: Syntax, semantics and
pragmatics. Lingua, 115(4), 353-358.
Celce-Murcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2016). The Grammar Book 3rd edition. Boston, MA:
Heinle Cengage Learning.
Cormack, A., & Smith, N. (2005). What is coordination?. Lingua, 115(4), 395-418.
DeCapua, A. (2008). Grammar for teachers: A guide to American English for native and non-
Native speakers. Springer Science & Business Media.
Eastwood, J. (2002). Oxford guide to English grammar. The United States Oxford University.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London, U.K.: Longman.
Kitis, E. (1995, December). Connectives and ideology. In Fourth International Symposium on
Critical Discourse Analysis, University of Athens.
Langacker, R. W. (2012). Elliptic coordination. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(3), 555-599
Mohammed, A. S. (2015). Conjunctions as Cohesive Devices in the Writings of English as
Second Language Learners. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 208, 74-81.
Sailor, C., & Thoms, G. (2013, February). On the non-existence of non-constituent
coordination and non-constituent ellipsis. In Proceedings of WCCFL (Vol. 31).
Toosarvandani, M. (2012). Gapping is VP-ellipsis: A reply to Johnson. Manuscript. Lingbuzz.
Vries, M. (2005). Coordination and Syntactic Hierarchy. Studia Linguistica, 59(1), 83-105.
Weaver, C. (1996). Teaching grammar in the context of writing. The English Journal, 85(7),
15-24.